Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-grxwn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-15T14:06:46.054Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

PRODUCTION AND SUPPLY OF CERAMIC OIL LAMPS IN HELLENISTIC AND EARLY ROMAN NEA PAPHOS, CYPRUS: INTEGRATED TYPOLOGICAL, CHRONOLOGICAL AND PROVENANCE STUDIES

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 October 2021

Małgorzata Kajzer*
Affiliation:
Institute of Archaeology and Ethnology of the Polish Academy of Sciences and the Polish Centre of Mediterranean Archaeology, University of Warsaw
Edyta Marzec
Affiliation:
Fitch Laboratory, British School at Athens and the Institute of Mediterranean and Oriental Cultures of the Polish Academy of Sciences
Evangelia Kiriatzi
Affiliation:
Fitch Laboratory, British School at Athens
Noémi S. Müller
Affiliation:
Fitch Laboratory, British School at Athens
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper presents the results of a multipronged approach to the study of the Hellenistic and Early Roman ceramic oil lamps excavated at the Agora of Nea Paphos in Cyprus. The assemblage was studied macroscopically, and selected samples were analysed through WD-XRF spectroscopy and thin section petrography, combined with refiring tests. The integrated results revealed that local production changed through time in terms of lamp shapes, manufacturing techniques and clay recipes, while imported lamps originated from a range of sources. The transformations seen in the local production correlate with changes in the origin of imported lamp supply and the impact of other centres on the local lamp manufacture. These patterns in production and supply could be most likely associated with political transformations and urban development.

Παραγωγή και προμήθεια πήλινων λυχναριών στην ελληνιστική και πρώιμη ρωμαϊκή Νέα Πάφο, Κύπρο. Συνθετική μελέτη τυπολογίας, χρονολόγησης και προέλευσης.

Η δημοσίευση αυτή παρουσιάζει τα αποτελέσματα μιας πολύπλευρης διεπιστημονικής μελέτης ελληνιστικών και πρώιμων ρωμαϊκών λυχναριών από την Αγορά της Νέα Πάφου, στην Κύπρο. Το υπό μελέτη σύνολο εξετάστηκε μακροσκοπικά ενώ επιλεγμένα δείγματα υποβλήθηκαν σε φασματοσκοπία φθορισμού ακτίνων χ με διασπορά μήκους κύματος και πετρογραφική ανάλυση με λεπτές τομές, σε συνδυασμό με δοκιμές επανόπτησης. Η σύνθεση των αποτελεσμάτων υποδεικνύει διαχρονικές αλλαγές στην τοπική παραγωγή, σε σχέση με το σχήμα των λυχναριών, τις τεχνικές διαμόρφωσης και τις συνταγές της πηλόμαζας, αλλά και σημαντική ποικιλία στις πηγές των εισηγμένων λυχναριών. Οι μεταβολές στην τοπική παραγωγή σχετίζονται με τις αλλαγές στις πηγές προμήθειας των εισηγμένων λυχναριών και την επίδραση άλλων κέντρων παραγωγής στα τοπικά εργαστήρια. Η γενικότερη εικόνα της παραγωγής και προμήθειας λυχναριών συνδέεται πολύ πιθανόν με πολιτικές αλλαγές και την ανάπτυξη του αστικού συγκροτήματος της Νέα Πάφου.

Type
Articles
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of The Council, British School at Athens

BACKGROUND AND RESEARCH OBJECTIVES

During antiquity, ceramic oil lamps were a common portable light source, due to their small size and easy access to fuel, mainly olive oil (Bailey Reference Bailey1972, 10–11; Kimpe, Jacobs and Waelkens Reference Kimpe, Jacobs and Waelkens2001; Copley et al. Reference Copley, Bland, Rose and Horton2005). They were used to produce artificial light in domestic and public spaces. In sacred contexts, such as temples and sanctuaries, they were dedicated as votive offerings, while in tombs they were used as part of the burial furniture (e.g. Bailey Reference Bailey1972, 11–12; Parks Reference Parks1999, 338–44; Dimakis Reference Dimakis, Polychroniadis and Evely2015; Şoforoğlu and Summerer Reference Şoforoğlu, Summerer, Summerer and Kaba2016; Kelsall Reference Kelsall2018, 101–7).

Many lamps dating from the Hellenistic and Roman periods have been discovered across the Mediterranean and beyond, and it has been suggested that these were mass-produced objects, manufactured in various centres and distributed on a large scale (Bailey Reference Bailey1975, 10–12). Due to the abundance of lamps within archaeological contexts, and to their extensive distribution during ancient times, they can provide valuable insights into the communities that produced and used them. They can also shed light on regional and long-distance connections. However, research into the role of lamps in the economy of the Hellenistic and Early Roman world is still limited. Traditionally, studies have mainly focused on their typology, chronology and iconography, and a vast number of publications present lamps from private collections and museums, often lacking archaeological context. Researchers who combined traditional studies with macroscopic fabric analysis (Bailey Reference Bailey1975; Reference Bailey1980; Reference Bailey1988; Sussman Reference Sussman2009; Reference Sussman2012) suggested that lamps with very similar shapes and decorations were made in different workshops across the Mediterranean during the Hellenistic and Roman periods. This is important, since it implies that the identification of lamp origins cannot be based solely on typological and iconographic examination, but also requires the combined application of fabric analysis.

In response to this need, lamps have been subjected to mineralogical and elemental analysis. In most previous studies, lamps usually comprised part of the analysed samples, alongside other pottery categories (‘Amr Reference ‘Amr1987, 29–37; Daszkiewicz and Raabe Reference Daszkiewicz and Raabe1995; Oziol Reference Oziol1995, 240; Rautman Reference Rautman and Herbert1997; Schneider Reference Schneider2000a; Élaigne Reference Élaigne2002; Picon and Blondé Reference Picon and Blondé2002, 15; Rathossi, Tsolis-Katagas and Katagas Reference Rathossi, Tsolis-Katagas and Katagas2004; Dobbins Reference Dobbins, Berlin and Herbert2012, 109–10; Fenn Reference Fenn2016). There are, however, a few cases in which lamps were the focus of scientific analysis. A notable example is a programme of analysis carried out over many years by Schneider and his collaborators (Schneider and Wirz Reference Schneider, Wirz and Mery1992; Schneider Reference Schneider and Olcese1993; Reference Schneider, Brogiolo and Pietro Olcese2000b; Reference Schneider and Huld-Zetsche2014; Ceci and Schneider Reference Ceci and Schneider1994; Schneider and Daszkiewicz Reference Schneider and Daszkiewicz2019), focusing on lamps from the Western Roman provinces.Footnote 1 There is no such comprehensive project for the Eastern Mediterranean, but there are some noteworthy examples of scientific analysis of lamps from Western Anatolia (mainly Ephesus) (Hughes, Leese and Smith Reference Hughes, Leese and Smith1988), Sepphoris (Lapp Reference Lapp2016, 120–80) and Rhodes (Katsioti Reference Katsioti2017).Footnote 2 Nevertheless, there was no such study dedicated solely to Cypriot lamps. To fill this gap, and to create a new, comprehensive methodological approach for lamp studies, the assemblage unearthed at the Agora in Nea Paphos has been investigated. The interdisciplinary study of the Hellenistic and Roman lamps recovered during the systematic excavations in Nea Paphos (between 2011 and 2016) provides important new information about the production and circulation of this type of ceramic objects. Numerous lamps unearthed during the excavations have been studied through the combination of the traditional typological approach with macroscopic fabric examination and scientific analysis of selected samples.Footnote 3 This enabled the definition of distinct Production Groups (PG), with different typological (shape), stylistic (decoration), technological, and compositional attributes. In order to facilitate comparability with, and reassessment by, analogous contemporary or future interdisciplinary studies, this paper emphasises the detailed presentation of the whole analytical process and not only of the final results.

Ultimately, the purpose of this study has been to gain further understanding of the production and distribution patterns of lamps, and their transformation over time. This sets the foundations for a more informed discussion of the role of lamps in the local market – within the wider context of fine ware pottery manufacture and supply – tracing changes in consumer preferences, as well as the nature of contacts and trade relations of Nea Paphos during the Hellenistic and Early Roman periods.

FOLLOWING THE DEVELOPMENT OF CERAMIC OIL LAMPS

The oldest known ceramic vessels, possibly used as oil lamps, come from Greece and the Near East and date from the Neolithic period (e.g. Weinberg Reference Weinberg1962, 204; Kelsall Reference Kelsall2018, 16). They were hand-made, plain, shallow vessels. During the Bronze Age, they evolved in the Near East into hand-made and wheel-made bowls with pinched rims providing spouts for wicks (Kelsall Reference Kelsall2018, 20–2). On Cyprus, wheel-made open bowls with pinched rims were in continuous use from the Middle Bronze Age (2000–1600 bc) until the Early Hellenistic period (late fourth–mid-third century bc) (Oziol Reference Oziol1995).

An important step in lamp development took place in Greek workshops during the seventh century bc. The wheel-made lamps produced there had bridged nozzles (Howland Reference Howland1958, 5), which allowed control of the wick length and thus the size of the flame. From the turn of the fifth to the fourth century bc, the bodies of Greek lamps became more enclosed (Howland Reference Howland1958, 5), and as a result, the filling holes appeared at the top. Lamps produced in the new shape, usually covered with slip or gloss, spread across the Mediterranean. Various local production centres adopted this shape, because it was more efficient and provided protection of fuel from spillage, evaporation and rodents (Bailey Reference Bailey1972, 9; Kelsall Reference Kelsall2018, 31).

The next change in lamp manufacture was the introduction of a moulding technique. This technique was probably first employed in Egyptian workshops in the third quarter of the third century bc (Rotroff Reference Rotroff, Kazakou and Nestoridou2000, 499; Reference Rotroff2006, 368). The new technique involved the use of a two-piece mould (the upper part was usually decorated) and allowed rapid and easy multiplication of a single shape, thus facilitating mass production. The use of moulds became popular across the Mediterranean from the Late Hellenistic period (second–first century bc). However, in some production centres such as Knidos, wheel-made lamps continued to be manufactured until the first century bc (Howland Reference Howland1958, 5; Bailey Reference Bailey1975, 127–8). The Hellenistic mould-made lamps were characterised by a large filling hole and usually had decorated shoulders. By the Early Roman period (late first century bc–second century ad), the moulded lamps had become thin-walled and were characterised by the presence of a sunken discus with a very small filling hole. The discus frequently bore floral, geometric or figural decoration. During the Late Roman period, in the fourth and fifth centuries ad, mould-made lamps had thicker walls and sometimes bore religious motifs, such as a cross or menorah. Generally, lamps lost their roundness and more ovoid shapes were usually produced at that time.

In addition to these general trends in the evolution of lamp shapes, decoration and manufacture across the Mediterranean, the regional perspective has to be taken into account due to the potential chronological variation concerning the local adoption of particular new trends. The chronological frame of the Agora site in Nea Paphos, between the end of fourth/early third century bc and the mid-second century ad, covers a period of significant transformations in oil lamp forms and manufacture aiming at maximising use efficiency (Bailey Reference Bailey1972, 9, 18; Kelsall Reference Kelsall2018, 35–6). Among the material from Nea Paphos, four categories of lamps can be distinguished, characterised by distinct forming methods, shapes, and chronology (Table A1). The wheel-made open lamps with pinched rims were still being produced when the city was founded in the late fourth/early third century bc. They were used concurrently with the wheel-made closed lamps of Greek tradition during the Early Hellenistic period. The wheel-made closed lamps were common until the mid-second century bc, when the use of moulds became dominant in lamp manufacture. At Nea Paphos, the mould-made closed lamps date between the mid-second and the late first centuries bc. In the Early Imperial period (the late first century bc), the mould-made closed discus lamps appeared in Nea Paphos, and they were widely used at least until the mid-second century ad. Although the Nea Paphos Agora assemblage also includes Late Roman lamps, these come from surface layers only, and they are not considered in this study.

