The Yurta-Stroyno Archaeological Project. The Pottery Studies

ISBN 978–80–7671–110–5 THE YURTA-STROYNO ARCHAEOLOGICAL PROJECT The Pottery StudiesPetra Tušlová Petra Tušlová THE YURTA-STROYNO ARCHAEOLOGICAL PROJECT The Pottery Studies This is the second volume of the final studies related to the Yurta-Stroyno Archaeological Project, which investigated a Roman rural settlement located along the middle stream of the Tundzha River, in south-eastern Bulgaria (the Roman province of Thrace). It is fully focused on the pottery material found during the excavation and surface survey, mostly dated to the Roman Imperial period. Petra Tušlová An assistant professor at the Institute of Classical Archaeology at Charles University in Prague. She has been working on different archaeological projects in the Balkan peninsula since 2008 including Bulgaria, North Macedonia, and Romania. Her main interests lie in the Roman and Late Antique Thrace, with a special focus on pottery, ceramic technology and petrography. [email protected].  ISBN 978–80–7671–110–5 THE YURTA-STROYNO ARCHAEOLOGICAL PROJECT The Pottery StudiesPetra Tušlová Petra Tušlová THE YURTA-STROYNO ARCHAEOLOGICAL PROJECT The Pottery Studies This is the second volume of the final studies related to the Yurta-Stroyno Archaeological Project, which investigated a Roman rural settlement located along the middle stream of the Tundzha River, in south-eastern Bulgaria (the Roman province of Thrace). It is fully focused on the pottery material found during the excavation and surface survey, mostly dated to the Roman Imperial period. Petra Tušlová An assistant professor at the Institute of Classical Archaeology at Charles University in Prague. She has been working on different archaeological projects in the Balkan peninsula since 2008 including Bulgaria, North Macedonia, and Romania. Her main interests lie in the Roman and Late Antique Thrace, with a special focus on pottery, ceramic technology and petrography. [email protected].  Studia Hercynia, monographs 3 Petra Tušlová THE YURTA-STROYNO ARCHAEOLOGICAL PROJECT The Pottery Studies Studia Hercynia, monographs 3 Petra Tušlová: The Yurta-Stroyno Archaeological Project. The Pottery Studies. Proofreading Judd Burden Front cover: Two handled cup found at Yurta-Stroyno dated to the 2nd–3rd c. AD. This work was supported by the European Regional Development Fund project “Creativity and Adaptability as Conditions of the Success of Europe in an Interrelated World” (reg. no.: CZ.02.1.01/0.0/0.0/16_019/0000734) implemented at Charles University, Faculty of Arts. The project is carried out under the ERDF Call “Excellent Research” and its output is aimed at employees of research organizations and Ph.D. students. Exchange: Institute of Classical Archaeology, Faculty of Arts, Charles University, Celetná 20, 110 00, Praha 1, Czech Republic Subscription: Charles University, Faculty of Arts, Publishing House, nám. Jana Palacha 2, 116 38, Praha 1, Czech Republic ([email protected]) Publisher: Charles University, Faculty of Arts, nám. Jana Palacha 2, 116 38 Praha 1, Czech Republic Printed by Togga Prague ©Charles University, Faculty of Arts, 2023 ISBN 978-80-7671-110-5 (print) ISBN 978-80-7671-111-2 (online : pdf) Contents Preface — 9 Short introduction to Yurta-Stroyno — 11 The pottery assemblage — 13 Fine table ware — 23 Fine red-slipped ware — 24 Common red-slipped ware — 46 Grey ware — 49 Yellow chalky ware — 55 Mottled / Marbled ware — 56 Çandarlı ware / Eastern sigillata C — 59 Pontic sigillata A — 61 Knidian grey ware — 63 Thin-walled red-slipped ware — 64 Thracian thin-walled ware — 67 Miscellaneous fine wares — 68 Wheel made cooking ware — 71 Coarse cooking ware — 71 Golden mica ware — 81 Miscellaneous coarse wares — 83 Handmade cooking ware — 85 Granitic ware — 87 Dioritic ware — 88 Miscellaneous handmade pottery — 89 Transport amphorae — 91 Eastern Aegean and Eastern Mediterranean amphorae — 92 Black Sea amphorae — 113 African amphorae — 118 Miscellaneous amphorae — 120 Pottery in the context of Yurta-Stroyno — 123 Pottery out of the context of Yurta-Stroyno — 133 Imported pottery over time — 141 Concluding remarks on the pottery studies from Yurta-Stroyno — 145 Bibliography — 147 Appendix I – Summary catalogue — 158 Appendix II – Figures — 193 Appendix III – Plates — 225 To my family. Thank you for your support, understanding and love. 14 THE YURTA-STROYNO ARCHAEOLOGICAL PROJECT Map 2: Orthophoto of the excavated house, situation at the end of the season 2016, with marked numbers of individual rooms and locations of the core contexts used for pottery statistics. POTTERY FROM THE HOUSE [SU001] is anumber throughout the site used for the soil excavated by the treasure hunters. In connection with these three rooms, it contains all the material found in Rooms A, B and C, as they were excavated by the looters around the same time and filled back in with the same soil. It is clearly visible from the sections, that the trenches were dug first along the perimeter walls of the house and then the interior was identified and further excavated, but not the exterior, which was left untouched. This set of finds from Rooms A, B and C is delimited to the north and south by the foundation walls, to the east by Room D and the western part ends under abig tree next to the Dereorman River. It was chosen as asample representing, presumably, the house inventory as the find assemblage from inside the rooms also included roof tiles of low fragmentation suggesting the house, before the looters’ intervention, was sealed by the rooftop fallout. The average dimensions of Room B and C are 4.90 × 4.80 m; of Room Aca. 2 × 4.80 m, as the room was not fully excavated due to the natural conditions (the tree and the river). The excavation depth reached to 70–80 cm. 15THE POTTERY ASSEMBLAGE POTTERY FROM THE DITCHES Three fills of ditches were found inside the house covered by the treasure hunters’ soil [SU001]. 5 They were dug into ayellow sandy layer [SU007]– presumably virgin soil– and missed by the latest robber’sintervention as they all showed up at the considerable depth of 70–80 cm from the ground. In Room B we found fill [SU021], in Room C fills [SU008] and [SU057]. Since they were made before the (at least the most recent) treasure hunters’ ditches,6 and as such they preserved some kind of closed context, they were included in the representative assemblage of pottery finds. Fill [SU021] also contained pottery of lower fragmentation than the rest of the assemblage (Tab.3 at the page 124) pointing to its rather primary deposition. [SU008] is afill of aditch in Room C of asimilar character to [SU021] placed in Room B, but it is bigger (145 × 105 cm) and deeper (65 cm). Among the diverse pottery classes, several fragments of Dressel 24 family and Kapitän II amphorae were uncovered (507, 510). From the small finds, the most interesting is the marble head of abearded man broken off asmall statuette (Minaříková 2022, tab.1:1); three blue glass beads, two hexagonal, of the same type as found in [SU021] (Čisťakova– Zlámalová Cílová 2022, tab.6:2–3), and one bead of rounded form (Čisťakova– Zlámalová Cílová 2022, tab.6:8). Further, acomplete bone pin (Minaříková 2022, tab.1:8); one red -stone bead and many iron nails from aroof construction as well as from adoor decoration were found. [SU021] is afill of aditch found in Room B. It has the dimensions of 70 × 45 cm, and adepth of about 20 cm. It was located next to agrown bent tree which likely prevented illegal excavations on the spot. The ditch was rich in finds, featuring amixture of different pottery classes, including fragments of Dressel 24 family amphorae. Several of the pottery fragments had ancient breaks which joined together. Besides the pottery, several interesting fragments of lamps were found there (Frecer 2022, tab.1:1, 6–8, 20); one blue hexagonal glass bead (Čisťakova– Zlámalová Cílová 2022, tab.6:1); one spacer bobbin (Weissová 2022, fig. 4:26); and several iron nails from aroof construction and adoor decoration. [SU057] is afill of aditch located in the northern part of Room C, directly next to the foundation wall. Its upper dimensions were 1.4 × 1.1 m. The fill contained a1.2 m deep deposit full of charcoal and with some burned fragments of vessels. Among the pottery finds are tiny fragments of fine ware and cooking ware, often very fragmented with ancient breaks joining together, such as in the case of afrying pan reconstructed out of 11 small pieces (442) or of aclay unguentarium base, put together out of five fragments (283). Among the small finds we may find one clay token made from aDressel 24 family amphora; one hexagonal glass bead (Čisťakova– Zlámalová Cílová 2022, tab.6:4); two worked bones (Minaříková 2022, tab.1:11, 13); and several iron nails from aroof and door decoration. Besides the other finds, acoin of Ioulia Domna minted in Anchialos between AD 193–217 was retrieved (Heřmánková 2022b, no. 6, tab.1). The high amount of charcoal, many tiny fragments of mortar, several pieces of 5 For alist of the contexts, their description and location within the excavated area see tab.1 and tab.2 in Tušlová– Weissová– Bakardzhiev 2022. 6 It is impossible to say when these ditches were dug, it could be from Antiquity until quite recently as the settlement is locally well -known and its looting might have started along time ago. Consequently, we could be dealing here with old treasure hunters’ trenches which were quite recently extended by new ones. 16 THE YURTA-STROYNO ARCHAEOLOGICAL PROJECT mud bricks and very fragmented pottery give adifferent character to this fill compared to [SU008] and [SU021], as it seems to be connected to adestruction. POTTERY FROM THE COURTYARD The levelling layers Iand II mark the area outside the house to the north, where the elevation / drainage layer was placed. It was located below ca. 50 cm of adark brown topsoil, and it consists of a35–40 cm thick grey layer filled with heterogenous archaeological material and stones, resting on the yellow sandy layer [SU007], the virgin soil. The dimensions of both excavated trenches were 2.5 × 2.5 m. The levelling layer Iwas excavated in the year 2015 completely to the sterile soil and brought about many interesting finds. Consequently, in the year 2016 one more trench was added directly to the north of the first one, marked as the levelling layer II, located in atrench 100E_110N SE. The latter layer was not completely excavated (about ca. 10 cm of ahard, stony surface stayed in situ). This layer features afar lower amount of material than the previous one, partly because of it not being fully excavated, but also, there was less material in general. These two layers– levelling Iand II– are arepresentative sample of the outer (outside of the house) material. For the small finds found in these two trenches see Tušlová– Weissová– Bakardzhiev 2022, 43. SURFACE SURVEY In 2009, an intensive field survey conducted by the Tundzha Regional Archaeological Project identified 31 hectares with araised amount of surface material which could be associated with the settlement. From these, three hectares of the highest concentration of finds were identified as the settlement core (Ilievetal. 2012, 21–22; Rossetal. eds. 2018; site 6018). The core area of the settlement is located directly along the Dereorman River, currently not cultivated and covered by dense vegetation and bushes. While excavating at the south -western corner of the site, the core area was occasionally walked, and random objects and interesting pieces of pottery were found. These small discoveries led to another surface survey being conducted in 2016, dividing the core area into squares of 20 × 20 m and smaller sectors of 10 × 10 m. The 20 × 20 m squares divided into smaller 10 × 10 m sectors were placed across the core of the site in the shape of across -section and surveyed using the method of total pick -ups. The rest of the squares covering the core settlement were intensively to extensively surveyed, depending on the density of the surface vegetation (Map 3). As aresult, statistical data regarding the pottery amount are available from the 32 squares (8 × 4– NE, NW, SE, SW) of the total pick -ups.7 Also, we gained an overview of the pottery spread around the whole core area of the settlement. For more information regarding the surface survey see the related reports (Tušlová– Weissová– Bakardzhiev 2017; Weissová– Tušlová– Bakardzhiev 2022). 7 For the pottery overview table see tab.1 at Weissová– Tušlová– Bakardzhiev 2022 on the page 59. 17THE POTTERY ASSEMBLAGE POTTERY SELECTION The excavated material from the above -described areas created the main core of the pottery material included in this publication. The surface survey pottery and the material from the other excavated areas were however also consulted and rare pottery fragments were looked for. All fragments of rare shape and / or ware were selected from the whole pottery assemblage, including the imported red -slipped ware(s), all the grey ware(s), fragments of coarse cooking ware(s) and handmade pottery; also, all diagnostic fragments of transport amphorae were taken out of the finding contexts and processed within the framework of this book. Briefly stated, aselection of variable shapes executed in the Fine red -slipped ware, dominating the whole pottery assemblage, was made mainly from the core contexts, while the rest of the ware was looked for in the whole assemblage. The aim was to make aselection of the most common pottery shapes made in the most common wares, as well as to capture the variability of the wares and transport amphorae present at the whole settlement. Due to the amount of the pottery material, the bulk pottery statistic was limited to dominant wares (red -slipped ware, grey ware, coarse cooking ware, handmade pottery and transport amphorae; see Tabs. 2–4 on pages 123–125). Map 3: The grid of polygons laid over the core of the Yurta ‑Stroyno settlement with marked areas of different types of surface cover which reflected in applied survey method; in the south ‑western corner is depicted the excavated area (map by B. Weissová). 18 THE YURTA-STROYNO ARCHAEOLOGICAL PROJECT Regarding the denomination of the excavated pottery fragments, they keep their inventory number, which starts with the year they were excavated (SY14_xxx, SY15_xxx, SY16_xxx), or processed (e.g. SY17_xxx); always starting with 001 (i.e. SY14_001). Pottery from the surface survey kept the year, the identification of a20 × 20 m square where it was found, its smaller 10 × 10 m sector named based on the cardinal directions (if divided), and the serial number of the sherd. To give an example, SY16_J13_SE_001 is year 2016, square J13 and its south -eastern sector, the first documented sherd– as in each sector– starting with 001. POTTERY DIVISION The household pottery assemblage was divided by wares into main groups of fine table ware, wheel made cooking ware and handmade cooking ware.8 These groups also reflect the functional categories of the pottery– table vessels and cooking vessels. The table vessels were made of afine fabric, often covered by aslip, either made in alight– yellow to red– or dark– grey to black– colour. These were used primarily for eating and drinking. The cooking and food preparation vessels were mostly made in acoarse sandy fabric, used to withstand high temperatures. These include both wheel made and handmade vessels of different fabrics. There is also one exception, the red -slipped ware strainers (215–218) used in the kitchen and made in the same fabric as the table ware. Some vessels might be multifunctional, e.g., vessels for food preparation might also be used for food serving, both table and cooking vessels might play the role of storage containers, etc. Consequently, the attribution of aspecific vessel to afunctional category should not be viewed as its only possible use, but rather as its probable primary function.9 Afurther division of the pottery assemblage regards the form and shape of individual vessels within their group, meaning we might have asimilar form / shape of apot in table vessels as well as in cooking vessels, however, both are of varied function10 and ware. Transport amphorae create another major group of vessels, intended for liquids and food shipment, representing the main source of information regarding an import. These were processed separately in groups relating to their type or place of production, and each was given adetailed fabric and type description. POTTERY DESCRIPTION The descriptive part of the pottery sherds including the fabric characterisation follows the manual Pottery in Archaeology published by Orton, Tyres and Vince (1993). Most often Irefer to the Inclusion sorting chart showing the difference among the fine and coarse fraction of the fabric, ranging from very poor (1) to very good (5); and to the Percentage estimation chart regarding the amount of all the inclusions (Orton– Tyres– Vince 1993, figs. A.4, A.6). For expressing the approximate frequency of individual inclusions, the following labels are used: 8 The structure of the text was inspired by Billur Tekkök -Biçken’sdissertation on the Hellenistic and Roman Pottery from Troia (Tekkök -Biçken 1996), Andrea Berlin’swork on the plain wares from Tel Anafa (Berlin 1997) and by arecently published book on pottery from ancient Halasarna (Grigoropoulos 2021). 9 cf. functional category in: https://www.levantineceramics.org/glossary. 10 e.g. food serving × food preparation. 19THE POTTERY ASSEMBLAGE predominant (>70%), dominant (50–70%), frequent (30–50%), common (15–30%), few (5–15%), very few (2–5%), and rare (0.5–2%) (Quinn 2022, 108). The colour identification is based on the Munsell Soil -Color Charts (2009). Currently, petrographic and chemical analyses of selected pottery are being undertaken. The chosen samples comprise the most represented red -slipped and grey wares, coarse cooking wares and handmade pottery. Their results have not yet been fully evaluated, so they have not been included in this study, and they will be published separately. However, it is already possible to give aname to some of the fabrics– such as Granitic and Dioritic wares of the handmade pottery, pointing to their main inclusions. We may also preliminarily confirm the mutual fabric similarity of the Fine and Common red -slipped wares, the Grey ware, and the Coarse cooking ware. USED TERMINOLOGY The terminology for the descriptions of the pottery vessels used in the text was mostly taken from Dictionary of Artifacts (Kipfer 2007), Encyclopedic Dictionary of Archaeology (Kipfer 2021) and the glossary of the Levantine Ceramic Project (LCP).11 As aresult, further in the text, form regards the general indication of avessel (e.g. plate, bowl, cup; etc.); shape refers to aspecific appearance / shaping of avessel (e.g. bowl with flanged rim) which might however appear across time and cultures; shape type refers to an open and closed shape of the vessel;12 fabric reflects the clay the pottery is composed of and amount of inclusions within (fine × coarse fabric) and ware groups sherds of asimilar fabric, body thickness, surface treatment and technology of production. Several vessels of the same shape, ware and chronology create atype. The most common vessel forms13 used in the text are briefly described in the following list to specify their main appearance and primary use: Bowl = deep open shape vessel without handles; primary use: food serving / eating. Casserole = an open to closed shape vessel with carinated body and (more or less) rounded bottom, typically with two handles; primary use: food preparation / serving. Cup = open or closed shape vessel of smaller size with none, one or two handles; primary use: drinking from and pouring liquids. Frying pan = shallow open shape vessel with flat bottom and one handle; primary use: food preparation / serving. Jug = deep closed shape vessel with narrow mount and ahandle; primary use: holding and pouring liquids. 11 https://www.levantineceramics.org/glossary. 12 cf. shape type in LCP. 13 The majority of the processed pottery is represented by fragments not always allowing aprecise vessel form recognition. The biggest problem is distinguishing between hemispherical plates and bowls from arim fragment. After several attempts at awell -defined division between the plates and dishes it is necessary to admit that the fragmentation of the material is not suitable for such an approach and some smaller fragments were divided rather intuitively. 20 THE YURTA-STROYNO ARCHAEOLOGICAL PROJECT Juglet = deep closed shape vessel with narrow mount and ahandle of small proportions; primary use: holding and pouring liquids. Krater = large open vessel with wide mouth / body and two handles; primary use: holding liquids, mixing, and serving. Plate = shallow open shape vessel; primary use: food serving / eating. Pot = closed shape vessel, usually round and deep, with none, one or more handles; primary use: food preparation and storage. Strainer = mostly open shape vessel of different forms with perforated body and bottom; primary use: food preparation / liquid purification. Table amphora = closed shape vessel with narrow neck and mouth, two handles and flat bottom; primary use: holding and pouring liquids. Transport amphora = closed shape vessel of various dimensions and proportions, characteristically, but not uniquely, with apointed bottom; primary use: food / liquid transportation. Tray = open shape flat plate usually with raised edge; primary use: carrying and holding other vessels / items. NOTES ON THE DRAWINGS AND PHOTOS The pottery drawings in figures were rescaled for the publication to 1:4; the photos of sections in plates were enlarged by 300%, while the photos of the sherds are out of scale. All the measurements given in the text, figures, plates, and tables are in millimetres if not stated otherwise. Each sherd has its own number used in the text, under which it might be found on the figures, plates, and tables. The used photos are from the SAP archive, mostly taken by Johana Tlustá/Stejskalová, Petra Tušlová and Dorothea Mildová. The drawings were made by the SAP team, their digitalization was carried out by Věra Doležálková and Petra Tušlová. Map 3 was created by B. Weissová; the other maps are by the author. NOTES ON THE USED CHRONOLOGY Through the text, chronological sensitive expressions are used, such as Roman Imperial period and Late Antiquity. The former might be used with two different meanings, the first one, used conventionally and generically, refers to the 1st–4th c. AD;14 the second one, in connection to the regional pottery production in inland Thrace and Moesia Inferior, refers to the 2nd–4th c. AD, as the local production during the 1st c. AD has not yet been demonstrably attested. The expression Late Antiquity is used for the 5th–6th c. AD, with apossible extension to the 7th c. AD. 14 If not further specified in the text. 21THE POTTERY ASSEMBLAGE In the summary catalogue at the end of the book, the chronology might be narrowed for vessel shapes of well attested regional production. On the other hand, if the vessel shape is not well known, all the range, given by the wide contexts of the comparative material, is given. Regarding the regional pottery production, several kiln sites with well documented and published pottery are referred to. However, there is currently an ongoing discussion about the length of the regional production, especially regarding the major production centres in Moesia Inferior– Varbovski livadi near Pavlikeni, Butovo and Hotnitsa. Production at these centres was originally thought to have continued until at least the 4th c. AD (e.g. Sultov 1969; 1976; 1985; Kabakchieva– Sultova– Vladkova 1988), currently, some researchers would prefer to see the end of their production by the end of the 2nd or mid-3rd c. AD (e.g. Ivanov 2019b; 2022; Harizanov 2019; 2020a). My aim is not to contribute to this discussion, but to use the data to put into achronological context, at least approximately, our decontextualized assemblage. After consideration, Ihave decided to use the extended data, also covering the 4th c. AD, as there are more kilns in Thrace and Moesia Inferior producing similarly looking wares still operating in the 4th c. AD, such are the kiln sites in Histria, Silistra and Karanovo (Tab.1). For each sherd, Ialways mention the production site on the basis of which the chronology was established (if traceable), so if it is indeed proven that some of the kilns ceased their production earlier, it will be possible to modify the chronology accordingly. The following 12 pottery production sites located in Thrace and Moesia Inferior are the ones most frequently referred to in the text. Here, Iprovide their location, chronological classification, and primary literature regarding the pottery assemblage from the kilns (Tab.1, Map. 3). Tab.1: The main centres of the Roman Imperial period pottery production located in Thrace and Moesia Inferior with well published pottery assemblages suitable for comparison with the mate‑ rial from Yurta ‑Stroyno. RSW = producing red ‑slipped ware; CW = producing coarse cooking ware. #Production centre District State RSW CW Suggested chronology of the pottery production Main pottery reference 1Butovo Veliko Trnovo Bulgaria Yes Yes mid-2nd c. AD – mid-3rd c. AD / 4th c. AD (?) Sultov 1985; Kabakchieva – Sultova – Vladkova 1988; Ivanov 2022 2Edirne / Hadrianopolis Edirne Turkey Yes Yes 2nd c. AD Atlı Akbuz 2008 3Histria Constanța Romania Yes Yes 2nd–4th c. AD Suceveanu 2000; Iliescu – Botiş 2018 4Hotnica (Kashlata) Veliko Trnovo Bulgaria Yes Yes 2nd c. – mid-3rd c. AD / 4th c. AD (?) Sultov 1985; Kabakchieva – Sultova – Vladkova 1988; Ivanov 2022 5Karanovo Sliven Bulgaria Yes Yes mid-3rd c. – 3rd/4th c. AD Borisov 2005, 2013 6Karavelovo (Kazan Cheir) Shumen Bulgaria Yes ?2/3rd c. AD – mid-3rd c. AD Ivanov 2019a; 2022 7Leshnitsa Lovech Bulgaria Yes No 3rd c. AD Ivanova 2003 8Nova Nadezhda Haskovo Bulgaria Yes Yes mid-2nd c. – mid-3rd c. AD Harizanov 2016 9Pavlikeni (Varbovski livadi) Veliko Trnovo Bulgaria Yes Yes 2nd c. – mid-3rd c. AD / 4th c. AD (?) Sultov 1985; Kabakchieva – Sultova – Vladkova 1988; Vladkova 2011; Ivanov 2019b; 2022 10 Silistra / Durostorum Silistra Bulgaria Yes Yes 2nd–4th c. AD Muşeţeanu 2003; Bâltâc 2018 11 Stara Zagora / Augusta Traiana Stara Zagora Bulgaria Yes Yes 3rd c. – mid-4th c. AD Kalchev 1991 12 Cape Sveti Atanas Varna Bulgaria Yes Yes mid-2nd – mid-3rd c. AD Ivanov 2019c 22 THE YURTA-STROYNO ARCHAEOLOGICAL PROJECT Map 4: Map of the pottery production centres described in Tab.1, depicted under the same number. Map 5: Location map of the sites most frequently mentioned within the text. 1: Ainos; 2: Augusta Traiana/Stara Zagora; 3: Castra Martis; 4: Deultum; 5: Dichin; 6: Durostorum/Silistra; 7: Gorsko Ablanovo; 8: Hadrianopolis/Edirne; 9: Halmyris; 10: Iatrus/Krivina; 11: Kabyle; 12: Nicopolis ad Is‑ trum; 13: Nicopolis ad Nestum; 14: Nova Zagora; 15: Novae; 16: Oescus; 17: Philippopolis/Plovdiv; 18: Sacidava/Dunăreni; 19: Sadovets; 20: Serdika/Sofia; 21: Sostra; 22: Straldzha; 23: Tomis/Constanța; 24: Troesmis; 25: Villa Armira; 26: Villa Chatalka; 27: Villa Kralev Dol; 28: Villa Madara. 23 Fine table ware The majority of fine wares from Yurta -Stroyno comprises of red (or other light coloured) slipped table vessels. Much less represented are grey coloured vessels with agrey or black surface slip. Vessels, which do not seem to be slipped at all (such as the so -called Yellow chalky ware), are rare. Vessels of Fine red -slipped ware (1–220), Common red -slipped ware (221–234), Grey ware (235–281), Yellow chalky ware (282–284) and Mottled / Marbled ware (285–298) are very likely produced regionally.15 The production of these is attested in one or more production centres operating in Thrace and / or Moesia Inferior. These are all wheel -made vessels with the majority of the shapes suitable for food consumption and drinking. Most popular are plates, bowls and cups; less common are table amphorae, jugs, kraters, basins and trays, represented only in some of the wares (i.e. in the Fine red -slipped ware, Common red -slipped ware, Grey ware). The most variable morphological forms are related to the Fine red -slipped ware, which comprises about 98.5% of all the fine wares found at the settlement. Besides food consumption and drinking vessels, fragments of several food preparation containers were found. There are several fragments of strainers made in Fine red -slipped ware (215–218), and one pan in Grey ware (281). The unguentaria -like vessels (282–284), always made of the Yellow chalky ware, seem to serve aspecific function, likely as precious -liquid based containers, possibly containing oils, perfumes, or medicine. Much less represented in the whole assemblage are imported fine wares. We may identify several representatives of Çandarlı ware (Eastern sigillata C) (299–307); Pontic sigillata A(308–314); Knidian grey ware (315–316); Red -slipped thin -walled ware of presumably eastern origin (317–329); and Thracian thin -walled ware from the northern Aegean (330–336). Under miscellanea are several other fragments of possibly imported wares which are for now unclassifiable (337–348). The majority of the imported vessels include thin -walled ware, whose production is not yet attested in Thrace and Moesia Inferior. Consequently, we may understand the need of its supply from elsewhere. The other wares are mostly represented by bowls, plates and cups, often of similar shapes also known in regional production; much less represented are other forms, such as jugs (316, 335), juglet (342) and alid handle (336). 15 By the expression ‘regional production / product’ Iaddress pottery made in Thrace and / or Moesia Inferior, i.e., the extended region of the present -day Bulgaria to the Danube delta, the European part of Turkey and the north -eastern part of Greece. In this area, the production of red -slipped ware(s) (and perhaps also cooking ware[s]) in unified shapes is attested during the Roman Imperial period. 30 THE YURTA-STROYNO ARCHAEOLOGICAL PROJECT Armira in Ivaylovgrad (Kabakchieva 1986, таб. 8–9); and from the area of Kabyle.19 Other finds from awider area are known, e.g., from the tumulus necropolis near the village Pet Mogili (south of Nova Zagora) which was in use from the end of the 1st till the beginning of the 4th c. AD (Ignatov 1996, 78; таб. 3:3, 5:2); from the settlement at Kasnakovo, dated from the end of the 3rd to the beginning of the 4th c. AD (Katsarova– Petkova 2015, fig. 3:7); or from the production centre of Nova Nadezhda (Harizanov 2016, fig. 13: three pots bottom left), active from the mid-2nd till the mid-3rd c. AD. 27, with adistinctly arched rim and only one grooved line, represents aspecific shape of aplate, frequently found in Thrace. We may see it among the above -mentioned assemblages of the necropolis near Pet Mogili; the depository of the Kabyle base; as aproduct of the Nova Nadezhda kiln centre; and in the material from Villa Chatalka (Chatalka 2015, 75, fig. 80; dated to the 2nd–3rd c. AD). We could go even further to Pannonia, to find avessel of such aform in Sirmium, marked as an imitation of terra sigillata, namely avariant of the form Dragendorff 35, dated from the end of the 1st till the 2nd c. AD (Brukner 1981, T72:39–40). 28 is aplate with flaring walls thickened on the lip with asmall concave depression from the top of the rim, whose d. is 210 mm. Similar plates come from Sostra (Hristov 2015, 78; fig. 1:3), dated to the 2nd–3rd c. AD; from the fill of akiln near Khan Krum, Veliki Preslav, dated to the turn of the 3rd and 4th c. AD (Hristov– Stoeva 2013, обр. 3, Паници Тип 3); and from Villa Kralev Dol, dated to the end of the 4th c. AD (Najdenova 1985, таб. 1:2). 29 is aplate of inner rim d. 150 mm, with raised rim grooved with three lines. The best parallel for the form might be found directly in the region, it is aplate uncovered from aburial mound located between the villages Boyanovo and Stroyno, dated to the turn of the 1st and 2nd c. AD (Agre 2013, 354; обр. 15:B). 30 and 31 are plates with flaring walls, aconcave body and triangular rim. The first sherd (30) has aslightly overhanging rim with one incised line running around the outer lip, and an inner rim d. 210 mm. Exactly the same plate was recently found in Kabyle in acontext dated to the end of the 4th c. AD with the base in the shape of aring foot.20 The second rim, 31, also has avery fitting parallel, this time directly within the assemblage of the production centre at Nova Nadezhda (Harizanov 2016, fig. 13: bottom right corner), and from the vicus near Gorsko Ablanovo (Rusev– Rusev– Vrbanov 2015, 681; таб. I:2); both parallels are dated from the mid-2nd to the mid-3rd c. AD. 32–36 are plates with straight flaring walls and an out -turned rim, which seem to be inspired by the Çandarlı ware Hayes Form 1 (32) and Form 2 (33–36) (cf. Hayes 1972, 320; fig. 64; Malamidou 2005, figs. 40–49). The inner rim diameter of these plates varies from 200 to 270 mm. The base is not preserved; however, these forms are traditionally associated with low wide hollowed feet. Imitations of the Hayes Form 1– plates with aheavy angular rim such as our sherd 32– were produced locally in Stara Zagora (Kalchev 1991, Abb. 7:4 and 19) from the 3rd c. till mid-4th c. AD, and in Karanovo, from the mid-3rd c. AD, possibly until the beginning of the 4th c. AD (Bo19 Several complete plates are kept at the depository of the archaeological base under the Archaeological Museum of the Thracian and Ancient town Kabile. 20 Unpublished material from ongoing excavation of Stefan Bakardzhiev in Kabyle, dated based on coin finds. 31FINE TABLE WARE risov 2013, таб. VII:8). At the Stara Zagora production centre we also found vessels of ashape resembling / imitating the Hayes Form 2 (Kalchev 1991, Abb. 7:18)– and as such, similar in form to our 33–35. These sherds together with 36, might be related to Kabakchieva’sType 3 (Kabakchieva 1983, 3; обр. 3), dated from the 2nd c. to the mid-3rd c. AD. Plates of such shapes are commonly found in Thrace, also in the area of Yambol and Stara Zagora Districts– as in the Villa Chatalka; Villa Armira (adirect parallel to 36); the necropolis near Svilengrad (Kabakchieva 1983, 3; Kabakchieva 1986, таб. 4:72); and the necropolis near Straldzha (Alexandrova 2016, 248; таб. 16:IV/108). Additionally, sherds 33–36, as well as 37–39, might also be considered lids (see 42–46 below), as some of them have burned tip of arim, which is otherwise unseen on the plates. 