NEA PAPHOS AND THE AGORA

Nea Paphos, on the south-western coast of Cyprus (Fig. 1), was founded at the beginning of the Hellenistic period, either in the late fourth century bc (Nicolaou Reference Nicolaou, M.L. and Bernhard1966; Młynarczyk Reference Młynarczyk1990a, 67–76; Connelly Reference Connelly and Hadjisavvas2010, 173) or the early third century bc (Bekker-Nielsen Reference Bekker-Nielsen, Isager and Nielsen2000; Balandier Reference Balandier and Demetriou2011, 376), and prospered until the Late Roman period (fourth century ad). Due to its excellent strategic position, Nea Paphos served as a city-port for the Ptolemies (third–first century bc) and the Romans (late first century bc–fourth century ad). The city's harbour is situated in a natural bay and was easily accessible from Egypt. Due to the prevailing winds and sea currents, which strongly affected ancient navigation, Nea Paphos was a perfect stop on the way to and from Phoenicia and the Aegean. Moreover, the city's easy access to nearby natural resources, such as copper and timber, made it an ideal place for the exchange of goods. As a result, Nea Paphos became the main harbour of the island, its commercial and administrative centre, and the residence of the island's elite (Lund Reference Lund2015, 20, 24). This significant position of Nea Paphos during the Hellenistic and Roman periods has been confirmed by written sources (Młynarczyk Reference Młynarczyk1990a, 34–5) and many archaeological excavations. The latter were carried out at various locations around the ancient city (Fig. 1), including the Agora (Papuci-Władyka and Machowski Reference Papuci-Władyka and Machowski2016; Papuci-Władyka, Machowski and Miszk Reference Papuci-Władyka, Machowski and Miszk2018; Papuci-Władyka Reference Papuci-Władyka2020), the Theatre (Barker Reference Barker2016), the Sanctuary of Apollo at Toumballos (Giudice et al. Reference Giudice, Giudice, Giudice and Chiarello2017), and the residential areas of Maloutena (Meyza Reference Meyza, Borowska, Kordos and Maliszewski2014; Michaelides, Papantoniou and Dikomitou-Eliadou Reference Michaelides, Papantoniou, Dikomitou-Eliadou and Gagatsis2014) and Fabrika Hill (Balandier Reference Balandier2016b; Reference Balandier2017).

Fig. 1. Location of Paphos on a map of Cyprus and the Nea Paphos ancient city plan. Based on J. Młynarczyk's (Reference Młynarczyk1990a) research with modifications by the Paphos Agora Project.

The Agora, situated in the central part of the city, was excavated for the first time in the 1970s by K. Nicolaou (Reference Nicolaou1975; Reference Nicolaou1976; Reference Nicolaou1977; Reference Nicolaou1978; Reference Nicolaou1980). In 2011, new excavations were launched by the Paphos Agora Project to revise the early history of the Agora and its spatial development.Footnote 4 The area excavated between 2011 and 2016 includes six trenches located in different parts of the Agora (Fig. 2). Trenches I, V and VI, in the centre of the site, revealed the remains of a large building (Building A), interpreted as a temple (Papuci-Władyka, Machowski and Miszk Reference Papuci-Władyka, Machowski and Miszk2018, 536; Miszk Reference Miszk2020, 131–3) Trenches II and IV uncovered the eastern portico with a row of small rooms, interpreted as tabernae at the entrance of the Agora (Papuci-Władyka, Machowski and Miszk Reference Papuci-Władyka, Machowski and Miszk2018, 537; Miszk Reference Miszk2020, 140–3). Furthermore, the foundations of a presumed storehouse were unearthed in Trench III (Miszk Reference Miszk2020, 136). The new project confirmed that the area of the Agora was in use since the beginning of the city's existence. It seems that political changes, as well as earthquakes, influenced spatial transformations and led to several reconstructions observed in architectural remains (Papuci-Władyka, Machowski and Miszk Reference Papuci-Władyka, Machowski and Miszk2018; Miszk Reference Miszk2020, 127–56). The last architectural phase dates to the mid-second century ad, and it seems that there was no building activity after this time.

Fig. 2. Aerial photo showing the area excavated by the Paphos Agora Project (photo A. Oleksiak).

MATERIAL AND METHODOLOGY

The analysed assemblage came from the above six trenches at the Agora of Nea Paphos and consists of 729 lamps, recovered during excavation and subsequent soil sieving. They date to the Hellenistic and Early Roman periods, but a significant part (around 25 per cent) was found as residual material in later Roman and surface layers. The lamps are usually quite fragmentary, but there are also well-preserved specimens from undisturbed deposits, such as a well (structure 173) in Trench II and wells/cisterns (structures 12 and 50) in Trench I.

The macroscopic examination of the assemblage resulted in the definition of macroscopic groups (MGs) based on the following variables: category; type; decoration; chronology; and fabric. Once the lamps were classified into one of the four major categories reflecting the forming technique and general shape, they were subjected to typological examination. The employed typology was based on existing classifications (Loeschcke Reference Loeschcke1919; Broneer Reference Broneer1930; Waagé Reference Waagé and Stillwell1941; Vessberg Reference Vessberg1953; Reference Vessberg, Vessberg and Westholm1956; Howland Reference Howland1958; Bruneau Reference Bruneau1965; Bailey Reference Bailey1980), taking into consideration morphological features of the specific assemblage, including shape of body, nozzle and presence of a handle (Table A1). Subsequently, the decorated objects were characterised in terms of iconography to define the repertoire of motifs specific for particular MGs. The ornaments and depictions were classified into three major motifs – geometric, floral and figural – and described in detail by defining their shapes, species and mythical scenes. The chronology of lamps was established in most cases on stylistic grounds, through published analogies of vessel shapes and, when possible, through the context date.

Ceramic fabric was examined and recorded following the system proposed by C. Orton and M. Hughes (Reference Orton and Hughes2013), with some modifications. The following parameters were noted: frequency, size and colour of inclusions; frequency, size and shape of voids; colour of the fresh break; hardness; feel of the surface; texture of the fresh break; as well as colour and glossiness of slip. The lamps were analysed by naked eye and with a handheld magnifying lens (x10) in natural light. The colours were recorded using Munsell Soil Color Charts (2013), and the surface feel was assessed through finger touch.

The combination of typo-chronological examination with macroscopic fabric analysis resulted in the definition of 11 MGs including 621 lamps. In addition, 108 fragments of lamps were not assigned to any of these MGs because they were either very poorly preserved (7 burnt-out nozzles), were outliers with no similarity to other lamps (25 fragments), or bore similarities to only very few other fragments (76 fragments).Footnote 5 Sixty-four samples representing the 11 MGs were selected for subsequent laboratory analysis. Four to nine samples were selected from each MG, depending on the size of the MG and its internal homogeneity, but also on the availability of material for sampling. The majority of the macroscopically studied lamps could not be sampled due to the presence of decoration, small size of fragments, or the complete state of preservation.

All selected samples were initially subjected to refiring tests (in oxidising atmosphere, maximum temperature 1000°C, one hour soaking time) to eliminate differences in colour potentially associated with variable conditions of the original firing, use or burial, providing further support for the macroscopic grouping that was also based on fabric colour (Rice Reference Rice1987, 344–5; Whitbread Reference Whitbread1995, 390–1; Kiriatzi, Georgakopoulou and Pentedeka Reference Kiriatzi, Georgakopoulou, Pentedeka, Gauss and Kiriatzi2011, 70).

The colours of the fully oxidised clay pastes and slips were compared to each other and to the fabric colour before refiring. Subsequently, in order to determine the elemental composition, all samples were analysed with a wavelength dispersive X-ray fluorescence (WD-XRF) spectrometer with an Rh excitation source (BRUKER S8-TIGER), using a custom calibration based on 43 certified reference materials (Georgakopoulou et al. Reference Georgakopoulou, Hein, Müller and Kiriatzi2017). Twenty-six major, minor and trace elements were determined: Na, Mg, Al, Si, P, K, Ca, Ti, V, Cr, Mn, Fe, Co, Ni, Cu, Zn, Rb, Sr, Y, Zr, Ba, La, Ce, Nd, Pb and Th. The elemental data were processed statistically using R software to assess the variability of the dataset, as well as to explore compositional associations of the samples.

Based on the results of the macroscopic examination, refirings and elemental analysis, 36 samples were selected for petrographic analysis. The selection of samples for thin section petrography aimed to provide a better understanding of variability observed in elemental composition within certain MGs, facilitate associations between chemical and macroscopic groupings, and provide information on the geological origin, and thus provenance, of certain groups. Emphasis was placed on potential local lamps, as the current study aims to shed light primarily on local production. For this reason, all samples of MGs of presumed local origin and only selected samples of uncertain provenance were analysed (Table 1). The thin sections were examined with a Zeiss Axioskop 40 polarising microscope at magnifications ranging between x25 and x500. For the fabric descriptions, an adjusted version of the methodology proposed by I. Whitbread (Reference Whitbread1995, 365–96) was adopted.

Table 1. Nea Paphos Agora lamps: macroscopic groups and selection of samples for refiring, WD-XRF and petrographic analysis.

The integration of macroscopic observations with the results of analysis led to the definition of archaeologically meaningful groups, referred to as Production Groups (PGs). Each PG consists of samples similar in terms of category, typology, chronology, fabric, and elemental and mineralogical composition. Once PGs were established on the basis of selected samples, a re-examination of the entire collection of lamps was undertaken (including those classified into MGs and the unclassified ones), aiming to test groupings in the light of more securely established criteria and proceed with quantification. The recording of counts of lamps and their sherds aimed to provide the minimum number of vessels representing each PG. In most cases, all fragments were counted, with the exception of body sherds representing the same PG found in the same context. These were treated as one lamp to reduce the risk of error. The PGs’ provenance was explored both through stylistic and compositional comparisons. In the latter case, the compositional profile of each PG was compared both with geological evidence (for Paphos and other relevant areas) and with compositions, chemical and mineralogical, of reference materials of known provenance, either published or unpublished (the latter part of the Fitch Laboratory's collections). All types of available comparative material and evidence were taken into account in order to identify the provenance of the PGs as confidently as possible.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

The results of the macroscopic analysis indicate the presence of 11 MGs linked to four major categories of lamps. These categories are wheel-made open (MG 1), wheel-made closed (MG 2, MG 3, MG 4, MG 5, MG 6), mould-made closed (MG 7, MG 8, MG 9), and mould-made closed discus (MG 10 and MG 11). The typological and chronological examinations show the presence of 18 types dated to the Hellenistic and Early Roman times. The wheel-made open lamps include only one type. The wheel-made closed lamps consist of four types differentiated on the basis of body shape in vertical section and the presence of decoration. Six types with different body shape in horizontal section, finishing elements, and/or decoration were defined within the mould-made closed lamps. The mould-made discus lamps were divided into seven types with a distinct shape of a nozzle and the presence or absence of volutes and a handle. The lamp categories, types, chronology, and the selected classifications are presented in Table A1.

All selected samples, representing the 11 MGs, were subjected to refiring tests that provided evidence for re-adjusting them (see Table 1). For example, PAP17/125, which was initially assigned to MG 4, was moved to MG 3, while PAP17/147 was moved from MG 8 to MG 7. The refiring tests provided helpful information, in particular in the case of the fully reduced grey fabrics, in which inclusions can be difficult to discern macroscopically, but become more easily detectable after refiring in oxidising conditions.