37 is adeep plate with straight flaring walls and an out -turned rim. It has an unclear rim diameter, which could be within the range of 240 to 300 mm. The shape might even suggest we are dealing here with alid. There are parallels among plates and dishes (e.g. Rusev– Rusev– Vrbanov 2015, 681; таб. I:3), although one source also provides anote saying this form could serve as alid (cf. Wicenciak 2014, fig. 9:1– adish from the Late Hellenistic, early Roman period). 38 is adeep plate with straight flaring walls and no specific rim shaping. Similar vessels are known from the Straldzha tumulus necropolis (Alexandrova 2016, 248; таб. 14:II/95) dated to the 2 nd –3 rd c. AD, although these examples have asmaller rim d. of 140 mm. Possibly, it could be also alid. 39–41 are plates with flaring walls and atriangular slightly offset rim grooved with one incised line from the inside. Based on parallels, they have alow ring foot. The inner rim d. varies between 200–230 mm. This shape is known from the Straldzha necropolis (Alexandrova 2016, 249; таб. 15:IV/106 and таб. 16:IV/109–110); close parallels might also be found at the production centre of Stara Zagora (Kalchev 1991, Abb. 7:5); and in other Roman provinces, e.g. in southern Pannonia, where they are known from the same period, i.e. from the 2nd to 3rd c. AD (Brukner 1981, 39; T 72:37–38). 42–46 are sherds of unspecific shape, likely lids, however, they could also serve as plates. The fragmentary state does not allow for better specification of their use. There is asimilar situation for the above -described plates with flaring walls (32–41), whose wall inclination is however greater, on abase of which Iwould rather see them as plates. The division is otherwise intuitive; regional parallels are missing. The inner rim diameter of the preserved lid -like rims ranges from 130 to 200 mm. Many of the sherds are, however, so fragmentarily preserved, that even the diameter has to be approximated or reconstructed (42, 45–46). 47–53 and 59–62 are rims of hemispherical -shaped plates of different depths with arim either straight or slightly bending inwards. There are also two bases associated with these plates (52–53). The inner rim diameter of the shallower plates 47–50 ranges from 240 to 320 mm, with one exception of smaller dimensions (51), with an inner rim of 190 mm. The deeper version of these plates, 59–61, features rim d. around 250–260 mm. Sherd 62, due to its small size with rim d. 110 mm, could also serve as acup. The two bases of these plates (52–53) feature alow ring foot with d. 100 and 120 mm. Plates of this shape quite often preserve trimming marks on the outer surface encircling the vessel in wider bands (e.g. 50). The plates with straight or slightly inwardly inclining walls seem to be modelled on the forms of Eastern sigillata (ESA Forms I–III, see Hayes 2008, figs. 1–2; and / or, ESC– Çandarlı 32 THE YURTA-STROYNO ARCHAEOLOGICAL PROJECT ware– Forms 4 and 5, see Hayes 1972, fig. 64). These imitations are as well -known from Thrace and other eastern Roman provinces. Kabakchieva (1983, 2–3) classed them under the Type 2, which is possible to find all over Thrace, from Serdika (Sofia) and the Upper Struma Valley (Kabakchieva 1983, 2; Тип 2) through Plovdiv (Botusharova 1959, tab.7:1) to Stara Zagora and Yambol Districts, with finds in the Straldzha necropolis (Alexandrova 2016, таб. 8:I/34–35) and Villa Armira (Kabakchieva 1986, таб. 3). These plates were also produced at the kiln site of Stara Zagora from the 3rd c. till mid-4th c. AD (Kalchev 1991, Abb. 7:1–3); and in Karanovo, from the 2nd half of the 3rd c. AD possibly until the beginning of the 4th c. AD (Borisov 2013, таб. VII:1–3). Kabakchieva suggested there were other centres located in eastern Thrace– in or nearby Kabyle and Villa Chatalka– active during the 2 nd –3 rd c. AD (Kabakchieva 1983, 3). Finds of similar plates in Thrace continue until the late 4 th c. AD as attested in Villa Kralev Dol located in the Upper Struma Valley (Najdenova 1985, tab.2:5). In Moesia Inferior, these plates are known from Nicopolis ad Istrum (Falkner 1999, figs. 9.27, 9:28/544) where they are along -lived form starting in the 2nd c. continuing to the 5th c. AD; from Novae, where they are similarly dated, from the mid-3rd to the mid-5th c. AD (Klenina 2006, 90: Тарелки Тип 1); and from Iatrus (Böttger 1982, Taf. 39:200–201, 432–433), dated from the 2nd half of the 4th to mid-5th c. AD. 54 and 58 are plates which share some similarities with the below -described vessels (55–57) as their walls are flaring and rather straight, however the body is not convex, and the inwards bending lip is missing. 54 is abigger and thicker sherd with arim of quadrangular section, undercut from both sides; the rim inner d. reaches 250 mm. Similar plates of bigger dimensions (rim d. up to 280 mm) were produced in Butovo from the 2nd half of the 2nd c. AD (Sultov 1985, 65, Type 7; pl. XXVIII:4). They are, however, missing any undercut. Sultov notes that this type of aplate is widespread in northern Bulgaria (with footnote 41– referring to unpublished material). In Dobrudzha, similar plates, again without any undercut, appear during the 2nd half of the 3rd c. AD and continue until the mid-4th c. AD (Opaiţ 2004, 74; Dish Type 1). One example with thicker walls and an undercut inside the lip was found at the tumulus of Suchija Saz necropolis in Pazardzhik District (Gizdova 2005, 179; таб. 1: in the middle), which is dated from the 2nd to 4th c. AD. And finally, Kabakchieva classes asimilar vessel with straight flaring walls, however tapering towards the tip of the rim, as aType 11 (Kabakchieva 1983, 6; Тип 11), dated within the 1st–3rd c. AD. She gives the range of rim diameter from 180 to 300 mm which may cover both sizes of our vessels. 58 is asmaller plate with an inner rim d. 190 mm, base d. 80 mm and rounded rim. This form could again be related to the ESA prototype (Form IV in Hayes 2008, 24). The closest parallels from south -eastern Bulgaria come from the Stara Zagora production centre (Kalchev 1991, Abb. 7:3), from the necropolises in Straldzha (Alexandrova 2016, таб. 9:III 38 and 40) and Suchija Saz in Pazardzhik District (Gizdova 2005, таб. 4: bottom left). In Moesia Inferior, avery similar piece is published from Nicopolis ad Istrum, dated by the context to AD 150–175 (Falkner 1999, 185; fig. 9.27:510– it also has the same rim d. of 190 mm inside). Putting all this information together, the biggest concentration of plates with such aform dates to the 2nd and 3rd c. AD, although they might be found within the contexts of the 4th c. AD as well. 55–57 are three vessels with flaring convex walls, and the tip of the lip slightly bending inwards, creating apronounced rib on the outer part (in the case of the bigger plate 55 also marked with one incised line). The base is ahollowed ring foot. Two different sizes of these plates 33FINE TABLE WARE might be noticed in our material– abigger one (55) with an inner rim d. 270 mm and abase with inner d. 120 mm; and asmaller one, of inner rim d. around 200 mm (although 57 is not well preserved). As in the previous case, these plates seem to be modelled on the forms of ESA (Hayes 2008, fig. 2)– in fact, the bigger size plate 58 might be considered to be an imitation of ESA Form II, and the smaller ones (56–57) of ESA Form III (both Hayes 2008, 24). Close in form and size to the smaller series is aplate from the Straldzha necropolis (Alexandrova 2016, таб. 12:I-2/73); and to the bigger series, aplate from the tumulus mound at Suchija Saz in Pazardzhik District (Gizdova 2005, 179; обр. 15). The chronology for both series seems to be the same, 2nd–4th c. AD. 63 is asmall rim fragment of inner d. 180 mm. The rim is curved and divided by one groove into two parts. It resembles two other forms of the assemblage– the curving makes it look like the hemispherical bowls (69–83) and the division of the rim resembles the deep hemispherical bowls with aledge for alid (148–151). No direct parallels were found in the published literature. The two mentioned morphological groups could be dated, in awider range, from the 2nd till the 4th c. AD, which seems to also be afeasible chronology for this fragment. 64 is asherd with inwards inclined walls and apronounced depression inside of the rim with inner d. 210 mm. Exactly the same form might be found in the Grey ware (245). Both wares, however, remain without direct parallels. 65 is aplate with afully preserved profile, with inner rim d. 190 mm, and base d. 100 mm. The plate has one small reflex handle placed just below the rim, asecond handle might be expected on the opposite side of the rim as in the cases of plates 4 and 7. The plates’ shape is similar to asingle find of asmall bowl 84 (see below) with inner rim d. 110 mm and base d. 45 mm. Both vessels might find parallels in the material from the production centre near Karavelovo (Ivanov 2019a, 271; fig. 5:1–4), classed under the Bowls Type II A, including the same form of bowls of various sizes with the rim d. ranging from 135–225 mm. The forms correspond, although the body of our vessel is lower and wider, and as such classed as aplate. The finds from Karavelovo are dated from the end of the 2nd till the mid-3rd c. AD. Another parallel might be found in Diana, aRoman fort on the Danube River in Serbia (Cvjetićanin 2003, # 16), dated to the 2nd c. AD. This specific vessel is, however, executed in Marbled ware, although Cvjetićanin notes that most forms of the Marbled ware, including this one, also appear at the site in the red -slipped fabric (Cvjetićanin 2003, 64). 66 is aplate with curved walls and athickened rolled rim with two shallow facets on the outer rim of inner d. 190 mm. Similar plates with facets on the rim which were produced at the pottery centre near Karavelovo were classed under the Dishes Type Idated from the end of the 2nd till the mid-3rd c. AD (Ivanov 2019a, 269; fig. 4), despite the rim profile being more triangular, the size corresponds (rim d. 210–220 mm). More of these vessels, this time with arounded rim, however without the facets, might be found on the Lower Danube, such as in Nicopolis ad Istrum (Falkner 1999, figs. 9.32:630 and 9.48:988), with the first example dated to the context of AD 350–450, the second one to AD 250–350; and in Novae (Klenina 2016, 430–431; fig. 12:2) as Plates Type 1 (of rim d. 180–250 mm), dated from the second half of the 3rd to the end of the 4th c. AD, and produced in alocal pottery workshop. Klenina sees aprototype of the vessels in African red -slipped ware– Hayes Form 27 –, produced in AD 160–220. 34 THE YURTA-STROYNO ARCHAEOLOGICAL PROJECT 67 is aflat horizontal rim of atray decorated by mould -made floral motifs, otherwise uncommon among the material from Yurta -Stroyno. Only asmall part of the rim was preserved (EVE 6%). The shape and the decoration resemble finds from the road station of Sostra, dated from the mid-2nd till the mid-3rd c. AD (cf. Hristov 2015, fig. 1:1–5), and / or from the production centre in Butovo, dated to the 3rd c. AD (Kabakchieva– Sultova– Vladkova 1988, 15–17; also see Ivanov 2022, 39–44). 68 is asherd with apeculiar form, likely adecorated part of ahandle of atray (cf. Hristov 2015, fig.1:1–5). The decoration is amould made bearing an unidentifiable (likely floral) motif placed on the upper side of the sherd; the back side is smoothed. The fragment is slipped from both sides. Similar looking trays were produced in Pavlikeni– Varbovski livadi and Butovo during the 2nd and 3rd c. AD (Kabakchieva– Sultova– Vladkova 1988, 15–17; also see Ivanov 2022, 39–44). 69–83 is aseries of hemispherical bowls with curved walls and rims either inclined outwards, inwards or straight. The inner rim d. ranges from 140 to 200 mm; the base diameter from 35 to 50 mm inside. The base could be low, hollowed from the inside, as it is on 79; or in the shape of alow ring foot (cf. Kabakchieva 1983, Тип 1; Kabakchieva 1986, таб. 1.1). These bowls are avery common find in the Yurta -Stroyno assemblage. Some of the bowls might be decorated from the outside with one incised line, placed from 4 up to 15 mm below the rim. Sometimes the incised line changes the appearance of the upper rim, making it more rounded in section (cf. 77–82). There is no other decoration. Bowls of this shape are very common in Thrace, where they experienced aproduction boom during the 2 nd and mid-3 rd c. AD, while some examples are supposed to be dated already to the very end of the 1st c. AD and at the beginning of the 4th c. AD (Kabakchieva 1983, 1–2; Borisov 2013, 322). Both versions– with and without the incised line– were produced in the pottery workshops of Stara Zagora (Kalchev 1991, Abb. 9:1–3) and Nova Nadezhda (Harizanov 2016, fig. 13); bowls with the incised line are also known from the kiln site at Karanovo (Borisov 2013, таб. VII:4). 84 is ahemispherical bowl with aprofiled rim, bevelled inwards, and with an outer lip projecting upwards. The inner rim diameter is 110 mm, the base is flat, with an outer d. 45 mm. In its basic form, it resembles the plate 65, which, however, has adistinctly larger rim diameter (190 mm) and amore open form. Agood morphological parallel might be found in the bowl from the Vizitsa necropolis in the Straldzha Mountains found in Mound 5 dated to the beginning of the 4th c. AD (Agre– Dichev 2005, 50–55, обр. 15). The bowl from Vizitsa has, however, amuch larger rim diameter (280 mm). 85–93 belong to the flanged bowls (or bowls with aflanged rim), another major series of vessels found at the site of Yurta -Stroyno. They are characteristic due to apronounced rib dividing the upper and lower part of the vessel. The wall above the lower rib is mostly straight, although it might be slightly concave. The bases are in the shape of alow ring foot (e.g. 92); there is no decoration related to the vessel. Slight differences among individual rims might be noticed. The majority of the bowls have straight walls and the two ribs are placed about three centimetres apart, with arim diameter of around 160 mm (85–89), the base 92 of inner d. 50 mm would also belong to this group. Fewer bowls feature concave walls between the two ribs, placed closer to each other (90–91). The rim diameter could be either as of the previous series, i.e. 160 mm inside (90), or smaller, of d. 120 mm, as in the case of 91. 35FINE TABLE WARE Sherd 93 belongs to asmaller series with rim d. 85 mm, otherwise of the same characteristics; these smaller flanged bowls seem to be produced in Pavlikeni– Varbovski livadi in the 2nd and 3rd c. AD (Ivanov 2022, 35; Bowls type XIV, fig. 10:112). They are known from the area of Moesia Inferior– e.g. from Novae (Klenina 2006, 97; Чашки Тип 5), but they do not seem to be common in Thrace. The flanged bowls are very common in Thrace during the 2nd–4th c. AD. Kabakchieva has sorted them under the Type VII б and в(Kabakchieva 1983, 4–5) and noted that they were, together with her Type I(our hemispherical bowls 69–83) the most common red -slipped ware shapes in Thrace during the Roman period, produced especially from the 2nd half of the 2nd c. to the beginning of the 3rd c. AD, although their production continued to the 4th c. AD, when the quality of their execution visibly declined (Kabakchieva 1983, 5; Kabakchieva 1986, 12). The quality of flanged bowls from Yurta -Stroyno is high, suggesting their production during the peak period. Nevertheless, the lower parts of some of the bowls might be unevenly fired. It is aresult of being stacked in the kiln, where they were placed directly one on top of another. The vessels are known to be produced at several production centres in Thrace, such as in Stara Zagora (Kalchev 1991, Abb. 8:4, 5 and 7); Nova Nadezhda (Harizanov 2016, fig. 13); Karanovo (Borisov 2013, таб. VII:10– with asmall offset); and also in Moesia Inferior– near Karavelovo (Ivanov 2019a, fig. 4:5–6; Bowls Type 1); and at Hotnitsa, Pavlikeni– Varbovski livadi, Butovo (Sultov 1985, tab. 62; XXVI:1–3, Dishes Type 1). Products from the latter kilns are often decorated with astamp of planta pedis or with rouletting around the central part of the bottom. In our pottery material, we have only one planta pedis stamp found on the vessels’ bottom (314), however, it is related to adifferent ware– the Pontic sigillata. 94–95 is another series of plates with flanged rims, with flaring concave walls and araised, flat rim of different profiles. Sherd 94, of inner rim d. 220 mm, has asmall groove from the upper part of the lip, while 95 is lacking the groove, and the lip is more outstretched. Plates of asimilar form might be found in the material from the Gorsko Ablanovo necropolis, dated to the second half of the 2nd c. AD (Torbatov 2012, обр. 13:1–2); further finds come from Nicopolis ad Istrum, dated to AD 130–250 (Falkner 1999, fig. 6.3:358); Villa Armira near Ivaylovgrad, dated to the 2nd–4th c. AD (Kabakchieva 1986, 13: Тип VI; таб. 9:145); or from Singidunum (Moesia Superior), dated to the 2nd and 3rd c. AD (Bojović 1977, 35; T. LIV:488–489). 96–99 are vessels of bigger proportions, otherwise– especially taking into account the distinctive rib below the rim –, similar to the previously described flanged bowls (85–93). The vessels are bigger in size and ‘heavier’ in the body construction, the rim inner diameter ranges from 180 to 190 mm; the sherds are thicker (up to 10 mm) and some of them unevenly fired resulting in agrey core visible on the fraction. In this last aspect they remind the Common red -slipped ware, although, in other aspects they are similar to the Fine red -slipped ware. 96 features one pronounced rib placed under the rim of inner d. 180 mm and athin dull slip well preserved from the outside and quite worn inside. Bowls like this were produced in the Stara Zagora workshop from the 3rd c. till mid-4th c. AD (Kalchev 1991, Abb. 8:8), and are also known from the nearby area– e.g. the necropolis near the villa Chatalka (Buyukliev 1980, tab.1:1), dated from the mid-1st till the beginning of the 3rd c. AD. 97 has arim of inner d. 200 mm and features aspiky ending of the lower rib. Similar bowls with amore profound lower rib are known from the production centre near Karavelovo under Bowls Type 1, dated from the end of the 2nd till the mid-3rd c. AD (Ivanov 2019a, 272; fig. 4:6). 98 is afragmented upper part of aflanged bowl rim with atriangular section and inner d. 180 mm, which is ribbed by two incised lines. No direct parallel has been found. 36 THE YURTA-STROYNO ARCHAEOLOGICAL PROJECT 99 is an upper body with arim of inner d. 190 mm. Acomplete bowl of this form was found in the necropolis near Straldzha with aflat splaying base (Alexandrova 2016, таб. 20:VI-2/159). Asimilar vessel comes from the production centre of Durostorum, classed within the widely defined group of bowls– Castroane Tipul 1 (Muşeţeanu 2003, 51–52; pl. 14:4). Both parallels are dated to the 2nd–3rd c. AD. 100 is ashallow flanged bowl with concave walls between the two ribs. In the middle of the concavity runs asmall relief rib. The inner rim d. is 230 mm. No published parallel has been found, although the same vessel form was collected during the field survey of the Tundzha Regional Archaeological Project at site 6021, located about 5 km north -west of Yurta -Stroyno, near the village of Karevelovo (Sobotkova– Ross– Iliev 2018, 146–156; Ilievetal. 2012, 23–27). 21 101–104 are four hemispherical bowls with short out -turned rims of different sizes, either bigger, with inner rim d. around 170 mm (101), or smaller, with inner rim d. around 130 mm (102–104). All of the vessels are decorated– mostly with motifs executed in barbotine (101, 103, 104), while only one fragment has incised decoration (102). Such bowls are known from Novae– both the smaller size ones (Dyczek 1991, tab.XIV:2), decorated with barbotino and dated to the 2nd–3rd c. AD, and the larger ones (Klenina 2016, 430; fig. 12:7), classed by Klenina under the Bowl Type 5 and by Sultov as aType 1c– ‘c’ standing for the rich decoration on the body (Sultov 1985, 66). Sultov proposes its production period, in the pottery centres of Pavlikeni– Varbovski livadi and Butovo, to be the second half of the 2nd c. AD– beginning of the 4th c. AD. Similar bowls might also be found in Nicopolis ad Istrum (Falkner 1999, figs. 82:771–786; 9:38, 9:39), dated into the context of the mid-3rd to mid-5th c. AD; in Sostra, dated to the 2nd and 3rd c. AD (Hristov 2015, fig. 3:13); and in the production centre in Durostorum (Muşeţeanu 2003, 55; pl. 20:133, Castroane Tipul 11), where these bowls are considered to be an imitation of metal vessels, and, based on other finds from Histria, dated to the first half of the 2nd c. AD. 105–118 is abig group of bowls with arounded body and out -turned rim with asmall depression inside the lip. Some of these bowls are decorated below the rim with an incised line or two, some are either further incised on the upper body with various motifs (105–106, 111, 117–118) or decorated with barbotine (112). The most common dimensions of the inner rim d. are 160–200 mm. One specific sub -group features smaller sized vessels with ahorizontally grooved body and inner rim d. 100–130 mm (114–116). On the other hand, 117–118 represent larger sized vessels with an inner rim d. 240–250 mm. The best parallels for the larger bowls might be found in Moesia Inferior– at Nicopolis ad Istrum. Falkner approximates their date range to AD 250–450 (Falkner 1999, 82; figs. 9.39:794– 796). Similar forms are also known from Novae– Bowls Type 2– found in the context of the 4th c. AD (Klenina 2006, 94; Миски Тип 2), also featuring abigger rim d. of 200–300 mm; and from the fill of apottery kiln near the village of Khan Krum (Hristov– Stoeva 2013, 389; обр. 12, Купи Тип ІІІ), dated to the 3rd c.– beginning of the 4th c. AD, with the rim d. 205 mm. In Thrace, all known hemispherical bowls which could be considered for comparison, have amore rounded body and / or an out -turned flat rim. These come from the Stara Zagora production centre, dated from the 3rd c. till mid-4th c. AD (Kalchev 1991, Abb. 8:10); from the Karanovo kiln site, active in the second half of the 3rd c.– beginning of the 4th c. AD (Borisov 21 Unpublished find. 37FINE TABLE WARE 2013, таб. V:7–10); and from the villa Kralev Dol, dated to the end of the 4th c. AD (Najdenova 1985, 86; таб. 6:21). The chronology of these vessels seems to span from the 3rd to the 4th c. AD, with possible continuity to the first half of the 5th c. AD (such as in Nicopolis ad Istrum). For 107, with arather massive lip and amore subtle body, we could also consider Bowls Type 6 from Novae, dated from the end of the 2nd till the mid-5th c. AD (Klenina 2006, 95; Миски Тип 6). 119–121 are hemispherical bowls with aledge for alid. The inner rim diameter ranges from 140–180 mm. The size separates them from similarly looking cups (148–151) of smaller dimensions, with rim diameter up to 100 mm. One of the sherds– 121– has body walls inclining inwards, closing the vessel. This shape might relate to aslightly different vessel form, although in our pottery assemblage it is closest to this group. Parallels for the bowls with aledge for alid come from apottery kiln found in Leshnitsa near Lovech (Ivanova 2003, обр. 38:6), dated to the 3rd c. AD; from the Roman vicus near Gorsko Ablanovo, dated from the second half of the 2nd c. AD to the first half of the 3rd c. AD (Rusev– Rusev– Vrbanov 2015, таб. VIII:63); and from Durostorum, dated to the 2nd and 3rd c. AD (Muşeţeanu 2003, 54, Castron Tipul 7 and 8; pl. 19:103–117). 122–129 represent cups with atriangular rim of inner d. 100–140 mm with one bigger exception of rim d. 190 mm (122). The body walls are straight, slightly inclining inwards in the direction of the foot. The body is decorated with engraved lines, either placed horizontally or arranged in different directions. One of the smaller vessels bears the sign of ahandle attachment (127), the bigger cup 122 has part of the handle preserved, measuring in section 31 × 5 mm. Vessels of such aform with two handles were produced in the Stara Zagora production centre during the 3rd c. AD and first half of the 4th c. AD (Kalchev 1991, Abb. 24:10 and 12). Similar ones, of the same chronology, might also be found in the permanent exhibition at the Stara Zagora Archaeological Museum. The size of these parallels from Stara Zagora seems to relate to the smaller series of the cups (123–129).22 Similar vessels might also be found at the pottery centre in Karavelovo under the Cup Type 1 A– with two handles, and B– with four handles, both dated to the end of the 2nd c. AD– mid3rd c. AD (Ivanov 2019a, 271–272; fig. 6). Despite having arim diameter closer to our smaller size vessels (110–120 mm), the body form– with very straight walls– resembles rather our bigger vessel 122. Other cups of asimilar size (rim d. 130 mm) also come from Nicopolis ad Istrum, dated by the context to the 2nd c. AD (Falkner 1999, 82; figs. 9.38:760). These vessels are also acommon inventory of burial mounds. We may find them, for example, in the tumulus necropolis near Pet Mogili in the Nova Zagora region, which was supposed to have been in use from the end of the 1st till the beginning of the 4th c. AD (Ignatov 1996, 89; таб. IV:1, X:1, XII:1, XIV:1). The four vessels from the necropolis have arim diameter ranging from 140–170 mm, as such, they represent abetter comparison for our small size vessels. Another parallel, this time rather for the bigger sized vessel 122, comes from the tumulus necropolis near Stara Zagora, dated to the 3rd–4th c. AD (Kalchev 1994, таб. 3: гроб 6:1 with rim d. 220 mm). The majority of the parallels date to the 2nd–3rd c. AD, where the production peak might be expected, with an extension into the 4th c. AD. 22 Both parallels are missing ascale or any information about the rim diameter, but in both cases, they are either depicted or placed next to the small cups with two handles (here under 138–143) which mostly have arim d. 100 to 110 mm. Consequently, the rim diameter of the vessels from the Museum, as well as from the production centre, could be approximated at 130–140 mm. 38 THE YURTA-STROYNO ARCHAEOLOGICAL PROJECT 130–137 are small cups with araised triangular rim, separated from the rounded body by an engraved line. The rim inner d. ranges from 90–120 mm. The upper part of the body might be decorated, mostly with another engraved line and / or with different motifs, either executed in barbotine (130), or incised (131). Such cups were produced in Pavlikeni– Varbovski livadi during the 2nd–3rd c. AD (Sultov 1985, Two -handled earthenware type 6; tab.XXXVI:5; Ivanov 2022, Cups Type IV; fig. 17:207, 217, 210). Whole vessels feature asmall ring foot and two handles with an oval section. 138–143 are cups with an off -set rim and two band handles. These cups are one of the most frequent vessel shapes encountered at the site of Yurta -Stroyno. The cups have arounded upper part of the body with the lower part sharply sloping to the base. The rim is offset and ribbed with two incised lines; the base has the shape of ahollowed ring foot. None of the cups is decorated. Based on the size, there might be several versions. The most common size is of inner rim d. 90–110 mm, with outer base d. ca. 30–35 mm. The two band handles attached to the body are oval with dimensions of 10–12 × 5–7 mm (138–142). Rarely, smaller and bigger versions of the cup appear. We have asingle sherd from each. The smaller series is represented by sherd 140, which does not have apreserved rim, only the base, with an outer d. 25 mm and ahandle of 9 × 7 mm in section. Based on the body size, the rim d. would be around 60 mm. From the bigger series, we have one fragment of the thicker off -set rim with an inner d. 130 mm (143). Different sizes do not seem to be chronologically sensitive, as they might be found together within one grave or necropolis (see Alexandrova 2016, таб. 23:I-1/95 and таб. 24; Kalchev 1994, таб. 3: гроб 8). These cups might be found widely spread over the territory of Thrace and Moesia Inferior. In the area of the Yambol and Stara Zagora Districts, they were produced at the kiln site of Stara Zagora (Kalchev 1991, Abb. 9:10–13) and Nova Nadezhda, in the latter one even in different sizes (Harizanov 2016, fig. 13: top right). They are known from nearby settlements such as from Villa Armira (Kabakchieva 1986, 17–18; таб. 17:238); and the necropolises near Nova Zagora (Ignatov 1996, e.g. таб. 3:2); Straldzha (Alexandrova 2016, таб. 24); Villa Chatalka (Buyukliev 1980, e.g. таб. 31:444) and Kabyle (Bakardzhiev– Mikov– Dzhanfezova 2013, обр. 3:B). In the area of Kabyle, this cup is very common as it is attested by many complete vessels from burial contexts exhibited at the local museum. The peak of its popularity seems to be in the 2nd–3rd c. AD, with the continuation of production until the 4th c. AD. These cups are also known from other areas of Thrace, e.g. from the Plovdiv (Bothusharova 1956, таб. 5:7, 6:19) and Pazardzhik Districts (Gizdova 2005, 185: oбр. 5; таб. 2); and from Moesia Inferior, e.g. Nicopolis ad Istrum (Falkner 1999, 81; fig. 9.38:756–759), or Novae (Klenina 2006, 100; Кубки Тип 6). Many of these cups were produced in Hotnitsa and Pavlikeni– Varbovski livadi pottery workshops from the mid-2nd c. till the beginning of the 4th c. AD (Sultov 1985, 77; tab.XXXVII:2, Type 7)– products of these kiln sites are often decorated with barbotine on the upper part of the body. 144–147 are four cups of aclose shape with arounded body and rim inner d. 50–60 mm. Only sherd 146 has one preserved handle of 12 × 7 mm in section. Compared with other published cups, this form has one handle only. Fragments 146–147 have aribbed upper part of the body, no other decoration is attested. Quite anumber of similar cups are known from Singidunum (Bojović 1977, 39; LXVIII– LXX), dated to the 2nd–3rd c. AD, from Villa Armira (Kabakchieva 1986), where we can find parallels for all of these vessels: 144 (таб. 17:236–237), 145 (таб. 14:225–226), 146 (таб. 18:251) and 147 (таб. 16:231). Sherd 145 has further close parallels at the Stara Zagora pottery workshop 39FINE TABLE WARE (Kalchev 1991, Abb. 9:18) and at the necropolises near Nova Zagora (Ignatov 1996, таб. 4:6) and Stara Zagora (Kalchev 1994, таб. 4: гроб 6); similarly, more parallels might be found for 146 and 147, such as products from the pottery centre near Karavelovo (Ivanov 2019a, fig. 7:2 Cups Type V= 146; and fig. 7:3 Cups Type VI = 147), and one more for 146 from Sostra (Hristov 2015, fig. 2:11). The chronology of these cups seems to be very similar to the previous group (138–143), i.e. the peak production from the 2nd to 3rd c. AD, with acontinuity of finds until the 4th c. AD. 148–151 are small cups with arounded body and arim with aledge for alid. The rim inner d. is 90–100 mm. These cups have aparallel in our assemblage, among the bowls of similarly profiled rim, of bigger size (119–121). Outside our material, we may find exact parallels in the assemblages from the necropolis near Straldzha (Alexandrova 2016, таб. 12:I-3/79), although uncovered in the embankment and dated based on parallels from the 2nd till the 4th c. AD; and from the production centre at Stara Zagora (Kalchev 1991, Abb. 25:6), dated from the 3rd c. till mid-4th c. AD. We can also find these cups in Singidunum, dated to the 2nd c. AD (Nikolić- -Đorđević 2000, 44; Tip 1/65). 152–154 are three fragments of cups with arounded body and atriangular rim of inner d. 110–130 mm. They slightly differ from each other in the shape of the rim, with 154 having amore pronounced rib on the outer lip. This sherd has agood parallel in the finds from the Straldzha necropolis (Alexandrova 2016, таб. 12:I-3/80), dated to the 2nd c.– mid-3rd c. AD. Asimilar chronology might be expected for the other two sherds. 155 is acup with straight flaring walls, athickened flat rim of inner d. 120 mm, decorated from above with two grooved lines. Parallels might be found at the necropolis east of Stara Zagora, dated to the 3rd–4th c. AD (Kalchev 1994, 178; таб. 5:39) and in arich grave at the necropolis near Villa Chatalka dated to the beginning of the 3rd c. AD (Buyukliev 1980, таб. 127:326). 156 is acup with straight flaring walls and abended rim, grooved from the upper part by two lines; the inner rim d. is 100 mm. This form seems to be inspired by the Eastern sigillata B2, cf. Atlante 72 / Robinson shape IV (Hayes 1985, tav. XV:4; Hayes 2008, 31–32; fig. 12:326), dated from the mid-1st c. till the end of the 2nd c. AD. We may find asimilar shape– without the grooves on the rim– also in the Pontic sigillata B dated from the mid-2nd c. till the 3rd c. AD (Zhuravlev 2002, 260; fig. 16:5). Similar size bowls with flaring walls and an arched rim, but only with one incised line, are known from Pavlikeni– Varbovski livadi, dated by the context to the 2nd c. AD (Ivanov 2019b, 12–13; fig. 7:5, Bowls Type XII); and with one or two lines from the production centre in Stara Zagora, dated from the 3rd c. to the first half of the 4th c. AD (Kalchev 1991, Abb. 24:4–6). In Thrace, these bowls were also found in later contexts, such as in the Sliven District, where they have the rim grooved by two lines (Borisov 1988, 103; рис. 6:з, Тип 3). Borisov, relying on other finds from Madara and Karanovo, dates these bowls from the 4th to the mid-5th c. AD. He notes that these late vessels have alow -quality red slip. Since our vessel has awell -preserved slip of good quality, we may incline to class it rather with the earlier production of the 2nd–4th c. AD. 157 is akrater with afunnel shaped neck and folded rim of inner d. 200 mm, featuring asmall relief rib running around the inner rim. From outside, the sherd is decorated below the rim with oblique engraved grooves. The closest parallel is represented by the so -called Krateroid vessel Type III from the pottery kiln of Pavlikeni– Varbovski livadi, dated to the 2 nd c. AD 46 THE YURTA-STROYNO ARCHAEOLOGICAL PROJECT the 4th c. AD, although, based on the given parallels, they seem to be most popular within the 2nd and mid-3rd c. AD. 214 is acylindrical neck of ajug with an out -turned flattened rim of inner d. 65 mm. One handle attached to the neck is preserved. It is oval in section (29 × 8 mm) and concave and grooved from the upper part. The neck is decorated with one incised line. The closest parallel is the Type 5 from the series of ‘Small clay amphorae from north -eastern Thrace’, found in agrave context in Sliven, dated from the 2nd half of the 2nd c. to the 4th c. AD (Kovachev 1998, таб. II.32). The published vessel has two handles. 