Statistical analysis was performed on the dataset with elemental compositions of 64 samples (Table A2). The calculation of the variation matrix for 26 elements was carried out in order to assess the variability of the dataset including all samples. The result showed a high value of the total variation (vt=4.57), suggesting a heterogeneous dataset (Buxeda i Garrigós Reference Buxeda i Garrigós1999; Buxeda i Garrigós and Kilikoglou Reference Buxeda i Garrigós, Kilikoglou and van Zelst2003). Pb shows the highest chemical variability, which was mostly introduced by exceptionally high concentration measured in PAP17/146 (2029 ppm). This appears to be a result of contamination, since this sample was found in contact with lead objects. Pb and Cu were removed from the dataset (Georgakopoulou et al. Reference Georgakopoulou, Hein, Müller and Kiriatzi2017). Additional elements excluded from the dataset were Na and P, as their variability may be related to the original use or post-depositional conditions (e.g. Picon Reference Picon1991; Buxeda i Garrigós Reference Buxeda i Garrigós1999; Schwedt, Mommsen and Zacharias Reference Schwedt, Mommsen and Zacharias2004). After removing these elements, the total variation remained high, indicating that the analysed lamps may have come from various production centres. Principal component analysis (PCA) and cluster analysis were performed on the log ratio transformed data, excluding Na2O, P2O5, Cu, and Pb and using Fe2O3 as a divisor since it introduces the lowest variability to the dataset. The plot resulting from PCA (Fig. 3a) illustrates the associations between the elemental composition of the samples and MGs already adjusted with the results of firing tests. There are positive correlations between some MGs and elemental composition of samples assigned to them on the basis of macroscopic examination (see Fig. 3a: MG 2, MG 3, MG 7, MG 9, MG 11). However, this is not the case for all the samples. Some show different associations than those suggested by macroscopic analysis (see Fig. 3a: MG 1, MG 4, MG 5, MG 6, MG 8, MG 10). This could be caused by the different origins of samples classified into these preliminary MGs, or may be related to technological or raw material variability and/or post-depositional processes. As mentioned above, in order to understand these discrepancies and to further examine the potentially local production of lamps, selected samples from eight MGs were analysed by thin section petrography (Table 1). MG 2, MG 3 and MG 7 were not analysed through thin section petrography due to their homogeneity and well-defined origin on the basis of macroscopic and elemental analysis (see below). The petrographic analysis defined eight fabric groups (Petrographic Fabric – PF; see Table A3). The comparison of PFs with the results of the typological examination showed that some of them consist of lamps classified into different categories, types and chronology. The correlation of the PFs with the chemical data (Fig. 3b) clarified the associations of some samples, which were grouped differently by macroscopic examination and elemental analysis. Additionally, the petrographic analysis provided valuable information concerning the provenance of samples which could not be assigned to any chemical reference pattern, and identified the presence of secondary calcite in several samples, potentially influencing the elemental composition, and thus the clustering, of the samples.

Fig. 3. The principal component plot of the WD-XRF data including 22 elements for the 64 samples. (a) in correlation with macroscopic groups adjust after refiring (MG). (b) in correlation with petrographic fabrics (PF). (c) in correlation with production groups (PG). (d) projections of elements loading the first two principal components.

Once the laboratory examinations were completed, the entire macroscopic assemblage was re-examined, using the methodology employed for the formation of MGs, but taking into consideration the results of refiring tests, elemental analysis and thin section petrography (Table A4). The integrated assessment of these different strands of data led to the final definition of 15 PGs, characterised by differences in provenance, technology and/or chronology, while four samples were not grouped in any of the PGs and will be further discussed as loners.

The plot resulting from PCA (Fig. 3c) illustrates that most of the PGs are chemically well distinguished. The exception is PG 11, the samples of which do not group with each other. The plot also shows the relation between some of the PGs. PG 1, PG 2, PG 8 and PG 10, all interpreted as local, cluster together in the upper right part of the plot. PG 5 and PG 13 are grouped in the middle, while PG 12 and PG 14 are in the upper left part of the plot.Footnote 6

Once the PGs were defined, the original MGs were dismissed.Footnote 7 They were significant only in the first stage of the research, and should be considered rather as a tool used to understand the macroscopic variability of the assemblage, which was necessary for the selection of samples for further examinations (Fig. 4).

Fig. 4. A graph showing the research process.

It should be emphasised that each type of analysis contributed significantly to the understanding of different aspects of the samples and the exploration of their relationships, and had an important, although different, impact on the definition of the final PGs and their provenance assignment. Due to the limited number of analysed samples, some PGs include only two or three samples subjected to elemental analysis (Table A5, Fig. 5). In such cases, greater emphasis was placed on the macroscopic and petrographic examinations, and these had a stronger impact on PG formation (e.g. PG 2, PG 11) and on drawing conclusions on their provenance. The chemical data of samples from these PGs were considered in a more qualitative way, discussing in each case whether they support the provenance proposed on the basis of macroscopic examination. The comparison of lamp elemental and/or mineralogical compositions with the existing reference data of other pottery enabled the assigning of origin to some PGs (PG 3, PG 5, PG 6) (Schneider Reference Schneider2000a; Picon and Blondé Reference Picon and Blondé2002). In particular, the Hellenistic colour-coated ware pottery from Nea Paphos, analysed in previous studies (Marzec Reference Marzec2017; Marzec et al. Reference Marzec, Kiriatzi, Müller and Hein2018; Reference Marzec, Kiriatzi, Müller and Hein2019), proved to be useful comparative material for this investigation, not least as they had been analysed using the same techniques.

Fig. 5. Photographs of the analysed samples. Individual numbers and PGs are provided.

In the following section, the PGs are presented according to category and chronology. The descriptions of the PGs presented below also include information about lamps not analysed through laboratory analyses, which had been attributed to the PGs after the final macroscopic re-examination of the entire assemblage, taking into consideration new criteria. A total of 608 lamps were classified into 15 PGs (prior to scientific analyses, 621 lamps had been assigned to 11 MGs). The description of each PG presents quantity, type, chronology, appearance of fabric, summary of elemental and, where available, mineralogical composition, and distribution pattern in the Eastern Mediterranean reconstructed on the basis of published material. Additionally, at the end of the section, the ungrouped samples which had been analysed through the laboratory analysis are shortly described.

PRODUCTION GROUPS PRESENTATION

Wheel-made open lamps

All wheel-made open lamps recovered during the excavations at the Paphos Agora were classified into one type. They have low, shallow and rather small bodies and out-turned rims which are pinched, each forming a single nozzle (Table A1:1). Their surfaces are smoothed and plain, lacking any coating or decoration. This type of lamp was used on Cyprus since the Bronze Age (Oziol Reference Oziol1977, 13), and its presence is attested at various sites on the island (Vessberg Reference Vessberg, Vessberg and Westholm1956, 184; Oziol and Pouilloux Reference Oziol and Pouilloux1969, 16; Bailey Reference Bailey1975, 207–9; Oziol Reference Oziol1977, 17–19). The Hellenistic derivatives of earlier prototypes seem to be smaller and shallower. They date to the late fourth and the third centuries bc (Kajzer Reference Kajzer2020, 285). Sporadically, including at the Agora, they occur in contexts dated to the second century bc. Open wheel-made lamps dated to the Hellenistic period have been found at numerous sites on Cyprus,Footnote 8 including many locations within Nea Paphos.Footnote 9 Initially, all of the wheel-made open lamps recovered at the Agora were assigned to one MG. Nine samples representing this MG were subjected to refiring tests, WD-XRF and thin section petrography in order to assess the homogeneity of the group. The laboratory analysis combined with the macroscopic re-examination of this material allowed three different PGs to be identified within this category.

Production Group 1

Thirteen lamps with fine very pale brown or pink fabric were assigned to PG 1 (Table A4). The four samples (Table A5, Fig. 5) that were subjected to laboratory analysis form a coherent group in terms of elemental (Table 2) and mineralogical compositions. The PF is very fine and consists of quartz, feldspar, micrite, serpentinite, textural concentration features, chert, medium-grained igneous rock fragments composed of feldspar, opaques, epidote group minerals and microfossils (Fig. 6b, Table A3:PF1).

Fig. 6. Production Group 1: (a) photograph and drawing of lamp inv. no. PAP13/III/332/L2 and (b) fresh break and thin section (XPL) photomicrographs of sample PAP17/101.

Table 2. Mean chemical compositions (oxides are expressed in wt% and elements in ppm) and relative standard deviation (rsd) of PG 1, PG 8, PG 10 and colour coated ware (CCW) of presumed local origin (Marzec et al. Reference Marzec, Kiriatzi, Müller and Hein2018, table 4), as well as elemental compositions of three samples classified to PG 2. Data normalised to 100%.

Production Group 2

PG 2 consists of eleven lamps with semi-fine red fabric (Table A4). The three analysed samples representing this PG show some variability in their elemental compositions (Table 2, Fig. 3), although thin-section analysis revealed that they are very similar to each other, with differences mainly related to size and distribution of inclusions. Generally, the PF is calcareous and includes microfossils, micrite, quartz, feldspar, serpentinite, textural concentration features, epidote group minerals, chert, mudstone and medium-grained igneous rock fragments composed of feldspar (Fig. 7b, Table A3:PF2D). PF of PAP17/109 has larger fragments of serpentinite and additionally fine-grained igneous rock fragments composed of feldspar, as well as a metamorphic rock fragment composed of amphiboles and quartz (Fig. 7c, Table A3:PF2C).

Fig. 7. Production Group 2: (a) photograph and drawing of lamp inv. no. PAP14/I/63/L1. Fresh break and thin section (XPL) photomicrographs of samples (b) PAP17/104 and (c) PAP17/109.

Production Group 3

In contrast to PG 1 and PG 2, the fresh break of lamps assigned to PG 3 shows orange and red inclusions and elongated voids (Table A4). This PG includes eight lamps of which two (Table A5, Fig. 5) were subjected to scientific analysis. The elemental composition differs from that of other open lamps due to significantly higher Cr, Ni, Co and MgO concentrations (see Table 3, Fig. 3). Differences are also observed in thin section: samples assigned to PG 3 have a semi-fine, calcareous fabric characterised by the presence of micrite, microfossils, quartz and feldspar, serpentinite, textural concentration features, mica, fine-grained igneous rock fragments composed of feldspar and opaques, chert, pyroxenes, and sandstone (Fig. 8b, Table A3:PF3).

Table 3. Compositions (oxides are expressed in wt% and elements in ppm) of two samples classified to PG 3 and mean chemical composition and relative standard deviation (rsd) of Fabric Group 5 of colour coated ware (CCW) pottery (Marzec Reference Marzec2017, Fabric Group 5). Data normalised to 100%.

Fig. 8. Production Group 3: (a) photograph of a lamp inv. no. PAP13/III/348/L1 and (b) fresh break and thin section (XPL) photomicrographs of sample PAP17/106.

The mineralogy of all three PGs (PG 1, 2, 3) is related to ophiolitic geology. Despite differences in elemental and mineralogical composition, PG 1 and PG 2 can be tentatively associated with production in western Cyprus. This assumption is based on the similarity of both PGs to a group of colour-coated ware pottery recently analysed and considered as local to the site (Marzec Reference Marzec2017, 183–9, Fabric Group 1; Marzec et al. Reference Marzec, Kiriatzi, Müller and Hein2019). The elemental (Table 3) and mineralogical compositions of PG 3 show similarities to a group of Early Hellenistic colour-coated ware pottery that was previously assumed to have been imported to Paphos, potentially from the North Levant (Marzec Reference Marzec2017, 215, Fabric Group 5). At present, however, this attribution cannot be confirmed by either scientific or archaeological evidence.