215–218 are four fragments of strainers, including one rim with arolled lip (215) and inner d. 165 mm; two bases– one flat splaying of outer d. 80 mm (216), one with aring foot of inner d. 120 mm (217); and abody fragment from abigger -size vessel (218). The sizes of the holes range from 6 to 9 mm; the fragments are red -slipped from both sides, except the rim 215, which is only light -brown coated. Similar strainers (with arounded rim) were found in the Villa Armira in Ivaylovgrad dated to the 2nd–4th c. AD (Kabakchieva 1986, 16; обр. 13, таб. 18:206–207). Strainers of avery different upper body part but of similar bases are known from elsewhere. Astrainer with aring foot and perforated floor was found in Pavlikeni– Varbovski livadi (Ivanov 2022, Strainers Type I, fig. 28:349); astrainer with aflat splaying base is known from an area of Butovo and from Novae (Ivanov 2022, Strainers Type III, fig. 28:362; Klenina 2006, Цедилки тип 1, 117). The chronology of the mentioned parallel is from the 2nd c. till mid-4th c. AD. 219–220 are two bases of Fine red -slipped ware vessels of smaller size, bearing letters of the Greek alphabet on the outer side of the vessels’ bottoms. Only individual letters might be recognized, H and / or A, which were engraved on the vessel after the firing (Heřmánková 2022a, 125; fig. 2:1–2). The bases are of aring foot (219) and false ring foot (220), both slipped inside and un -slipped from the outside; consequently, they might belong to open vessels. COMMON RED ‑SLIPPED WARE INTRODUCTION The Common red -slipped ware is acoarser version of the Fine red -slipped ware with parallels among the pottery produced at Thrace and Moesia Inferior. Consequently, the same information about the regionally produced Fine red -slipped ware are also valid here. Following the discussion under the Chronology of the Fine -red slipped ware, the coarser execution of the vessels could by caused either by differences in the quality of products originating at different production centres, or by their later chronological classification (ca. to the 4th–5th c. AD); or, by acombination of both of these factors. WARE DESCRIPTION The Common red -slipped ware is similar to the Fine red -slipped ware, however, it is of alower quality execution. The fabric is porous, it has bigger and more abundant inclusions, the sherd is soft, and the slip is poorly preserved, sometimes barely visible on the surface. There is no decoration. 47FINE TABLE WARE The most popular shapes are bowls with aflanged rim of different sizes (221–230), with much fewer represented individuals of other vessels such as ahemispherical bowl (231), krater (232), pot (233), and ajug (234). The thickness of the sherd is about 4 to 7 mm, firing is mostly uneven, leaving asandwich -like pattern on the fraction, with agrey core (Pl. 10:221–228). In terms of numbers, the fabric is very well sorted (4), with 20% of inclusions, which are predominantly tiny, with few bigger pellets reaching up to 4 mm (mostly quartz). Predominant are white opaque inclusions, few to common are soft red -brown pellets and tiny silver mica flakes– present both in the fabric and the slip. The colour of the clay is the same as in the case of the Fine red -slipped ware, i.e. light red (2.5YR 6/6, 6/8), red (2.5YR 5/8) and reddish yellow (7.5YR 5/6); the slip is again just atint darker than the fabric. The quality of the slip is very low, it is mostly almost fully worn; if preserved, it is thin and dull (Pl. 3:221–228). There are no marks of double dipping or signs of metallic gloss regarding this ware. In macroscopic observation, the Fine red -slipped ware and the Common red -slipped ware seem to be of the same fabric composition. The latter is however coarser, softer, with alow- -quality slip and more poorly executed firing. CHRONOLOGY The same chronology as for the Fine red -slipped ware may apply, i.e. peak production period of the 2nd–3rd c. AD, with an extension to the 4th c. AD; if we consider the worst execution is connected to the period of production, the time span might be prolonged till the 5th c. AD. CATALOGUE OF THE COMMON RED ‑SLIPPED WARE Fig. 13: nos. 221–234; Pls. 3: nos. 221–228, 10: nos. 221–228 221–223 are flanged bowls of bigger proportions, with araised, inwardly inclined rim, with its tip uniformly placed 37 mm from the rib. The inner rim diameter ranges from 215 to 280 mm (measured on five samples). The vessels are not only bigger in size but also ‘heavier’ in the body construction, the sherds are thicker (ca. up to 10 mm). The sherds are soft and worn, in some places with the remains of atiny layer of ared slip, well absorbed into the sherd. One of the fragments is scratched after firing (222), but perhaps accidentally. These vessels are well- -known from Thrace, described by Kabakchieva (1983, 5) as Type VI, bowls, whose appearance did not significantly change from the 1st until the 4th c. AD. Not having the kilns in the region securely attested in the 1st c. AD, the local production could then cover the 2nd–4th c. AD. Bowls of such ashape were also produced in Paphlagonian Hadrianopolis (southern Black Sea, todays northern Turkey) ca. in the 3rd–4th c. AD, where they are considered to be modelled on Phocaean red -slipped ware (Laflı– Kan Şahin 2012, 51; pl. 16:243). 224 is another form of aflanged bowl of bigger proportion, from all (221–226) most resembling the ‘classical’ version of the bowls with aflanged rim (85–92), although with the upper rib rolled inwards, not outwards. The inner rim d. is 250 mm. Similar fragments are known from the area of Yurta -Stroyno– such as from the field survey of the Nabucco gas pipeline (Sector 1, Revision E), near the village of Bolyarovo (Boyadzhiev 2013, 580: object 1031; oбр. 3: bottom right), and from the necropolis near Straldzha (Alexandrova 2016, таб. 15:III-1/102). The first find has no context; the necropolis is dated to the 2nd–3rd c. AD. Similar bowls, with aslightly thicker rim, were also produced in Paphlagonian Hadrianopolis ca. in the 3rd–4th c. AD where they are again considered to be modelled on Phocaean red -slipped ware (Laflı– Kan Şahin 2012, 51, 75, 79; pl. 19:262). 48 THE YURTA-STROYNO ARCHAEOLOGICAL PROJECT 225 is yet another shape of aflanged bowl of bigger size with inner rim d. 270 mm, with the raised part of the rim ribbed by two incised lines. Aparallel might again be found at Paphlagonian Hadrianopolis, among the locally produced terra sigillata, dated to the 1 st –2 nd c. AD (Laflı– Kan Şahin 2012, pl. 6:35); the example published from Hadrianopolis does not, however, have the two incised lines running around the upper part of the vessel. 226 is arim of aflanged bowl of bigger size, so fragmentarily preserved, that its rim inner diameter might be only estimated at 230 mm. Apot of the same shape was found at the embankment at the necropolis near Straldzha (Alexandrova 2016; таб. 15:III-2/103), dated based on the parallels to the 2nd–4th c. AD. Asimilar fragment also comes from the field survey near Bolyarovo (Boyadzhiev 2013, 580: object 1031; oбр. 3: lower right, second up). Also, for this sherd, which is the last one of the bigger series of the flanged bowls, anicely fitting form parallel might be found among the local terra sigillata at Paphlagonian Hadrianopolis dated to the 1st–2nd c. AD (Laflı– Kan Şahin 2012, pl. 6:34). 227–230 is agroup of flanged bowls of smaller size. The rim inner diameter ranges from 120 to 170 mm; one relief rib is placed about 20 mm below the top of the rim. The inclination of the part above the rib might be either straight or inclined inwards. Each sherd is slightly different in shape, while they all share the form of aflanged bowl and characteristics of the ware. 231 is ahemispherical bowl with the outer wall thickened and slightly undercut just below the lip. The inner rim d. is 200 mm. Abowl like this was found in the mound embankment of the Straldzha necropolis dated, based on the parallels, to the 2nd–4th c. AD (Alexandrova 2016, таб. 12:I-2/76). 232 is akrater with cylindrical, slightly closing walls and aflat rim with atip pointing up - wards. The inner rim diameter is 210 mm. The vessel is decorated on the upper body part with simple incised lines. In terms of shape, it is similar to kraters 158–159 made in Fine red- -slipped ware. These belong to the Two -handled earthenware Type 1b (Sultov 1985, 76; таб. XXXV:4) / Krateroid vessels type II (Ivanov 2019b, 18–19; fig. 10:3), produced during the 2nd c. AD in Pavlikeni– Varbovski livadi. For this specific sherd agood parallel might be found in the material from Novae, dated by the context to the 3rd–4th c. AD (Dyczek 1991, tab.XIII:4). The Novae vessel corresponds with ours both in shape and style of decoration, although the scratched lines are arranged in acheckerboard pattern. 233 is the only pot executed in the Common red -slipped ware. It has araised rounded rim separated from the bulging body by ashallow groove. The rim inner d. is 230 mm; there is an incised line running approximately in the middle of the rim rounding. The upper body is decorated with an incised wavy line. 234 is the upper part of atable amphora with aturned hooked rim and cylindrical ribbed neck. In shape, the vessel resembles Type 5 of ‘Small clay amphorae from north -eastern Thrace’ found in agrave context in Sliven, dated from the 2nd half of the 2nd c. to the 4th c. AD (Kovachev 1998, 62; таб. 3:33). Our fragment however has aslightly bigger rim diameter (100 mm instead of the 70 mm from Sliven). 49FINE TABLE WARE GREY WARE INTRODUCTION The Grey table ware is aless common alternative to the red -slipped ware. Comparing it to the red -slipped ware in Thrace and Moesia Inferior, the grey ware is extremely under researched (also Kabakchieva 2005, 91; Alexandrova 2015, 146). So far, we know most about the so -called Macedonian grey ware (Macedonian terra sigillata grise), which was first described by Hayes in 1972, who assumed it was produced in Macedonia at the end of the 4th c. / beginning of the 5th c. AD (Hayes 1972, 405–406). The typology of this ware, based on the Late Antique finds from Stobi and compared with other grey wares from Greece, Macedonia and Bulgaria, was conducted by Anderson–Stojanović, who identified 11 different forms, from which the Forms 1, 2 (the most popular ones) and 8, were also produced in oxidized versions (= in the red slip). In Stobi, this ware was present in the contexts of the last quarter of the 4th c. till the mid-6th c. AD, and as such extending the chronology given previously by Hayes deeper into the Late Antiquity (Anderson -Stojanović 1984; 1992, 62–65). As noted by Anderson -Stojanović, the Grey ware has along tradition in Macedonia, as well as in Thrace, spanning from the Bronze Age, throughout the Iron Age. In Macedonia– or at least in Stobi– the Grey ware seems to vanish in the 1st c. AD and to appear again at the end of the 4th c. AD (Anderson -Stojanović 1984, 99).25 This phenomenon, however, does not seem to apply to Thrace and Moesia Inferior, where the Grey ware persists during the Roman Imperial period, but also appears in the contexts of the Late Antiquity. This evolution is very well reflected in the pottery material from Nicopolis ad Istrum, where the Grey ware appears in the contexts of the 2nd and 3rd c. AD, and then again in the mid-5th c. AD, to continue until the end of the 6th c. AD (Falkner 1999, 85–86). Falkner suggests, these are two similar wares, used in different periods, from which the early one could be alocal product and the later one might be an import. This seems to be akey idea, i.e., to admit that we may be dealing here with two different wares and productions. The majority of the Grey ware finds from Bulgaria might be dated from the 2nd till the turn of the 4th/5th c. AD, as are the finds from Pautalia and the Upper Struma Valley (Stajkova 1989); villa Kralev Dol near Pernik (Najdenova 1985, e.g. таб. 15:176); Castra Martis (Kabakchieva 2005, 91–91); Kocherinovo near Blagoevgrad (Katsarova 2005, таб. 8); Sofia (Borisova- -Katsarova 2022); or from Heraclea Sintica (Alexandrova 2015; Nankov– Tsoneva 2017). Since the Grey ware finds are accumulated in western Bulgaria, Kabakchieva suggested that the production centre, active during this period, is located somewhere in the area of Serdika (Sofia), Pautalia (Kyustendil) and / or Nicopolis ad Nestum (Kabakchieva 2005, 91–92). Since quite asmall number of Grey ware finds have been published, and established chronologies and form typologies for Thrace and Moesia Inferior are missing, we do not have much of abasis for comparing our finds with other material. What is, however, interesting, is the parallel production of the same forms of the regionally made Fine red -slipped ware and the Grey ware. This observation was noted and mentioned– besides Anderson -Stojanović– also by Stajkova (1989, 139–141), Falkner (1999, 85), Kabakchieva (2005, 92) and Katsarova (2005, 227–228). Kabakchieva gives aspecific example of aplate found at the production centre of Butovo, made from the same mould (i.e. of the same shape and decoration)– which was produced 25 The decline of the Grey ware during the 2nd–3rd c. AD is also noted in the assemblages from Greece regarding finds from Athens, Corinth, Amphipolis, Philippi, Kepia, Abdera and Thasos (cf. Hayes 1972; Malamidou 2005, 52). 50 THE YURTA-STROYNO ARCHAEOLOGICAL PROJECT simultaneously, and on purpose, in red and grey ware during the 3rd and at the beginning of the 4th c. AD (Kabakchieva– Sultova– Vladkova 1988, 14; nos. 69 and 75). Asimilar case of simultaneous production was noted in Kocherinovo near Blagoevgrad, where the same forms of the red -slipped ware and the grey ware were found together in the contexts of the 2nd–4th c. AD (Katsarova 2005, 227–228).26 We may use these information to presume that these are parallel products to the Fine red -slipped ware, made intentionally in grey to black colour. We may also anticipate their regional production as suggested by the find from the Butovo production centre. This revelation should facilitate the chronology, and the classification of the ware, into the 2nd–4th c. AD. However, we need to be cautious not to confuse it with different types of grey ware, such as the Macedonian grey ware, of different characteristics and later chronology. WARE DESCRIPTION The Grey ware stands for vessels of agrey fabric with asurface covered by grey or black slip (Pl. 3:237–277). This description is common to all the presented sherds, with some variations in the colour of the fabric, colour and quality of the slip, and sometimes also in the number of inclusions. Most frequently, the fabric is very well levigated and well sorted (4) with up to 10% of inclusions commonly sized between 0.3 mm and 0.5 mm, with rare bigger pieces of white particles up to 1 mm. Rare to few inclusions are tiny flakes of silver mica, rare are red soft pellets and shells; about 10% of the fabric are pores (Pl. 10:236–248). The number of inclusions slightly varies from sherd to sherd, with the white soft pellets being the biggest type of inclusion reaching up to 1 mm in smaller vessel forms, and up to 2 mm in bigger ones. The red pellets are the rarest ones, reaching up to the size of 1 mm. The sherds are hard, the majority are evenly fired, the fraction is smooth / fine, and some fragments seem to have asmoothed surface. On some vessels, especially on the plates, we may note trimming marks– quite wide cut facets (e.g. 235–238, 243–244 and 257). The thickness of the body sherds commonly ranges from 3 to 6 mm. The slip is sparse, as in the case of the Fine red -slipped ware, covering only specific parts of the body. Regarding the open forms, it fully covers the inner part of the vessel, but from the outside, it ends above the base (Pl. 3:237–259). In the case of the closed shapes, such as jars and jugs, the outer surface is covered in the same manner as of the open shape vessels, while inside, it is applied only on the rim or on the upper part of the mouth (Pl. 3:275–277). The sherd colour is mostly grey, although many of the sherds preserve areddish / brownish core or margins and as such attest to not fully accomplishing the reduction atmosphere during the firing process (Pl. 10:236–244). The slip might have several different colours, most frequently black (43 pcs.; Pl. 3:237, 244, 259, 275), much less common are tints of grey (3 pcs.– 235, 243, 250; Pl. 3:250) and of red -brown (2 pcs.– 242 and 269; Pl. 3:242). There are also cases where the slip seems to be completely missing (3 pcs.– 240, 252 and 274). Vessels with the black slip– the slip, if applied in athicker layer, flakes in bigger fields and cracks on breakages (e.g. below the rim or on the decoration, e.g. 249). Rarely, the outer slip 26 Made in red and grey ware means fired either in an oxidised or reduced atmosphere. We could presume there were no other differences regarding the fabric, or the slip, used for the production of these two colours. Nevertheless, arecently presented poster at the RCRF conference in Athens by I. Borisova -Katsarova discussed the raised content of graphite in connection to the Late Antique Grey ware found in Sofia (Serdika), comparing it to the same shapes made in the red -slipped ware of the same period (Borisova -Katsarova 2022). 51FINE TABLE WARE seems to be of alighter colour and thinner. The common fabric colour is light grey (2.5YR 7/1), grey (2.5YR 6/1, 10YR 5/1 and 6/1), greyish brown (10YR 5/2) or light brownish grey (10YR 6/2). The slip is black (Gley 1 2.5/N) or very dark grey (Gley 1 3/N). Vessels with the grey slip– the slip is lighter, up to the colour of the fabric, and it is well absorbed into the sherd. The most common fabric colour is light olive brown (2.5Y 5/3), while the slip colour varies between grey (5Y 6/1), yellowish brown (10YR 5/4), or dark greyish brown (10YR 4/2). In both cases, the slip can be either matt (279) or glossy (275), in some cases reaching ametallic shine (264 and 275). CHRONOLOGY 2nd–4th/5th c. AD. CATALOGUE OF THE GREY WARE Figs. 14–16: nos. 235–281; Pls. 3: nos. 237–277, 10: nos. 236–248 235–242 are hemispherical -shaped plates with acurved rim of avery different inner rim diameter ranging from 150 to 440 mm inside. Sherd 242 does not have well preserved rim. The thickness of the body sherd also significantly differs, reaching from 4 to 9 mm. Such abasic shape of a plate has adirect parallel in the Fine red -slipped ware (cf. 47–51, 59–61), where also adifferent range of sizes appears, as well as the facets on the surface which are highly noticeable. In the red -slipped ware, such plates were most popular during the 2nd–3rd c. AD, however, in Thrace, they are known until the end of the 4th c. AD, in Moesia Inferior even longer, until the mid-5th c. AD. They were also produced regionally, in Stara Zagora and Karanovo near Nova Zagora, during the 3 rd c. and mid-4 th c. AD (Kalchev 1991, Abb. 7:1–3; Borisov 2013, таб. VII:1–3). In Moesia Inferior, we may find parallels also in the Grey ware, such as in Nicopolis ad Istrum, where these plates were also found in many different sizes (rim d. 160–320 mm) and thicknesses. Falkner, with hesitation, dates them to the 4th and 5th c. AD (Falkner 1999, 85; fig.9.48:983–986). His dating seems to be based on the Macedonian grey ware, where this shape of plates might be found under the Form 5 (Anderson -Stojanović 1984, 105; Anderson- -Stojanović 1992, 69–70). 243–244 are plates which share asimilar shape of the rim, although both differ in its inclination, with 243 being more open with the inner rim d. of 170 mm, while 244 represents awide plate with inner rim d. 250 mm. These do not have direct parallels in the Fine red -slipped ware, but we may notice at least some resemblance with 28 and, by the divided rim into two parts, with 119–120; both dated to the 2nd–4th c. AD. 245 is aplate fragment with ahighly raised rim slightly inclined inwards, and with apronounced depression inside of the rim. It has an exact shape parallel in the Fine red -slipped ware (64), even the inner rim d. is similar– 195 mm in the case of the grey ware to 210 mm in the case of the red -slipped ware. These two fragments indeed look like the same vessel produced in two different colours. Unfortunately, none of the variants has adirect parallel. 246 is aplate with aroller rim of inner d. 205 mm. In shape it is close to Fine red -slipped ware 66, dated from the turn of the 2nd/3rd c. till the mid-5th c. AD, although it is missing the facets 52 THE YURTA-STROYNO ARCHAEOLOGICAL PROJECT on the rim. Asimilar Grey ware shape is known from Nicopolis ad Istrum (Falkner 1999, fig. 9.48:988), dated from the mid-3rd c. AD to ca. AD 400. 247 has amassive triangular rim in ashape close to 246and 248, its section is however slightly reconstructed as the sherd is quite worn on the lip. The inner rim d. is unmeasurable, approximated at 160 mm. If we were to use an extended chronology for these two -surrounding sherds, we would arrive at the 2ndc. – mid-5th c. AD, which might serve as an orientation date. 248 with an inner rim d. 300 mm, finds aperfect parallel in the Fine red -slipped ware, under the plates with flaring walls and triangular rim (39–41); it is especially similar to the rim 39. All this group is dated to the 2nd–3rd c. AD. 249 is aplate of inner rim d. 235 mm and of asimilar shape to the sherd above– 248– only with aless pronounced triangular rim. In the Fine red -slipped ware assemblage, it would be closest to sherd 35, dated from the mid-2nd c. to the mid-3rd c. AD, and, by the incised line inside the rim, to the above -mentioned fragments 39–41 dated to the 2nd–3rd c. AD. 250 is awide plate of inner rim d. 240 mm, with aflaring rim sharply divided from the body. The fabric colour is slightly lighter than the other sherds, with ayellowish brown sherd (10YR 5/6) and grey (mottled) surface. In our assemblage it is unique for its shape and surface colour, however, exactly the same shape might be found in the Straldzha necropolis in the Grey ware (Alexandrova 2016, таб. 9:III/41), dated to the 2nd–3rd c. AD. 251 is extremely fragmentary, with asmall rim EVE, and as such adiameter ranging from 260 to 300 mm. Despite this, it represents ashape very well -known from the Fine red -slipped ware of plates with an arched, out -turned rim (3–9), dated to the 2nd–3rd c. AD. Asimilar plate in the Grey ware is also published from Castra Martis, dated to the 3rd c. AD (Kabakchieva 2005, таб. VI:32); and from Nicopolis ad Istrum, dated to the 2 nd –3 rd c. AD (Falkner 1999, 85–86; fig. 9.48:993). 252 is afragment of awide horizontal rim engraved with one line running all around the vessel. It is avery small fragment with an unmeasurable rim diameter, which (if known) could help to determine if this is abowl or aplate. The inner d. of 70 mm, used in the drawing, is only approximated. The sherd is quite rough, not slipped. This shape could be linked to the Macedonian grey ware– vessels with adecorated rim– either of Form 1 or 2– depending on its original size (Anderson -Stojanović 1984, 103–105). However, aGrey ware plate with aflat rim engraved with two lines was also found in Nicopolis ad Istrum in the context dated to AD 175–250 (Falkner 1999, 242; fig. 9.48:991); and in Pautalia, with one engraved line on the lip, dated to the 2nd–4th c. AD (Stajkova 1989, обр. 3:a). 253 is asherd of ashallow bowl or aplate, with aledge for alid of inner d. 110 mm, which might find some similarity in the Fine red -slipped ware– see 63, 119–121, 148–150. However, in this case, the ledge is so distinctly split we may even consider this shape to be alid. Based on the similar shapes from the Fine red -slipped ware we may date it approximately to the 2 nd –4 th c. AD. 254–255 are two bases of open shape vessels, likely of plates. 254 is afalse ring foot base of outer d. 150 mm, slipped fully on both sides. In shape, it resembles Phocaean red -slipped ware. 255 has an unusual shape of alow flat base with an attached strip of aclay, it is slipped only inside. 53FINE TABLE WARE 256–258 are three bowls which share an out -turned rim, double ribbed from above. The inner rim d. of 256 is 270 mm, for the two other sherds, 257 and 258, it is 190 mm. Sherd 257 preserves part of ahandle in the shape of extra clay applied directly on the rim and rounded. It looks more like athickening of the rim for better manipulation, than aproper handle. The body of the same vessel bears the visible remains of faceting. Sherd 256, with its vertical walls and up -raised tip of the rim, does not have parallels among the Fine red -slipped ware. On the other hand, 257–258 with amore rounded body, share similarities with plates 12–15, dated from the end of the 1st / beginning of the 2nd c. AD to the mid-3rd c. AD, in Moesia Inferior and Pannonia until the 4th c. AD. 259 is ahemispherical bowl with aledge for alid of inner rim d. 190 mm, and abody decorated with two engraved lines. It might find some shape similarity in the Fine red -slipped ware sherds 119–120 dated to the 2nd–3rd c. AD. 260–262 are hemispherical bowls with straight / inwards inclined walls with arim d. ranging from 120 to 160 mm, with differently profiled rims. Sherds 262 and 263 are decorated with one incised / shallow grooved line below the rim. All three shapes might find parallels among the Fine red -slipped ware bowls 69–83, which were most popular during the 2nd–3rd c. AD, although they were produced until the 4th c. AD. 263 is abowl with arounded body and out -turned rim with asmall depression inside the lip; the inner rim d. is 260 mm. There is no decoration, only one shallow incised line below the rim. Similar vessels are known from the Fine red -slipped ware, cf. 105–118. The chronology of these vessels seems to span from the 3rd to 4th c. AD, in Moesia Inferior possibly into the first half of the 5th c. AD. 264 is aring foot base of abowl or some bigger vessel (such as ajar / table amphora). The base is fully slipped inside, outside only partly, above the feet. The base d. is 120 mm. 265 is acup with slightly out -turned rim, flattened from above, of inner d. 130 mm. It bears the remains of deep engraved lines decorating the upper body. Its shape looks like the above mentioned Fine red -slip ware bowls (105–118), however with the rim flattened from the top and with asmaller diameter. Some similarity might also be found in the red -slipped ware Cups Type X of Ivanov produced in Pavlikeni– Varbovski livadi and Butovo, and widely distributed over Moesia Inferior from the 2nd till 3rd c. AD (Ivanov 2022, 49; fig. 18). None of these parallels is, however, aperfect fit. 266 is acup with barely measurable rim diameter, but it seems to be equal to or bigger than 150 mm inside. The body is decorated with barbotine, perhaps with aplant / floral motif, the exact image is unidentifiable. Its shape is closest to the Grey ware sherd with inner rim d. 80 mm decorated with astamped motif found in the villa Kralev Dol, dated to the end of the 4th c. AD (Najdenova 1985, 73; таб. 15:176). In the Fine red -slipped ware, the closest in shape are sherds under 130–137 produced in Pavlikeni– Varbovski livadi during the 2nd–3rd c. AD. 267 is akrater with awide flat horizontal rim of inner d. 210 mm and high neck engraved with aseries of horizontal lines. Below the neck starts abulky body as in the case of the Fine red -slipped ware kraters with rim d. 135–210 mm (cf. 162–167). Consequently, we may expect 54 THE YURTA-STROYNO ARCHAEOLOGICAL PROJECT asimilar form, of rather bigger dimensions. The red -slipped vessels are dated from the 2nd till the 4th c. AD. 268–270 are smaller size kraters / pots, all of aunique shape. Sherd 268 has aflattened, slightly raised rim, with inner d. 140 mm. Sherd 269 also has araised flattened rim, engraved from the outside with one deep line, the inner d. is 120 mm. It is decorated with astroked ornament, several mm deep (but not penetrating through the sherd). Vessel 270 has straight walls and an oblong rim with apronounced rib inside of the vessel. Just below the rim is placed areflex handle (19 × 8 mm). To be functional, we may expect one more handle on the other side of the pot. This vessel is overfired, resulting in avery sharp brittle sherd. 271 is arim of atable amphora with inner rim d. 110 mm; the upper part of the lip is engraved with one line. Adistantly similar rim might be found among the table amphorae of the Fine red -slipped ware (cf. 182), with peak production from the second half of the 2nd c. till the 3rd c. AD, although they seem to be produced until the 4th c. AD. 272–273 are jugs with similarly prolonged necks with arounded rim of inner d. 60 and 70 mm, none of them bears the mark of ahandle. They likely belong to asimilar shape of ajug. Such asmall shape of ajug was not found in the Fine red -slipped ware, although abigger variant of asimilar shape, with rim d. 130 mm, might be seen under 195, which, however, does not have aclear parallel. In the red -slipped ware assemblages published elsewhere, we may find jugs of asimilar rim diameter, but with amore flaring rim. These are vessels from the necropolis Pet Mogili in Nova Zagora region (Ignatov 1996, таб. XIX:3), dated from the end of the 1st till the beginning of the 4th c. AD, and from burial mounds inventory deposited in the Nova Zagora Museum (Velkov 1996, таб. I:1, III:2, IV:3), dated to the 2nd–3rd c. AD, which represent the closest parallels. 274 is ajuglet of inner rim d. 30 mm, with the marks of two handle attachments placed below the rim, both badly preserved, with unclear section / thickness. For more see 277. 275 is ajuglet which has only half of the neck preserved, with one handle (7 × 17 mm). The existence of the second handle is unclear. The inner rim d. is 43 mm. 276 is the only Grey ware juglet with atrefoil rim. The rounded part of the lip has an outer d. of 45 mm. In this case it is very clear there is only one handle, which was attached below the rim, measuring in section 11 × 6 mm. For more see 277. 277 is afragment of arounded upper body of ajuglet decorated with motifs of pinecones executed in barbotine. The rim is not preserved, but the maximal body diameter could be measured, being ca. 120 mm outside. Two juglets made in Grey ware, of asimilar size with exactly the same body decoration, are exhibited at the Regional Museum of History in Stara Zagora and dated to the 2nd–3rd c. AD. They both have adifferent upper ending. The first of them has arounded rim, such as 274, but flattened from the top, with one preserved handle attached just below the neck; also, aspout is placed on the maximal body diameter. The second one has atrefoil rim and looks like 276. Consequently, we may consider the chronology of the 2nd and 3rd c. AD for the body 277 as well as for the rims 274 and 276. 55FINE TABLE WARE 278 is asingle handle of ajuglet, with aprotrusion for athumb. In section it is 17 × 10 mm. There were some handles with asimilar protrusion among the Fine red -slipped ware, although since they were missing any other diagnostic features for their chronological classification, they were excluded from the published material. 279–280 are two false ring foot bases. 279 has abase d. 54 mm and might belong to ajuglet / jar as well as to atable amphora. 280 has ad. of just 25 mm and belonged to asmall size vessel such as ajuglet. The bases are fully slipped inside, outside only partly, above the feet. 281 is of aunique shape among the whole assemblage. It has straight walls of approximate inner rim d. 270 mm. Directly on the rim is attached arounded handle (26 × 27 mm), with ahole in the middle (d. 8 mm). It looks like afrying pan, although the fragment does not bear any signs of burning (however, only the rim with apart of the handle is preserved). Idid not find any parallel in fine red -slipped or grey ware. YELLOW CHALKY WARE INTRODUCTION Asmall group of vessels of the same ware and the same shape might be designated as Yellow chalky ware. These are small vessels with aflat or slightly concave bottom and anarrow long neck. Apossible explanation of these vessels’ function is varied and for now inconclusive. One of the common interpretations is that these are amphora stoppers (e.g. Hayes 1997, 35; fig. 12, dated from the 1st–2nd c. AD). R. K. Falkner notes that these vessels are too small (max. body d. 65 mm) to accomplish this function (Falkner 1999, 85; fig. 9.47:980–981). B. Sultov (1985, 82; tab.XLI: varia), regarding the pieces produced in Pavlikeni– Varbovski livadi and Butovo, besides giving the possibility of being stoppers, also suggests areligious function, as some vessels of this shape were found in graves. C. Băjenaru, regarding the material from Tomis (the end of the 2nd–3rd c. AD), points out the similarity of the presumed amphora stoppers (Băjenaru 2013, pl. 12:99 and 100) and unguentaria (Băjenaru 2013, pl. 12:97–98), with the latter ones indeed being found in graves. Perhaps we are dealing here with two different vessels of similar shape– one of unguentaria and asecond one of amphora stoppers. The presumed dating range for both are from the 1st till the 3rd/4th c. AD. Taking in account their dissimilarity with amphorae fabric and narrow body shape, Iprefer to interpret them as unguentaria. The closest parallel to our finds comes from the central grave of the burial mound in an area called Koz Bunar, located about 4 km south -west of Yurta -Stroyno. The grave is dated to the very end of the 1st– beginning of the 2nd c. AD (Agre 2013, 354). Similar vessels were produced in Pavlikeni– Varbovski livadi and Butovo (Sultov 1985, 82; tab.XLI:2–3); and Thracian Hadrianopolis (Atlı Akbuz 2008, levha 24:84–85). Consequently, also for these small vessels regional production might be anticipated. WARE DESCRIPTION The fabric is well sorted (4), fine, very soft and porous, of reddish yellow colour (5YR 6/6, 7.5YR 6/6). It contains about 10% of inclusions up to 1 mm in size with common brown -red particles and lime, and common to rare silver mica (Pl. 10:283); there is no surface slip (Pl. 4:283–284). The sherd is chalky, leaving clay marks on one’sfingers; it is easy to break. The thickness of the 62 THE YURTA-STROYNO ARCHAEOLOGICAL PROJECT The two flanged bowls of Form 4 have ared sherd (10R 5/8) with alight red slip (10R 6/8, 7.5R 6/8). The fabric is fine, well sorted (4), with common silver mica and rare lime and quartz particles. 308 has adull slip, fully covering the outer surface; inside, it ends above the carination. At the outer flange part, the slip creates horizonal lines of darker colour as it is concentrated in shallow ribbing left by the potter. 309 is fully covered by auni -coloured slip of slight gloss, so is the base with aplanta pedis imprint (314), acommon stamp associated with the Pontic sigillata A. Form 6 vessels are characteristic for the pronounced difference between the fabric and slip colour. The fabric colour is reddish yellow (5YR 7/6), the slip is red (10R 4/6) of high quality, lustrous. All three fragments are fully slipped inside, while outside the slip ends just below the everted rim. The slip might create athicker layer which cracks on breaks (such as below the rim). The fabric is hard; all the sherds are evenly fired. The fabric is very well sorted (4), with up to 10% of incisions sized between 0.3 mm and 0.5 mm; rarely with occasional bigger pellets (1–2 mm). The predominant inclusion is lime, few are soft red -brown inclusions (grog?) and flakes of silver mica, quartz is rare. In the fabric of 312 we may also find small flakes of golden mica. One more fragment of aplate might belong to the Pontic sigillata A– 313. In hand specimen, it seems to be of the same fabric as 310–312, also the fabric / slip colour corresponds, however, such ashape is not (yet?) known for Pontic sigillata. CHRONOLOGY End of the 1st. c. AD– 3rd c. AD. CATALOGUE OF THE PONTIC SIGILLATA A Fig. 18: nos. 308–314; Pls. 5: nos. 308–314, 10: nos. 308–309 308–309 are flanged bowls of Zhuravlev Form 4, dated from the 2nd to mid-3rd c. AD (Zhuravlev 2010, 45–49). The inner rim diameter of our vessels is 120 and 180 mm. Similar flanged bowls of regional production are common at Yurta -Stroyno (cf. 85–92), however, these are different not only for the ware, but also morphologically as the bowls are concave below the rim and between the pronounced rib; the body of the bowl under the rib is convex. 310–312 are hemispherical bowls of Zhuravlev Form 6 with an everted rim decorated with incised lines (310) or rouletting (311–312), dated to the end of the 1st c. AD and beginning of the 2nd c. AD; the rim inner d. ranges from 190 to 230 mm. In the area of Thrace and Moesia Inferior, this morphological shape is not well represented. We may encounter single finds from the early Roman period– such as the (undecorated) plate from the tumulus Dulgata Mogila near Karanovo, Nova Zagora region, dated to the end of the 1st c. AD– beginning of the 2nd c. AD (Kanchev– Kancheva -Rousseva 1996, таб. 18:5, grave 3:83). More of these vessels might be found in Moesia Superior at Burgenae (Brukner 1981, 88; T.72:30 and 32) or Singidunum (Nikolić -Đorđević 2000, 34; Tip I/38). Both authors mark these vessels as imitations of terra sigillata (types Dragendorff 35 or Curle 11), dated from the 1st c. to the mid-3rd c. AD. 313 is awide plate of inner rim d. 350 mm, in shape and size similar to plates 1–2 of Fine red- -slipped ware and to 285 of Mottled ware. Based on the hand specimen observation, its fabric and slip characteristics seem to relate the plate to the Pontic sigillata A, however, no such 63FINE TABLE WARE shape has yet been identified for that ware. If we accepted such an attribution, we could date it from the end of the 1st c. till the 3rd c. AD. 314 is avery thin (3 mm) fragment of abase with astamp of planta pedis (the only one found at the site), which belongs to an open form, likely to aplate. From the bottom, the base is un -slipped and heavily scratched (intentional graffiti?), on the upper part, the slip is quite worn. The stamp itself represents an imprint of afoot in asandal (as we can interpret the cross over the area of an instep). The stamp of planta pedis is common for the Arezzo production of terra sigillata where it appears in ca. 30 AD. In Arezzo, the stamp however contains the name of the workshop owner or of the craftsman (Zhuravlev 2009, 56). In the northern Black Sea area, the planta pedis appears on the Pontic sigillata by the mid-1st c. AD, and it might be found on the vessels until the 2nd quarter of the 2nd c. AD. It is typical for Pontic sigillata A Form 1. The difference in the stamp use for the Arezzo and the Pontic sigillata production is, that the second one does not bear names (Zhuravlev 2009, 56). We may also find planta pedis on the Fine red -slipped ware produced in Thrace and Moesia Inferior, where the function of the planta pedis is rather decorative– as attested by the four clay stampers found at the production centre at Pavlikeni– Varbovski livadi, from which three are double -sided with arosette as the second motif (Vladkova 2011, каталог на печатите). The stamp is often applied on one vessel in higher numbers. The most common vessel form, where the planta pedis appears in Thrace and Moesia Inferior, is abowl with aflanged rim (here 85–92), asimilar shape to the Pontic sigillata AForm 1 (cf. Sultov 1985; Zhuravlev 2009; Vladkova 2011). KNIDIAN GREY WARE INTRODUCTION Two vessels from the whole assemblage might be attributed to the so -called Knidian grey ware. Like the Knidian thin -walled ware, the Knidian grey ware of the Roman period represents acontinuation of local Late Hellenistic production (Hayes 2008, 64), influenced, from about the Augustan period, by the Italian workshops (Kögler 2005, 56). The ware was exported in smaller quantities over the Mediterranean; it is mostly identified in the Aegean area, with the peak period from Augustus to Claudius (Kögler 2005, 57–58); however, there are still finds, from the same area, dated till the mid-2nd c. AD (see Kögler 2010, Abb. M–N). In Halasarna, on the island of Kos, vessels of Knidian fabric are found in contexts dated even to the 2nd and 3rd c. AD, some are probably even later (Grigoropoulos 2021, 224). According to Hayes (2008 63), this ware has athin and clean -breaking sherd, fabric with traces of fine mica and little lime; the colour is normally orange or pinkish with agrey core. The thin slip might have many different colours, ranging from orange -brown through purplish brown and sepia to dark grey. It covers the inside and the upper part of the outside, ending on the line below the carination (if there is one). The lower part of the exterior and the foot are generally carefully tooled. Grigoropoulos also noted that the grey ware in the Augustan period has ametallic slip ranging from black to dark brown and purplish -red, which progressively becomes duller and matt. Later production, dated from the end of the 2nd till 3rd c. AD found at Halasarna includes vessels which lack aslip or have aself -slip fired to the colour of the body fragment (Grigoropoulos 2021, 223–224). 64 THE YURTA-STROYNO ARCHAEOLOGICAL PROJECT WARE DESCRIPTION See the individual sherds. CHRONOLOGY The Roman Imperial production is dated from Augustus till the 3rd c. AD / mid-4th c. AD. CATALOGUE OF THE KNIDIAN GREY WARE Fig. 18: nos. 315–316; Pls. 5: no. 316, 10: no. 316 315 is ashallow bowl with aflanged rim and carinated body; the inner rim d. is 130 mm, the base outer d. is 60 mm. The vessel is hard fired with ared fabric colour and asurface of two tints, reddish brown (5YR 5/4) and yellow reddish (5YR 4/3).31 The sherd is thin, ca. 4 mm. Thanks to its distinctive colour, thin body sherd, and careful finish of the outer surface, we could link the base and the rim together; the part in between is missing. It belongs to Kögler Form VII, Type D, dated from ca. AD 25 to the mid-2nd c. AD (cf. Kögler 2010, Abb. 57:Kn. 85). 316 is afragment of ajug with overhanging rim and funnel -shaped neck, with rim inner d. 180 mm. The fabric is red (2.5YR 5/6), the slip is continuous; inside of the fabric colour; the outer surface has ayellow red (5YR 5/4) continuous coating; it is burned on the lip. It relates to Kögler Form XXX, Type C, dated from the mid-1st till mid-2nd c. AD (Kögler 2010, Abb. 74). The chronological evolution of these jugs is not fully clear, but our fragment, due to the pronounced articulation of the overhanging rim might be earlier– dated from the mid-1st c. to the beginning of the 2nd c. AD (Grigoropoulos 2021, 226). THIN ‑WALLED RED ‑SLIPPED WARE INTRODUCTION Thin -walled vessels started to be produced in Italy at the beginning of the 2nd c. BC and until the Augustan period they were not red -slipped (Marabini Moevs 1973, 140–150). About two hundred years later, at the end of the 1st c. BC / beginning of the 1st c. AD, their red -slipped production started in some of the western provinces (e.g. Gallia, and in the area of the Iberian Peninsula), which at first imitated the Italian forms, but shortly after started to produce their own original shapes (Gervasini 2005, 290–291). The Italian products were also exported in great numbers to the Eastern Mediterranean during the Late Republic and Early Imperial period, where they are found in the contexts dated to the end of the 1st c. BC (Kögler 2010, 339). By the 1st c. AD, their local production also started there, which continued until the 3rd c. AD (Heath– Tekkök 2006-2009, early Roman Thin -wall– Roman -period cups/jugs).32 Among the known Imperial period production centres located in the Eastern Mediterranean belongs 31 For the fabric and surface colour see Rife – Heath 2013-2022: Kenchreai Archaeological Archive. Knidian Gray-Ware Bowl KE 1891. 32 The so -called Italian jugs, or Thracian thin -walled ware cups, likely produced in Ainos (here under nos. 330–333) also belong to the group imitating Italian products (e.g. Hayes 1997, 67–71). 65FINE TABLE WARE Pergamon, Ephesus, Knidos (Kögler 2010, 339–340) and Phocaea (Özyiğit 1991, 137–139; Hayes 1997, 68). In Thrace and Moesia Inferior production of thin -walled ware has not yet been attested. Despite some visual similarity with the regionally made Fine red -slipped ware,33 we may expect these vessels were imported. The morphological forms of all the red -slipped thin -walled ware sherds found in Yurta- -Stroyno might be linked to aknown typology of western products– either of Marabini Moevs (1973; regarding material from Cosa) or Mayet (1975; vessels from the Iberian Peninsula). Despite the morphological similarity, their other features rather point to an eastern origin of the vessels. One feature is the red sherd and good quality red slip, applied in the eastern manner sparsely on the surface; the other is the pronounced carination of the body, especially visible on the carinated cups (Marabini Moevs XLII / XLIII; Kögler Dk.1), which is, as suggested by Kögler (2010, 347), likely connected to the Knidian and Pergamene production. We may anticipate aKnidian origin for the carinated cups (317–321) which were the most popular Knidian vessels widely spread over the Aegean and Mediterranean area (Kögler 2005, 57; for distribution see Kögler 2010, 58–59, 340; Abb. N/Karte 3b; Grigoropoulos 2021, 259). If the Knidian origin is correct, they would be dated to the second half of the 1st c.– first half of the 2 nd c. AD. From the other possible importers known up to date, we may likely exclude Phocaea, as the known vessels were of different shapes and a grey surface; and Ephesus, where the thin -walled vessels were made of asoft micaceous fabric similar to the Late Roman Amphorae 3 (Grigoropoulos 2021, 268–270), which leaves us with Pergamon as its possible provider. Since we do not have fully preserved shapes, we cannot always confidently link our sherds to one specific typological form on the basis of which it was modelled, consequently, more forms for one sherd need to be considered. There are also some differences in the appearance, mostly in the surface treatment or colour, which will be individually described. These small differences might point to different places of production. WARE DESCRIPTION The Thin -walled red -slipped ware is characteristic for its thin body sherd, up to 3 mm thick,34 and very fine red fabric (Pl. 11:318–329). The inner slip was applied only partially, on the upper part / lip of the rim (Pl. 5:321–329). The outer surface was slipped to alarger extent, ending either under the body carination (317–319) or several centimetres below the outer rim (328–329). Some of the sherds have the outer surface fully slipped (320–322, 326). We may only assume the slipped part might have eventually ended lower than on the preserved fragment. The fragments are not decorated; the only use of an incised line is to enhance the profile of arim in the case of several cups (324–327); no surface sanding (outer or inner) has been documented. Regarding the morphology, the only forms executed in this ware are drinking vessels, cups and bowls. The fabric colour is red (2.5YR 5/6), reddish yellow (5YR 6/6), rarely also brownish yellow (10 YR 6/4); the slip, applied in athin layer, is mostly red (2.5YR 5/6, 5/8, 4/6, 4/8), rarely dusky red (10R 3/4). The fabric sorting is very good (5), it is dense, with rare to few rounder pores. The small number of inclusions is barely visible without amagnification lens, featuring few 33 They have similar fabric and slip colour and the slip distribution over the surface (they are only partly slipped). 34 With one exception being 329, which has awall thickness of almost 4 mm. 66 THE YURTA-STROYNO ARCHAEOLOGICAL PROJECT white inclusions (soft and hard) and rare soft red inclusions, likely clay pellets. Few to common tiny flakes of silver mica might be noticed on the surface. CHRONOLOGY The production of the thin -walled ware in the Eastern Mediterranean started at the beginning of the 1 st c. AD; the majority of the products are dated from then till the mid-2 nd c. AD (Kögler 2010; Grigoropoulos 2021, 259–273), while some vessels might still be dated till the mid-4th c. AD (cf. Grigoropoulos 2021, 262; fig. 138). CATALOGUE OF THE THIN ‑WALLED RED ‑SLIPPED WARE Fig. 19: nos. 317–329; Pls. 5: nos. 321–329, 11: nos. 318–329 317–321 are carinated cups which might have had two handles (cf. 318; section 9 × 7 mm). They have vertical walls slightly inclined inwards, inner rim d. 70–85 mm / 110 mm. None of the bases is preserved. All are partly red -slipped inside, some also outside, such as the longer fragments with the slip ending just below the body carination (317–319). The shorter sherds are fully slipped outside (320–321). The original shape relates either to Marabini Moevs XLII or XLIII. Comparing the Italian and eastern forms, the body carination (where preserved) is more distinct, in astyle of cups Type Dk.1. of Knidian origin (Kögler 2010 Abb. E/b; also cf. Grigoropoulos 2021, fig. 139:626–630). If Knidian, their peak would be dated from the mid1st till mid-2nd c. AD. 322 is aconical cup / beaker with flaring walls of inner rim d. 90 mm. This fragment is covered on both sides by acontinuous coating, rather than aslip, as it does not have adifferent colour to the fabric; both– fabric and the coating– are brick red. The cover is dull, and the outer surface combines wide shallow horizontal bands of rougher × smoother appearance and feel; there is ahigher amount of silver mica in the fabric. By form, it most resembles the beakers type Marabini MoevsXII. 323 is aflat base of aconical cup / beaker with outer d. 50 mm. It has asmooth outer surface without any cover, while the inner part is fully red -slipped. The bottom is only 2 mm thick. Closer attribution to aspecific typology is impossible. 324–325 are cups with an ovoid body and rounded rim, the preserved fragments have no handles. The inner rim d. is uniformly 75 mm. Both sherds have adifferent slip in varying colours, mixing darker tints of brown with reddish tones. The slip is also darker, almost black in the depression below the rounded rim. Inside, the dripping drops of the slip of 325 are dark red with asliver lustre, while for 324 we may see only afew centimetres wide red line running under the rim. In shape, they are similar to three forms of Mayet: XXX, XXXVII and XLIV, or to Marabini MoevsLXVI. 326–327 are cups, in their basic form similar to the above -mentioned vessels, although the rounded rim is engraved with one deep line; the inner d. is slightly bigger than before– 90 mm. One of the sherds has a– not fully– preserved handle (14 × 9< mm). The fragments are fully red slipped outside, partially (under the rim) inside. In shape, they are similar to Marabini MoevsLXIII. 67FINE TABLE WARE 328–329 are simple hemispherical bowls with an inner rim d. of 160–170 mm, typologically related to the type Marabini MoevsLIII. Similar in asection and sharing rather coarser fabric (than is usual for the ware), both fragments are visually different. 328 has alower quality slip which is flaking. The slip covers the majority of the outer surface and about two centimetres below the inner rim; it is light to dark brown. Rim 329 is similar in appearance to the conical cup / beaker 322, the outer coating is dull and blends with the sherd, creating alayer which is hardly visible. It fully covers the inner side, outside it ends at the lower part. The fabric is dusky red (10R 3/4), likely overfired, with arough outer surface and ashallow wide horizontal band at about the mid -point of the body; the sherd is slightly thicker, almost 4 mm; it is coarser and more micaceous than the rest of the Thin-walled red-slipped ware (see Pl. 11). THRACIAN THIN ‑WALLED WARE INTRODUCTION The globular one -handled cups made in Thracian thin -walled ware follow the Italian tradition of thin -walled pottery, formally known as ‘Italian mugs’, or ‘boccalini acollarino’. Their production centre is assumed to be in the Northern Aegean, likely at Ainos, on the Maritza River estuary. The centre seems to be active from the mid-1st c. AD until the 3rd c. AD, with the highest production period until the end of the 2nd c. AD (Marabini Moevs 1973, 237–238; Malamidou 2005, 57; Heath– Tekkök eds. 2006–2009). Many finding places are known from the Aegean and Eastern Mediterranean, e.g. Ilion (Heath– Tekkök eds. 2006–2009); Paphos on Cyprus (Hayes 1991, fig. XXII:17); Amphipolis, Abdera, Thasos (Malamidou 2005, 57); Corinth (Adamsheck 1979, pl. 22/LRB11a); Halasarna on Kos (Grigoropoulos 2021, 271); or Benghazi in Libya (Kenrick 1985, 310; B452). Vessels executed in this ware often have avitrified surface from the use of salted water for the final wash (Hayes 1997, 70). Cups of later production (3rd c. AD) are commonly decorated with white spiral / floral motifs, dots, or large written letters / messages (Adamsheck 1979; Malamidou 2005, 57; Heath– Tekkök eds. 2006–2009). The outer coating might be missing above the base– see, e.g. the cup exhibited at the Histria Archaeological Museum (dated to the 2nd–3rd c. AD). While the one -handled globular cups are typical for this ware (330–334), much less represented are jugs (335), featuring however the same fabric and surface treatment characteristics, including high temperature firing necessary for the vitrification. The origin of these cups and jugs from asingle location was proposed by Băjenaru (2013, 57), having found both vessel forms together in Tomis (Constanța) he proposed they were used together as aset of drinking vessels. Alid handle (336) of similar looking ware was also found at Yurta -Stroyno. Forms of the Italian mugs / Thracian thin -walled ware cups seem to be also produced (imitated?) regionally, especially in Moesia Inferior, where they were executed in red -slipped ware. Their production is attested in Butovo, Karavelovo (Kazan Cheir), probably also in Hotnitsa (Kash - lata) and Durostorum (see Ivanov 2022, 51, Cups type XIII; nos. 265–273). Some Fine red -slipped ware cups from Yurta -Stroyno, especially 146, might also be considered to be such an imitation. WARE DESCRIPTION The so -called Thracian thin -walled ware found at Yurta -Stroyno comprises of vessels with a2–3 mm body thickness, of very dense fabric, brick red sherd and greyish– often vitri- 68 THE YURTA-STROYNO ARCHAEOLOGICAL PROJECT fied– outer surface (Pl. 6:330–336). The fabric is very well sorted (4), with 10–20% of sandy inclusions up to 0.5 mm big. The most noticeable inclusions on the section are white rounded particles (Pl. 11:335). Rare to few silver mica flakes might be noticed on the surface if not vitrified. The fabric colour is red (2.5YR 5/8, 4/6, 4/8); the surface coating is of agrey (2.5YR 5/1) to purplish -brown colour (from weak red 10R 4/2 to shiny black 10YR 2/1). None of the preserved fragments is decorated. CHRONOLOGY Mid-1st c. AD– 3rd c. AD. CATALOGUE OF THE THRACIAN THIN ‑WALLED WARE Fig. 19: nos. 330–336; Pls. 6: nos. 330–336, 11: nos. 335 330–332 are three rim fragments of cups with inner d. 60–65 mm. Only one of them has abend below the rim (332), otherwise typical for these cups. 330 is hard fired with asharp and brittle sherd, with dull surfaces, the outer– dark reddish grey (2.5YR 4/1), the inner– reddish brown (2.5 YR 4/4). The handle is attached directly to the rim, it is 11 × 8 mm in section. 331 and 332 both have dull surfaces, 331 is similar in colour to 330, slightly more greyish, while 332 has aweak red (2.5YR 4/2) outer surface and red inner surface (10R 4/6). These are all of the Marabini Moevs form LXVIII, dated from the mid-1st c. to the late 2nd c. AD (1973, no. 431, pls. 46 and 85). 333 is amore rounded and thickened rim of acup, with inner d. 90 mm. It is slightly lighter in colour, with areddish brown outer surface (2.5YR 4/3) and light red (2.5YR 6/6) inner surface. No direct parallels have been found. 334 is aflat base of acup with avitrified outer surface of avery dark grey colour (5YR 3/1); the base outer d. is 50 mm. 335 is aone -handled trefoil‐mouthed jug. The widest rim diameter is 45 mm; the handle section is 17 × 13 mm. The surface colour is the same as for the cup 331– outer dark reddish grey (2.5YR 4/1), inner is reddish brown (2.5 YR 4/4). 336 is ahandle of alid, with outer d. 35 mm. The upper part of the lid bears string mark from cutting off the wheel, combined with parallel shallow lines, perhaps from smoothing. It features similar characteristics as the above -mentioned cups and ajug, the fabric is very dense, very fine, of ared colour (2.5YR 5/6). The surface is light brownish grey (2.5Y 6/2). MISCELLANEOUS FINE WARES Under miscellaneous fine wares are grouped fragments whose fabric is different from the established wares described above and their closer classification is unsecure or unknown. Some fragments might be put together into smaller groups based on their ware with some possible references to their origin (337–339, 340–341), others are individually described, and their possible identification left to the reader (342–348). 69FINE TABLE WARE Regarding the shape and fabric, Iwould assume sherds 337–339, 340–341, 343, 344, 345 and 346 are of imported vessels while 342 has ashape known from Thrace and Moesia Inferior, which might point to its regional production. Of apeculiar shape are the two bases 347 and 348 of one vessel, which are un -slipped (or perhaps the slip did not reach to the base) and unevenly fired. The repetitive engraving made before firing is strange, it could be connected to the vessels’ specific (religious or cult?) function. CATALOGUE OF MISCELLANEOUS FINE WARES Figs. 19–20: nos. 337–348; Pls. 6: nos. 337–345, 11: no. 339 337–339 are rims of flanged bowls, similar to the Fine red -slipped ware flanged bowls of regional production, however their fabric and shape differ. They have extremely fine fabric, of reddish yellow colour (5YR 6/8) and ared slip (2.5YR 5/8). 337 is fully slipped outside, sparsely inside, where the slip has aslight metallic lustre; 338 is very worn outside, where the slip is preserved only in the engraved line below the rim, inside the slip is only slightly worn, continuous; 339 is fully slipped from both sides. Additionally, each sherd has aslightly different shape. 337 is the biggest vessel, with inner rim d. 140 mm, straight walls and pronounced flange; 338 has slightly flaring walls with the rim d. 110 mm and with apronounced incision below the lip; 339 has straight walls, thickened lip with asmall undercut, the inner rim d. is 90 mm. The most representative individual from this group is 337 with ashape common for several different production areas, mostly of eastern origin, cf. Eastern sigillata A(Hayes 1985, tav. V:7–9), Eastern sigillata B (Hayes 1985, tav. XV:1; 2008, fig. 11:310) or Knidian production (Hayes 2008, fig. 52:1620); also, we may find similar shapes, although adifferent fabric, in the Italian production (Hayes 2008, figs. 16–17). 340–341 are bowls with an out -turned concave rim. The rim d. of both vessels is very different, 150 mm and 250 mm inside. 340 has areddish yellow fabric (5YR 6/8) and good quality red slip (2.5YR 5/8). Inside, the slip is continuous, outside, it ends below the flange. In adirect light the slip has aslight metallic lustre. The fabric is extremely fine, with 5% of pores. 341 features the same fabric and slip characteristics as the above -described sherd, however, the slip is fully continuous also outside; the concave rim is decorated with incised lines. The closest parallel in shape is represented by the so -called Colour coated ware,35 in Moesia Superior commonly found along the Roman LIMES in the Traianic layers (Cvjetićanin 2004, 123; tab.IV). Cvjetićanin emphasises the ware connection to amilitary environment. 342 is by the shape similar to the Fine red -slipped ware juglets (196–201) with awide ring on the rim. In this case, the ring is however placed directly on the lip of the vessel in the form of adisk. The inner rim d. is 29 mm. The biggest difference is however the fabric, which is very dense with no pores, with apredominant amount of tiny white particles and common dark pellets. The colour is uniformly brown (7.5YR 5/4). The surface is not slipped, but it seems smoothed. Parallels to the shape might be found in the publication of Avramova, where it is classed together with the above -mentioned Fine red -slipped ware juglets, although under the Type 1, dated to the 2nd–3rd c. AD (Avramova 2005, Тип 1). 35 Cvjetićanin described this as fine red -slipped ware with high quality coating made in all shades of red or orange to dark brown or reddish -brown, highly burnished or with intensive metallic glitter (Cvjetićanin 2004, 123). 70 THE YURTA-STROYNO ARCHAEOLOGICAL PROJECT 343 is false ring foot with an inner d. 90 mm, slipped from both sides, with three stamped leave -like motifs of the same shape. The fabric is red (2.5YR 5/8), the slip is light red (2.5YR 6/8). There are about 10% of inclusions 0.3–0.5 mm big, common is quartz and different sizes of silver mica flakes, up to 1 mm big. 344 is the middle part of abase, slipped only inside, with two imprinted palmettes from the same stamp. The base is not complete, but its inner ring d. is about 100 mm. The slip is light red (2.5YR 6/8), so is the fabric colour; the inner surface is smoothed. The fabric is very fine, predominant are tiny little flakes of asilver mica, especially visible on the un -slipped surface. There are two more sherds in the assemblage bearing apalmette branch stamp, both very fragmented. Similar stamps are published from Villa Armira, dated from the 2nd to 4th c. AD (Kabakchieva 1986, обр. 7). Stamps of apalmette branch are popular on the Late Antique pottery, as they are on Phocaean red -slipped ware (Hayes 1972, fig. 72; 2008, pl. 64) and, especially, on the African red -slipped ware dated to the 4th–5th c. AD (Hayes 1972, figs. 38–39; 2008, pls. 53–55, 57–58). 345 is aring foot with an inner d. 80 mm, slipped from the inside, un -slipped from the outside. The stamp (amotif) imprinted in the middle is unidentifiable. It has apink to reddish yellow fabric (5YR 8/6– 5YR 7/6) and alight red slip (2.5YR 7/8). 346 is avery low flat base with asmall foot attached to the bottom, the inner d. is 140 mm. Around the inner surface runs one incised line. There are no such bases in the assemblage. The sherd is worn, but it was originally covered from both sides by slip. The fabric is very fine, of apink colour (7.5YR 7/4) with tiny flakes of silver mica; the slip is light red (2.5YR 6/8). 347–348 are two pieces of asingle base with an inner d. 100 mm. The base has apeculiar shape, which is unique in the assemblage. The sherd is unevenly fired, of yellow colour (10YR 7/6) with agrey core, there is no slip. The two pieces preserve adepiction resembling the lower parts of three Greek letters: ‘X’ (chi) running around the lower part of the base. The motif was engraved with athicker stick before firing. 71 Wheel made cooking ware The main body of the coarse cooking ware is represented by the wheel -made vessels used for food preparation, which were produced to withstand ahigh temperature and heat changes, either directly placed over afire, or standing by it. Consequently, the fabric is coarse, sandy and its colour might have many different shades of dark (-red, -brown, -grey). The sherds are commonly burned on the outside, especially around the base. Open vessels also feature burning marks on the upper part of the body and below the rim. In terms of proportions, in our assemblage vessels of aclosed shape are the most common, with amuch lower number of open shape vessels. Aseries of lids made in wide ranges of sizes accompany the vessels. The coarse cooking ware from Yurta -Stroyno is mostly represented by cooking pots of aclosed shape (361–407, 435, 443–444), much less by open to closed shape casseroles (349–357, 439), and open shape frying pans (358–360, 438). Many forms are of the Late Hellenistic tradition, such as the casseroles, frying pans and pots with arounded body and cylindrical neck– the stewing pots (400–407). Pre -Roman predecessors might also be expected for the pots with an s -shaped rim (389–392). The cooking ware from Yurta -Stroyno is represented by two types of fabric, the Coarse cooking ware, and the Golden mica ware. The Coarse cooking ware is the main coarse ware of the site (98.5% of all the material); and exists in two sub -variants, finer and coarser. The main fabric composition is the same, however, it differs in coarseness and sorting of individual sherds. We may presume aregional origin of this ware, as many of its forms were produced in Thrace and Moesia Inferior. The Golden mica ware is much less represented (1.5% of all the material) and includes avariable set of finds, featuring two groups of vessels. The first group consists of three unique forms (435–437) without any parallels among the Coarse cooking ware; while the second group might find similar / the same shapes among the Coarse cooking ware (438–441). For now, the provenance of this ware is not clear, although there are some hints suggesting an Aegean area origin, with some of the sherds possibly from Phocaea (438–439). COARSE COOKING WARE INTRODUCTION Production of the Coarse cooking ware is attested both in Thrace and Moesia Inferior, even at the same pottery production centres where the Fine and Common red -slipped wares were produced (Tab.1). 36 The coarse cooking ware seems to have been produced in smaller quantities compared to the fine table ware, only at the Hotnitsa production centre, in Moesia Inferior, it is presumed the coarse cooking ware was the dominant product (Sultov 1969; Kabakchieva– Sultova– Vladkova 1988, 45). 36 An exception is the production centre at Leshnitsa (Ivanova 2003, 58), where coarse ware was not found; and the site of Karavelovo in Shumen District, from where only the fine red -slipped ware was published, however, from the text it is not clear if the author was only interested in the red- -slipped table ware, or, the coarse cooking ware was not attested at the centre at all. 78 THE YURTA-STROYNO ARCHAEOLOGICAL PROJECT 2000, 65; Tip 1/129); and in Sirmium, dated from the 2nd to 4th c. AD (Brukner 1981, 107; tab.122, Tip 28). For Sadovets finds see Kuzmanov (1992, Taf. 92–93). 382–384 are three fragments put into one group on the bases of asmall inner rim d. 90–95 mm and the body decorated with horizontal ribbing on the upper part, which is not common for the other fragments. The handle is banded, ribbed twice from the upper part, with sections of 27 × 12 mm (382) and 23 × 9 mm (384). Pots with two or three ribbed horizontal lines and no handles have along tradition in Dacia during the first three centuries AD, and akiln site producing (besides other forms) these pots with aribbed body is known from Valea Morilor (near Tulcea in Dobrudzha), active in the 4th c. AD (Baumann 1996, 46; fig. 4:4, Type II). Sherds 383–384 have arim shape comparable to the pot published from Karanovo, dated to the mid-3rd c.– beginning of the 4th c. AD (Borisov 2013, таб. I:2); asimilar shape, with one handle and aribbed body, might also be found at villa Kralev Dol, dated to the end of the 4th c. AD (Najdenova 1985, таб. 41:149). For the Sadovets finds see Kuzmanov (1992, Taf. 96:11). 385–388 are four pot fragments with ashort out -turned hooked rim directly connected to the rounded body, without aneck. The missing neck is adistinctive division from other kinds of pots with the same rim profile, but, with astraight neck (cf. Klenina 2006, 113–114; Горшки Тип 22– known e.g. from Novae, Iatrus, Nicopolis ad Istrum or Sadovets); all dated solely to the Late Antiquity. From our assemblage, only one pot has ahandle, with asection 24 × 9 mm (385). Based on the parallels from Novae and Iatrus, the pots should have two handles, directly connected to the rim. According to the further description, the body is round, sometimes grooved in the upper part, with aflat, slightly concave base (Biernacki– Klenina 2014, 152; Böttger 1978, 30). 