Wheel-made closed lamps

Production Group 4

PG 4 consists of 16 fragments of wheel-made closed lamps with globular bodies in vertical section (Table A1:2), often equipped with side lugs, dated between the late fourth and the mid-third centuries bc. The appearance of the fabric (Fig. 9, Table A4) is homogenous throughout the PG and corresponds to lamps and table ware vessels assumed to have been produced in Attic workshops (Howland Reference Howland1958; Bailey Reference Bailey1975, 31; Rotroff Reference Rotroff1997, 10–11). Four lamps representing this PG (Table A5, Fig. 5) were subjected to refiring tests and elemental analysis through WD-XRF. The results are in agreement with the macroscopic assignment, indicating that all samples belong to a single, homogenous, group characterised by elevated Cr and Ni concentrations (Table 4). Their composition is compatible with the composition of Attic Black Gloss pottery found at Kolonna on Aegina.Footnote 10 It also matches the elemental composition of Attic origin pottery analysed by G. Schneider (Reference Schneider2000a, 530–1, table 3). Lamps of Attic origin are commonly found at Classical and Hellenistic sites across the Eastern Mediterranean.Footnote 11 Their distribution is presented in Fig. 10.

Fig. 9. Production Group 4: (a) photographs of lamp fragments inv. nos PAP14/III/418/L2, PAP14/III/420/L1, and PAP15/III/806/L1, and (b) fresh break photomicrograph of sample PAP17/113.

Fig. 10. The distribution of PG 4 and PG 7 in the Eastern Mediterranean.

Table 4. Mean chemical composition (oxides are expressed in wt% and elements in ppm) and relative standard deviation (rsd) of PG 4 and the reference group of Attic fine wares (Schneider Reference Schneider2000a, table 3). Data normalised to 100% for PG 4. For the reference group of Attic fine wares, major elements are normalised.

Production Group 5

Five fragments of lamps belonging to PG 5 were identified at the Paphos Agora. No complete examples were recovered during the excavations, but the preserved fragments appear to represent wheel-made closed lamps with globular bodies in vertical section (Table A1:2). PG 5 dates from the late fourth/early third to the late third/early second century bc. The fabric and slip of these lamps (Table A4) are visually identical to a group of Early Hellenistic colour-coated ware pottery from the House of Dionysos in Nea Paphos, which had been named Standard Early Hellenistic Ware by J. Hayes (Reference Hayes1991, 27–8). This group of table ware pottery was also identified at the Paphos Agora and Maloutena, and has been investigated through refiring tests and elemental and petrographic analysis (Marzec Reference Marzec2017, 190–3, Fabric Group 2; Marzec et al. Reference Marzec, Kiriatzi, Müller and Hein2018). In order to confirm the relation between the lamps and colour-coated ware pottery, selected samples were analysed by the use of the same methodology. Four samples were subjected to refiring tests and elemental analysis, and two of them to thin section petrography (Fig. 11b, Table A3:PF5). The results indicated that the lamps and the colour-coated ware pottery belong to a single compositional (Table A2) and technological group. The fabric is fine, calcareous, and contains inclusions of quartz, feldspar, mica, chert, serpentinite and micrite, as well as opaques and textural concentration features.

Fig. 11. Production Group 5: (a) photographs and drawing of lamp fragments inv. nos PAP15/I/668/L1 and PAP13/III/348/L8, and (b) fresh break and thin section (XPL) photomicrographs of sample PAP17/120.

The laboratory analysis further revealed that this PG is closely related to PG 13, which includes the Early Roman mould-made closed discus lamps, and indicated a common origin for those two PGs. Despite this compositional similarity, there are differences in the size of inclusions, as well as in the forming method and the type. The Early Hellenistic lamps and pottery have slightly coarser inclusions than those produced during the Early Roman times (compare below, PG 13). The place of production of these groups of lamps and pottery is unknown. It has previously been suggested that these could have been produced somewhere on Cyprus or in the Levant (Marzec Reference Marzec2017, 190–3; Marzec et al. Reference Marzec, Kiriatzi, Müller and Hein2018). S. Élaigne proposed Kition on Cyprus as a potential place of production of this group of pottery (Élaigne and Lemaître Reference Élaigne and Lemaître2014). The above colour-coated ware pottery group has been identified at several sites (Salles Reference Salles1993, 167–8; Slane Reference Slane and Herbert1997, 359–62, Fabric A; Schneider Reference Schneider2000a, 534; Picon and Blondé Reference Picon and Blondé2002, 15, Group A; Élaigne Reference Élaigne2007, 120–2; Reference Élaigne2012, 148–53; Berlin and Stone Reference Berlin, Stone, Hartal, Syon, Stern and Tatcher2016, 140), and its distribution across Cyprus, the Levant and North Africa has already been discussed (Marzec Reference Marzec2017, 190–3; Marzec et al. Reference Marzec, Kiriatzi, Müller and Hein2018). However, the distribution pattern of the associated lamps (present PG 5) is unknown, since they have not been identified as a separate group, nor as linked to the colour-coated ware repertoire.Footnote 12 Aside from the Paphos Agora (Kajzer Reference Kajzer2019, 100; Reference Kajzer2020, 287, Macroscopic Group 6), the lamps attributed to PG 5 have been identified only at Fabrika Hill in Paphos (Kajzer Reference Kajzer2019, 100).

Production Group 6

PG 6 includes seven wheel-made closed lamps with biconical bodies in vertical section (Table A1:3). These lamps can be additionally characterised by the presence of flattened, long nozzles and elongated side lugs. The typology and stratigraphy suggest that they occurred in Nea Paphos between the mid-third and mid-second centuries bc. The appearance of their fabric, which is fine, hard and red (Table A4), is reminiscent of a group of Early Hellenistic colour-coated ware plates and bowls identified among the material from the Paphos Agora excavations (Marzec Reference Marzec2017, 196–7, Fabric Group 4). Two samples of PG 6 (Table A5, Fig. 5) selected for laboratory analysis were also found to be similar to the above group of colour-coated pottery in terms of mineralogical and elemental compositions. Thin section analysis revealed that their fabric is fine and contains monocrystalline quartz, feldspar, mica, textural concentration features, micrite and sparite, opaques, polycrystalline quartz, microfossils and serpentinite (Fig. 12b, Table A3:PF4). The elemental composition of this group is characterised by high SiO2, medium CaO as well as relatively low Cr and Ni concentrations (Tables 5 and A2). This elemental composition is similar to Group D from Nea Paphos, Amathus and Kition analysed through WD-XRF by M. Picon and F. Blondé (Reference Picon and Blondé2002, 14–15) (Table 5). They noticed that the composition of Group D is similar to ‘des sigillées chypriotes tardives’,Footnote 13 interpreted as a continuation of the Cypriot Sigillata (or Eastern Sigillata D) of Late Hellenistic to Early Roman date, due to the similarities in their chemical composition (Meyza Reference Meyza2007, 17–20). The results of scientific analyses (Meyza Reference Meyza2002; Lund Reference Lund2015, 166–8; Bes Reference Bes2015, 19–20; Renson et al. Reference Renson, Slane, Rautman, Kidd, Guthrie and Glascock2016, 62–4; Hammond et al. Reference Hammond, Gabrieli, Ferguson, Glascock and Wismann2018, 118–19), as well as the abundance of these wares on the island, led to their being considered of Cypriot provenance.Footnote 14 Based on the evidence available so far, it is not possible to suggest a specific production location for PG 6. Its compositional profile, however, is not incompatible with an origin in Cyprus as its above associations seem to indicate. Moreover, S. Élaigne has argued that Group D corresponds to production 1 at Beirut (Élaigne Reference Élaigne2007, 120) and Chypre 3 at Alexandria (Élaigne Reference Élaigne2012, 158–62) and also suggested a Cypriot origin for these groups (Élaigne Reference Élaigne2007, 120; Reference Élaigne2012, 159).

Fig. 12. Production Group 6: (a) photograph and drawing of lamp inv. no. PAP16/I/969/L1 and (b) fresh break and thin section (XPL) photomicrographs of sample PAP17/119.

Table 5. Compositions (oxides are expressed in wt% and elements in ppm) of two samples classified to PG 6 and mean chemical composition and relative standard deviation (rsd) of Group D of colour coated ware pottery (Picon and Blondé Reference Picon and Blondé2002) and Eastern Sigillata D/Cypriot Sigillata (ESD/CS) (Schneider Reference Schneider2000a, table 3). Data normalised to 100% for PG 6. For the reference group of Eastern Sigillata D, major elements are normalised.

Apart from the Agora, the lamps attributed to PG 6 are known from other excavations in Nea Paphos, such as Fabrika Hill, the Theatre, the Sanctuary at Toumballos and the House of Dionysos (Kajzer Reference Kajzer2019, 136). Again, due to the lack of publications presenting lamp fabrics, it is not possible to discuss further the distribution pattern of PG 6.

Production Group 7

PG 7 is composed of 26 wheel-made closed lamps with biconical bodies in vertical section (Table A1:3), and pierced side lugs, with narrow depressions around the filling holes,Footnote 15 relatively high cut feet, and nozzles clearly separated from the bodies. These morphological features suggest that they date between the mid-third and early second centuries bc.Footnote 16 Their pinkish, hard fabric covered with semi-lustrous slip (Fig. 13, Table A4) corresponds with the so-called colour-coated Ware A pottery, which was previously assumed to have been produced on Rhodes (Hayes Reference Hayes1991, 23–4; Élaigne Reference Élaigne2002, 161–3, 165, fig. 5; Domżalski Reference Domżalski, Gabrielsen and Lund2007, 172–3; Marzec Reference Marzec2017, 201). Six samples of PG 7 (Fig. 5, Table A5) were subjected to scientific analysis in order to further characterise this group and investigate the above association. The results of refiring tests and elemental analysis indicate that all samples form a coherent group. Their elemental composition (Table 6), characterised by high MgO, Cr, Ni and CaO concentrations, is compatible with the composition of colour-coated Ware A cups, bowls and plates recovered in Paphos for which a Rhodian provenance has been suggested (Marzec Reference Marzec2017, 201–2, Fabric Group 6). Importantly, they also match the composition of Hellenistic fine ware found on Rhodes itself, which have recently been analysed in the framework of ‘The Rhodes Centennial Project’ (Saxo Institute/University of Copenhagen and Ephorate of Antiquities of the Dodecanese).Footnote 17 It should be mentioned that a group of Late Roman lamps pinpointed to Rhodes on the basis of neutron activation analysis is also characterised by high Cr, Ni and Ca contents (Hein and Kilikoglou Reference Hein and Kilikoglou2017, 652, table 2).

Fig. 13. Production Group 7: (a) photograph and drawing of lamp inv. no. PAP12/II/179/L1 and (b) fresh break photomicrograph of sample PAP17/117.

Table 6. Mean chemical composition (oxides are expressed in wt% and elements in ppm) and relative standard deviation (rsd) of PG 7 and colour coated pottery Fabric Group 6 (Marzec Reference Marzec2017). Data normalised to 100%.