385–386, with sharper edges, relate to the shapes known e.g. from Hierapolis (Anatolia), where they represent the most popular Late Antique cooking ware, which was produced locally (although in awide area),38 from ca. the 5th c. to 7th c. AD (Cottica 2005, 657; 4:1–4). Opaiţ (2004, 46) has asimilar chronological classification for apot from Ibida (Scythia), dated from the second half of the 5th to the 6th c. AD (‘local pots type IV’). He also suggests this is alocal imitation of pots produced in the Aegean (and found e.g. at Chios or the Yassi Ada shipwreck). The same shape is also known from Novae– dated to the 5th– 6th c. AD (Biernacki– Klenina 2014, 152; fig. 3:2). The Late Antique dating of these pots might also be confirmed by Hayes, who notes, these pots are known in Thrace and Constantinople from layers of the 6th c.– early 7th c. AD (Hayes 1992, 158). 387–388, with more rounded edges, seem to be dated the same as the previous ones, with agood example being published from Iatrus (Böttger 1982, Taf. 48:595, Töpfe Typ VII, Period D), known already by the 5th c. AD (Period C), while being acharacteristic shape for the 6th c. AD, when their dimensions are supposed to shrink (Böttger 1978, 29–30). 389–392 are groups of twos pots. The fragments have an s -shaped rim with either rounded (389–390) or sharp (391–392) edges, the latter one with asmall depression on the outer lip. The sherds are very fragmented, and the diameters of three out of four are not possible to measure precisely, only within arange. The only measurable sherd (390) gives us apossible standard for the rim diameter– 160 mm inside; no handles were preserved. The earliest parallels come from Novae (Gencheva 2002, 32; таб. VI:7–8, таб. VII:1– TypeI.2.3. Гърнета сизтънени устия). Gencheva sees an Italian origin of these pots, as they 38 In the article not further specified. 79WHEEL MADE COOKING WARE were found there in the contexts of the end of the 1st c. BC until the mid-1st c. AD (Gencheva 2002, 32; Santrot – Santrot 1995, 194; fig. 63:524). Pots of this shape might, however, also be found later, e.g. at the Villa Armira in Ivaylovgrad, where they are dated from the 3rd c. to 4th c. AD (Kabakchieva 1986, 28–29, Гърнета Тип 2; таб. 42:486);39 or from awider area, e.g. from Zagreb in Croatia, in the context of the 2 nd c. to 4 th c. AD (Brukner 1981, 107; tab.120:109) and Singidunum in Serbia, dated from the end of the 3rd c. to the beginning of the 5th c. AD (Nikolić -Đordević 2000, 66; Tip II/1 and Tip II/2). For our area, we could best associate the fragments with the pots known and published from the Sliven District (Borisov 1988, 92–93; рис 1, Горшки Тип 1–2). Borisov’sType 1 perfectly fits our 389–390, and his Type 2 our 391–392. He notes, these two types are frequently being found together in Thrace, in the contexts of the midto 2nd half of the 4th c. AD. Pots of the same shape as 389–390 were produced in Karanovo from the mid-3rd c. to the beginning of the 4th c. AD (Borisov 2013, таб. I:6–7). 393 is another pot with an out -turned s -shaped rim, rounded lip from the outside and more pronounced inner depression with inner rim d. 130 mm. The body part suggests it has amore rounded form than the sherds discussed above, with amore distinctively offset rim. Nevertheless, such ashape is often grouped together with the above -mentioned pots (389–392) (see Falkner 1999, 67; fig. 9.7:103–106; Böttger 1982, Taf. 45:84–85, Typ I– Period A). For the area of Thrace, we may consequently propose achronological classification from the mid-3rd c. to the 4th c. AD. 394 is aglobular pot with athick body sherd, straight neck and triangular rim of inner d. 90 mm. No exact parallels have been found, the closest in appearance is the following sherd 395. 395 is arounded pot with araised neck, out -turned rim with an outer hooked lip of inner d. 100 mm. This kind of shape has adirect parallel in the material from the Roman vicus near Gorsko Ablanovo, where it is dated, with areference to the Dacian finds, to the beginning of the 3rd c. AD (Rusev– Rusev– Vrbanov 2015, 690; Гърнета Тип II; таб. XVII:165; Popilian 1979, 89). The shape also resembles Tip II/5 from Singidunum dated from the 3rd c. to mid-4th c. AD (Nikolić -Đorđević 2000, 67–68) and Brukner Tip 17, dated to the 4th c. AD (Brukner 1981, 106; T.117:90). 396 is apot with astraight neck and out -turned thickened rim of inner d. 155 mm, which has one incised line on the upper body. This fragment has two main parallels from the archaeological contexts. The first one is from Nicopolis ad Istrum, dated into the range of the mid-3rd c. and mid-5th c. AD (Falkner 1999, 83; fig. 9.41:846–847). According to Falkner, this pot is of local fabric, but was not produced in Hotnitsa, Butovo or Pavlikeni– Varbovski livadi. Other such pots were found in Aegyssus in the contexts of the 2nd c. to mid-3rd c. AD (Nuţu– Stanc 2017, 616; 2:1–2 pots of type 1). They have aglobular body, either aflat or concave base. Production of such pots during the 2nd–4th c. AD is attested regionally both in Thrace and Moesia Inferior, as in Karanovo (Borisov 2013, таб. II:10) and Durostorum (Bâltâc 2018, fig. 9:4). These pots often have arelief rib below the rim, they are richly decorated on the upper body part with incisions, and they have two handles. 39 Kabakchieva notes that some of the pots are supposed to have handles attached to the rim. 80 THE YURTA-STROYNO ARCHAEOLOGICAL PROJECT 397 is apot sherd similar in shape and rim d. (140 mm) to the previous one, however the outer lip is not that rounded, and the incised decoration is missing (at least on the preserved part). This shape has adirect parallel in the material from the Roman vicus near Gorsko Ablanovo, with areference to the Dacian finds, dated into the range of the 2nd c. to mid-4th c. AD, with apeak at the beginning of the 3rd c. AD (Rusev– Rusev– Vrbanov 2015, 690; Гърнета Тип I; таб. XVI:157; Popilian 1979, 67). We may also find aparallel in Thrace, as similar pots with the two handles placed directly at the rim were produced at Nova Nadezhda (Harizanov 2016, fig. 12: third pot from the top). 398 is apot sherd with afolded outer rim of inner d. 130 mm. These characteristics find parallels in the material from Novae, where they were sorted by Klenina under the Горшки Тип 25, pots with arim d. 120 mm (Klenina 2006, 114). These pots are common in Novae (as well as in the rest of Moesia Prima and Secunda) from the end of the 3rd c. to the first half of the 5th c. AD (Klenina 2006, 114). 399 is apot with rim of aspecific shape– apronounced rib encircling the inner part of the lip, perhaps for accommodating the lid. The rim’sinner d. is 160 mm, the body sherd is about 10 mm thick. Agood parallel might be found at the Karanovo production site, in apot of the same shape decorated on the upper part of the body with rouletting (Borisov 2013, 314; таб. IV:2). 400–407 are eight pots with arounded body and high cylindrical neck, either slightly inclined inwards (400–401), outwards (405–407), or straight (402–404). The rim shape varies between triangular and rounded. The inner diameter ranges from 100 to 150 mm, with one wider rim sherd of 170 mm (403). The preserved fragments are not grooved or in any other way decorated; no handles, or handle attachments, were found. Based on the parallels, these pots from the Roman Imperial period had two handles (cf. Borisov 2013; таб. IV:8–10); while the late Republican / late Hellenistic prototypes had one handle attached directly on the rim and another one fully placed on the upper body (see Robinson 1959, pl. 3:F84–85). Vessel forms of such ashape seem to have early roots, reaching back to the Late Hellenistic period, where more comparable material might be found. Good examples are the late 1st c. BC pots from the Athenian Agora (Robinson 1959, pl. 3:F83–85), with acylindrical rim and rounded body, likely modelled on the Late Hellenistic stew pots (cf. Edwards 1975, 122; pl. 27; Hayes 1991, 78; 28:W11.61; 29; Santrot – Santrot 1995, 224; figs. 58–59). Regarding Roman Thrace, these pots were produced in Karanovo during the Roman Imperial period (Borisov 2013, таб. IV:8–10; to 400 also similar таб. IV:11). Their forms, however, seem to be uncommon in the pottery deposits known from the Balkans, where very little comparable material might be found. Close in shape (especially to 405–407), are finds published from Oescus, dated to the early Roman contexts of the 1st c. AD (Kabakchieva 2000, таб. XVIII:74–75). The two fragments from Oescus are however painted (Рисувана керамика). The other examples are from Stobi (Anderson -Stojanović 1992, 134–135 + plates below); either dated to the early Roman period (the 1st c.– mid-2nd c. AD) cf. Anderson -Stojanović 1992, pl. 134:1156–1157 with 405–407; or to the middle Roman period (mid-2nd c.– 3rd c. AD) cf. Anderson -Stojanović 1992, pl. 137:1183 and pl. 138:1192 with 400–401 and 405. Based on these comparisons, they might be dated to the 1st–3rd/4th c. AD. 408–412 is arepresentative collection of the most common bases attributed to the pots, although 411 likely belongs to afrying pan. Statistically, 46 coarse cooking ware bases of pots were found in the Rooms A, B and C, with their outer d. ranging from 60 to 170 mm, with 70 81WHEEL MADE COOKING WARE and 80 mm being the most common size (22 sherds out of 46). The majority (41 pcs.) of the bases were flat (e.g. 408); much fewer (3 pcs.) were flat splaying (409); and rare were other shapes such as the flat base with straight walls (410), or with amoulded base (412). 413–433, in total 44 wheel -made coarse ware lids were found at the site, with 21 fragments presented here (18 rims and 3 handles). The rim inner diameter varies from 160 to 350 mm, with the highest number of lids in the range of 200–250 mm (16 rims out of 21). 43% of the lids are of Coarse cooking ware fabric, 37% of the finer and 17% of the coarser fabric. The finer version of the Coarse cooking ware fabric is connected solely to the lids (Pls. 7:422, 11:420), likely made on purpose, as they were not directly exposed to fire, and they did not need to have the same thermal resistance ability as the pots– which were therefore coarser. The rims of the lids are simple, either straight, rounded, or thickened at the end– both from above and below; some might have aslightly hooked rim (e.g. 413 and 415). Despite ahigh fragmentation we may notice that some were more arched (e.g. 414) than the others. Such afeature might be connected to the different types of vessels these lids were covering, and / or to different ways of food preparation (Opaiţ 2004, 57). The majority of the lids are burned on the rim from the inside and / or from the outside, while the rest of the body keeps its original colour (commonly areddish yellow or yellowish red). The upper lid handles might have avariety of diameters, in the four examples we have preserved (three shown here, 431–433), it ranges from 36 to 66 mm. One of them (433) has asecondarily drilled hole in the middle of the handle (d. 16 mm). This is not an isolated case in the Roman world, and it has been suggested, the holes were made intentionally to release steam during cooking (Nuţu– Stanc 2017, 618). Indeed, this lid handle is larger than the rest, with athicker sherd, made to cover abig size pot or casserole. The Late Antiquity lids (5th–6th c. AD) are often wider, flattened / forked, at the end (cf. Böttger 1982, Taf. 49:217–514; Borisov 1988, рис. 15; Kuzmanov 1992, Taf. 108–109; Kuzmanov 2009, таб. XX:198–200, XXI:201–204; Kuzmanov– Grudev 2013, таб. XVII; etc.); while Roman Imperial period lids include simpler forms like ours, dated to the contexts of the 2nd–4th c. AD (cf. Sultov 1985, 86; tab. XLIV:2–3; Kabakchieva 1986, таб. 43:500, 503; Borisov 2013, таб. 10; Klenina 2006, 119; Тип 2; etc.). Consequently, we may incline to date them all to the Roman Imperial period. The lid handles seem to keep the same shapes during all the Roman– Late Antique periods, consequently, they are not chronologically sensitive. 434 is awheel -made fenestrated stand (pyraunos). It is the only preserved fragment of such avessel, which had very big dimensions, as the body sherd is only slightly curving. The ‘window’ was cut from the outside inwards, leaving extra clay inside, the opening has the shape of arectangle, with rounded edges. Asimilar stand was found in Kabyle, dated to the Roman Imperial period (Dimitrova 1982, таб. IX:a). GOLDEN MICA WARE INTRODUCTION The Golden mica ware is adesignation reflecting the main characteristics of the included sherds, which are inclusions of golden mica flakes in the fabric which makes it very distinguishable from the Coarse cooking wares. Fabric with golden mica was noted by Hayes on some frying pans he processed in Knossos, and for which he expected an Aegean provenance 82 THE YURTA-STROYNO ARCHAEOLOGICAL PROJECT (Hayes 1983, 107). Since this inclusion is not common across our wares, we may anticipate aforeign origin of this ware as well. In theory, we could divide it into two groups of thicker (435–437, 438? 441?) and thinner sherds (439–440), however, the scarcity of the material, limited to eight diagnostic sherds and several body fragments, is not sufficient for amore detailed division. It is, however, good to bear in mind, we may be dealing with two different wares of asimilar distinguishable feature. For the fragments of the thick body sherd (ca. 10 mm) and of aunique shape (435–437) only afew relevant shape parallels were found, both in Moesia Inferior, dated to the Roman Imperial period. Frying pan 438 also has athicker body, but it is of very common shape. Casserole 439 has athin sherd and acommon shape. For these two, Phoacean provenance in the 1st–3rd c. AD could be anticipated based on the shape and the fabric similarities. The base (440) has aneutral shape which does not allow for any closer classification; the lid (441) is thicker than is common for the lids, it could be, in theory, related to the series of the vessels with thicker body sherd 435–438. WARE DESCRIPTION Golden mica ware relates to asmall series of coarse cooking ware vessels of characteristic fabric with golden mica flakes,40 which are especially visible on the surface. The flakes have different sizes, from tiny to ca. 4 mm big, they shine out distinctly from the surface, which is otherwise red -brown or burned to black. It is more visible in the fabric of the thicker vessels (435–438). In section, the most common inclusion is quartz, pyroxene, and the golden mica. The fabric sorting is fair (3), there is about 20% to 30% of inclusions, and ca. 10% of pores. All the open vessels are extensively burned from the outside; the closed shape pot 435 and the casserole 438 are only slightly burned on the rim and ahandle; the lid and the base are slightly burned as well on the lip / bottom. The fabric colour is brown to red, it will be individually described for each vessel in the following catalogue. CHRONOLOGY For chronology see individual sherds. CATALOGUE OF THE GOLDEN MICA WARE Fig. 26: nos. 435–441; Pls. 8: nos. 435–439, 11: nos. 435–438 435 is alarge pot with one preserved handle with asection of 34 × 17 mm, and inner rim d. 170 mm (Pls. 8, 11). It is unevenly fired, with agrey core and ared fabric (2.5YR 5/6). Pots with asimilarly flaring rim might be found in the Roman vicus near Gorsko Ablanovo (Rusev– Rusev– Vrbanov 2015, 690; Гърнета Тип III; таб. XVIII:185), dated to the 2nd–4th c. AD. 436 is an open deep bowl (?) without handles, of inner rim d. 200 mm (Pls. 8, 11). Its outer margin and surface are burned to black; the inner margin and the outer surface are strong brown (7.5 YR 5/4). From all the vessels with athick body sherd (435–438) it has the biggest amount of the golden mica. No exact parallels have been found. 40 The mineralogical composition of the fabric is more complicated and it will be thoroughly described later, for now, Iuse this term for the sake of simplicity and the description of the in hand specimen observation. It relates to small flakes in the fabric which, in the direct sun, shine with agolden tint. 83WHEEL MADE COOKING WARE 437 is an open shape bowl (frying pan?) with aledge for alid and an inner rim d. 280 mm (Pls. 8, 11). The outer margin and surface are burned to black; the inner margin and surface are brown (7.5YR 5/3). Such bowls were produced in Histria during the 2nd–3rd c. AD (Iliescu– Botiş 2018, fig. 5:1). They are also known from Nicopolis ad Istrum as bowls with aflat base and arim d. 240 mm (Falkner 1999, 70; fig. 9.11:176). They were produced from the local clay (Grey coarse ware 1), which includes alittle mica, and dated by finding context to the range of the mid-3rd c.– mid-5th c. AD. 438 belongs among the flat frying pans (cf. 358–360). It has an inner rim d. 190 mm and outer base d. 170 mm (Pls. 8, 11). The outer margin and the surface are burned to black; the inner margin and surface are reddish yellow (5YR 6/6). Regional morphological parallels might be found in Nicopolis ad Istrum dated to the 2nd–4th c AD (Falkner 1999, 70; fig. 9.11:177– of the same diameter), however, there is no (note of) golden mica in the fabric; other parallels come from Amphipolis, dated from the 1st c. to 4th c. AD (Malamidou 2005, fig. 94:1427) and Villa Armira, dated from the 2nd till the 4th c. AD (Kabakchieva 1986, 28; таб. 41:464); again both of these have no information about golden mica inclusions in the fabric. Similar pans were also produced in Hotnitsa and Pavlikeni– Varbovski livadi (Sultov 1985, 84; tab. XLII/4, Dishes Type 3) and Butovo (Sultov 1976, 110; the cult vessel) during the 2 nd and 3 rd c. AD. Consequently, we may expect the form to be most popular in regional production from the 2nd to 3rd c. AD, produced possibly until the 4th c. AD. The specific fabric might however point to an imported character of this vessel as similar shapes are also known from the Mediterranean area. Putting together the shape and the golden mica fabric, we may find the closest parallels in the Phoacean cooking ware, common from the 1st till 3rd c. AD (cf. Tekkök -Biçken 1996, 107; fig. 62:D47; Heath– Tekkök eds. 2006–2009, Roman cook ware: 8–11). 439 is acasserole (cf. 349–357), which has athin sherd, inner rim d. 185 mm and ahandle section of 19 × 10 mm (Pl. 8). It has areddish yellow (7.5YR 6/4) surface with yellowish red core (5YR 5/6). The shape is more closed, in contrast to the other casseroles from the site. Regarding this feature, it resembles the Aegean cooking ware recognized by Hayes in Knossos dated to the 1st/2nd–3rd c. AD (Hayes 1983, 105; Type 2). Aclose parallel might be found in the Phoacean cooking ware of the same fabric colour, typical for containing golden mica, dated to the 1st–3rd c. AD (Heath– Tekkök eds. 2006–2009, Roman cook ware: 5). 440 is aflat splaying base with outer d. 70 mm. The fabric is light red (2.5YR 6/8), outside it is coloured to patchy grey from the fire. The base might belong to asmaller size pot. 441 is alid with irregular rim, which does not allow for aprecise measurement of the diameter, which is over 250 mm. The lid is quite thick, ca. 7 mm, and big, compared to the other Coarse cooking ware lids; otherwise, the rim profile is common. It is burned on the underside, the fabric is red (2.5 YR 5/6), so is the unburned surface (2.5YR 5/4). MISCELLANEOUS COARSE WARES CATALOGUE OF MISCELLANEOUS COARSE WARES Fig. 26: nos. 442–444; Pls. 8: no. 442, 11: no. 442 84 THE YURTA-STROYNO ARCHAEOLOGICAL PROJECT 442 is afrying pan with agrey sherd and surface, burned on the rim, which is of inner d. 190 mm; there is no surface coating (Pls. 8, 11). The fabric is well sorted (4), with inclusions up to 1 mm (Pl. 11:442). Predominant inclusions are quartz and soft white pellets, likely lime. In shape, it represents acommon Eastern Aegean type of cooking ware, widely spread along the Mediterranean, modelled on the Phocaean ware 41 (Reynolds 2010, 92). Both imported and local imitations might be found at archaeological sites e.g. in Argos (Abadie -Reynald 2005, 23). Agood example is also known from the Villa Dionysus at Knossos, with sherds of this type dated to the 2nd–3rd c. AD (Hayes 1983, fig. 9:104–109, Type 2), where their local production– with ared -brown coating inside– was recently confirmed (Bonettoetal. 2017, 729; fig. 5:8). Similar finds are also known from the Athenian Agora, from the mid-3rd c. AD– described as aflat bottom dish with no handles (Robinson 1959, 67; pl. 72:K89); from Stobi of the mid-2nd–3rd c. AD (Anderson -Stojanović 1992, Middle Roman Cooking Ware Form 1, 135; pl. 135:1164); Berenice, also of the 2nd–3rd c. AD (Riley 1979, fig.128:947), and from Amphipolis of acontext dated within the range of the 1st to 4th c. AD (Malamidou 2005, figs. 94:1428, 95:1433 and 1435). Production of similar looking frying pans of awell sorted fabric, grey colour, and no inner slip, was attested at the Karanovo production site, active from the mid-3rd c. to the beginning of the 4th c. AD (Borisov 2005, 137, обр. 12; Borisov 2013, 318, таб. 8). More of the vessel forms attested at Yurta -Stroyno might however find similarities with Karanovo products, all of them are of the Coarse cooking ware. Consequently, closer attribution of this sherd to its possible production centre is at this point impossible. 443–444 are two raised rims of globular pots, with the inner d. of 140 mm. These pots have very thin body sherds, which separates them from the main group of the Coarse cooking ware. Otherwise, the basic characteristics correspond, they are of coarse sandy fabric with agrey core and burned outer surfaces. They belong to the most common cooking pots of the Late Antiquity, dated from the 4th to the 6th c. AD– see finds from Sadovets (Kuzmanov 1992, 213; Taf. 73–79; Töpfe Typ 1); Gradishteto near Dichin (Kuzmanov 2009, 169; таб. 18:162–178; таб. 19:177, Тип V); Novae (Klenina 2006, 113–114, Тип 22); the Sliven area (Borisov 1988, 99–100; рис. 5, Тип 10); and Dodoparon (Tušlová 2019, fig. 7:19–23). 41 We may rule out the possible import from Phocaea, typical for golden mica inclusions (and apink ware) (Heath– Tekkök eds. 2006–2009, Roman cook ware). 85 Handmade cooking ware Handmade pottery is coarse ware of thicker walls (6–12 mm) with fairly to poorly sorted fabric, hackly -laminated fractions, and hard, but brittle, sherds (Pl. 9:448–473). The pots were fired at alower temperature, probably in apit or in simple kilns with little air regulation causing uneven firing. Consequently, the fabric colour ranges from red– brown– grey to black tints, which mutually intertwine. Acommon feature is the sandwich -like fracture with alighter -coloured margins and darker core (Pl. 12:459, 472, 473); there is no surface slip. In the Yurta -Stroyno assemblage, these vessels are represented only by closed shaped pots likely used for cooking and storing; and two lids. Other shapes are known from Bulgaria, such as bowls, cups and jugs; however, statistically, the pots make up to three quarters of all the handmade pottery processed from Bulgaria till 2013, making it the most represented form (Alexandrova 2013b, 62–71). Two dominant wares might be noticed at the settlement of Yurta -Stroyno, denominated as Granitic and Dioritic wares based on the most abundant inclusions.42 They are very distinctive already in the hand specimen, easy to divide into the appropriate wares. Pots of the Granitic ware slightly predominate (58%);43 their shape is also more variable, including two different shapes of apot; while finds of the Dioritic ware are represented only by one main form. The handmade pottery of the Roman period in Thrace follows alocal tradition of pottery making, already starting in the Late Iron Age.44 During this period, the main shapes of the vessels, together with the decoration, are formed, keeping their simple appearance for almost one millennium (from the 6th c. BC to ca. the 4th c. AD). The favourite form, both for the LIA and Roman period, being apot with straight or slightly curved walls and an extra applied relief band with imprinted fingers / incised lines, accompanied by horizontal handles applied directly on the upper body. During the Roman Imperial period, handmade pottery might be found in the settlement contexts as well as in necropolises. It is, typically, represented by asmaller number of finds than wheel made pottery, or by single pieces only. Regarding the settlements, handmade pottery might be found, e.g., in Oescus, dated to the 1st c. AD (Kabakchieva 2000, таб. XXI:93–95, XXII–XXIII); Novae, dated from the 1st c. AD (Gencheva 2002, таб. XXXIX–XLI); Villa Armira near Ivaylovgrad, dated from the 2nd c. to 4th c. AD (Kabakchieva 1986, таб. 45–46); or Poleto near Simitli (Straldzha Valley), dated from the 2nd c. to 3rd c. AD (Kulov 2007, обр. 11). Finds from burial mounds and pits come, e.g., from Velichkovo near Pazardzhik, dated from the 2nd c. to 4th c. AD (Gizdova 2005, таб. 5:3); Sredina near Dobrich, dated from the 2nd c. to 3rd c. AD (Torbatov 1992, таб. 6); Charda near Straldzha in Yambol District, dated from the 2nd c. to 4th c. AD (Alexandrova 2016, 102–105); Pet Mogili near Stara Zagora, dated from the 1st c. till the 4th c. AD (Ignatov 1996, таб. XIX:6); burial pits at Gledachevo, dated from the 1st c. till the 4th 42 Thin sections were made and preliminarily evaluated in cooperation with Silvia Amicone, Archaeometry Research Group, Eberhard Karls Universität Tübingen. Detailed results of the petrography will be presented in follow up studies. 43 n=49 diagnostic sherds. 44 For the LIA forms see, e.g., finds from Seuthopolis (e.g. Chichikova 1977; 1984); Kabyle (e.g. Handzhijska 2006); or Pistiros (e.g. Bouzek– Musil 2002). 86 THE YURTA-STROYNO ARCHAEOLOGICAL PROJECT c. AD (Alexandrova 2013b, 57–58); or from Drashan village near Vratsa, dated from the 2nd c. to the mid-4th c. AD (Mashov 1975, обр. 7). Given these examples we may demonstrate that handmade pottery is acommon find in the settlements and necropolises from the 1st c. till the 4th c. AD. On the other hand, very few, if any, finds come from later contexts. Several fragments dated to the first half of the 5th c. AD might be found in Nicopolis ad Nestum (Kuzmanov 1993, обр. 10:г); Iatrus (Conrad 2007);45 Transmarisca (Vagalinski 2002, 200:B); and Deultum (Alexandrova 2013b, nos. 744, 747–748, 754, 756). In Nicopolis ad Istrum (Falkner 1999, 65; fig. 9.1), handmade pottery was found across the contexts dated from the early Imperial Roman to Late Antique period (2nd c. AD– AD 600), Falkner does however wonder, if the younger material could be residual. Otherwise, the handmade pottery finds, from the well dated Late Antique sites / contexts, are extremely rare. Alexandrova made available several finds from Deultum, dated from the 5th to 6th c. AD (Alexandrova 2013b, nos. I-2/27–28; III/89; IV:101; 745–746;749–753, 755, II/1107–1109, II/1147). Similarly dated handmade pottery was also published from Scythia by Opaiţ (2004, 52–53; pl. 40), who associates these finds with anew migratory population coming from the north during the 5th–7th c. AD. Similarly, Alexandrova argues (2013b, 75), that the Late Antique finds from Deultum could be connected with adifferent population, as she does not see asimilarity between the Late Antique vessels and the ones of aThracian tradition.46 It seems, there is abreaking point in the regional handmade pottery production at the end of the 4th c. AD, or at the beginning / first half of the 5th c. AD, when the traditional shapes of the Thracian vessel forms decline in number and new shapes, of adifferent tradition, appear. Finds of the latter ones are, however, extremely scarce in Thrace. The morphological forms of the handmade pottery are not chronologically sensitive. Consequently, the vessel shapes represented in Yurta -Stroyno might all be dated to the time range of its production during the Roman Imperial period, stretching from the 1st c. till the 4 th c. / mid-5 th c. AD. The only exception might be some of the sherds with decorative patterns, for which Idid not find parallels in the Roman Imperial period material, such as the rim with two perforated holes below the lip (449), and the vertically applied strip of clay on the transition of the neck to the body part of apot with arounded body and an offset rim (476). These might just be lacking published parallels, although, with ahigher probability than for the others we may also assume, they could be of either pre -Roman,47 or, alternatively, of Late Antique origin. This possibility applies especially to the sherd 476, which also has adifferent fabric. 45 S. Conrad (2007, Abb. 40:1252 and 1253) also published several handmade sherds from contexts marked as D1 and D2 which are dated to the 6th c. AD. However, as he notes, these contexts are heavily disturbed. Consequently, as in the case of Nicopolis ad Istrum, Iprefer not to include them into the Late Antiquity finds, as they might have been residual. 46 Alexandrova, however, does not write exactly where she sees the differences between the products of the Thracian tradition and the Late Antique finds, which she considers as products of adifferent people; she only states that there is asimilarity with pottery produced by the German tribes. 47 Ahoard of 195 silver coins with terminus ante quem in 81/80 BC was found in 1961 about 1.5 km south -west of Yurta, at the site known as Sveti Ilija (Paunov 2013, 727). Additionally, some of the transport amphorae found at the site are of the Late Hellenistic tradition. More such finds point to the possibility of apre -Roman settlement established in the hinterland of Yurta -Stroyno already before the foundation of the Roman vicus. 87HANDMADE COOKING WARE GRANITIC WARE WERE DESCRIPTION The fabric of this ware is dominated by angular to sub -angular quartz and granitic inclusions. The sorting ranges from very poor (2) to fair (3), with the common size of quartz 1–2 mm, occasionally reaching up to 5 mm (Pls. 11:448–452, 12:455). There is quite adifference between the fine and the coarse fraction suggesting tempering by the quartz -based rock. The fabric further includes afew shiny -silver particles (silver mica?) and arare amount of round red- -brown pellets. We may also find rare to few pieces of dioritic inclusions, characteristic for the second fabric. Two sherd 458–459 also contain common amount of golden mica (Pl. 12:459 cut and surface). The majority of the sherds are poorly sorted with over 30% of inclusions, however, several of them have afiner fabric with alower amount of fairly sorted admixtures (446, 458), also including the two lids (456–457). The assemblage is too small for any meaningful conclusions, but we should mention here, that the same phenomenon of lids made of afiner fabric was previously noted regarding the lids of the Coarse cooking ware (420–423, 425, 427–428, 432). The surface seems to be smoothed, but no marks of instruments are visible. The fabric and the surface colour vary depending on the firing; one vessel might have different colour combinations and tints. The repetitive fabric colours are light red (2.5YR 6/8), red (2.5YR 5/6) and brown (7.5YR 5/3). CHRONOLOGY 1st – 4th c. AD / mid-5th c. AD. CATALOGUE OF THE GRANITIC WARE Fig. 27: nos. 445–459; Pls. 9: nos. 448, 459, 11: nos. 448–452,12: nos. 455–459 445–455 are pots of aclosed shape, rounded body, and an offset rim either inclined inwards (445–447, 449–450), straight (448), or slightly bent outwards in an s -shape (451–453). From the measurable rims, the inner d. ranges from 130 to 190 mm. Some rims, however, are preserved in afragmentary state and have an unmeasurable diameter (e.g. 450). For the two bodies with ahandle (454–455), the inner body diameter could only be approximated (120 and 140 mm). The handle section on the four preserved samples (451–452, 454–455) ranges from 12–15 × 30–33 mm; the handles are either placed directly on the rim (451–452) or on the upper body (454–455). Fragment 449 has aunique perforated decoration with no parallels among the Roman period material, although similar shapes of thicker sherds normally appear (e.g. Alexandrova 2013b, nos. III/81, 328, 345; etc.). Otherwise, some rims have asmall relief ridge on the outer surface (447–448, Pl. 9:448), others have alip shallowly grooved from the upper part (445–446). The decoration includes different patterns, such as engraved ‘leaves’ (446), waves (447) and arelief band (450 and 453). 456–457 are the only preserved handmade lids; both are of afiner fabric than the rest of the ware. 456 has an uneven rim, not permitting aproper measurement of its diameter, however it seems to be smaller, ca. of 90 mm or slightly bigger than that; it has acompletely black surface. 457 is, on the other hand, of larger dimensions with arim d. 290 mm; it has abrown fabric and fire -blackened inner surface. 