The presence of the Rhodian lamps, beyond the island of their origin (Blinkenberg Reference Blinkenberg1931, 744, nos 3201–2, pl. 151; Bailey Reference Bailey1975, 160, 163; Sørensen and Pentz Reference Sørensen and Pentz1992, 82, no. C2, fig. 63) was also noted in a number of other sites in the Eastern Mediterranean (Fig. 10).Footnote 18

Production Group 8

This PG consists of 34 wheel-made closed lamps classified into three different types, with either globular (Table A1:2), biconical (Table A1:3) or piriform (Table A1:4) bodies in vertical section. Additionally, each type shows internal variability in shape and surface treatment. The differences are in the shape of the bases and side lugs, which can be pierced or non-pierced, if they appeared. The lamps assigned to this PG were found in the Hellenistic layers, spanning in date from the early third to the second half of the second century bc.Footnote 19 The examination of the fresh breaks (Fig. 14ab, Table A4) suggested that PG 8 is related to PG 2 and PG 10, as well as to local colour-coated ware pottery, due to the similarities in types of inclusions, surface treatment, colour and texture of the fresh break.

Fig. 14. Production Group 8: (a) photograph and drawing of lamp inv. no. PAP14/II/286/L1. Fresh break and thin section (XPL) photomicrographs of samples (b) PAP17/124 and (c) PAP17/131.

Four samples (Table A5, Fig. 5) of this PG were selected for scientific analysis, covering all three types. WD-XRF results indicated that they have similar elemental composition, characterised by high CaO content (Tables 2 and A2). The examination of the thin sections suggested that all of them should be classified to PF 2B, which has the same mineralogical composition as PF 2D (PG 2), and the difference between them is mostly related to the size, distribution and frequency of the inclusions (Table A3). The relation between PG 2 and PG 8 is also reflected in similarities in elemental composition (Table 2) and is illustrated on the PCA plot (Fig. 3). The samples representing both PGs appear close to each other in the upper right side of the scatterplot. Moreover, the elemental (Table 2) and mineralogical composition of PG 8 is related to the composition of a group of colour-coated ware pottery which is associated with local production (Marzec Reference Marzec2017, 183–9, Fabric Group 1; Marzec et al. Reference Marzec, Kiriatzi, Müller and Hein2019). For these reasons, PG 8 is considered as local to Paphos.

The lamps of PG 8 were identified not only at the Agora (Kajzer Reference Kajzer2019, 99; Reference Kajzer2020, 286, Macroscopic Group 5), but also in other areas of the city, including Maloutena (Młynarczyk Reference Młynarczyk1978, 238–40; Reference Młynarczyk, Daszewski and Meyza1998, 55), the Theatre, Fabrika Hill, and the Sanctuary at Toumballos (Kajzer Reference Kajzer2019, 99). It is possible that they were also distributed beyond the city, but due to the lack of published fabric descriptions for lamps, their distribution beyond Nea Paphos cannot be mapped.

Production Group 9

This PG includes 28 wheel-made closed lamps with biconical bodies in vertical section and moulded decoration on their shoulders (Table A1:5). They have fan-shaped massive nozzles and high, double loop handles with horizontal bands of clay in their upper parts.Footnote 20 The lamps have small filling holes surrounded by deep depressions, sloping shoulders, and cut feet with central bulges.Footnote 21 The moulded decoration frequently presents ornamentation of ivy leaves, typically associated with Knidian origin. This type was produced in Knidos from the second half of the second century bc until the beginning of the first century ad (Kögler Reference Kögler, Briese and Vaag2005, 56; Pastutmaz Sevmen Reference Pastutmaz Sevmen and Bruns Özgan2013, 201–2). All lamps classified to this PG are characterised by a hard grey fabric with white and sparkling inclusions (Fig. 15, Table A4), also compatible with Knidian origin (Kögler Reference Kögler2011). Also, the elemental composition of eight samples (Tables A2 and A5, Fig. 5) classified into this PG supports a Knidian provenance for those samples, as it matches well with reference patterns of pottery from Knidos (Schneider Reference Schneider2000a, 530–1, table 3), which is characterised by low CaO, moderate Cr, and somewhat elevated K2O and TiO2 concentrations (Table 7).

Fig. 15. Production Group 9: (a) photograph and drawing of lamp fragments inv. no. PAP16/II/1222/L9 and (b) fresh break photomicrograph of sample PAP17/138.

Table 7. Mean chemical composition (oxides are expressed in wt% and elements in ppm) and relative standard deviation (rsd) of PG 9 and the reference group of pottery from Knidos (Schneider Reference Schneider2000a, table 3). Data normalised to 100% for PG 9. For the reference group of pottery from Knidos, major elements are normalised.

Knidian lamps with moulded decoration were widely distributed throughout the Eastern Mediterranean during the Late Hellenistic period (Fig. 16), more specifically from the second half of the second to the beginning of the first century bc (Howland Reference Howland1958, 126–7; Bruneau Reference Bruneau1965, 33).Footnote 22 Bailey (Reference Bailey1985b, 196) suggested that the distribution of these lamps declined around 75 bc due to intense piracy in the Mediterranean; however, according to recent studies this argument is disputable (Kögler Reference Kögler, Briese and Vaag2005, 56).

Fig. 16. The distribution of PG 9 and PG 11 in the Eastern Mediterranean.

Mould-made closed lamps

Production Group 10

This is the largest PG (114 lamps) in the Hellenistic assemblage of the Paphos Agora. It is a homogeneous group in terms of shape, chronology and fabric. All lamps of this PG belong to the same type, characterised by rounded bodies in horizontal section and with floral or geometric decoration. The ends of the nozzles are usually rounded. But there are also examples with triangular nozzles, typical for Ephesian lamps (compare PG 11). This type can be divided into two variants due to different upper surface decoration.Footnote 23 The first variant is decorated with single geometric and/or floral applications flanking both sides of the body (Table A1:6). The second has shoulders covered with continuous ornament, such as rays, wave scroll or net, while the top of the nozzle is frequently adorned with a floral motif of rosette, palmette or leaves (Table A1:7). Both variants are typical for lamps of Late Hellenistic date. More specifically, the context chronology and the comparable examples from Maloutena (Młynarczyk Reference Młynarczyk, Daszewski and Meyza1998, 56) suggest that this type dates between the second half of the second century and the mid-first century bc or slightly later. The fabric of the PG 10 lamps is soft, and their surfaces have a smooth or powdery feel (Table A4). Macroscopic examination suggested that the fabric is related to that of PG 8, and they can be distinguished due to the different feel of the surface and texture of the fresh break. Macroscopically, it seems also to be related to a dominant group of colour-coated ware pottery from the Paphos Agora (Marzec Reference Marzec2017, 183–9, Fabric Group 1; Marzec et al. Reference Marzec, Kiriatzi, Müller and Hein2019) and to pink powdery ware lamps and table pottery known from the excavations on Geronisos Island (Connelly and Młynarczyk Reference Connelly and Młynarczyk2002, 295; Młynarczyk Reference Młynarczyk2005; Reference Młynarczyk, Michaelides, Kassianidou and Merrillees2009, 212–14; Lund Reference Lund2015, 118–19). J. Młynarczyk (Reference Młynarczyk2005; Reference Młynarczyk, Michaelides, Kassianidou and Merrillees2009, 212–14) suggested that these lamps were produced in western Cyprus.

Six samples (Table A5, Fig. 5) were selected from this PG and were subjected to refiring tests, and elemental and petrographic analysis. The results indicated that they form a very homogeneous group in all respects (see Table A2 for their elemental composition). All analysed samples are highly calcareous (c. 24% CaO), and comparable to PG 8 and PG 2 samples (Table 2). The petrographic analysis revealed that the fabric is very fine and dominated by microfossils (Fig. 17bc, Table A3:PF2A). In terms of both elemental and mineralogical composition, PG 10 is related to PG 2 and PG 8, discussed above, considered as local to the site. This relation is illustrated on the PCA scatterplot (Fig. 3).

Fig. 17. Production Group 10: (a) photograph and drawing of lamp inv. no. PAP16/I/972/L1. Fresh break and thin section (XPL) photomicrographs of samples (b) PAP17/149 and (c) PAP17/152.

Currently, it is not possible to trace the distribution of PG 10 lamps beyond Nea Paphos, due to the lack of published fabric descriptions. In the area of the city, they were identified also in the Theatre, Fabrika Hill, the Sanctuary at Toumballos, the House of Orpheus and the House of Dionysos (Kajzer Reference Kajzer2019, 115), as well as at Maloutena (Młynarczyk Reference Młynarczyk1978, 238–40; Reference Młynarczyk, Daszewski and Meyza1998, 55).

Production Group 11

Thirty mould-made lamps, classified into two types, form PG 11 (Table A1:8,9). Both types are characterised by rounded bodies in horizontal section, flattened nozzles with rounded or triangular tips, wide shoulder zones bearing floral (e.g. leaves) or geometric (e.g. globules, rhombuses and volutes) decoration, and ribbon, grooved handles. The lamps can be divided into two types due to different appearance in the upper surface of the body. The first type (Table A1:8, Fig. 18a, on the right) has a channel between a filling hole area and a wick hole. The second (Table A1:9, Fig. 18a, on the left), which is more common, is equipped with a flaring collar around the filling hole. The latter often has additional holes on the flattened surface around the central hole.Footnote 24 The published analogies indicate that production of both types spans in date between the last quarter of the second century bc and the beginning of the first century ad (Howland Reference Howland1958, 166–9; Bruneau Reference Bruneau1965, 53; Bailey Reference Bailey1975, 90; Giuliani Reference Giuliani, Roman and Gudea2008, 93; Reference Giuliani2011, 537; Sussman Reference Sussman2009, 70), with the distribution most widespread in the first century bc (Giuliani Reference Giuliani2011, 538). At the Paphos Agora, these lamps occur in Late Hellenistic contexts, dating from the second half of the second to the first century bc and in layers including chronologically mixed material, dated between the late second century bc and the beginning of the first century ad. The presence of the lamps in the latter leaves an uncertainty about the end of their occurrence in Nea Paphos.

Fig. 18. Production Group 11: (a) photographs and drawings of lamps inv. nos PAP14/II/254/L1 and PAP15/II/750/L1. Fresh break and thin section (XPL) photomicrographs of samples (b) PAP17/143 and (c) PAP17/145.

Both types are characterised by a fine grey fabric with frequent sparkling silver inclusions (Table A4). The types and the appearance of fabric of PG 11 seem to be the same as lamps unearthed during the excavations in Ephesus, which are interpreted as local to the site and called ‘Ephesian’ (Bailey Reference Bailey1975, 88; Giuliani Reference Giuliani2011, 533). The similar fabric is recognised in other classes of vessels, such as relief bowls and platters, which are also considered as Ephesian (Hayes Reference Hayes1991, 8, 14; Mitsopoulou-Leon Reference Mitsopoulou-Leon1991, 78–84; Outschar and Zabehlicky-Scheffenegger Reference Outschar, Zabehlicky-Scheffenegger and Zabehlicky-Scheffenegger1998; Fenn Reference Fenn2016, 217–18). Moreover, macroscopic analysis indicated that this PG is linked with a group of lamps from a collection of the British Museum for which Ephesian origin was also suggested on the basis of neutron activation analysis (Hughes, Leese and Smith Reference Hughes, Leese and Smith1988).

There are two other pieces of evidence supporting this origin: the results of WD-XRF and petrographic analysis of two lamps from the Paphos Agora classified into this PG (Table A5, Fig. 5). PAP17/143 represents a lamp with the channel between a filling hole area and a wick hole, and PAP17/145 was taken from a lamp with a flaring collar. In terms of elemental composition, both samples are characterised by high CaO and intermediate Cr and Ni concentrations, but PAP17/145 has higher CaO and Sr and lower SiO2 contents than PAP17/143 (Table A2). In particular, PAP17/143 fits well the reference patterns of pottery, including lamps, from Ephesus (Hughes, Leese and Smith Reference Hughes, Leese and Smith1988; Schneider Reference Schneider2000a, 530–3, table 3; Fenn Reference Fenn2016, 221–2, table 3; Table 8). The petrographic examination of both samples revealed that the matrix of PAP17/145 is dominated by micrite, which was observed also in PAP17/143 (Fig. 18bc), but in lower frequency, likely contributing to if not causing the observed differences in elemental composition. Apart from that, the thin section petrographic analysis indicated that both samples are characterised by a micaceous fabric with fragments of metamorphic rocks composed of quartz and mica (Table A3:PF6). This composition seems compatible with the geology of the area around Ephesus and the fabric mineralogy of other pottery categories produced in this region (Şenel Reference Şenel2002; Bezeczky Reference Bezeczky2013; Betina Reference Betina and von Miller2019).

Table 8. Compositions (oxides are expressed in wt% and elements in ppm) of two samples classified to PG 11 and mean chemical composition and relative standard deviation (rsd) of the reference group of pottery from Ephesus (Schneider 2000, table 3). Data normalised to 100% for PG 11. For the reference group of pottery from Ephesus, major elements are normalised.

Ephesian lamps were exported across the Eastern Mediterranean during the Hellenistic period (Fig. 16).Footnote 25 It is worth mentioning that the lamps with flaring collars around the filling holes (Table A1:9) show even wider distribution than the second type (Table A1:8) (Giuliani Reference Giuliani2011, 537).

Production Group 12

This PG consists of 32 mould-made lamps, half of them classified into two types. The first type (Table A1:10, Fig. 19a, on the left) is represented by three lamps with rhomboidal bodies in horizontal section and figural decoration on the shoulders: antithetic Erotes with an additional attribute, probably a palmette or a mask. The tops of the nozzles are often decorated with palmette and chevron, while the edges of the shoulders bear small volutes. The second type (Table A1:11, Fig. 19a, on the right) has a rounded body in horizontal section, an S-shape side lug and rays decoration, sometimes combined with chevron or petals and a single floral motif (palmette) on top of the nozzle. Thirteen lamps of this type were found at the Agora. Additionally, 16 fragments characterised by the same appearance of fabric, distinguished by grey colour and few, fine to medium, white, red, and grey inclusions (Table A4), were not assigned to any of these types due to the poor state of preservation. At the Agora, the lamps of PG 12 occur in Late Hellenistic contexts, dating between the mid-second and the last quarter of the first centuries bc. At other sites where these lamps have been found, they date back slightly earlier, i.e. from the late third century bc (Bruneau Reference Bruneau1965, 82–3; Młynarczyk Reference Młynarczyk1997, 36; Frangié Reference Frangié2011, 316–20).

Fig. 19. Production Group 12: (a) photographs and drawings of lamps inv. nos PAP14/II/300/L1 and PAP16/IV/1052/L5 and (b) fresh break and thin section (XPL) photomicrographs of sample PAP17/132.

The archaeological study indicated that this PG was not produced on Cyprus. Comparison of the types and fabric to published description of lamps, associated to a specific origin on the basis of the results of laboratory analysis (Rautman Reference Rautman and Herbert1997, 218, 233–5; Dobbins Reference Dobbins, Berlin and Herbert2012, 108–10, with references), pinpoints an origin in the Levantine region. The distribution range also supports this assumption (Fig. 20).Footnote 26

Fig. 20. The distribution of PG 12 in the Eastern Mediterranean.

Four samples belonging to this PG were subjected to refiring tests and WD-XRF, and two of them were investigated through thin section petrography (Table A5, Fig. 5). Three samples form a homogeneous group in terms of elemental composition (Table 9). The composition of PAP17/146 is very similar, but differs slightly from other samples in this PG due to higher V concentrations. This sample has also very high Pb and Cu concentrations, probably resulting from post-depositional contamination (Table 9).

Table 9. Mean chemical composition (oxides are expressed in wt% and elements in ppm) and relative standard deviation (rsd) of PG 12, and the compositions of PAP17/146 and two samples classified to PG 15. Data normalised to 100%.

The petrographic analysis of two thin sections revealed that the samples have semi-fine calcareous fabric, containing grains of sub-rounded to well-rounded quartz and micrite as well as microfossils (Table A3:PF7A). The shape and type of inclusions suggest that these lamps originate in the Levantine coast, and, more specifically, analogous fabrics have been associated with the Sidon-Tyre area.Footnote 27 Additionally, the results of the petrographic analysis indicated that PG 12 is related to Early Roman PG 15 in terms of type, size and distribution of inclusions (see Table A3:PF7AB).

Mould-made closed discus lamps

Production Group 13

This is the largest group in the entire assemblage. It consists of 237 lamps of seven different types (Table A1:12–18). Lamps assigned to PG 13 are often decorated on the discus and/or shoulders (Fig. 21a). The repertoire of motifs seems to be specific for this PG and consists of a single, central scene on the discus, such as an animal or figural depiction, rosette, or wreath. The shoulders are usually decorated with grooves (Table A1:12–15) or continuous ornament of ovules (Table A1:14,16–18). The lamps assigned to this PG date from the beginning of the first until at least the end of the second century ad. Due to different surface treatment, they can be divided into two variants showing different chronology. The lamps covered with slip seem to dominate during the first century ad, while the majority of lamps with plain surfaces date from the second century ad.

Fig. 21. Production Group 13: (a) photographs and drawings of lamps inv. nos PAP16/II/775/L2, PAP12/I/37/L1, and PAP12/II/177/L6. Fresh break and thin section (XPL) photomicrographs of samples (b) PAP17/161 and (c) PAP17/162.

The appearance of fabric (Table A4) is similar to the Early Hellenistic lamps (PG 5) and colour-coated ware pottery (Marzec Reference Marzec2017, 190–3, Fabric Group 2; Marzec et al. Reference Marzec, Kiriatzi, Müller and Hein2018). This association was also confirmed by the results of elemental (Table 10) and petrographic analysis (Table A3:PF5). Six lamps (Table A5, Fig. 5) appear to share a common origin with Early Hellenistic ceramics (including PG 5), for which Cyprus or the Levant were proposed as potential places of production (Marzec et al. Reference Marzec, Kiriatzi, Müller and Hein2018). Taking into consideration previous studies (Młynarczyk Reference Młynarczyk1995, 208; Reference Młynarczyk, Daszewski and Meyza1998, 57–9), a distribution pattern showing the dominance of these lamps in Nea PaphosFootnote 28 and CyprusFootnote 29 (Fig. 22), as well as the remarkably high frequency and variability of lamp types in PG 13, a Cypriot origin for both Early Hellenistic and Early Roman productions appears more likely at this point.

Table 10. Mean chemical composition (oxides are expressed in wt% and elements in ppm) and relative standard deviation (rsd) of PG 5, PG 13, as well as colour-coated ware (CCW) pottery Fabric Group 2 (Marzec Reference Marzec2017, Fabric Group 2; Marzec et al. Reference Marzec, Kiriatzi, Müller and Hein2018, table 4). Data normalised to 100%.

Fig. 22. The distribution of PG 13 and PG 15 in the Eastern Mediterranean.

Production Group 14

This PG consists of 34 mould-made lamps with long volute nozzles and decorated discuses, classified into four types (Table A1:12–15). The decoration is incised with a sharp outline, often showing complex figural, mythological scenes, such as Jupiter with an eagle or an armed Minerva. The lamps’ shoulders are frequently grooved or decorated with ovules or floral twigs. The fabric is very fine and pale, and the surface is covered with a dark flaky slip (Fig. 23, Table A4). These lamps have some macroscopic similarities with PG 15 in terms of fabric colour and character and colour of slip. The finds from Nea Paphos date between the late first century bc/early first century ad and the third quarter of first century ad (Młynarczyk Reference Młynarczyk, Daszewski and Meyza1998, 56; Kajzer Reference Kajzer2019, 135). However, the three samples analysed by WD-XRF spectroscopy (Table 11, Fig. 5) showed significantly different elemental composition from PG 15 (compare Table 9). Compared to the two PG 15 samples, they have lower CaO concentration. Moreover, the macroscopic re-examination of the assemblage revealed that the fabric of the PG 14 samples is finer than the lamps assigned to PG 15. Additionally, lamps of PG 14 have significantly larger bodies and more strongly sunken discuses in comparison to other Early Roman lamps.

Fig. 23. Production Group 14: (a) photograph of lamp inv. no. PAP16/II/1217/L1 and (b) fresh break photomicrograph of sample PAP17/157.

Table 11. Mean chemical composition (oxides are expressed in wt% and elements in ppm) and relative standard deviation (rsd) of PG 14 and the reference group Rome 1B (Ceci and Schneider Reference Ceci and Schneider1994, cluster 1B; see also Schneider and Daszkiewicz Reference Schneider and Daszkiewicz2019). Data normalised to 100% for PG 14. For the reference group of Rome 1B, major elements are normalised.

The Italian origin of this PG can be suggested on the basis of their visual similarity to lamps of supposed Italian origin in the collection of the British Museum (Bailey Reference Bailey1980). This tentative provenance assignment is also in accordance with an observation of J. Młynarczyk (Reference Młynarczyk1995; Reference Młynarczyk, Daszewski and Meyza1998), suggesting the common occurrence of Italian lamps on Cyprus, especially in contexts dated to the first third of the first century ad. The elemental composition of these samples appears to be very similar to a group of lamps found in Rome and Ostia analysed through WD-XRF by G. Schneider, as shown in Table 11, which is considered to be local (Ceci and Schneider Reference Ceci and Schneider1994, cluster 1B; see also Schneider and Daszkiewicz Reference Schneider and Daszkiewicz2019). However, the lamps analysed in the latter study represent other types, mostly the ‘factory lamps’ which were produced later (between first and second centuries ad) than PG 14 lamps.

The presence of PG 14 lamps was documented in Nea Paphos on the Agora, Fabrika Hill, the Theatre, the House of Dionysos, the House of Orpheus (Kajzer Reference Kajzer2019, 135), Maloutena (Młynarczyk Reference Młynarczyk, Daszewski and Meyza1998, 56) and the necropolis of Ktima (Raptou Reference Raptou2004, 312–13, pl. 41:3; Kajzer Reference Kajzer2019, 135).

Production Group 15

Thirteen mould-made discus lamps with short, round nozzles and without handles (Table A1:17) dated between the end of the first and the mid-second centuries ad (Sussman Reference Sussman2012, 58, 67) make up PG 15. The lamps’ discuses are undecorated but surrounded by a ring separating them from the sloping shoulders that usually bear a relief decoration of ovules and/or a motif of a rosette or a double-axe (Fig. 24a). The latter ornament is diagnostic for eastern workshops and refers to the mythological symbol of Zeus or Kronos (Sussman Reference Sussman2012, 64). The inclusions visible in the fresh break make these similar to PG 12, but the fabric has pale brown colour (Table A4). The correlation with PG 12 and iconography, popular in the presumed region of manufacture (Hayes Reference Hayes1980, 86–7, nos 351–66, pl. 42; Oziol Reference Oziol1993b, 56; Dobbins Reference Dobbins, Berlin and Herbert2012, 108; Rosenthal-Heginbottom Reference Rosenthal-Heginbottom and Chrzanovski2012; Sussman Reference Sussman2012, 55–67), suggests the Levantine region as a place of origin.

Fig. 24. Production Group 15: (a) photograph and drawing of lamp fragment inv. no. PAP12/I/38/L1 and (b) fresh break and thin section (XPL) photomicrographs of sample PAP17/155.