94 THE YURTA-STROYNO ARCHAEOLOGICAL PROJECT centres, we may find similarities to the Erythraean fabric Awhich has many white calcareous inclusions and no mica (Bezeczky 2013, 73; nos. 105–109, 117, 122–123, 126). CATALOGUE OF THE DRESSEL 24 FAMILY WITH RED CLAY AND GREY SURFACE Fig. 29: nos. 477–484; Pl. 12: nos. 478–484 477 Context: survey; trench: H13; sector: NE Part: lid; outer d. rim: 100 mm; EVE: 100%; outer d. handle: 25 mm Fabric: hard, dense, with very little pores, evenly fired Inclusions: 10%, very tiny (below 0.3 mm), predominantly sandy, well visible white inclusions Fabric colour: red (2.5YR 5/6; 2.5YR 5/8) Surface colour: light grey (5Y 7/2), pale brown (2.5Y 8/2) Classification: Dressel 24 family Area of production: Eastern Aegean (Erythrae?) Chronology: ca. 50–250 AD Probable content: mainly olive oil Capacity: ca. 75 l 478 Context: survey; trench: I12; sector: SW Part: rim; inner d.: 100 mm; EVE: 19% Fabric: hard, dense, with very little pores, evenly fired Inclusions: 10%, very tiny (below 0.3 mm), predominant sandy, well visible white inclusions Fabric colour: red (2.5YR 5/6; 2.5YR 5/8) Surface colour: light grey (5Y 7/2), pale brown (2.5Y 8/2) Classification: Dressel 24 family Area of production: Eastern Aegean (Erythrae?) Chronology: ca. 50–250 AD Probable content: mainly olive oil Capacity: ca. 75 l 479 Context: excavation; layer: SU001; trench: Rooms A, B, C Part: rim; inner d.: 130 mm (?); EVE: 7% Fabric: hard, dense, with very little pores, evenly fired Inclusions: 10%, very tiny (below 0.3 mm), predominant sandy, well visible white inclusions Fabric colour: red (2.5YR 5/6; 2.5YR 5/8) Surface colour: light grey (5Y 7/2), pale brown (2.5Y 8/2) Classification: Dressel 24 family Area of production: Eastern Aegean (Erythrae?) Chronology: ca. 50–250 AD Probable content: mainly olive oil Capacity: ca. 75 l 480 Context: excavation; layer: SU001; trench: 110E_115N; sector: S 95TRANSPORT AMPHORAE Part: rim; inner d.: 130 mm (?); EVE: 5% Fabric: hard, dense, with very little pores, unevenly fired Inclusions: 10%, very tiny (below 0.3 mm), predominantly sandy, well visible white inclusions Fabric colour: margin red (2.5YR 5/6; 2.5YR 5/8); grey core Surface colour: light grey (5Y 7/2), pale brown (2.5Y 8/2) Classification: Dressel 24 family Area of production: Eastern Aegean (Erythrae?) Chronology: ca. 50–250 AD Probable content: mainly olive oil Capacity: ca. 75 l 481 Context: excavation; layer: SU041; trench: 105E_105N; sector: SW Part: rim; inner d.: 110 mm; EVE: 12% Fabric: hard, dense, with very little pores, evenly fired Inclusions: 10%, very tiny (below 0.3 mm), predominantly sandy, well visible white inclusions Fabric colour: red (2.5YR 5/6; 2.5YR 5/8) Surface colour: same as the fabric colour Classification: Dressel 24 family Area of production: Eastern Aegean (Erythrae?) Chronology: ca. 50–250 AD Probable content: mainly olive oil Capacity: ca. 75 l 482 Context: excavation; layer: SU001; trench: Rooms A, B, C Part: rim; inner d.: 100 mm; EVE: 33% Fabric: very hard, dense, overfired Inclusions: 20%, normally up to 0.5 mm, with several bigger pcs. of white inclusion (up to 5 mm), voids after exploded lime Fabric colour: red (2.5YR 4/6) Surface colour: light grey (5Y 7/2), pale brown (2.5Y 8/2) Classification: Dressel 24 family Area of production: Eastern Aegean (Erythrae?) Chronology: ca. 50–250 AD Probable content: mainly olive oil Capacity: ca. 75 l 483 Context: excavation; layer: SU061; trench: 110E_100N; sector: NW Part: body near base; outer max. d.: 445 mm Fabric: hard, dense, with very little pores, evenly fired Inclusions: 10%, very tiny (below 0.3 mm), predominantly sandy, well visible white inclusions Fabric colour: red (2.5YR 5/6; 2.5YR 5/8) Surface colour: light grey (5Y 7/2), pale brown (2.5Y 8/2) Classification: Dressel 24 family Area of production: Eastern Aegean (Erythrae?) Chronology: ca. 50–250 AD 96 THE YURTA-STROYNO ARCHAEOLOGICAL PROJECT Probable content: mainly olive oil Capacity: ca. 75 l Note: inside the vessel are scratched vertical lines, likely from adipper extracting the content 484 Context: excavation; layer: levelling; trench: 100E_105N; sector: NE Part: base (toe); outer d.: 20 mm Fabric: hard, dense, with very little pores, evenly fired Inclusions: 10%, very tiny (below 0.3 mm), predominantly sandy, well visible white inclusions Fabric colour: red (2.5YR 5/6; 2.5YR 5/8) Surface colour: light grey (5Y 7/2), pale brown (2.5Y 8/2) Classification: Dressel 24 family Area of production: Eastern Aegean (Erythrae?) Chronology: ca. 50–250 AD Probable content: mainly olive oil Capacity: ca. 75 l DRESSEL 24 FAMILY WITH MICACEOUS FABRIC Five (+ three) fragments belong to this fabric group (485–492), which is characteristic for sandy inclusions, red pellets and, especially, amicaceous fabric. This group shows more variability than the other ones, regarding the fabric colour, proportion of inclusions, but also the vessel shape. What is, however, common for all the fragments, is the highly micaceous fabric, which is, from the known production centres, connected with Chios (e.g. Opaiţ– Tsaravopoulos 2011, 293). Comparing the fabric appearance in hand specimens of our amphorae with the published Chian samples, they are indeed similar, suggesting the possible area of their origin (e.g. compare pl. XIII/74 of Opaiț– Ionescu 2016 and 489 (Pl. 12); for more fabric examples see Opaiţ– Tsaravopoulos 2011 and Dobreva 2017, tav. XXXV and XXXVII). Twice two fragments feature amore pronounced shape similarity– 485–486 and 487–488. The inner diameter of the first three sherds ranges between 100 and 120 mm, while for the last one it cannot be precisely measured. Fragment 489 has aslightly different shape, with an almost straight outer wall and alow relief rib; while the last two rims, 490–491, differ morphologically the most from the others. The rim 490 has abigger diameter (140 mm inside) and is rather triangular, although it still has afunnel / cup -shaped rim. The rim 491 has aspecific shape deviating from the classical form of the Dressel 24 family, however, it might still be considered as its derivative form.50 Its fabric in hand specimen looks identical to 487 of this group. The last fragment, atoe 492, has the characteristic shape of the Dressel 24 family amphorae bases. CATALOGUE OF THE DRESSEL 24 FAMILY WITH MICACEOUS FABRIC Fig. 28: nos. 485–492; Pl. 12: nos. 486–492 485 Context: excavation; layer: levelling II; trench: 100E_105N; sector: NE Part: rim; inner d.: 100 mm; EVE: 14% 50 Classification of this sherd into the Dressel 24 family was suggested– independently of each other– by Andrei Opaiţ and Diana Dobreva. 97TRANSPORT AMPHORAE Fabric: hard, fairly sorted, evenly fired Inclusions: 20%, normally up to 0.5 mm, sandy, with common red pellets, tiny flakes of silver mica and few bigger pcs. (up to 1 mm) of white inclusions Fabric colour: light red (2.5YR 6/8) Surface colour: of the fabric colour, pink self -slip on random places (7.5YR 8/3) Classification: Dressel 24 family Area of production: Eastern Aegean (Chios?) Chronology: ca. 50–250 AD Probable content: mainly olive oil Capacity: ca. 75 l 486 Context: excavation; layer: FA07; trench: 100E_105N; sector: NW Part: rim; inner d.: 100 mm; EVE: 35% Fabric: hard, good sorting, evenly fired Inclusions: 10%, up to 0.5 mm, sandy, predominant white inclusions and tiny flakes of silver mica, few red pellets Fabric colour: light red (2.5YR 6/8) Surface colour: very pale brown (10YR 8/3), self -slip on both sides Classification: Dressel 24 family Area of production: Eastern Aegean (Chios?) Chronology: ca. 50–250 AD Probable content: mainly olive oil Capacity: ca. 75 l 487 Context: excavation; layer: levelling I; trench: 100E_105N; sector: NE Part: rim; inner d.: 120 mm; EVE: 10% Fabric: hard, well sorted, evenly fired Inclusions: 20%, sandy, predominant silver mica, common white inclusions, red pellets and few pieces of golden mica and quartz Fabric colour: core light red (2.5YR 6/8), margins pink (7.5YR 8/4) Surface colour: pink (7.5YR 8/4) Classification: Dressel 24 family Area of production: Eastern Aegean (Chios?) Chronology: ca. 50–250 AD Probable content: mainly olive oil Capacity: ca. 75 l 488 Context: survey; trench: H13; sector: NE Part: rim; inner d.: 100 mm (?); EVE: 7% Fabric: hard, good sorted, evenly fired Inclusions: 10%, up to 0.5 mm, sandy, few flakes of silver mica (visible only on the surface) Fabric colour: reddish yellow (5YR 6/6) Surface colour: of the fabric colour Classification: Dressel 24 family Area of production: Eastern Aegean (Chios?) 98 THE YURTA-STROYNO ARCHAEOLOGICAL PROJECT Chronology: ca. 50–250 AD Probable content: mainly olive oil Capacity: ca. 75 l Note: less silver mica than in the other sherds of this group; the rim diameter is unmeasurable, for the drawing it was set on the smallest range of the other rim fragments in this group 489 Context: excavation; layer: levelling II; trench: 100E_105N; sector: NE Part: rim; inner d.: 120 mm; EVE: 19% Fabric: hard, chalky surface (heavily eroded), good sorting, unevenly fired Inclusions: 20%, sandy, normally up to 0.3 mm, with random bigger pcs. up to 2 mm, predominant tiny flakes of silver mica, few red soft pellets (grog?) Fabric colour: margins very pale brown (10YR 7/3), core pink (5YR 7/4) Surface colour: same as the margins colour Classification: Dressel 24 family Area of production: Eastern Aegean (Chios?) Chronology: ca. 50–250 AD Probable content: mainly olive oil Capacity: ca. 75 l 490 Context: excavation; layer: SU032; trench: 100E_100N; sector: SW Part: rim; inner d.: 140 mm; EVE: 10% Fabric: hard, fairly sorted, evenly fired Inclusions: 20%, sandy, normally up to 0.5 mm, predominant lime and red rounded pellets (the later up to 2 mm), common tiny flakes of silver mica Fabric colour: reddish yellow (6YR 6/6) Surface colour: outer very pale brown (10YR 8/2), inner of the fabric colour Classification: Dressel 24 family Area of production: Eastern Aegean (Chios?) Chronology: ca. 50–250 AD Probable content: mainly olive oil Capacity: ca. 75 l 491 Context: survey; trench I12; sector: SW Part: rim, handle attachment; inner d.: 110 mm; EVE: 22% Fabric: hard, good sorted, evenly fired, micaceous Inclusions: 20%, up to 0.5 mm, predominant flakes of silver and gold mica, few red pellets Fabric colour: light red (2.5YR 6/6) Surface colour: inner surface of the fabric colour, outer closest to very pale brown (10YR 8/3) Classification: Dressel 24 family Area of production: Eastern Aegean (Chios?) Chronology: ca. 50–250 AD Probable content: mainly olive oil Capacity: ca. 75 l 99TRANSPORT AMPHORAE 492 Context: excavation; layer: levelling I; trench: 100E_105N; sector: NE Part: base (atoe); outer d.: 27 mm; EVE: 100% Fabric: good sorting, evenly fired Inclusions: 10%, normally up to 0.5 mm, predominant red pellets (rarely up to 1.5 mm) and silver mica, common white hard inclusions (quartz?) Fabric colour: core light red 2.5YR (7/8), margins reddish yellow (7.5YR 7/6) Surface colour: reddish yellow (7.5YR 7/6) Classification: Dressel 24 family Area of production: Eastern Aegean (Chios?) Chronology: ca. 50–250 AD Probable content: mainly olive oil Capacity: ca. 75 l DRESSEL 24 FAMILY WITH LIGHT FABRIC Three (+ one) rims belong to this group (493–496), which is characteristic for arather soft fabric with achalky surface, either of ayellow (10YR 8/6) or very pale brown (10YR 8/3) colour, with few inclusions visible at first sight (many more are, however, visible on closer inspection, as they are mostly light in colour and camouflaged well in the fabric). The sherd is evenly fired, the fabric is fairly sorted, with 10–20% inclusions normally up to 1 mm big, predominant are white inclusions and red pellets, common is quartz. The morphology of the rims differs. The first three fragments (493–495) have an inner d. ranging from 80 to 110 mm, and acharacteristic depression on the top of the outer rim which encircles the whole perimeter. With this specific feature, their shape resembles the amphorae Knossos 15 (cf. Auriemma– Quiri 2004, fig. 10:A). The last fragment (496) has adifferent shape than the others, with arim inner d. 120 mm and atriangularly shaped rib leaning inwards. This morphological feature resembles rims of amphorae Knossos 18 (cf. Auriemma– Quiri 2004, fig. 10:B), whose rim opening is however supposed to be bigger, between 190 and 240 mm (Dobreva 2017, 233). CATALOGUE OF THE DRESSEL 24 FAMILY WITH LIGHT FABRIC Fig. 29: nos. 493–496; Pl. 12: nos. 493–496 493 Context: excavation; layer: SU018; trench: 95E_105N; sector: SW Part: rim; inner d.: 110 mm; EVE: 25% Fabric: soft -hard, fairly sorted, chalky surface, evenly fired Inclusions: 10%, normally up to 1 mm, predominant white and red pellets; common quartz Fabric colour: very pale brown (10YR 8/3) Surface colour: of the fabric colour Classification: Dressel 24 family Area of production: Eastern Aegean / Aegean Chronology: ca. 50–250 AD Probable content: mainly olive oil Capacity: ca. 75 l 100 THE YURTA-STROYNO ARCHAEOLOGICAL PROJECT 494 Context: excavation; layer: SU027; trench: 90E_105N; sector: SE Part: rim; inner d.: 80 mm; EVE: 11% Fabric: soft -hard, fairly sorted, chalky surface, evenly fired Inclusions: 10%, normally up to 1 mm, predominant white and red pellets; common quartz Fabric colour: yellow (10YR 8/6) Surface colour: of the fabric colour Classification: Dressel 24 family Area of production: Eastern Aegean / Aegean Chronology: ca. 50–250 AD Probable content: mainly olive oil Capacity: ca. 75 l 495 Context: survey; trench: I09; sector: SE Part: rim; inner d.: 100 mm; EVE: 12% Fabric: soft -hard, fairly sorted, chalky surface, evenly fired Inclusions: 10%, normally up to 1 mm, predominant white and red pellets; common quartz Fabric colour: very pale brown (10YR 8/3) Surface colour: of the fabric colour Classification: Dressel 24 family Area of production: Eastern Aegean / Aegean Chronology: ca. 50–250 AD Probable content: mainly olive oil Capacity: ca. 75 l 496 Context: excavation; layer: SU006; trench: 100E_100N; sector: S Part: rim; inner d.: 120 mm; EVE: 10% Fabric: soft -hard, fairly sorted, chalky surface, evenly fired Inclusions: 20%, predominant white inclusions, red pellets and voids; common quartz Fabric colour: yellow (10YR 8/6) Surface colour: of the fabric colour Classification: Dressel 24 family Area of production: Eastern Aegean / Aegean Chronology: ca. 50–250 AD Probable content: mainly olive oil Capacity: ca. 75 l DRESSEL 24 FAMILY WITH NORMAL FABRIC The last fabric of the Dressel 24 family looks similar to the micaceous one, however, it is missing the key ingredient– silver mica. Sandy inclusions, quartz, lime and red pellets are characteristic. The fabric is pale / light brown and porous. Since there is no main characteristic, Icall it ‘normal fabric’, not having any specific feature to point out. The group contains three rims (497–499), with inner d. 100–140 mm, which are quite morphologically different. 101TRANSPORT AMPHORAE CATALOGUE OF THE DRESSEL 24 FAMILY WITH NORMAL FABRIC Fig. 30: nos. 497–499; Pls. 12–13: nos. 497–499 497 Context: excavation; layer: SU001; trench: Rooms A, B, C Part: rim; inner d.: 110 mm; EVE: 46% Fabric: hard, porous, good sorted, the thicker rim unevenly fired Inclusions: 10%, sandy, normally up to 0.3 mm, predominant lime, quartz and red pellets; random bigger white particles (up to 3 mm) well visible on the surface Fabric colour: pink (7.5YR 7/4) Surface colour: very pale brown (10YR 8/4) Classification: Dressel 24 family Area of production: Eastern Aegean / Aegean Chronology: ca. 50–250 AD Probable content: mainly olive oil Capacity: ca. 75 l 498 Context: excavation; layer: SU033; trench: 100E_105N; sector: SE Part: rim; inner d.: 140 mm; EVE: 7% Fabric: hard, good sorting, porous, unevenly fired Inclusions: 10%, sandy, normally up to 0.3 mm, predominant quartz, few red pellets Fabric colour: light brown (7.5YR 6/4) Surface colour: pale brown (2.5YR 8/2) Classification: Dressel 24 family Area of production: Eastern Aegean / Aegean Chronology: ca. 50–250 AD Probable content: mainly olive oil Capacity: ca. 75 l 499 Context: survey; trench: G12; sector: NE Part: rim; inner d.: 100 mm; EVE: 21% Fabric: hard, porous, evenly fired, inner surface eroded Inclusions: 10%, sandy, normally up to 0.3 mm, predominant quartz, few soft red pellets; random bigger white inclusions Fabric colour: strong brown (7.5YR 5/6) Surface colour: very pale brown (10YR 7/3) Classification: Dressel 24 family Area of production: Eastern Aegean / Aegean Chronology: ca. 50–250 AD Probable content: mainly olive oil Capacity: ca. 75 l 102 THE YURTA-STROYNO ARCHAEOLOGICAL PROJECT DRESSEL 24 FAMILY– UNCLASSED TOES The fabric of the two remaining toes is closest to the normal fabric, however, their colour is reddish, and the clay more dense than porous. Each of the sherds has further specifics. The toe 500 is very rich in big size particles of softer white minerals. Its shape is also similar to the toes of the Late Antique amphorae series– LRA 2 (cf. Bădescu 2012, pl. 1:10; Klenina 2013, 88; pис. 5/27). Consequently, we may also consider this toe to be of alater production (ca. beginning of the 4th c. to 5th c. AD). The base part over the toe 501, otherwise also similar to the normal fabric, is however missing the red pellets, characteristic for the normal fabric. Both these toes bear technological marks of amphorae production– the toe was attached to the bottom of the amphora separately, now creating adouble layer on the bottom with avisible division between the body and the toe. CATALOGUE OF THE DRESSEL 24 FAMILY– UNCLASSED TOES Fig. 30: nos. 500–501; Pl. 13: nos. 500–501 500 Context: excavation; layer: SU001; trench: Rooms A, B, C Part: base (atoe); outer d.: 26 mm; EVE: 100% Fabric: hard, poorly sorted, unevenly fired Inclusions: 30%, normally up to 2 mm, predominant softer white pellets, few red inclusions Fabric colour: core red (5R 5/8), margins reddish yellow (7.5YR 7/6) Surface colour: reddish yellow (7.5YR 7/6)– as are the margins Classification: Dressel 24 family Area of production: Eastern Aegean / Aegean Chronology: ca. 2nd–5th c. AD Probable content: mainly olive oil Capacity: ca. 75 l 501 Context: excavation; layer: SU008; trench: 100E_100N; sector: SW Part: body over the base / toe; d. base/attachment: 64 mm Fabric: hard, good sorting, evenly fired Inclusions: 10%, sandy, up to 0.5 mm, predominant white soft pellets and quartz Fabric colour: red (2.5YR 5/6) Surface colour: reddish yellow (5YR 7/6) Classification: Dressel 24 family Area of production: Eastern Aegean / Aegean Chronology: ca. 50–250 AD Probable content: mainly olive oil Capacity: ca. 75 l 103TRANSPORT AMPHORAE KAPITÄN II AMPHORAE The Kapitän II amphorae 51 are one of the most represented transport containers in the Roman world from the end of the 2nd c. to the beginning of the 5th c. AD (Opaiț– Ionescu 2016, 62), with the peak period of their production / distribution in the 3rd c. and 4th c. AD (Dyczek 2001, 143–144; Bezeczky 2013, 149). In Moesia Inferior, these are the predominant Aegean provenance amphorae of the 3rd c. AD (Opaiţ– Paraschiv 2013, 322). The Kapitän II amphorae might be found all over the Roman world (Dyczek 2001, 141; 2010, 994; Opaiț– Ionescu 2016, 62; etc.). In Moesia Inferior, this type is well -known from the Lower Danube and the western Black Sea coast, especially from Romanian Dobrudzha (for acomprehensive list of find places in the Lower Danube and western Black Sea see Dyczek 2001, 141–143 and Dobreva 2017, 240–241). The appearance of the Kapitän II amphorae in south -eastern Thrace seems to be rather scarce, with fragments published only from several centres on the Black Sea coast– Apollonia Pontica and Deultum (Dobreva 2017, 240). However, in her unpublished PhD thesis, Borislavova (2018) mentions other finds from Anchialos, Ainos, Nesebar, Plovdiv, Stara Zagora and Sofia. Regarding the quite high number of finds from Yurta -Stroyno, Iwould presume their scarcity in south -eastern Bulgaria / Thrace is caused by the state of publications rather than by their absence in the area. No production site has been found so far, although at least three different fabrics might be recognized pointing to several different production areas. Their locations have been most frequently suggested as being in the Aegean area, such as in the Ephesus region, perhaps also in Samos, Kos and / or Rhodes (e.g. Peacock– Williams 1986, 193; Bjelajac 1996, 41; Dyczek 2001, 141; Bezeczky 2013, 149; Dobreva 2017, 238); Reynolds (2010, 90) also proposed the place of origin as being located in the Black Sea area, near the Crimea.52 As the main content of the amphorae, it is widely accepted to be wine (Keay 1984, 137; Peacock– Williams 1986, 194; Bjelajac 1996, 41; Reynolds 2010, 90; Dyczek 2001, 143; Opaiț 2004, 13; etc.). Opaiţ and Paraschiv (2013, 320) even suggest high quality wine of Chian origin. The estimated vessel capacity ranges from ca. 9 litres (Opaiţ 2004, 13) up to 15 litres (Dyczek 2001, 140). The Kapitän II amphorae from Yurta -Stroyno are the second most represented in the assemblage. In total, nine diagnostic sherds were identified (502–510), including three bases, five rims and one characteristic body fragment. The rim inner d. ranges from 45 to 100 mm, the hollow feet d. is uniformly 60 mm inside. The morphological variations of this amphora type, especially visible on rims and bases, might be attributed to different production centres (e.g. Negru– Bǎdescu– Avram 2003, 209). Some changes in the form might also be attributed to adifferent chronology– it is commonly accepted that the volume (and so the size) starts decreasing in the 2nd c. AD (e.g. Bjelajac 1996, 41; Dyczek 2001, 140). Also, the earlier vessels, dated to the beginning of the 3 rd c. AD, are supposedly better made, with auniform body thickness, acarefully executed groove under 51 This type is known under many different names, among the most frequently used are: Agora/Robinson K113; Benghazi MRA7; Bjelajac XII; Dyczek 18; Knossos 37; Kuzmanov VII (1973), Kuzmanov XII (1985); Keay XII (on the West); Niederbieber 77; Peacock and Williams 47; Rădulescu 6; Scorpan I–E; Zeest 79. 52 Reynolds based this hypothesis on the fabric observation and its similarity to amphorae Zeest 72 (produced in the northern Pontic area). Since the chemical analyses (conducted after he published the paper) turned in favour of the Ephesus region (Bezeczky 2013, 149), Iconsider these amphorae to be of Aegean production. 110 THE YURTA-STROYNO ARCHAEOLOGICAL PROJECT which was taking place from the mid-1 st c. till the 3 rd c. AD. It seems that these Cypriot amphorae were distributed more frequently over the Mediterranean than the Cilician ones (Lund 2010, 569–571). The production continued until the 4th c. AD with avisible decline in export power and with morphological changes of the containers starting from the mid-3rd c. AD, when, besides the capacity reduction and other changes, the mushroom -shaped toe was replaced by asolid spike with no thickening (Lund 2010; Bertoldi 2012, 141; Dobreva 2017, 285). In Thrace and Moesia Inferior, the early version– with the mushroom -shaped toe– is rare, and the amphorae are best known from the 2 nd –3 rd c. AD contexts of Novae, Trimammium and Sozopol (see Kuzmanov 1985, tаб. 4/A36a; Dyczek 2001, 160–161; Dobreva 2017, 286). The volume of the known amphorae ranges from 36 l (amphorae from the 1st c. AD), to 46–53 l (Dyczek 2001, 161). San Lorenzo 7 The two rims 517–518 might be classed among the amphorae San Lorenzo 7. The chronology of these amphorae is quite broad, starting in the 2nd c. AD continuing to the 6th c. AD, with the peak distribution to the western Pontic coast (Dobrudzha) from the 2nd c. to 4th c. AD (Opaiţ 2004, 42; Paraschiv 2006, 10; Dobreva 2017, 318). Two subtypes might be recognized by the shape of the body; four different fabrics are known, and even more are expected to exist (Opiaţ– Ionescu 2016, 68, 98; pl. XIV/85–86, pl. XV/87–89). The amphorae are distributed over the whole Mediterranean as their representatives are known from Spain, Italy, North Africa, Syro -Palestine, the Aegean, the Lower Danube and the Black Sea area (Bertoldi 2012, 137; Dobreva 2017, 319). The place of production is unknown; as well as the relation of the different fabric to possible places of origin. The Aegean area and Asia Minor are commonly supposed as places of origin (Bertoldi 2012; Opaiţ– Ionescu 2016). Opaiţ and Paraschiv also mention that some of the amphorae might be produced in Cilicia (2013, 323). The content is unknown, but olive oil was proposed (Opiaţ– Ionescu 2016, 67). The capacity of the type was estimated by Opaiţ and Paraschiv (2013, 322) at 50 litres. The two rims from Yurta -Stroyno, 517 and 518, share asimilar shape and inner d. of 80 mm, but the fabric is different. The first sherd (517) is rather coarse, and roughly resembles the second type of fabric described by Opaiţ and Ioanescu (2016, 68). The other sherd (518) might correspond to the first fabric (very fine) identified by the same authors. In hand specimen, it also resembles the light fabric of the Dressel 24 family described above. Micaceous water jars– Late Roman Amphorae 3 The body fragment 519 shows all the characteristics of the ‘micaceous water jars’ / LRA 3 (very compact red -brown micaceous fabric and athin sherd), however, from this small piece we are not able to specify its chronology and classification more closely. The ‘Micaceous water jars’, also known as Agora F65–66, of the characteristic red -brown fabric, were produced on eastern Aegean, in the coastal area stretching from Ephesus to Pergamon, from the mid-1st c. till the mid-7th c. AD. Their later production (from the end of the 4th c. AD) is best known as the Late Roman Amphorae 3 (LRA 3) (Opaiţ 2017, 585–589). They are supposed to carry wine in the containers whose size diminished from 6–4 litres in the early production to 2–1 litres in the later production. Their presence in the western Pontic area / Lower Danube is not very high, with avisible decrease from the 4th c. AD (Opaiţ 2017, 597). 111TRANSPORT AMPHORAE Ephesus 56 These two bases, 520 and 521, both with missing toe tips, have afabric similar to the previously described ‘Micaceous water jars’ / LRA 3 amphorae– i.e. of auniform red colour, very well sorted and levigated, with inclusions of silver mica. They are, however, of athicker body sherd, more rounded near the bottom, which is completed by asolid spike. Thanks to these morphological differences and good photos of the amphorae from Ephesus published by Bezeczky we can propose their classification among the amphorae Ephesus 56 (Bezeczky 2013, pl. 54:862–871 and pl. 83:393). These amphorae are parallel production of the LRA 3, dated ca. from the end of the 4th c. to the end of the 6th c. / beginning of the 7th c. AD. They are not known very well outside of Ephesus, but fragments were found in Zadar and on the island of Samos. The content is unknown, olive oil was suggested (Bezeczky 2013, 167–169). Unidentified amphorae of Eastern Aegean and Eastern Mediterranean origin The following two fragments have afabric of the Eastern Aegean / Eastern Mediterranean amphorae, however, their provenance is unknown. These are the rim 522 with inner d. 110 mm and the toe / spike 523, with an extra applied band of clay turned around its lower part (outer d. 46 mm) and asmall hole (d. 4 mm) from outside the base. CATALOGUE OF THE OTHER EASTERN AEGEAN AND EASTERN MEDITERRANEAN AMPHORAE Figs. 30–31: nos. 515–523; Pls. 13–14: nos. 515–522 515 Context: excavation; layer: SU001; trench: Rooms A, B, C Part: toe (spike); outer d.: 34 mm in the middle of the rounded spike; EVE: 100% Fabric: hard, fairly sorted, evenly fired Inclusions: 20%, predominant red pellets, common white soft inclusions of bigger size (5 mm; lime?), few quartz Fabric colour: reddish yellow (5YR 6/8) Surface colour: light red (2.5YR 6/8), self -slip Classification: Agora M273 (?) Area of production: Eastern Mediterranean Chronology: mid-4th–6th c. AD Probable content: wine Capacity: 30–40 l 516 Context: excavation; layer: FA09; trench: 100E_105N; sector: NW Part: base (atoe); outer d.: 57 mm; EVE: 100% Fabric: hard with good sorting, soft / chalky surface, evenly fired Inclusions: 20%, sandy, up to 0.5 mm, predominant lime, common red pellets, few quartz Fabric colour: reddish yellow (7.5YR 7/6) Surface colour: of the fabric colour Classification: Agora G199– Buff Cypriot non -micaceous fabric Area of production: Cyprus Chronology: ca. 50–200 AD 112 THE YURTA-STROYNO ARCHAEOLOGICAL PROJECT Content: wine Capacity: ca. 36–53 l 517 Context: survey; trench: D11 Part: rim; inner d.: 80 mm; EVE: 25% Fabric: hard, good sorted, evenly fired Inclusions: 30%, sandy, predominant white soft pellets, quartz, red and dull black inclusions; many voids from fallen out stones, no mica Fabric colour: pink (7.5YR 7/4) Surface colour: of the fabric Classification: San Lorenzo 7 Area of production: Aegean (?), Asia Minor (?) Chronology: 2nd c.– 6th c. AD Probable content: olive oil (?) Capacity: ca. 50 l 518 Context: excavation; layer: levelling I; trench: 100E_105N; sector: NE Part: rim; inner d.: 80 mm; EVE: 16% Fabric: soft, fairly sorted, chalky, evenly fired Inclusions: 10%, predominant lime, red pellets, few quartz Fabric colour: very pale brown (10YR 8/3) Surface colour: of the fabric Classification: San Lorenzo 7 Area of production: Aegean (?), Asia Minor (?) Chronology: 2nd c.– 6th c. AD Probable content: olive oil (?) Capacity: ca. 50 l Note: the sample in hand specimen resembles the light fabric of Dressel 24 family amphorae 519 Context: survey; trench: I12; sector: SE Part: body; thickness: 4 mm Fabric: hard -soft with smoothed surface, very good sorting, evenly fired Inclusions: 30%, predominant tiny flakes of silver mica, rare quartz Fabric colour: red (2.5YR 4/6) Surface colour: of the fabric colour Classification: ‘micaceous water jars’ / LRA 3 Area of production: Eastern Aegean– area between Ephesus to Pergamon Chronology: 1st c. to mid-7th c. AD Probable content: wine Capacity: 6–4 l for early ones, 2–1 l for later ones 520 Context: excavation; layer: SU016; trench: 95E_105N; sector: NW Part: body; outer body d.: 70 mm Fabric: hard, evenly fired, very fine -clay with smoothed -bright surface 113TRANSPORT AMPHORAE Inclusions: 10%, tiny flakes of silver mica Fabric colour: red (2.5YR 5/6) Surface colour: self -slip in the fabric colour Classification: Ephesus 56 (?) Area of production: Eastern Aegean– area between Ephesus to Pergamon / elsewhere Chronology: end of the 4th–6th/7th c. AD Probable content: olive oil (?) 521 Context: survey; trench: H13; sector: NW Part: body with base attachment; outer d.: 21 mm (on the base– body attachment) Fabric: hard, evenly fired, very fine -clay with smoothed -bright surface Inclusions: 10%, tiny flakes of silver mica Fabric colour: red (2.5YR 5/6) Surface colour: self -slip in the fabric colour Classification: Ephesus 56 (?) Area of production: Eastern Aegean– area between Ephesus to Pergamon / elsewhere Chronology: end of the 4th–6th/7th c. AD Probable content: olive oil (?) 522 Context: survey; trench: D13; sector: NW Part: rim; inner d.: 110 mm; EVE: 16% Fabric: hard, good sorted, evenly fired Inclusions: 20%, sandy, up to 0.5 mm, predominant quartz, white inclusions (lime?) and red- -brown pellets, common dark inclusions and pores Fabric colour: reddish yellow (7.5YR 6/6) Surface colour: outer surface of the fabric colour, inner covered by calcareous sediments Area of production: Aegean / Eastern Mediterranean 523 Context: excavation; layer: SU001; trench: Rooms A, B, C Part: base (spike); outer d.: 46 mm; EVE: 100% Fabric: hard, evenly fired Inclusions: 30%, sandy, up to 0.5 mm, predominant white inclusions (lime?), common dark and red pellets, few quartz Fabric colour: light red (2.5YR 7/6) Surface colour: reddish yellow (7.5YR 8/6) Area of production: Aegean / Eastern Mediterranean BLACK SEA AMPHORAE The assemblage of the Black Sea amphorae from Yurta -Stroyno includes the south Pontic production, mainly the Sinopean amphorae of orange fabric with ahigh amount of shiny black particles (pyroxenes), which are represented by four rims (524–525 and 527–528), one body fragment with tituli picti (526) and atoe (529). Only one handle of alight -coloured amphora from Heraclea Pontica was identified (530). Several body fragments and undiagnostic pieces 114 THE YURTA-STROYNO ARCHAEOLOGICAL PROJECT of South Pontic fabric were additionally found in the excavation area, however, only in asmall number counted in the tens. The South Pontic region exported amphorae already during the Classical and, especially, Hellenistic period, and continued with this tradition until the Late Antiquity, e.g. with the so -called ‘carrot amphorae’. The main product of the area was wine with some olive oil and fish products (Dyczek 2001, 220; Opaiţ– Paraschiv 2013, 330; Vnukov 2017, 100). On the Lower Danube and the western Black Sea coast (especially in Dobrudzha) these amphorae are quite common, both in rural and urban sites (Opaiţ 2004, 26–32). In Thrace, they are rather attested on the coast, although they might be found, in lower numbers, also inland (for asummary of the finding places in Bulgaria and acomprehensive map of individual type’sdistribution see Dobreva 2017, 246–272). The main market area of the southern Black Sea coast centres seems to be the northern Black Sea coast, with the western one– especially Thrace– being of marginal interest (see the distribution map in Vnukov 2017, fig. 5.3). AMPHORAE OF SINOPE The first two rims, 524 and 525, are fragmentarily preserved, which complicates their classification. The sherd under 524 has asmall rolled rim with inner d. 35 mm. The closest amphora shape is the type D Snp I,57 dated to the 6th c. AD, with apossible continuation to the 7th c. AD. The capacity of the container is approximated to 6–7 litres with olive oil as its possible content (Kassab Tezgör 2009, 134–137; cf. pl. 20:1, 5 and 6). This type was also classed by D. Pieri as asubtype of the LRA 1 A produced in the Demirci workshop at Sinope (Pieri 2005, 76–77; Kassab Tezgör 2009, 135). The fragment 525 has an opening neck with ahigher rim, rounded from the outside and flattened from the inside, with inner rim d. 70 mm. This is quite arare shape which does not give us many possibilities for pairing. The closest in form is the recently identified ‘transitional variety’ (in the sense of transition from the early to later production, namely from Sin II to Sin VI) by Vnukov (2010, 366; fig. 2:3–4). These amphorae are few and not yet well studied, and their chronology is not developed, however, the transitioning period should take place during the 2 nd c. AD. Another possibility of classification would be the later type, Sin VI, which, however, has ahigher and flattened rim. It dates to the late 2nd c. and early 3rd c. AD, and it was used for carrying wine (Vnukov 2010, 366; fig. 2:5–8). The body fragment under 526 belongs to an unspecified Sinopean amphora with marks of the tituli picti in red colour on the neck. Two letters are still visible […Γω…]; more of them might be expected, as random, unreadable spots of red colour continue further on the right; on the left they are interrupted by afraction. The toe 529 with abroken tip is also of the Sinopean fabric. It is only asmall piece, but since the early Sinopean amphorae do not end in such aplain, hollow and spiky toe, we may consider its later production, especially resembling the wine ‘carrot amphorae’ of the 4th and 5th c. AD, when the lower body starts to narrow and ends in asharp conical base. These amphorae are known in small numbers from the western Black Sea coast– Mesambria and Topraichioi (Opaiţ 2010, 378; cf. with the fig. 1.7 of the Subtype 3, dated to the 5th c. AD). 57 S. Vnukov suggested that this fragment could also belong to ajug produced in Sinope. Regarding the non -existent pottery import from the south Pontic region besides amphorae, Iprefer the interpretation of the fragment as such. Although, there is always apossibility of other objects and vessels travelling alongside the amphorae as aside product. 115TRANSPORT AMPHORAE The last two rims originate at the Sinopean production centre at Demirci, active from the 2nd/3rd to 6th c. AD. Most relevant to our assemblage is the local group B Snp I -III,58 especially the last type B Snp III, with its peak distribution from the 2nd c. till the 1st half / end of the 3rd c. AD (Vnukov 2010, fig. 2). While amphorae of the first two types have acylindrical neck, the last one has aconical shape– as do our 52759 and 528 (cf. Kassab Tezgör 2010, 126; Vnukov 2010, 367; fig. 2; Dobreva 2017, 261–263). The amphorae with aconical shaped neck of this group may also be considered to be type Zeest 84a (Zeest 1960, 171). Opaiţ and Ionescu (2016, 60 and pl. II/10) described avery similar rim / neck fragment as atransitional amphora type from Vnukov Sin II to Tezgör B SinI. As acontent it is considered to be wine (e.g. Opaiţ– Ionescu 2016, 58), both wine and olive oil (Vnukov 2010, 368), or fish products / garum (this interpretation is repeatedly stressed by Reynolds [2010, 90; 2013, 102], pointing out the continuity of the Hellenistic tradition of fish processing in the area). The capacity of the container B Snp III is expected to be more than 30 litres (Vnukov 2010, 366–368). CATALOGUE OF THE SINOPEAN AMPHORAE Fig. 31: nos. 524–529; Pls. 9: no. 526, 14: nos. 525–529 524 Context: excavation; layer: levelling I; trench: 100E_105N; sector: NE Part: rim; inner d.: 35 mm; EVE: 64% Fabric: good sorting, rough surface (the ‘sandy’ feel), evenly fired Inclusions: 30%, sandy, normally up to 0.5 mm, predominant black shiny particles, few white lime and rare red particles Fabric colour: reddish yellow (5YR 7/6) Surface colour: of the fabric colour Classification: D Snp I/ jug and not an amphora? Area of production: Southern Black Sea– Sinope Chronology: 6th c. AD, possibly also 7th c. AD Probable content: presumably olive oil 525 Context: excavation; layer: SU001; trench: Rooms A, B, C Part: rim; inner d.: 70 mm; EVE: 11% Fabric: South Pontic, coarse, hard, worn outer self -slip, evenly fired Inclusions: 30%, predominant black shiny particles, normally up to 1 mm big with few bigger (one 4 mm long); common red pellets with few white particles Fabric colour: core and inner margin pinkish grey (5YR 6/2) Surface colour: outer surface and outer margin are light reddish brown (2.5YR 7/4); very pale brown (10YR 7/4) self -slip preserved inside Classification: possibly the transitional period from Sin II × Sin VI (?) 58 This group of amphorae might also be called Knossos 26/27, based on the material from Crete (Hayes 1983, 153). 59 S. Vnukov agrees with the similarity in shape with B SNP III, although, the fabric– from aphoto– looks to him more like it is from Abkhazia (north -western Colchis); however, in this area is not yet attested such aform (personal communication, summer 2019). 116 THE YURTA-STROYNO ARCHAEOLOGICAL PROJECT Area of production: Southern Black Sea– Sinope Chronology: 2nd c.– early 3rd c. AD Probable content: wine (?) 526 Context: excavation; layer: SU001; trench: Rooms A, B, C Part: neck with tituli picti in red slip; max. outer d.: 150 mm; inscription: […Γω…] Fabric: hard, rough surface, fairly sorted, unevenly fired Inclusions: 30%, sandy, normally up to 1 mm, South Pontic fabric– with predominant black shiny inclusions (pyroxenes?) and random bigger pcs. of red pellets (up to 4 mm) Fabric colour: inner margin– red (2.5YR 5/8), outer margin– yellow (10YR 8/6) Surface colour: self -slip in colours of inner and outer margins Area of production: Southern Black Sea– Sinope 527 Context: excavation; layer: SU001; trench: Rooms A, B, C Part: rim; inner d.: 140 mm; EVE: 14% Fabric: hard, porous, evenly fired, coarse, good sorting with rough surface Inclusions: 30%, sandy, normal size of 0.5 mm, random bigger pellets up to 2 mm, common black shiny and white (quartz and lime) inclusions, few red pellets of bigger dimensions Fabric colour: red (2.5YR 5/8) Surface colour: red (2.5YR 4/8) self -slip– by atint darker than the fabric Classification: B Snp III Area of production: Southern Black Sea– Sinope × Eastern Black Sea (?) Chronology: 2nd–3rd c. AD Probable content: wine / olive oil / fish products Capacity: more than 30 l 528 Context: excavation; layer: SU079; trench 105E_105N; sector: NE Part: rim, handle attachment; inner d.: 100 mm; EVE: 35%; handle att.: 76 × 38 mm Fabric: hard with rough, quite eroded, surface, good sorting, evenly fired Inclusions: 30%, sandy, normal size 0.5 mm, predominant shiny black pellets, common red and white particles, few silver mica flakes Fabric colour: yellowish red (5YR 5/6) Surface colour: self -slip in the colour of the fabric Classification: B Snp III Area of production: Southern Black Sea– Sinope Chronology: 2nd–3rd c. AD Probable content: wine / olive oil / fish products Capacity: over 30 l 529 Context: excavation; layer: SU033; trench: 100E_105N; sector: SE Part: toe / spike; d.: 20 mm above the tip Fabric: hard with rough surface, evenly fired Inclusions: 20%, sandy fabric, predominant black shiny inclusions, common quartz, silver mica, few red pellets 117TRANSPORT AMPHORAE Fabric colour: reddish yellow (7.5YR 7/6) Surface colour: of the fabric colour Classification: ‘Carrot amphorae’ (?) Area of production: Southern Black Sea– Sinope Chronology: 5th c. AD Probable content: wine Capacity: 5.6–5.9 l AMPHORAE OF HERACLEA PONTICA The only diagnostic fragment of an amphora originating from Heraclea Pontica is ahandle 530, which preserves the characteristic fabric of this production centre. It can be classed into the light -clay amphorae of the type Vnukov SIV (Kovalevskaja 1998, tab.2; Vnukov 2003, 126, рис. 49; Vnukov 2016, 40; рис. 3). These amphorae are the most common containers of the Black Sea region from the 1st c. till the 3rd c. AD, during which they are exported in high numbers to the main consumption area– the northern Black Sea. Their exclusive content was wine (Vnukov 2017, 113–115, 121; Vnukov 2016, 36). The type has many variants, from which our handle might belong to several of them, especially to Vnukov types SIVA2, SIVB and SIVC,60 dated from the late 1st c. till the late 2nd c. AD (Vnukov 2016, 43). In Thrace and Moesia Inferior these amphorae are well attested, concentrated mostly along the Lower Danube and the Black Sea coast. The most widely spread type is Vnukov SIVC / Shelov C, which might be found in higher numbers also inland, as far as in the Struma Valley (Dobreva 2017, 246–259). CATALOGUE OF THE HERACLEAN AMPHORAE Fig. 31: no. 530; Pl. 14: no. 530 530 Context: excavation; layer: levelling I; trench: 100E_105N; sector: NE Part: grooved -handle; dimensions: >40 × 30 mm Fabric: hard with rough surface, good sorted, evenly fired Inclusions: 30%, sandy, normally up to 1 mm, predominant red inclusions– either bigger pellets or long veins up to 1.5 cm –, common black shiny inclusions, quartz and lime Fabric colour: very pale brown (10YR 8/2) Surface colour: colour of the fabric Area of production: Southern Black Sea– Heraclea Pontica Classification: Vnukov type SIV (‘light -clay amphorae’) Chronology: from the late 1st c. to the late 2nd c. AD Probable content: wine UNIDENTIFIED BLACK SEA AMPHORAE Fragments 531 and 532 are two parts of acup -shaped neck / rim with the handles attached just below the rim. These two fragments seem to be from the same vessel; the differences in the profiling are caused by the handle attachment– as both preserved rims are directly con60 This classification refers to Shelov types A, B and C (Shelov 1986, 395–400). 118 THE YURTA-STROYNO ARCHAEOLOGICAL PROJECT nected to the handle. The inner rim d. for both is 70 mm, the handles have slightly different sections– 31 × 22 and 27 × 24 mm. The surface is rough, the fabric is reddish yellow (5YR 6/8), very sandy, with an abundant amount of well sorted inclusions. The most visible inclusions are bigger pcs. of soft white pellets, with much less represented dark shiny particles. The fabric resembles Heraclea Pontica, although the composition of the inclusions is different, with too many white and too few dark shiny inclusions. CATALOGUE OF THE UNIDENTIFIED BLACK SEA AMPHORAE Fig. 31: nos. 531–532; Pl. 14: no. 532 531 Context: excavation; layer: SU023; trench/sector: 95E_105N SE– 100E_105N SE/SW Part: rim with handle; inner d.: 70 mm; EVE: 16%; handle section: 31 × 22 mm Fabric: hard, evenly fired, rough/sandy surface Inclusions: 30%, sandy, predominant white (quartz and lime), red particles and pores, rare black shiny inclusions Fabric colour: reddish yellow (5YR 6/8) Surface colour: worn self -slip of the fabric colour Area of production: Southern– Eastern Black Sea (?) Note: same characteristics as 532, those two pcs. are probably from one vessel 532 Context: excavation; layer: levelling I; trench: 100E_105N; sector: NE Part: rim with handle; inner d.: 70 mm; EVE: 12%; handle section: 27 × 24 mm Fabric: hard, evenly fired, rough / sandy surface Inclusions: 30%, sandy, predominant white (quartz and lime), red particles and pores, rare black shiny inclusions Fabric colour: reddish yellow (5YR 6/8) Surface colour: worn self -slip of the fabric colour Area of production: Southern– Eastern Black Sea (?) Note: same characteristics as 531, those two pcs. are probably from one vessel AFRICAN AMPHORAE The export of the African amphorae started in higher numbers by the end of the 2nd c. AD and continued until the 7 th c. AD (Caravale– Toffoletti 1997, 140–141). The main exporting centres were located in the Roman provinces of Zeugitana, Byzacena and Tripolitana (Bonifay 2015, 7), in modern -day terms in the area of central -north Tunisia and north -western Libya. The African amphorae are found on the western Black Sea coast and in the Lower Danube in small numbers, mostly represented by several pieces (see Dobreva 2017, 309–317). Higher numbers– especially from necropolises– are reported from Scythia (Opaiţ 1997-1998, 47; Opaiţ 2004, 33–40). As amain content of the amphorae, it is expected to be olive oil, but also fish products and wine are attested (see tab.IV in Bonifay 2004). Some of the containers seem to be designed for one specific content, while others could carry many different products (Dobreva 2017, 313–314). 119TRANSPORT AMPHORAE The African amphorae at the site of Yurta -Stroyno are represented by three rims only (533–535); two are from the excavation, one from the survey. The first sherd, rim 533, is characteristic for its specific shape and outer grey surface, which classes it into the wide group of the type Keay LXII (Keay 1984, 309–350), amphorae, spread along the (mainly western) Mediterranean, best known from Spain and Italy. Some individuals are, however, also known from the western Black Sea coast (e.g. Tomis– Constanța: Opaiţ 1997-1998, figs.11 and 12). The type has about 22 different subtypes produced at several places mostly in central Tunisia. From these, the closest to our example is the type Q, also known under Albenga 11-12, dated from the last quarter of the 5th c. to the mid/third quarter of the 6th c. AD (Bonifay 2004, 137; Fantuzzi– Cau Ontiveros 2018). The content of the amphorae is unknown, the capacity given here (70–78 l) is estimated from two different vessels of the Keay LXII group found in Tomis (Opaiţ 1997-1998, 53). Rim 534 might find parallels among the Late African Cylindrical Amphorae of the 5th–7th c. AD. It is very fragmentary, but the fabric description in hand specimen– as well as the shape– correspond to the production of the workshop in Nabeul -Sidi Zahruni in Tunisia (‘orange to red fabric with outer surface covered by light colour, the inclusions are white to yellow and red–purple– ferric’). Bonifay refers to this rim shape, which is not that common for the workshop, as avariant of Keay LXI (Bonifay 2004, 37–39, 125–141; fig. 18:24; planchet I20/21). For the last rim, 535, of abrown -red sherd and awhitish self -slip on both sides, two possibilities might be suggested. The first is that it belongs to the amphora type Africana IIA with an almond shaped rim marked by asmall undercut (Bonifay 2004, 111). Several amphorae of the wider group of Africana II (with the subtypes A, B, C and D), produced from the mid-2nd c. till the beginning of the 4th c. AD, were found on the Lower Danube and western Pontus (Opaiţ 1997-1998, 50; Dobreva 2017, 313). The second possibility, suggested by A. Opaiţ,61 is, that this might be arim of the amphora type Ostia LIX– of the late phase (dated from the 2nd c. till the mid-3rd c. AD) of Leptimian production (eastern coast of Tunisia). If we were to prefer this possibility, not much would change, as the chronology of these two amphorae is very similar (mid-2 nd –3 rd c. AD), as well as the area of production– Africa Proconsularis. What would differ is the content, which in the case of type Ostia LIX is unknown– possibly olive oil; in the case of Africana IIA it is salsamenta, perhaps also wine (Bonifay 2004, tab.IV). CATALOGUE OF THE AFRICAN AMPHORAE Fig. 32: nos. 533–535; Pl. 14: nos. 533–535 533 Context: excavation; layer: levelling I; trench: 100E_105N; sector: NE Part: rim; inner d.: 90 mm; EVE: 25% Fabric: hard, fairly sorted, evenly fired Inclusions: 10%, predominant lime (up to 1 mm), common quartz, few silver mica Fabric colour: yellowish red (5YR 5/6) Surface colour: outside grey (10YR 6/1), inside of the fabric colour Classification: Keay LXIIQ, Albenga 11-12 Area of production: (central -eastern) Tunisia (Africa Proconsularis) Chronology: last third of the 5th c. to the mid/third quarter of the 6th c. AD 61 Personal communication, summer 2019. 126 THE YURTA-STROYNO ARCHAEOLOGICAL PROJECT No. SY # SU Trench Sect. PG Ware/Type Provenance Chronology 299 SY15_130 SU001 Room_ABC × FW Çandarlı ware / ESC Eastern Aegean (Pergamon - Çandarlı) end of 1st–3rd c. AD 302 SY15_142 SU001 Room_ABC × FW Çandarlı ware / ESC Eastern Aegean (Pergamon - Çandarlı) end of 1st–3rd c. AD 303 SY15_092 SU001 Room_ABC × FW Çandarlı ware / ESC Eastern Aegean (Pergamon - Çandarlı) end of 1st–3rd/4th c. AD 304 SY15_180 SU001 Room_ABC × FW Çandarlı ware / ESC Eastern Aegean (Pergamon - Çandarlı) end of 1st–3rd c. AD 305 SY15_419 SU001 Room_ABC × FW Çandarlı ware / ESC Eastern Aegean (Pergamon - Çandarlı) end of 1st–3rd c. AD 306 SY15_178 SU001 Room_ABC × FW Çandarlı ware / ESC Eastern Aegean (Pergamon - Çandarlı) end of 1st–3rd c. AD 307 SY15_179 SU001 Room_ABC × FW Çandarlı ware / ESC Eastern Aegean (Pergamon - Çandarlı) end of 1st–3rd c. AD 315 SY15_131+132 SU001 Room_ABC × FW Knidian grey ware Eastern Aegean (Knidos) ca. AD 25–mid-2nd c. AD 316 SY15_062 SU001 Room_ABC × FW Knidian grey ware Eastern Aegean (Knidos) mid-1st–mid-2nd c. AD 324 SY15_150 SU001 Room_ABC × FW Thin-walled redslipped ware Eastern Aegean (Pergamon?) mid-1st–mid-2nd/ 4th c. AD 326 SY15_149 SU001 Room_ABC × FW Thin-walled redslipped ware Eastern Aegean (Pergamon?) mid-1st–mid-2nd/ 4th c. AD 328 SY15_159 SU001 Room_ABC × FW Thin-walled redslipped ware Eastern Aegean (Pergamon?) mid-1st–mid-2nd/ 4th c. AD 330 SY15_182 SU001 Room_ABC × FW Thracian thinwalled ware Northern Aegean (Ainos?) mid-1st–3rd c. AD 337 SY15_123 SU001 Room_ABC × FW Import ? Roman Imperial period 338 SY15_126 SU001 Room_ABC × FW Import ? Roman Imperial period 339 SY15_129 SU001 Room_ABC × FW Import ? Roman Imperial period 435 SY15_029 SU001 Room_ABC × CW Golden mica ware (rare mica) Aegean (?) 2nd–4th c. AD 436 SY15_032 SU001 Room_ABC × CW Golden mica ware (frequent mica) Aegean (?) × 437 SY15_031 SU001 Room_ABC × CW Golden mica ware (rare mica) Aegean (?) 2nd–3rd (to mid-5th?) c. AD 439 SY15_057 SU001 Room_ABC × CW Golden mica ware (frequent mica) Aegean (Phoacea?) 1st–3rd c. AD (?) Tab.5: Overview of the 61 imported diagnostic fine red ‑slipped wares, coarse cooking wares, and transport amphorae fragments found in the sample of the excavated material. The majority are dated to the Roman Imperial period with amphorae 515, 524, 533–534 dated to the Late Antiquity. PG = main pottery group; FW = fine table wares; CW = coarse cooking wares; TA = transport amphorae. 127POTTERY IN THE CONTEXT OF YURTA ‑STROYNO No. SY # SU Trench Sect. PG Ware/Type Provenance Chronology 479 SY15_233 SU001 Room_ABC × TA Dr. 24 family Eastern Aegean (Erythrae?) mid-1st–mid-3rd c. AD 482 SY15_232 SU001 Room_ABC × TA Dr. 24 family Eastern Aegean (Erythrae?) mid-1st–mid-3rd c. AD 497 SY15_231 SU001 Room_ABC × TA Dr. 24 family Eastern Aegean mid-1st–mid-3rd c. AD 500 SY15_225 SU001 Room_ABC × TA Dr. 24 family Eastern Aegean mid-1st–mid-3rd c. AD 502 SY15_229 SU001 Room_ABC × TA Kapitän II Eastern Aegean beginning of the 3rd c. AD 508 SY15_223 SU001 Room_ABC × TA Kapitän II Eastern Aegean 3rd–4th c. AD 514 SY15_226 SU001 Room_ABC × TA Koan tradition Eastern Aegean (Kos? / Ephesus?) 1st BC/AD–1st c. AD 515 SY15_222 SU001 Room_ABC × TA Agora M273 (?) Eastern Mediterranean mid-4th–6th c. AD 523 SY15_217 SU001 Room_ABC × TA ?Eastern Aegean / Mediterranean × 525 SY15_228 SU001 Room_ABC × TA S II×S VI (?) Southern Black Sea (Sinope) 2nd–2nd/3rd c. AD 526 SY15_423 SU001 Room_ABC × TA ?Southern Black Sea (Sinope) × 527 SY15_219 SU001 Room_ABC × TA B Snp III (?) Southern (Sinope) × Eastern Black Sea (?) 2nd–3rd c. AD 534 SY15_216 SU001 Room_ABC × TA Keay L×I var. (?) North Africa 5th–7th c. AD 438 SY15_252 Levelling I 100E_105N NE CW Golden mica ware (frequent mica) Aegean (Phoacea?) 1st–3rd c. AD (?) 342 SY15_298 Levelling I 100E_105N NE FW Import (?) ?2nd–3rd c. AD 344 SY15_312 Levelling I 100E_105N NE FW African redslipped ware (?) North Africa (?) 4th–5th c. AD (?) 484 SY15_236 Levelling I 100E_105N NE TA Dr. 24 family Eastern Aegean (Erythrae?) mid-1st–mid-3rd c. AD 487 SY15_235 Levelling I 100E_105N NE TA Dr. 24 family Eastern Aegean (Chios?) mid-1st–mid-3rd c. AD 492 SY15_238 Levelling I 100E_105N NE TA Dr. 24 family Eastern Aegean (Chios?) mid-1st–mid-3rd c. AD 505 SY15_548 Levelling I 100E_105N NE TA Kapitän II Eastern Aegean 3rd–4th c. AD 518 SY15_350 Levelling I 100E_105N NE TA San Lorenzo 7 Eastern Aegean / Aegean 2nd–6th c. AD 524 SY15_547 Levelling I 100E_105N NE TA D Snp I / jug (?) Southern Black Sea (Sinope) 6th–7th c. AD 530 SY15_351 Levelling I 100E_105N NE TA B Snp III (?) Southern Black Sea (Heraclea Pontica) late 1st–2nd c. AD 532 SY15_255 Levelling I 100E_105N NE TA S×E Pontic Southern × Eastern Black Sea × 533 SY15_237 Levelling I 100E_105N NE TA Keay L×IIQ North Africa 5th/6th–mid-6th c. AD 128 THE YURTA-STROYNO ARCHAEOLOGICAL PROJECT No. SY # SU Trench Sect. PG Ware/Type Provenance Chronology 441 SYP16_094 Levelling II 100E_105N NE CW Golden mica ware (frequent mica) Aegean (?) × 323 SYP16_146 Levelling II 100E_105N NE FW Thin-walled redslipped ware Eastern Aegean (Pergamon?) mid-1st–mid-2nd/ 4th c. AD 331 SYP16_133 Levelling II 100E_105N NE FW Thracian thinwalled ware Northern Aegean (Ainos?) mid-1st–3rd c. AD 332 SYP16_156 Levelling II 100E_105N NE FW Thracian thinwalled ware Northern Aegean (Ainos?) mid-1st–3rd c. AD 333 SYP16_110 Levelling II 100E_105N NE FW Thracian thinwalled ware Northern Aegean (Ainos?) mid-1st–3rd c. AD 334 SYP16_147 Levelling II 100E_105N NE FW Thracian thinwalled ware Northern Aegean (Ainos?) mid-1st–3rd c. AD 336 SYP16_085 Levelling II 100E_105N NE FW Thracian thinwalled ware Northern Aegean (Ainos?) mid-1st–3rd c. AD 346 SYP16_153 Levelling II 100E_105N NE FW Import ? Roman Imperial period 485 SYP16_105 Levelling II 100E_105N NE TA Dr. 24 family Eastern Aegean (Chios?) mid-1st–mid-3rd c. AD 489 SYP16_104 Levelling II 100E_105N NE TA Dr. 24 family Eastern Aegean (Chios?) mid-1st–mid-3rd c. AD 538 SY15_549 Levelling II 100E_105N NE TA ? ? × 440 SY14_091 SU008 100E_100N SW CW Golden mica ware (rare mica) Aegean (?) × 501 SY14_069 SU008 100E_100N SW TA Dr. 24 family Eastern Aegean mid-1st–mid-3rd c. AD 507 SY14_070 SU008 100E_100N SW TA Kapitän II Eastern Aegean 3rd–4th c. AD 510 SY14_071 SU008 100E_100N SW TA Kapitän II Eastern Aegean 3rd–4th c. AD 442 SY15_340 SU057 100E_105N SE CW Miscellaneous Aegean / Mediterranean import (?) 2nd–3rd c. AD wares and the coarse cooking wares represented just afraction of the whole pottery assembled of the Yurta -Stroyno settlement. In order to give acomplete picture, we also need to include the transport amphorae. 28 diagnostic fragments (rims and bases plus one handle) were found in the sample of the excavated material, and many more body fragments, with the most distinguishable and most abundant fragments of Dressel 24 family and Kapitän II amphorae. The 28 diagnostic fragments include the amphorae of Dressel 24 family (11 frgs.), Kapitän II (5 frgs.), another four fragments of Eastern Aegean / Easten Mediterranean origin; amphorae from the Black Sea area (6 frgs.), mostly Sinope; and two North African amphorae. It is quite amixture, with the majority dated to the Roman Imperial period with several amphorae from the Late Antiquity (515, 524, 533–534) which might be found both in the levelling layer (524, 533) and Rooms A, B, and C (515, 534) attesting to their disturbed nature as well as to alimited settlement life after its peak period in the 2nd–4th c. AD. 129POTTERY IN THE CONTEXT OF YURTA ‑STROYNO The majority of imported vessels (33 frgs.) was found in Rooms A, B and C, combining four fragments of coarse cooking ware of possible Aegean origin and 16 fragments of fine -red slipped wares including Çandarlı ware / Eastern sigillata C; Knidian grey ware; Red -slipped thin -walled ware, possibly from the Eastern Aegean; and Thracian thin -walled ware. Another 13 frgs. were of transport amphorae, mostly of Eastern Aegean / Eastern Mediterranean origin; three were from the Black Sea area– Sinope; and one from the North Africa (Tab.5). In the levelling layers Iand II about 23 fragments of imported pottery were found, with two coarse cooking ware fragments possibly of Aegean origin and nine red -slipped fragments mostly including Thracian thin -walled ware, with some Thin -walled red -slipped ware and possibly afragment of African red -slipped ware. The proportion of the transport amphorae is very similar as in Rooms A, B and C, with seven fragments from the Eastern Aegean / Eastern Mediterranean, three fragments from the Black Sea area and one from Africa (Tab.5). The fills of the ditches include in total five fragments. They have one fragment of coarse cooking ware each one of them but one, [SU021]; while [SU008] yields also fragments of three Eastern Aegean / Eastern Mediterranean amphorae (Tab.5). Looking outside the main sample of the excavated material, we may enlarge the identified wares by another 59 fragments of imported diagnostic pottery (Tab.6). These include Pontic sigillata Awith fragments uncovered from the other excavated areas– three sherds (309, 311–312) are from the context [SU077], located out of the house to the east, next to the wall [SU076] and one comes from each of the following contexts [SU001] (314); [SU036] (308) and [SU053] (313). From these, [SU036] is the most interesting one as it seems to be an original context, referring to afoundation trench of the northern wall of the house [SU018], where acoin of Diadumenian, dated to AD 217–218, was found (see Heřmánková 2022b, no.8; tab.1). Based on parallels, exactly the same chronology is expected for the sherd 308. One more fragment of Pontic sigillata Awas found within the surveyed material (310), which is expectedly worn, damaged by erosion. Both fragments of presumably the Colour coated ware (340, 341) were also found outside the main assemblage, one in [SU075] which turned out to be soil excavated by the looters, [SU001]; and another one, found in the SE sector of the square F13, during the surface survey. All of the Thin -walled red slipped ware fragments of presumably Knidian origin were also found in the looted soil of squares 110E_110N and 110E_115N (317, 319–321) and within the surface survey, in the SE sector of square E12 (318). In consequence, due to the surface survey and complete documentation of the extended pottery material, three more red -slipped wares could have been identified. The other wares found within the surface survey pottery and extended assemblage from the excavations included the same material as already identified within the examined pottery sample and as such enlarging its number; these are Çandarlı ware / ESC (300–301); Thin -walled red -slipped ware (322, 325, 327, 329) and Thracian thin -walled ware (335). Regarding the surface survey material, not surprisingly, the biggest clusters of finds are within the intensively investigated squares, where pick -ups were carried out– squares D13, F13, G12, H13 and I12. The finds are mostly made up of amphorae (17 frgs.), less so of imported fine ware (8 frgs.), while imported coarse ware is completely missing. The amphorae feature similar tendencies as in the excavated material, with six diagnostic fragments of Dressel 24 family (477–478, 488, 491, 495, 499), two Kapitän II (504, 506), six fragments from the Eastern Aegean / Eastern Mediterranean area (511–512, 517, 519, 521–522) and one from Africa (535). The latest amphora fragment found within the surface survey, Ephesus 56 (521), might be dated from the turn of the 4th/5th to the turn of the 6th/7th c. AD, the rest is dated to the Roman Imperial period with some possible overreach to the Late Antiquity (506, 517, 519). 130 THE YURTA-STROYNO ARCHAEOLOGICAL PROJECT Tab.6: Overview of the 59 imported diagnostic fine red ‑slipped wares, coarse cooking wares, and transport amphorae fragments found outside the sampled material from the excavation and within the surface survey. PG = main pottery group; FW = fine table wares; CW = coarse cooking wares; TA = transport amphorae. No. SY # SU Trench Sect. PG Ware/Type Provenance Chronology 486 SY16_063 FA07 100E_105N NW TA Dr. 24 family Eastern Aegean (Chios?) mid-1st–mid-3rd c. AD 516 SY16_062 FA09 100E_105N NW TA Agora G199 Eastern Mediterranean (Cyprus) mid-1st–2nd/3rd c. AD 347 SY15_415 SU001 110E_100N NW FW Import (?) ? × 348 SY15_414 SU001 110E_100N NW FW Import (?) ? × 314 SY16_033 SU001 110E_105N WFW Pontic sigillata A (?) Northern Black Sea (Crimea?) mid-1st–mid-2nd c. AD 319 SY16_024 SU001 110E_110N W from wall SU083 FW Thin-walled redslipped ware Eastern Aegean (Knidos?) mid-1st–mid-2nd c. AD 320 SY16_023 SU001 110E_110N W from wall SU083 FW Thin-walled redslipped ware Eastern Aegean (Knidos?) mid-1st–mid-2nd c. AD 321 SY16_036 SU001 110E_110N E from wall SU083 FW Thin-walled redslipped ware Eastern Aegean (Knidos?) mid-1st–mid-2nd c. AD 325 SY17_029 SU001 110E_110N SFW Thin-walled redslipped ware Eastern Aegean (Pergamon?) mid-1st–mid-2nd/ 4th c. AD 335 SY16_032 SU001 110E_110N SFW Thracian thinwalled ware Northern Aegean (Ainos?) mid-1st–3rd c. AD 317 SY17_031 SU001 110E_115N N from wall SU083 FW Thin-walled redslipped ware Eastern Aegean (Knidos?) mid-1st–mid-2nd c. AD 480 SY16_039 SU001 110E_115N STA Dr. 24 family Eastern Aegean (Erythrae?) mid-1st–mid-3rd c. AD 496 SY14_174 SU006 100E_100N STA Dr. 24 family Eastern Aegean mid-1st–mid-3rd c. AD 343 SY15_463 SU015 100E_105N NW FW Import ? × 345 SY14_161 SU016 95E_105N NW FW Import ?Roman Imperial period 509 SY14_122 SU016 95E_105N NW TA Kapitän II Eastern Aegean 3rd–4th c. AD 520 SY14_126 SU016 95E_105N NW TA Ephesus 56 Eastern Aegean (Ephesus– Pergamon?) 4th/5th–6th/7th c. AD 493 SY14_110 SU018 95E_105N SW TA Dr. 24 family Eastern Aegean mid-1st–mid-3rd c. AD 531 SY14_004 SU023 95E_105N 100E_105N SE / SE/ SW TA S×E Pontic Southern × Eastern Black Sea × 131POTTERY IN THE CONTEXT OF YURTA ‑STROYNO No. SY # SU Trench Sect. PG Ware/Type Provenance Chronology 503 SY14_002 SU023 95E_105N 100E_105N SE / SE/ SW TA Kapitän II Eastern Aegean 3rd–4th c. AD 494 SY14_193 SU027 90E_105N SE TA Dr. 24 family Eastern Aegean mid-1st–mid-3rd c. AD 490 SY14_184 SU032 100E_100N SW TA Dr. 24 family Eastern Aegean (Chios?) mid-1st–mid-3rd c. AD 498 SY15_428 SU033 100E_105N SE TA Dr. 24 family Eastern Aegean mid-1st–mid-3rd c. AD 529 SY15_427 SU033 100E_105N SE TA Carrot Amph. (?) Southern Black Sea (Sinope) 5th c. AD 308 SY15_531 SU036 100E_105N SE FW Pontic sigillata A Northern Black Sea (Crimea?) 2nd–mid-3rd c. AD 481 SY15_521 SU041 105E_105N SW TA Dr. 24 family Eastern Aegean (Erythrae?) mid-1st–mid-3rd c. AD 313 SY15_507 SU053 105E_105N SW FW Pontic sigillata A Northern Black Sea (Crimea?) 1st/2nd–3rd c. AD 483 SY15_348 SU061 110E_100N NW TA Dr. 24 family Eastern Aegean (Erythrae?) mid-1st–mid-3rd c. AD 340 SY16_019 SU075 110E_100N EFW Colour coated ware (?) ?1st half of the 2nd c. AD 309 SY16_061 SU077 110E_105N EFW Pontic sigillata A Northern Black Sea (Crimea?) 2nd–mid-3rd c. AD 311 SY16_056 SU077 110E_105N SE FW Pontic sigillata A Northern Black Sea (Crimea?) 1st/2nd c. AD 312 SY16_057 SU077 110E_105N SE FW Pontic sigillata A Northern Black Sea (Crimea?) 1st/2nd c. AD 513 SY16_059 SU077 110E_105N ETA Koan/Rhodian tradition Eastern Aegean (Rhodes + perea / Kos) mid-1st–3rd c. AD 528 SY16_051 SU079 105E_105N NE TA B Snp III Southern Black Sea (Sinope) 2nd–3rd c. AD 517 SY16_D11_01 Survey D11 ×TA San Lorenzo 7 Eastern Aegean / Aegean 2nd–6th c. AD 310 SY16_D13_SE_07 Survey D13 SE FW Pontic sigillata A Northern Black Sea (Crimea?) 1st/2nd c. AD 329 SY16_D13_SE_05 Survey D13 SE FW Thin-walled redslipped ware Eastern Aegean (Pergamon?) mid-1st–mid-2nd/ 4th c. AD 522 SY16_D13_NW_02 Survey D13 NW TA ?Eastern Aegean / Mediterranean × 536 SY16_D13_NW_01 Survey D13 NW TA ? ? × 537 SY16_E10_01 Survey E10 ×TA ? ? × 318 SY16_E12_SE_01 Survey E12 SE FW Thin-walled redslipped ware Eastern Aegean (Knidos?) mid-1st–mid-2nd c. AD 300 SY16_F13_NE_10 Survey F13 NE FW Çandarlı ware / ESC Eastern Aegean (Pergamon - Çandarlı) end of 1st–3rd c. AD 132 THE YURTA-STROYNO ARCHAEOLOGICAL PROJECT No. SY # SU Trench Sect. PG Ware/Type Provenance Chronology 301 SY16_F13_SW_02 Survey F13 SW FW Çandarlı ware / ESC Eastern Aegean (Pergamon - Çandarlı) end of 1st–3rd c. AD 341 SY16_F13_SE_01 Survey F13 SE FW Colour coated ware (?) ?1st half of the 2nd c. AD 506 SY16_F13_SW_03 Survey F13 SW TA Kapitän II Eastern Aegean 3rd–4th/5th c. AD 322 SY16_G12_NE_04 Survey G12 NE FW Thin-walled redslipped ware Eastern Aegean (Pergamon?) mid-1st–mid-2nd/ 4th c. AD 327 SY16_G12_NW_06 Survey G12 NW FW Thin-walled redslipped ware Eastern Aegean (Pergamon?) mid-1st–mid-2nd/ 4th c. AD 499 SY16_G12_NE_21 Survey G12 NE TA Dr. 24 family Eastern Aegean mid-1st–mid-3rd c. AD 504 SY16_G12_SE Survey G12 SE TA Kapitän II Eastern Aegean 3rd–4th c. AD 511 SY16_G12_NW_04 Survey G12 NW TA Rhodian tradition Eastern Aegean (Rhodes + perea / Chios) 1st–2nd c. AD (?) 477 SY16_H13_NE_16 Survey H13 NE TA Dr. 24 family Eastern Aegean (Erythrae?) mid-1st–mid-3rd c. AD 488 SY16_H13_NE_17 Survey H13 NE TA Dr. 24 family Eastern Aegean (Chios?) mid-1st–mid-3rd c. AD 521 SY16_H13_NW_03 Survey H13 NW TA Ephesus 56 Eastern Aegean (Ephesus– Pergamon?) 4th/5th–6th/7th c. AD 535 SY16_H13_SE_07 Survey H13 SE TA Africana IIA / Ostia LIX North Africa mid-2nd–3rd/4th c. AD 495 SY16_I09_SE_01 Survey I09 SE TA Dr. 24 family Eastern Aegean mid-1st–mid-3rd c. AD 478 SY16_I12_SW_08 Survey I12 SW TA Dr. 24 family Eastern Aegean (Erythrae?) mid-1st–mid-3rd c. AD 491 SY16_I12_SW_07 Survey I12 SW TA Dr. 24 family Eastern Aegean (Chios?) mid-1st–mid-3rd c. AD 519 SY16_I12_SE_12 Survey I12 SE TA Mic. Jar / LRA 3 Eastern Aegean (Ephesus– Pergamon) 1st–mid-7th c. AD 512 SY16_J13_SE_06 Survey J13 SE TA Rhodian tradition Eastern Aegean (Rhodes + perea) mid-1st–3rd c. AD 133 Pottery out of the context of Yurta ‑Stroyno REGIONALLY PRODUCED POTTERY Fine table ware The majority (98.5 %) of the fine table ware uncovered at the settlement of Yurta -Stroyno includes regional products made in Moesia Inferior and Thracian workshops. These are vessels of Fine red -slipped ware (1–220), Common red -slipped ware (221–234), Grey ware (235–281), Yellow chalky ware (282–284) 64 and Mottled / Marbled ware (285–298). All of these wares ware very likely produced in the area during the Roman Imperial period from the beginning of the 2 nd c. AD. Some of the represented vessels are very well known from Thrace and Moesia Inferior and seem to be very popular at the local households, these being the Fine red -slipped ware plates with an out -turned arched rim (1–10), plates with an out -turned arched and rounded rim (16–27), hemispherical bowls (69–83), flanged bowls (85–92), and the two handled cups (138–143). All of these represented the most frequent shapes made in Fine red -slipped ware found at Yurta -Stroyno. These, but also other shapes of the named fine and coarse wares find good parallels among the regional products, which might be linked to specific kiln sites known in the area (see Tab.1, Map 4). Based on the fabric / ware similarity, other sherds, of less known shapes, were grouped under the specific ware. Where the workshop(s) providing for Yurta -Stroyno were located is impossible to say at this point. It also remains amystery as to whether the same vessel shapes made in different wares were produced at one production centre / area or at different production centres / areas. This relates to the Fine red -slipped ware plates with an out -turned arched rim (1–10) which were also found in the Mottled ware (285–288) and the Grey ware (251); to the Fine red -slipped ware plates with an out -turned arched and rounded rim (16–27), found as well in the Mottled ware (290–291); and the hemispherical decorated bowls of the Fine red -slipped ware (101–104) with very similar products executed also in the Mottled ware (293–295). The highest similarity of shapes made in different wares is however the most apparent for the Fine red -slipped ware and the Grey ware, where we can either find the same forms– such as the hemispherical plates and bowls (cf. 47–50, 59–62, 69–83 × 235–242, 260–262) or exactly the same shapes of different forms (cf. 39–40 × 248; 64 × 245; 66 × 246; 105–110 × 263; 1–10 × 251). This similarity seems to support the already suspected production of the same shapes of vessels with different surface treatments and colours, known from some of the investigated production centres, such as from Varbovski livadi near Pavlikeni. In our pottery assemblage, this phenomenon of mutual shape similarity relates to the Fine red -slipped ware, the Grey ware and the Mottled ware. There have been very few finds of the Grey ware pottery so far identified in eastern Bulgaria. Consequently, the production centre was assumed to be located in western Bulgaria where the finds were concentrated. Despite the small proportion of the Grey ware in the whole assemblage (2%), we are still talking about 548 sherds (Tab.2), which is not inconsiderable amount. Consequently, we may suggest it was also produced locally in eastern Bulgaria, likely 64 Also of autilitarian function. 