The elemental composition of the two analysed samples are similar to each other but show slight variation in concentrations of Ni, Cr, Fe2O3, and V (Table 9). Petrographic analysis indicated that both samples have a semi-fine fabric with microfossils and grains of sub-rounded to well-rounded quartz and micrite (Fig. 24b), much like PG 12 samples (Table A3:PF7B). Based on these observations, both PGs (12 and 15) seem to be related to each other and likely originate from the Sidon-Tyre area. The elemental and mineralogical composition of PG 15 appears compatible with other groups of pottery produced in this region.Footnote 30 Lamps with the same typological features as those of PG 15 have been frequently recovered in the alleged production areaFootnote 31 and have been found at many sites on Cyprus (Fig. 22).Footnote 32

Loners

Four samples analysed by WD-XRF were defined as loners due to their distinct elemental compositions (see Table A2) and colours after refiring tests. Macroscopic re-examination of the samples confirmed these results. PAP17/127, PAP17/130 and PAP17/133 are not diagnostic, and no comparative match has been found for them. PAP17/144 (Fig. 25) is a fragment decorated with ivy-leaf. In terms of form and appearance of fabric, it is similar to lamps from the Cesnola Collection in the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York (inv. nos 74.51.2134–6), which are associated with the region of Antioch.Footnote 33

Fig. 25. (a) Fresh break and (b) thin section photomicrographs of sample PAP17/144.

DIRECTIONS OF SUPPLY

The combination of analyses and comparative studies demonstrates that a range of local and imported lamps was in circulation and use in Nea Paphos. In most cases, it was possible to assign the studied PGs to specific production centres or at least to wider regions of origin. Beyond those linked to local production, three PGs were considered as potentially associated with Cyprus, but not Paphos, and eight as long-distance imports, manufactured in locations beyond the island (Table 12).

Table 12. Classification of PGs into three general zones of supply.

Local production

The results of the integrated analysis indicated that ceramic oil lamps classified into PG 1, PG 2, PG 8 and PG 10 were most likely produced in the area of Nea Paphos during the Hellenistic period. These PGs correspond with certain technological changes observed, in general, in lamp manufacture. These changes were connected with an important modification in lamp shape and manufacturing technique – from wheel-made open lamps (PG 1, PG 2), through wheel-made closed lamps (PG 8) to mould-made closed lamps (PG 10). These typological and technological transformations seem also to correlate to changes in clay recipes. These demonstrate the dynamics of local production following the new trends emerging in the rest of the Eastern Mediterranean.

The wheel-made open lamps with pinched rims have been associated with the earliest phase of local production. In association with this type, two PGs (PG 1 and PG 2) have been defined on the basis of their distinct elemental compositions (Table A2, Fig. 3c) and the different appearance of their fabrics observed both in thin section and with the naked eye. Lamps of PG 1, characterised by a very fine fabric, form a homogeneous group in terms of elemental and mineralogical composition. PG 2 shows internal variability in terms of size and frequency of inclusions as well as elemental composition (Table 2). Generally, lamps classified to this PG have fine to semi-fine fabric dominated by microfossils. Both PGs are compatible with the local geology of Paphos and have close similarities to the local production of colour-coated ware pottery (see descriptions of PG 1 and PG 2, Table A3). The coexistence of (at least) two PGs linked to the local lamp production is considered to reflect different clay paste recipes and potentially varied technological choices taken by the Early Hellenistic lamp-makers, being indicative potentially of at least two workshops or clusters of workshops in the Paphos region. Moreover, the results of the thin section analysis indicate that similar raw materials to those used for PG 2 continued to be used for the production of thrown closed lamps (PG 8) and moulded lamps (PG 10) until the end of the Hellenistic period. The differences in clay pastes used for the production of PG 2, PG 8 and PG 10 seem to be related to the size and frequency of the inclusions. Moreover, the variability observed in clay pastes composition is related to distinct forming techniques – i.e. wheel throwing and moulding – lamp types and chronology, and suggests the existence of a chronological pattern. The clay paste used to manufacture mould-made lamps is finer, contains predominantly microfossils and has a higher CaO content than the paste used for the wheel-made lamps.

Among the Hellenistic PGs, lamps attributed to the local production show the most extensive repertoire of forms (Table A1:1–4,6,7). Some types and decorations of lamps seem to be unique for Cyprus, e.g. wheel-made closed lamps with piriform bodies in vertical section (PG 8, Table A1:4) and the moulded lamps with a single application (PG 10). Other types, such as the wheel-made closed lamps with globular (PG 8, Table A1:2) and biconical bodies (PG 8, Table A1:3) in vertical section and the mould-made lamps with triangular nozzles (PG 10), seem to be highly influenced in shapes and style from different Aegean traditions, i.e. from Attica, Rhodes and Ephesus, respectively. As a result, many types of local lamps do not appear to differ from the general form development associated with the lamps elsewhere during the Hellenistic period.

It seems that lamps produced in the Paphos area were mainly distributed regionally, including in the island of Geronisos, and there is currently no evidence that they were exported elsewhere. It seems that their distribution is limited to the western part of Cyprus. This is in accordance with the regional approach proposed by J. Lund (Reference Lund, Wriedt Sørensen and Winther Jacobsen2006; Reference Lund2015, 154), who argues that pottery produced in western Cyprus was predominantly consumed locally.

The assumed locally produced lamps are the most frequently encountered ones in the Hellenistic assemblage (Fig. 26). Among these, the PG 10 lamps, mould-made and dated to the Late Hellenistic period, are the most numerous. This observation suggests that lamp production increased in Nea Paphos during the Late Hellenistic period. It seems that the transition from the Early Hellenistic to Late Hellenistic periods brought a tremendous change in the local lamp shape, manufacturing technique, clay recipe, and possibly the production organisation. The latter has been suggested not only by the large number of local lamps, but also by more homogeneous fabric than those of the Early Hellenistic period, indicating higher standardisation of the products. Moreover, the increase in lamp manufacture is in accordance with trends observed within the local production of the colour-coated table ware pottery. Previous studies (Marzec Reference Marzec2017, 245–7; Marzec et al. Reference Marzec, Kiriatzi, Müller and Hein2019, 4120–1) suggested that the increase of the colour-coated ware production during the Late Hellenistic period can be related with the growing importance of Nea Paphos, the development of the urban settlement and the subsequent growing demand for locally produced goods to meet the increasing demand for local consumption. This interpretation seems to be also valid for the lamps production.

Fig. 26. Bar chart showing the proportions of lamps representing different zones of supply in the Hellenistic and Roman periods.

Possible Cypriot production

There is some indirect evidence for lamps imported to Nea Paphos from other, as yet unidentified, centres located possibly on Cyprus. Unfortunately, at this point, it is impossible to specify the exact production locations.

Two PGs dated to the Early Hellenistic period were classified as regional imports. The wheel-made lamps with a biconical body in vertical section classified to PG 6 are characterised by the same elemental and mineralogical compositions as well as the appearance of fabric and surface treatment as a group of Early Hellenistic colour-coated ware pottery from the Agora (Marzec Reference Marzec2017, 214, Fabric Group 3), which is characterised by the same elemental composition as group D of colour-coated ware pottery distinguished by M. Picon and F. Blondé (Reference Picon and Blondé2002, 14–15). They indicated that pottery classified to group D was produced from similar raw materials as Late Roman D/Cypriot Red Slip Ware, for which south-western Cyprus (Hayes Reference Hayes1967; Reference Hayes and Bianchi Bandinelli1985, 79; Reference Hayes1991, 37–8; Meyza Reference Meyza2002; Lund Reference Lund2015, 166–8; Bes Reference Bes2015, 19–20; Renson et al. Reference Renson, Slane, Rautman, Kidd, Guthrie and Glascock2016, 62–4; Hammond et al. Reference Hammond, Gabrieli, Ferguson, Glascock and Wismann2018, 121) or south-western Turkey (Gunneweg, Perlman and Yellin Reference Gunneweg, Perlman and Yellin1983; Jackson et al. Reference Jackson, Zelle, Vandeput and Köse2012) were suggested as potential production locations.

PG 5 consists of wheel-made lamps with a globular body in vertical section, which have the same appearance of fabric and elemental composition as a group of Early Hellenistic colour-coated pottery known from the excavations in Nea Paphos. The place of production of the colour-coated ware group remains unknown, but, based on its distribution, a production in Cyprus or the Levant has been suggested (Marzec et al. Reference Marzec, Kiriatzi, Müller and Hein2018). In view of the new data provided by this study, it seems that the origin can now be limited to Cyprus. The wheel-made lamps classified to PG 5 and the colour-coated vessels made of the same fabric occur in contexts dating from the late fourth to the mid-second century bc, and they are absent in the Late Hellenistic and Early Roman layers. However, in the Early Roman period, mould-made discus lamps (PG 13) with a similar fabric and comparable mineralogical and elemental composition to the above-mentioned Early Hellenistic ceramics are dominant among the lamp assemblage from the Agora. This suggests that the Early Hellenistic lamps (PG 5) and table wares as well as the Early Roman lamps (PG 13) were produced from the same raw materials. Based on this, and taking into consideration that there is no continuity of local lamp production during the Roman times, and PG 13 is the predominant group dated to this period (Fig. 26), it can be suggested that their production took part somewhere on Cyprus, possibly not far from Nea Paphos. However, the origin of these lamps cannot be securely pinpointed at this stage of the research.

Production beyond Cyprus

Ceramic oil lamps were minor trade goods (Bailey Reference Bailey1975, 10; Harris Reference Harris1980, 134). However, they have been found in shipwrecks as part of cargoes (Kajzer Reference Kajzer2019, 53–8), and their distribution could illustrate the directions of long-distance exchange and reflect trade routes. The study of the ceramic oil lamps from Nea Paphos allowed some general conclusions to be drawn concerning lamp mobility.

The earliest indication for the import of lamps from the North Levant dates from the late fourth/early third century bc. The wheel-made open lamps classified to PG 3 have been tentatively associated with this region. Although this association is not secure and requires further verification, previous studies suggested that table wares were imported from the North Levant throughout the entire Hellenistic and Early Roman periods.Footnote 34

The excavations in the Agora also produced further evidence for contacts of Nea Paphos with the Levant. Late Hellenistic mould-made lamps (PG 12) and Early Roman mould-made discus lamps (PG 15) are characterised by similar mineralogical composition, compatible with the Sidon-Tyre area. Apart from these lamps, other categories of Phoenician pottery, including but not limited to Late Hellenistic amphoriskoi (Hayes Reference Hayes1991, 65; Lund Reference Lund2015, 200), as well as Late Hellenistic and Roman transport amphorae (Marangou Reference Marangou2006, 55–6; Dobosz Reference Dobosz2016, 195; Reference Dobosz2020, 340, 342) and cooking pottery (Więch Reference Więch2017, 449; Nocoń Reference Nocoń2020, 307) have also been identified in Nea Paphos.