134 THE YURTA-STROYNO ARCHAEOLOGICAL PROJECT as aside product to the red -slipped ware which otherwise completely dominated the local table ware market. Coarse cooking ware Coarse cooking ware found at Yurta -Stroyno consists of wheel made (349–434, 443–444) and handmade (445–476) vessels. Counting all the diagnostic fragments from the core excavation assemblage (i.e. excluding body fragments), coarse wheel made is represented by 519 frgs. while handmade pottery by 74 frgs. (Tab.4), making it in percentage terms 87.5% to 12.5%. The much less represented handmade pottery (445–476) consists of simple pots of low morphological variability with two main fabrics, granitic (445–459) and dioritic (460–475). The forms are based on Thracian pottery common for the area since the beginning of the Early Iron Age, still in use during the Roman Imperial period. The two fabrics are very distinctive, and they clearly refer to at least two different production centres, located in geologically diverse areas. The ware is chronologically unsensitive, produced in unchanged shapes from the beginning of the Roman Imperial period till the mid-5th c. AD, when it is presumably replaced by different handmade pottery of foreign origin. The dominant coarse ware is represented by wheel made vessels of Coarse cooking ware (349–434, 443–444), mainly including different shapes of pots (361–412), with much less represented casseroles (349–357) and frying pans (358–360). Lids (413–433) make up 8.5% of all the coarse wheel made pottery. Many shapes, including all the three main pottery forms, might be found in regional production, many of which find parallels especially in the production centre in Karanovo, near Nova Zagora. As in the case of the regional fine ware, the fabric was taken as the main factor for grouping, even in the case of sherds with unknown morphological parallels in the regional production. The wheel made coarse ware proved to me the most difficult for finding fitting parallels for, as many shapes persist from the Roman Imperial period till Late Antiquity, consequently, only afew sherds could be dated more closely. The fabric seems to persist as well, as no major differences in its composition were noted. Only in the case of sherds 443–444, dated based on the shape to Late Antiquity, the body thickness was taken into consideration and these sherds, visibly thinner than the rest of the ware, were separated from the Coarse cooking ware. Otherwise, in hand specimen, their fabric seems the be the same. IMPORTED POTTERY In total, about 120 diagnostic fragments relating to long distance import were identified at Yurta -Stroyno. These consist of 115 MNI,65 including 46 MNI of fine table wares, eight MNI of coarse cooking wares, and 62 MNI of transport amphorae (see Appendix – Summary catalogue). Fine table ware The imported fine table ware is compound of 50 fragments which represent 46 MNI.66 The biggest part, 22 MNI, is made up by the thin -walled ware– either by the Thin -walled red -slipped ware (13 frgs.), or Thracian thin -walled ware (7 frgs.). These are mostly represented by cups (14 frgs.), with afew beakers (2 frgs.), bowls (2 frgs.) and ajug. We may also add to these the two Knidian grey ware vessels, abowl and ajug, as these were also produced with thin -walls, 65 Minimum number of individuals. 66 Body fragments 304–307 are of one vessel, so are the base fragments 347–348. 135POTTERY OUT OF THE CONTEXT OF YURTA ‑STROYNO especially the bowl 315. Vessels made in the thin -walled ware are frequently connected with feasting, especially with drinking, which is arole we may also expect for our assemblage. All these 22 fragments represent possibly the earliest fine -ware import to the site of Yurta- -Stroyno, with their export dated already from the second half of the 1st c. AD. The red -slipped thin -walled ware found in Yurta -Stroyno seems to be produced in the Eastern Aegean, likely in Knidos (315–321) and the Pergamon region (322–329). The production of the Thracian thin- -walled ware (330–336) is connected with the northern Aegean, specifically with the area of Ainos, located in the estuary of the Maritsa River. Another two major fine table wares in the assemblage are the nine fragments (6 MNI) of Çandarlı ware / Eastern sigillata C (299–307) and the six to seven fragments of Pontic sigillata A(308–314). All of these are represented by bowls, apart from one, afragment of aplate 313, which is, in terms of its fabric, similar to Pontic sigillata A, although such ashape has not yet been attested in this ware. Çandarlı ware / Eastern sigillata C was produced in the Eastern Aegean, in astrip of land stretching from the area of Pergamon to Çandarlı. The forms attested at Yurta -Stroyno (H3–H5) might be dated from the end of the 1st c. till the mid-3rd c. AD, H5 even to the beginning of the 4th c. AD. Production centres of Pontic sigillata Aare expected to be located in the Northern Black Sea area, likely in the Crimea, active since the mid-1st c. till the 3rd c. AD. This ware is especially interesting for our area as it shares some vessel shapes with the regional Thracian and Moesian production, the best example being Zhuravlev’sForm 1, our flanged bowls made in Fine red -slipped ware (here 85–92). The remaining imported fine wares consist of two bowls of very specific shape and fabric, possibly of Colour coated ware (340–341), although their classification is not completely secure. Based on shape parallels they might be dated to the beginning– first half of the 2nd c. AD. The rest of the import is mostly unsecure– these are fragments of specific fabrics, with no reliable classification (337–339, 342–348). The only exception is the base fragment 344 with palmate brunch imprints, similar to North African production of the 4th–5th c. AD. We do, actually, have two fragments of North African transport amphorae at the site which are dated accordingly (533–534); consequently, it is possible the plate could have been brought to Yurta -Stroyno together with the transport amphorae. The vessel morphology of securely imported wares is somehow limited in comparison to regionally produced ones. The imported vessels include 20 bowls, 14 cups, 2 plates, 2 beakers, 2 jugs, and possibly one lid handle.67 Besides the two jugs, these are mostly small vessels of repetitive shapes. In the regional production, we may find all of the above -mentioned forms, as well as bigger vessels including table amphorae, kraters, and basins. The only ware, which could not have been produced regionally, is the thin -walled were, whose production has not yet been attested at any of the known Thracian and Moesia Inferior kiln sites.68 Otherwise, the regional production seems to cover all the necessary tableware possibly needed by the settlement inhabitants. 67 Ido not count the nine sherds of unsecured import: 337–339, 342–343, 347–348. 68 The Thracian thin -walled ware is aseparated category. Being located directly on the Aegean coast in the Greek– Hellenistic environment, closer to the direct influence of the western import, Ido not perceive it, nor count it, among the Thracian and Moesia Inferior production centres, which are located deep inland, producing repetitive shapes of the red -slipped table ware and coarse cooking ware, common at the local settlements and necropolises. 142 THE YURTA-STROYNO ARCHAEOLOGICAL PROJECT ROMAN IMPERIAL PERIOD Putting together the information gained by combined types of the imported pottery found at Yurta -Stroyno, we may trace the pottery to its approximate area of origin. During the Roman Imperial period the main source of pottery was located in the Eastern Aegean, from where about 69% of all import comes. Two main areas might be detected. The first one is represented by astrip of land about 135 km long stretching from the Pergamon to the Ephesus region, including Pergamon, Çandarlı, Phocaea, Erythrae, Chios Island, Ephesus and the MaeanderValley; we may possibly also include Samos Island, located further south. From this area, we have attested import of fine table wares– Thin -walled red -slipped ware (322–329) and Çandarlı ware / ESC (299–307), possibly also coarse cooking ware (438–439), and transport amphorae– the main body of Dressel 24 amphorae (477–492), the amphorae with micaceous fabric (519–521), and perhaps some of the Kapitän II amphorae. The second area, which is less represented, is located further south, delimited by the islands of Kos and Rhodes with Knidos in the middle. From there, we have attested the Knidian grey ware (315–316), the Thin -walled red -slipped ware (317–321), transport amphorae of the Rhodian and Koan traditions (511–514), and perhaps also some of the Kapitän II amphorae. More vessels are of an Aegean origin, such as the Thracian thin -walled ware (330–336) com - ing from its northern coast; the cooking ware (435–441) and the transport amphorae (517–518, Map 6: Map depicting the places and areas of the imported pottery origin dated to the Roman Imperial period. Two clusters in the Eastern Aegean might be noted– one around Phocaea, ano‑ ther one more to the south in aline Kos– Knidos– Rhodes. For production of Pontic sigillata Aand North African amphorae bigger area than represented on the map by the dot needs to be expected. 143IMPORTED POTTERY OVER TIME 522–523) which cannot be more closely located. These add another ca. 15% to the Aegean origin, creating altogether 83% of all the imports identified at the settlement of Yurta -Stroyno during the Roman Imperial period originating from the Aegean area. To that, we may add about 3% of amphorae from the Eastern Mediterranean. Much less substituted are the sherds from the Black Sea area and North Africa, with the latter represented by one transport amphora sherd only (535), dated to the 2nd–3rd c. AD. Regarding the Black Sea area, the red -slipped fine wares might be traced to its northern part (Pontic sigillata A, 308–314), while the transport amphorae were of asouthern, possibly also eastern (527, 531–532) origin. Sinopean amphorae (525, 527–528) are the most represented, with asingle sherd from Heraclea Pontica (530). The Black Sea area during the Roman Imperial period is represented by 12.5% of the imports; 8% is fine ware from the north, 4.5% are transport amphorae from the south. LATE ANTIQUITY Imports dated to the Late Antiquity (5 th –6 th c. AD) are much less represented at Yurta -Stroyno, altogether by 8 MNI. There is only one fragment of fine red -slipped ware (344) while the rest are transport amphorae. Regarding the Eastern Aegean area, there are only two fragments of Ephesus 56 (520–521), further, one fragment possibly of Agora M273 (515) from the Eastern Map 7: Map depicting the places and areas of the imported pottery origin dated to Late Antiquity. In the Eastern Aegean it is the coastal area between Pergamon and Ephesus. 144 THE YURTA-STROYNO ARCHAEOLOGICAL PROJECT Mediterranean. All three of them dated from the mid-4th c. AD either to the 6th c. AD (515) or to the 7th c. AD (520–521). From the Black Sea area, two Sinopean amphorae might be identified, 529, if correctly classified as acarrot amphora, dated from the 4th to 5th c. AD, and 524, dated to the 6th–7th c. AD. From North Africa, we have two transport amphorae, dated to the 5th–6th c. AD (533), and to the 5th–7th c. AD (534). The fragment of the fine red -slipped ware is dated to the 4th–5th c. AD and it represents the only fragment of African pottery other than amphorae found at the settlement. It might have been brought as aside product of the amphorae shipment. Many of the fragments might be dated from the 4th c. AD and as such still brought to the site during the Roman Imperial period. There are only three fragments which are uniquely dated to the Late Antiquity, the Sinopean (524) and African (533–534) amphorae. However, if we accept the later chronology of the eight sherds, the proportions of import are as follows: Eastern Aegean 25%, Eastern Mediterranean 12.5%, southern Black Sea 25%, and North Africa 37.5%. 145 Concluding remarks on the pottery studies from Yurta ‑Stroyno In the style of the first volume, Iwould like to add some information to the results of the Yurta- -Stroyno Archaeological Project based on the pottery studies, related mostly to its chronology and interconnection with the rest of the Roman world. The pottery assemblage yielded ahuge amount (ca. 98.5% of the whole) of the regionally produced fine table wares and coarse cooking wares, with parallels traceable at the production centres in Thrace and Moesia Inferior, the majority dated to the 2nd–3rd c. AD, with an extension to the 4th c. AD. During the same period, we may notice the main body of the imported pottery accumulating at the settlement, mostly dated till the end of the 3rd c. AD, with afew forms continuing till the 4th c. AD. The most interesting thing is, however, the early horizon of the imported fine table wares, dated already from the second half of the 1st c. AD. For this period, there are no securely dated kilns in the lands of the two provinces, and it makes us wonder if these could have served as the first table vessels used at the settlement, before they were replaced by the regional production, richer in shapes and vessel variability. Unfortunately, our pottery does not come from stratified contexts, and we also need to admit apossible later origin of these fragments. Otherwise, the imports do not seem to bring many innovative wares, apart from one, the thin -walled ware, whose production has not yet been attested in the region, which might explain its abundancy at the settlement (48%)71 in comparison to the other imported table wares. The first imports of transport amphorae are also connected to the early Roman period, with the first fragments attributed to the time range of the 1st c. BC– 1st c. AD. The biggest body of amphorae finds might then be dated from the mid-1st c. AD to the mid-3rd c. AD, with possible continuation till the 4th c. AD. We may note by now the repetitive chronology, confirming our previous studies on the regionally made pottery, imported pottery and the small finds and other materials processed within the previous volume, putting the peak period of the settlement to the 2 nd –3 rd c. AD, with some possible activities taking place already in the second half of the 1st c. AD and, certainly, in the 4th c. AD. During the peak period, we may note astrong tie with the Aegean area, especially with the Eastern Aegean coast and islands, where the majority of the table wares, cooking wares and amphorae originated. We may connect that area with the major suppliers of Yurta -Stroyno, providing it with wine and olive oil, perhaps also with rare vessels, which might have been brought to the settlement alongside the amphorae. At the same time, much less represented imports come from the Northern and Southern Black Sea area and from North Africa. As we have also seen in connection with the other material studies, items dated to the Late Antiquity might also be identified at the settlement, however, in much smaller amounts. Regarding pottery, these are especially fragments of transport amphorae, originating on the Eastern Aegean / Eastern Mediterranean, Southern Black Sea coast and North Africa. Their amount is small, but almost equal, not pointing to any preferred area of import at that time. Their mere presence, however, attest to limited settlement life at Yurta -Stroyno also in the Late Antiquity. 71 22 MNI / 46 MNI of all imported fine ware. 147 Bibliography Abbreviations AB = Archaeologia Bulgarica AOR = Археологически открития иразкопки BAR = British Archaeological Reports BAR IS = British Archaeological Reports International Series BCH Suppl. = Bulletin de Correspondance Hellénique Supplément Be ‑JA = Bulgarian e ‑Journal of Archaeology LRCW = Late Roman Coarse Wares, Cooking Wares and Amphorae in the Mediterranean. Archaeology and Archaeometry PATABS = Production and Trade of Amphorae in the Black Sea RCRF = Rei Cretariae Romanae Fautores (Acta) SH = Studia Hercynia The Athenian Agora = The Athenian Agora. Results of Excavations Conducted by the American School of Clas‑ sical Studies Abadie -Reynald, C. 2005: Trade Relations in the Aegean Sea. The Ceramic Evidence from Argos between the 1st Century BC and the 2nd Century AD. In: M. B. Briese– L. E. Vaag (eds.): Trade Relations in the East‑ ern Mediterranean from the Late Hellenistic Period to Late Antiquity. The Ceramic Evidence. Halicarnassian StudiesIII. Odense, 37–49. Adamsheck, B. 1979: Kenchreai. Eastern Port of Corinth. Results of Investigations by The University of Chicago and Indiana University for The American School of Classical Studies at Athens IV. The Pottery. Leiden. Agre– Dichev 2005 = Агре, Д.– Дичев, Д. 2005: Могили от римската епоха вцентрална Странджа. Известия на Националния исторически музей XV, 43–74. Agre 2013 = Агре, Д. 2013: Тракийска могила от римската епоха вземлището на с. Бояново, Елховска община. In: Сборник впамет на акад. Д.П. Димитров. София, 346–358. Agre– Dichev– Hristov 2015 = Агре, Д.– Дичев, Д.– Христов, Х. 2015: Археологически разкопки на селищен обект вм. Манастирчето– Св. Илия, край с. Стройно, община Елхово. AOR през 2014, 208–211. Agre– Dichev– Hristov 2021 = Агре, Д.– Дичев, Д.– Христов, Х. 2021: Трако -римски селищен обект вм. св. Илия вземлището на с. Стройно, обш. Елхово. AOR през 2020, 876–880. Alexandrova, S.S. 2013a: Ceramic Vessels from the Roman Tumulus Necropolis near the Village of Charda, Yambol Municipality, SE Bulgaria. AB XVII/3, 17–108. Alexandrova, S.S. 2013b: Типология ихронология на керамиката изработена на ръка от римския иранновизантийския период (I–VI в.) на територията на България [Typology and Chronology of the Hand‑ made Pottery of the Roman and Early Byzantine Period (1st–6th c.) on the Territory of Bulgaria]. Дисертации 7. София. Alexandrova, S.S. 2015: The Black ‑Slipped Pottery from Heraclea Sintica (1st–4th c. AD). In: L. Vagalinski– Nankov, E. (eds.): Heraclea Sintica: From Hellenistic Polis to Roman Civitas (4th c. BC–6th c. AD). Proceedings of aConference at Petrich, Bulgaria, September 18–21, 2013. Sofia, 144–166. Alexandrova 2016 = Александрова, С.С. 2016: Керамични съдове от римски могилен некропол край гр. Стралджа, Ямболско. In: И. Д. Чолаков– С. Александрова– В. Русева– Н. Пеева: Могилен некропол от римската епоха край град Стралджа, Ямболско. Be -JA Suppl. 5, 33–107. 148 THE YURTA-STROYNO ARCHAEOLOGICAL PROJECT Anderson -Stojanović, V.R.1984: Macedonian Terra Sigillata Grise from Stobi: ANew Typology for the Ware. RCRF 23/24, 99–109. Anderson -Stojanović, V.R.1992: Stobi. The Hellenistic and Roman Pottery. Princeton– New Jersey. Andone -Rotaru, M.– Nedelea, L. 2018: The Pottery Workshops at Potaissa. In: Rusu -Bolindeţetal. eds. 2018, 69–90. Atli Akbuz, L. 2008: Hadrianopolis Roma Dönemi Seramiği. Unpublished MA thesis defended at the Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi. Izmir. Auriemma, R.– Quiri, E. 2004: Importazioni di anfore orientali nell’Adriatico tra primo e medio imperio. In: Eiring– Lund eds. 2004, 171–188, 43–55. Auriemma, R.2007: Imateriali di età Romana. Produzioni orientali. In: C. Mortelli (ed.): Trieste Antica. Lo scavo di Crosada. Imateriali II. Trieste, 136–154. Avramova 2005 = Аврамова, Д. 2005: Типология на един вид стомнички от Улпия Ескус. Извести на Национален Исторически Музей София XVI, 95–117. Bădescu, A. 2012: Oriental Amphorae Type LRA 1 and LRA 2 Discovered at Histria (The Basilica Extra Muros Sector). Pontica XXXXV, 311–328. Băjenaru, C. 2013: Contextes ceramiques de Tomis (I). Un ensemble de la fin du IIe– debut du IIIe s.ap. J.‐C. Pontica XLVI, 41–110. Bakardzhiev, S. 2007 = Бакърджиев, С. 2007: Сондажни археологически проучвания вм. Юрта при с. Стройно, община Елхово, област Ямбол. AOR през 2006 г., 238–241. Bakardzhiev, S. 2008 = Бакърджиев, С. 2008: Сондажни археологически проучвания вм. Юрта при с. Стройно, община Елхово, AOR през 2007 г., 471–473. Bakardzhiev– Mikov– Dzhanfezova 2014 = Бакърджиев, С.– Миков, Р.– Джанфезова, Т. 2014: Спасително археологическо проучване вграниците на пи № 000159 от землището на с. Кабиле, общ. Тунджа, Ямболска област. AOR през 2013, 426–429. Bâltâc, A. 2018: The Pottery Workshops at Ostrov (Durostorum), Farm no. 4 Spot, Constanța County. In: Rusu -Bolindeţetal. eds. 2018, 211–223. Baumann, V.H. 1996: La céramique utilitaire du IVe siècle fabriquée par l’officina romana de Valea Morilor (Teliţa, dep. De Tulcea). RCRF 33, 45–58. Berlin, A. 1997: The Plain Wares. In: Ch. C. Herbert (ed.): Tel Anafa, The Hellenistic and Roman Pottery. Ann Arbor, 1–244. Bertoldi, T. 2012: Guida alle anfore romane di età imperiale. Forme, impasti e distribuzione. Roma. Bezeczky, T. 2013: The Amphorae of Roman Ephesus. Forschungen in Ephesos 15/1. Wien. Biernacki, A.B.– Klenina, E.Yu. 2014: Early Byzantine Coarse Ware from Novae. Production and Chronology. In: N. Poulou -Papadimitriou– E. Nodarou– V. Kilikoglou (eds.): LRCW 4. BAR IS 2616. Oxford, 151–157. Biernacki, A.B.– Klenina, E.Yu. 2015: Early -Byzantine Pottery Workshops in Novae (Moesia II, Bulgaria): Technological, Economic and Historical Aspects. In: F. Thuillier– E. Louis (eds.): Tourner autour du pot. Les ateliers de potiers médiévaux du Ve au XIIe siècle dans l’espace européen. Turnhout, 373–381. Bjelajac, L. 1996: Amfore gornjo mezijskog podunavlja. Beograd. Bojović, D. 1977: Rimska keramika Singidunuma. Beograd. Bonettoetal. 2017 = Bonetto, J.– Bressan, M.– Francisci, D.– Mazzocchin, S.– Shindler -Kaudelka, E. 2017: Spoglio e riuso del teatro del Pythion de Gortyna tra 300 e 365 d.C. Icontesti ceramici. In: Dixneuf ed. 2017, 723–732. Bonifay, M. 2004: Études sur la céramique romaine tardive d’Afrique. BAR IS 1301. Oxford. Borislavova, N.G. 2018a = Борисловова, Н.Г. 2018a: Амфори от римската провинция Тракия (I–III в.). Автореферат на дисертация за присъждане на образователна инаучна степен „доктор”. Sofia. Borislavova, N.G. 2018b: Heraclean Amphorae in Roman Thrace. AB XXII/2, 47–60. Borislavova, N.G. 2020: Sub -Rhodian Amphorae in the Roman Province of Thrace. Is the Form aTrademark for the Content? RCRF 46, 467–473. 149BIBLIOGRAPHY Borisova -Katsarova, I. 2022: Late Roman Pottery with Stamped Decoration from Serdika (Sofia, Bulgaria). Poster presented at the 32nd RCRF congress in Athens, 25th–30th September 2022. Borisov 1988 = Борисов, Б. 1988: Исследование ранневизантийской керамики из сливенского окръга. Thracia 8, 90–118. Borisov 2005 = Борисов, Б. 2005: Пещи за изпичане на битова керамика от античното селище край село Караново, Новозагроско. Известия на Регионален исторически музей Велико Търново XX, 129–139. Borisov 2013 = Борисов, Б. 2013: Късноантичната грънчарска работилница край с. Караново, Новозагорско, инамерената внея керамика. In: В. Динчев (ed.): In Honorem Professoris Георги Кузманов. Известия на Националния Археологически ИнститутXLI. София, 281–336. Botusharova 1959 = Ботушарова, Л. 1959: Нови данни за Филипопол през Римската епоxа. Годишник на музеите вПловдивски окръг II, 1954–1955, 111–140. Bouzek, J.– Musil, J. 2002: Adžijska Vodenica II, 1994–1998: Excavations report by the Czech Mission. In: J. Bouzek– L. Domaradzka– Z. Archibald (eds.): PistirosII. Excavations and Studies. Praha, 37–109. Böttger 1978 = Бьотгер, Б. 1978: Домашна керамика от IV–VI в. от Ятрус (Долна Мизия). Археология XX/2, 26–32. Böttger, B. 1982: Die Gefäßkeramik aus dem Kastell Iatrus. In: Iatrus ‑KrivinaII. Spätanike Befestigung und frühmittelalterliche Siedlung an der unteren Donau. Ergebnisse der Ausgrabungen 1966‑1973. Berlin, 33–148. Boyadzhiev 2013 = Бояджиев, К. 2013: Издирвания на археологически обекти по трасето на газопровода „набуко“, сектор 1, ревизияе. AOR през 2012 г., 579–581. Brukner, O. 1981: Rimska keramika uJugoslovenskom delu provincije Donje Panonije. Beograd. Buyukliev 1980 = Буюклиев, X. 1980: Тракийският могилен некропол при Чаталка, Старозагорски okrg. Разкопки ипроучвания XVI. София. Caravale, A.– Toffoletti, I. 1997: Anfore antiche, conoscerle e identificarle. Roma. Carlson, D.N.– Lawall, M. 2005/2006: Towards aTypology of Erythraian Amphoras, Skyllis 1-2, 33–40. Chatalka 2015 = Римската вила при Чаталка. Богатството на един Тракийски аристократ. Catalogue of Exhibition, Sofia National Museum of Archaeology. May 22–September 10, 2015. София. Chichikova, M. 1977: Céramique Thrace fabriqué àla main du VIe au 1er siècles avant notre ère. Thracia IV, 123–140. Chichikova 1984 = Чичикова, М. 1984: Антична керамика. In: Т. Иванов (ed.): СевтополисI. София, 18–114. Čisťakova, V.– Kmošek, J. 2022: Metal Finds and Traces of Metallurgical Activities at Yurta -Stroyno. In: Tušlová– Weissová– Bakardzhiev eds. 2022, 155–183. Čisťakova, V.– Zlámalová Cílová, Z. 2022: Archaeological and Archaeometric Study of the Roman and Late Antique Glass. In: Tušlová– Weissová– Bakardzhiev eds. 2022, 184–244. Conspectus = Ettlinger, E.etal. 1990: Conspectus formarum terrae sigillatae italico modo confectae. Bonn. Coldstream, J.N.– Eiring, I.J.– Forster, G. 2001: Knossos Pottery Handbook. Greek and Roman. British School at Athens Studies 7. London. Conrad, S. 1999: Zu Typologie und Funktionsbestimmung der Amphoren aus dem Kastell Iatrus. In: G. von Bülow– A. Milcheva (eds.): Der Limes an der unteren Donau von Diokletian bis Heraklios. Sofia, 175–188. Conrad, S. 2007: Kommentierter Katalog der gefässkeramischen Funde. In: G. von Bulow– B. Böttger– D. Stancevetal. (eds.): Iatrus ‑KrivinaVI. Spätantike Befestigung Und Frühmittelalterliche Siedlung an Der Unteren Donau. Ergebnisse der Ausgrabungen 1992‑2000. Mainz am Rhein, 1–84. Cottica, D. 2005: Perspectives on Pottery Production and Exchange in Late Roman and Byzantine Anatolia. The Common Wares from Hierapolis, Phrygia. In: J.M. Gurt Esparraguera– J. Buxeda iGarrigós –M.A. Cau Ontiveros (eds.): LRCWI. BAR IS 1340. Oxford, 655–666. Cvjetićanin, T. 2003: Early Roman Marbled Vessels from Diana (Serbia): AB VII/1, 59–70. Cvjetićanin, T. 2004: Trajanic LIMES in Upper Moesia, aCeramic Viewpoint. Novensia 15, 117–132. Cvjetićanin, T. 2010: Roman Pottery in Moesia Superior. Belgrade. 150 THE YURTA-STROYNO ARCHAEOLOGICAL PROJECT Desbat, A.– Picon, M. 1986: Les Importations d’amphores de Méditerranée orientale aLyon. In: J.-Y. Empereur– Y. Garlan (eds.): Recherches sur les Amphores Grecques. BCH Suppl. XIII, 637–468. Difneuax, D. ed. 2017: LRCW 5. Études Alexandrines 42. Alexandrie– Paris. Dimitrova 1982 = Димитрова, А. 1982: Разкопки на базилика No. 1 вКабиле. In: Т. Иванов (ed.): Кабиле 1. София, 115–157. Dimitrova -Milcheva, A. 1987: Importierte terra sigillata aus Novae. In: T. Ivanov– M. Chichikova– A. Dimitrova -Milcheva: Recherches sur la culture en Mesie et en Thrace, Bulgarie, Ie–IVe siecle. Bulletin de l’institut d’archeologie XXXVII. Sofia, 108–152, Taf. XXIII–XXVI. Dimitrova -Milcheva 2008 = Димитрова -Милчева, А. 2008: Луксозна керамика– импорт иместно производство от Тракия иМизия през I–III в. сл. хр. In: R. Ivanov (ed.): Археология на българските земи 3. Иврай– София, 119–161. Dobreva, D. 2017: Tra Oriente e Occidente. Dinamiche commerciali in Moesia Inferior e Thracia in epoca romana idati delle anfore. Padova. Domżalski, K. 2014: The Pitane Workshop and the Most Successful Export of Eastern SigillataC. In: H. Meyza (ed.): Late Hellenistic to Medieval Fine Wares of the Aegean Coast of Anatolia. Their Production, Imitation and Use. Warszawa, 151–159. Dremsizova -Nelchinova = Дремсизова -Нелчинова, Цв. 1971: Сивочерна керамика от римската вила край с. Мадара, Шуменски окръг. Археология II/2, 21–30. Dyczek, P.1991: Ceramika zodcinka IV (1981, 1983). Novensia 2, 101–127. Dyczek, P.1997: Remarks on the Roman Amphorae at Novae from the First to the Third Century AD. Novensia 9, 81–96. Dyczek, P.2001: Roman Amphorae of the 1st–3rd Centuries AD Found on the Lower Danube. Typology. Warsaw. Dyczek, P.2007: Late Roman Amphorae from the Site of Valetudinarium at Novae. In: M. Bonifay– J.-Ch. Tréglia (eds.): LRCW 2. BAR IS 1661. Oxford, 827–834. Dyczek, P.2010: Kapitän II Amphorae from Novae– between East and West. In: S. Menchelli– S. Santoro– M. Pasquinucci– G. Guiducci (eds.): LRCW 3. BAR IS 2185. Oxford, 993–999. Edwards, G.R.1975: Corinthian Hellenistic Pottery. Corinth, Results of Excavations Conducted by the American School of Classical Studies at Athens VII/III. Princeton– New Jersey. Eiring, J.– Lund, J. eds. 2004: Transport Amphorae and Trade in the Eastern Mediterranean. Acts of the Interna‑ tional Colloquium at the Danish Institute at Athens, September 26–29, 2002. Aarhus. Empereur, J.-Y.– Hesnard, A. 1987: Les amphores hellénistiques. In: P.Lévêque– J.-P.Morel (eds.): Céram‑ iques hellénistiques et romaines II. Besançon, 9–72. Falkner, R.K. 1999: The Pottery. In: A.G. Poulter (ed.): Nicopolis ad Istrum: ARoman to Early Byzantine City. The Pottery and Glass. London. Fantuzzi, L.– Cau Ontiveros,M.A. 2018: Archaeometric Analysis of Late Roman Amphorae from Africa in the Ancient City of Iluro (Mataró, Catalonia, Spain). Archaeological and Anthropological Science 10/4, 759–780. Frecer, R.2022: The Terracotta Lamps. In: Tušlová– Weissová– Bakardzhiev eds. 2022, 145–154. Gencheva 2002 = Генчева, Е. 2002: Првият военен лагер вNovae, провинция Мизия (Северна България). Sofia– Warszawa. Gervasini, L. 2005: La ceramica apareti sottili. In: D. Gandolfi (ed.): La ceramica e imateriali di età Romana. Classi, produzioni, commerci e consumi. Bordighera, 279–310. Gizdova 2005 = Гиздова, Н. 2005: Тракийски могилен некропол иселище вместността Суxия Саз при с. Величково, Пазарджишко. Studia Archaeologica Universitatis Serdicensis, Suppl. IV. София, 173–192. Grigoropoulos, D. 2021: Pottery of the Roman Imperial Period. Chronology, Fine Ware Imports, Local and Other Table Wares. Halasarna IX, 1. Athens. Handzhijska 2006 = Ханджийска, В. 2006: Керамика на ръка от Кабиле от III иII в. пр. Хр. In: И. Илиев (ed.): Поселищен живот вТракия. Ямбол, 109–122. 151BIBLIOGRAPHY Harizanov, A. 2016: ANew Centre for Ceramic Production from the Roman Province of Thrace (2nd–3rd Century). Preliminary Results. RCRF 44, 581–594. Harizanov, A. 2019: Пещи за керамика вднешните български земи през I–VI век [Ceramic Kilns in the Territory of Modern Bulgaria from the 1st to the 6th Century AD]. Дисертации 15. София. Harizanov, A. 2020a: Rural Ceramic Workshops in Roman Thrace (Second Half of the 1st– end of the 3rd Century). RCRF 46, 401–410. Harizanov, A. 2020b: Supply of Imported Fineware along the Central Road in Roman Thrace. Be ‑JA 10.1, 75–110. Hasnard, A. 1986: Imitations et raisonnement archéologique : Apropos des amphores de Rhodes et de Cos. In: J.-Y. Empereur – Y. Garlan (eds.): Recherches sur les Amphores Grecques. BCH Suppl. XIII, 69–79. Hayes, J.W. 1972: Late Roman Pottery. ACatalogue of Roman Fine Wares. London. Hayes, J.W. 1977: Early Roman Wares from the House of Dionysos, Paphos. RCRF 17/18, 96–101. Hayes, J.W. 1983: The Villa Dionysos Excavations, Knossos: The Pottery. The Annual of British School of Athens 78, 98–169. Hayes, J.W. 1985: Sigillate Orientali. In: Enciclopedia dell’Arte Antica, Classica e OrientaleII. Roma, 1–96. Hayes, J.W. 1991: Paphos. The Hellenistic and Roman PotteryIII. Nicosia. Hayes, J.W. 1992: Excavations at Saraçhane in Istanbul 2. The Pottery. Princeton. Hayes, J.W. 1997: Handbook of Mediterranean Roman Pottery. London. Hayes, J.W. 2008: Roman Pottery. Fine ‑ware Imports. The Athenian AgoraXXXII. Princeton– New Jersey. Heath, S.– Tekkök, B. eds. 2006–2009: Greek, Roman and Byzantine Pottery at Ilion (Troia). http://classics. uc.edu/troy/grbpottery/. Visited 12/01/2023. Heinetal. 2008 = Hein, A.– Georgopoulou, V.– Nodarou. E.– Kilikoglou, V. 2008: Koan Amphorae from Halasarna– Investigations in aHellenistic Amphora Production Centre. Journal of Archaeological Science 35, 1049–1061. Heřmánková, P.2022a: The Epigraphic Finds from Yurta -Stroyno in aRegional Context. In: Tušlová– Weissová– Bakardzhiev eds. 2022, 118–132. Heřmánková, P.2022b: The Numismatic Finds. In: Tušlová– Weissová– Bakardzhiev eds. 2022, 133–144. Hristov– Stoeva 2013 = Христов, M.– Стоева, К. 2013: Съдове от антична пещ за битова керамика до раннохристиянска църква № 1 ваула до с. Хан Крум, община Преслав. In: Преслав 7, 370–401. Hristov, I. 2015: THE PRAETORIUM OF SOSTRA. Astudy of the Roman roadside station of Sostra on Oescus– Philippopolis road (II–III century). Sofia. Ignatov 1996 = Игнатов, В. 1996: Тракийска нагробна могила от римската епоха край с. Пет могили, Новозагорско. In: Ignatov– Kancheva -Ruseva– Velkov eds. 1996, 71–124. Ignatov– Kancheva -Ruseva– Velkov eds. 1996 = Игнатов, В.– Кънчева -Русева, Т.– Велков, К. eds. 1996: Проучвания на нагробни могили вновозагорско. Rусе. Iliescu, I.-A.– Botiș, F.-O. 2018: The Pottery Workshops from Histria. In: Rusu -Bolindeţetal. eds. 2018, 193–209. Ilievetal. eds. 2012 = Iliev, I.– Ross, S.– Sobotková, A.– Bakardzhiev, S.– Connor, S. eds. 2012: The Tundzha Regional Archaeological Project. Elhovo Survey [Регионален aрхеологически проект Тунджа. Проучване вЕлхово]. Yambol. Ivanova 2003 = Иванова, М. 2003: Пещ за битова керамика край с. Лешница, община Ловеч. In: И. Христов– Г. Китов– М. Иванова– М. Бунев (eds.): СОСТРА. Пръцкане на Римската крайпътна станция икастел на пътя Ескус– ФилипополисI. Велико Търново, 57–64. Ivanov, S. 2019a: Typology and Chronology of Red ‑Slip Ware from the Roman Ceramics Centre near Karavelovo Village, Shumen Region, North Bulgaria. Be -JA Suppl. 7, 267–284. Ivanov, S. 2019b: Typology and Chronology of the Red Slip Ware from the Roman Manufacturing Complex in the Varbovski Livadi Site near Pavlikeni (North Bulgaria). AB XXIII/1, 1–31. Ivanov, S. 2019c: Типология ихронология на битова керамика от римската грънчарска пещ при нос Свети Атанас край град Бяла, област Варна. 130 години музейно дело вРазград. Разград, 222–238.