There is also evidence for the movement of pottery to Nea Paphos from the Aegean. The earliest identified lamps from the Aegean are Attic imports (PG 4). In Nea Paphos, they are usually recovered in Early Hellenistic layers; however, in other Cypriot sites they are present already in Classical contexts. This direction of material culture exchange has already been indicated by the finds of Early Hellenistic black gloss and West Slope table pottery (Hayes Reference Hayes1991, 5; Papuci-Władyka Reference Papuci-Władyka1995, 34–5; Marzec and Kajzer Reference Marzec and Kajzer2020, 225). The presence of Rhodian wheel-made lamps (PG 6) in Nea Paphos can be associated with the popularity of other products from this island and/or its territorial possessions in Asia Minor at that time. Rhodian-type transport amphorae (Oziol Reference Oziol1993b, 19; Barker Reference Barker, Lawall and Lund2013; Dobosz Reference Dobosz2016, 192–3; Reference Dobosz2020, 335–6; Lund Reference Lund2015, 192–4, 208) and table wares (Hayes Reference Hayes1991, 24; Lund Reference Lund2015, 194; Marzec Reference Marzec2017, 238; Marzec and Kajzer Reference Kajzer2020, 231–2) were widely distributed in Paphos and Cyprus, especially in the third and second centuries bc. Among the Aegean imports, wheel-made lamps with a moulded decoration (PG 9), probably produced in Knidos between the second half of the second century bc and the beginning of the first century ad, form a significant group. It is worth mentioning that among the assemblage of lamps recovered during the excavations at the Agora, there are mould-made discus lamps with the signature ‘Romanesis’ impressed on their bases, but these could not be subjected to laboratory analysis due to sampling restrictions.Footnote 35 The presence of the signature and the macroscopic appearance of fabric suggest that they can be attributed to the Romanesis workshop, which was likely located in Knidos and manufactured lamps from c. 70 to 130 ad (Heres Reference Heres1968, 203–4; Bailey Reference Bailey1988, 325–65; Gordon and Cova Reference Gordon and Cova2010, 282; Lund Reference Lund2015, 196). This movement of ceramic products, from Knidos to Nea Paphos, dated to between the second century bc and second century ad, is also supported by finds of stamped Knidian transport amphorae (Dobosz Reference Dobosz2016, 193–4; Reference Dobosz2020, 336–7) and table ware pottery (Hayes Reference Hayes1991, 12; Papuci-Władyka Reference Papuci-Władyka1995, 43, 75; Kögler Reference Kögler2011, 53–9; Lund Reference Lund2015, 194–6; Marzec Reference Marzec2017, 237–8; Marzec and Kajzer Reference Kajzer2020, 232; Kajzer and Marzec Reference Kajzer and Marzec2020, 255). The Ephesian mould-made lamps were produced on a large scale and widely distributed throughout the Mediterranean during the Late Hellenistic and Early Roman periods (Fig. 16). These lamps were also recognised among the assemblage from the Agora (PG 11) and among material from other excavations in Nea Paphos. It seems that their presence also influenced the local production of lamps during the Late Hellenistic period. Some of the local lamps have a nozzle ended with a triangular tip, a distinctive feature of the Ephesian lamps. This direction of material culture exchange has already been indicated by table ware, including relief bowls and grey ware platters (Marzec and Kajzer Reference Kajzer2020, 233; Kajzer and Marzec Reference Kajzer and Marzec2020, 256), as well as amphora finds unearthed in Nea Paphos, in Hellenistic and Roman contexts (Lawall Reference Lawall, Eiring and Lund2004; Dobosz Reference Dobosz2016, 195; Reference Dobosz2020, 332–3).

The earliest evidence for the Italian connections of Nea Paphos concern a few Gnathia amphora fragments, imported probably in the third century bc, and ‘Campana’ black gloss pottery dated to the second century bc (Lund Reference Lund2015, 186–8; Marzec and Kajzer Reference Kajzer2020, 226). However, evidence for more intensive contacts with the West dates to the Early Roman period, together with the appearance of Italian ceramics, including thin-walled pottery, sigillata (Hayes Reference Hayes1991, 59, 61; Papuci-Władyka Reference Papuci-Władyka1995, 63; Lund Reference Lund2015, 188; Marzec and Kajzer Reference Kajzer2020, 234; Kajzer and Marzec Reference Kajzer and Marzec2020, 253–4), cooking ware (Hayes Reference Hayes1991, 78–9; Lund Reference Lund2015, 188–9; Nocoń Reference Nocoń2020, 306–7), amphorae (Dobosz Reference Dobosz2016, 196; Reference Dobosz2020, 345), and possibly mould-made discus lamps (PG 14), as has been suggested in this study.

Finally, it should be mentioned that beyond the main groups discussed above, to which the majority of lamps can be assigned, there are lamps recovered at the Agora which likely come from regions not discussed in this paper. The origin of some remains unidentified; other singular examples or small groups can be attributed to Cilicia or Egypt on the basis of macroscopic analysis (Kajzer Reference Kajzer2019, 145–8, 161–4).

CHRONOLOGICAL DISTRIBUTION

Based on the current study, four chronological phases can be established, showing different production and distribution patterns. The first phase dates to the late fourth and third centuries bc, and it is characterised by the coexistence of the wheel-made open lamps and wheel-made closed lamps. The significant number of the wheel-made open lamps in the Early Hellenistic contexts corresponding to the earliest architectural phases at the Agora suggests that they were used in the newly founded city. These unslipped lamps representing a pre-Hellenistic potting tradition were probably produced in the wider region of Nea Paphos (PG 1 and PG 2) but also imported from somewhere else on Cyprus or from the North Levant (PG 3). The contemporary contexts yielded also the wheel-made closed lamps with a globular body in vertical section – the type produced in Athens since the Classical period. This type includes original black gloss imports from Attica (PG 4) and probably their Cypriot imitations (PG 5), whose surface was covered with red or black slip. The table wares from the same contexts are in the Classical tradition, both produced in Attica and on the island (Hayes Reference Hayes1991, 5; Papuci-Władyka Reference Papuci-Władyka1995, 34–5; Marzec Reference Marzec2017, 249–51; Marzec and Kajzer Reference Kajzer2020, 225–6). The lamps of this first chronological phase are related to the transitional phase between the Classical and Hellenistic periods associated with the city foundation.

The second phase dates between the mid-third and the mid-second centuries bc and sees the appearance of lamps with a biconical body in vertical section (Table A1:3), which were imported from Rhodes (PG 7) but also probably produced on Cyprus (PG 6) as well as in the Paphos region (PG 8). However, the lamps typical for the previous phase were still in use until the end of the third/early second century bc. They are followed by lamps with a piriform body in vertical section (Table A1:4), a shape typical for local production (PG 8), which appeared in the late third century bc. During this phase, Nea Paphos regained its political stability under the Ptolemaic reign, and around 203 bc it became the capital of the island.

The third phase dates from the mid-second to the end of the first century bc and is characterised by the emergence of moulding as a forming technique for lamps. The results of the analyses suggested that mould-made lamps were imported to Paphos from Ephesus (PG 11, Table A1:8,9) and the Levant (PG 12, Table A1:10,11), as well as produced locally (PG 10, Table A1:6,7). This phase is also characterised by a slow decline of wheel-made lamps, most of which went out of use until the end of the second century bc. Only Knidian grey ware wheel-made lamps (PG 9, Table A1:5), with moulded decoration, were used until the Early Roman period. Generally, the number of lamps appears to have increased and they show a more extensive repertoire of shapes than in the previous phases. A similar phenomenon has been observed for the production and consumption of colour-coated pottery, where it has been interpreted as a consequence of an increasing demand for goods related to the development of the city during the Late Hellenistic period (Marzec Reference Marzec2017, 245–7; Marzec et al. Reference Marzec, Kiriatzi, Müller and Hein2019, 4121).

The fourth phase is marked by the appearance of Early Roman mould-made discus lamps, and it dates from the beginning of first to the mid-second century ad. It is also characterised by an apparent decline in local production and the occurrence of lamps imported from other production centres likely located (elsewhere) in Cyprus (PG 13), the Levant (PG 15) and presumably Italy (PG 14). Interestingly, a similar phenomenon has been observed for colour-coated ware pottery production: this was the most common table ware pottery class during the Hellenistic period, but in Roman times its local production declined (Marzec Reference Marzec2017, 250–1; Kajzer and Marzec Reference Kajzer and Marzec2020, 260–1). The lamps of PG 13 are predominant in the Early Roman assemblage dated to between the beginning of the first and the end of second centuries ad. They show an extensive repertoire of forms (Table A1:12–18) and variability of surface treatment.

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

The assemblage of Hellenistic and Roman lamps from the Paphos Agora is highly variable in terms of forms and fabrics. This variability seems to be related not only to their morphological and technological evolution, but also to their varied origins. An important outcome of this study was the definition of the local production of lamps in Nea Paphos. The macroscopic assignment of the lamps was confirmed, to a large extent, by the results of the laboratory analysis. It seems that lamps assigned to PG 1, PG 2, PG 8 and PG 10 were made in workshops located in the Paphos region. These four PGs are characterised by different clay pastes, forming techniques, surface treatments, types and chronology. Nevertheless, it seems that the lamps belonging to all the above-mentioned PGs were manufactured from raw materials associated with the same geological unit(s), likely from the area of Paphos, covering the entire Hellenistic period. Based on the results of this study, it can be suggested that local lamp production declined at the beginning of the Roman period, and was substituted by lamps presumably produced in another centre(s) on Cyprus. A similar production pattern has been observed for colour-coated pottery (Marzec Reference Marzec2017, 249–51; Marzec et al. Reference Marzec, Kiriatzi, Müller and Hein2019), which was manufactured with the use of similar clay pastes. The possible cause of this phenomenon appears to be related to a destruction of Nea Paphos by an earthquake in 17 or 15 bc (Ambraseys Reference Ambraseys2009, 104), followed by an extensive rebuilding of the city (Młynarczyk Reference Młynarczyk1990a, 33), which caused changes in modes of production and supply (Marzec Reference Marzec2017, 247). It seems that Cypriot lamp production continued to supply the city, in particular in the Early Roman period, when, as mentioned above, lamps produced presumably in other centre(s) on Cyprus appear to have largely replaced the local production.

The presence of numerous imports within the studied assemblage witnesses the extensive cultural and economic connections Nea Paphos had developed with other centres in the Levant, Aegean and Italy. This study confirmed that lamps comprised long-distance exchange goods and underlined the role of Nea Paphos as an important commercial centre, connecting the Aegean with the Levant. The lamp distribution patterns correspond well to patterns observed for other imports from the same areas, especially table wares. It is possible that the lamps and table wares were transported together as secondary cargo or space-fillers on ships (Bes Reference Bes2015, 2; Lund Reference Lund2015, 213). Lamps, due to their small volume, did not take a lot of space in cargoes (Boardman Reference Boardman1988, 30), so that a large number of lamps could have been distributed at once, as has been suggested by the evidence from shipwrecks, such as Grand Bassin C (Gibbins Reference Gibbins1989, 20; Parker Reference Parker1992, 199), Pozzuoli (Gibbins Reference Gibbins1989, 20) and Skerki Bank D (McCann and Oleson Reference McCann and Oleson2004, 43).

It is clear that imported and local lamps were used at the same time, if not necessarily by the same people, as they are found together in the same archaeological contexts. The variety of products that must have been available on the local market may have been linked to particular demands for daily life objects and likely reflects the tastes and preferences of a diverse and widely connected society living in the city.

The interdisciplinary methodology adopted in the current study of ceramic oil lamps underlines the potential of such an approach. The first stage of this integrated research was a detailed and systematic macroscopic fabric characterisation resulting in the formation of MGs, which are traditionally considered to correspond to different production centres and/or areas, also reflecting variable chronology. It has to be underlined that macroscopic fabric examination combined with typological and stylistic analyses were informative and, as further analysis demonstrated, allowed for the identification of some valid groups (e.g. Attic lamps). However, in some cases the macroscopic analysis was not sufficient to form a proper group due to the fine nature of the fabrics and colour similarity, especially observed within grey fabrics. The use of a stereo microscope would probably improve the results and prevent some of the mistakes at this stage. Additionally, an important step was the implementation of refiring tests as a complementary method for macroscopic analysis. It was very useful for the elimination of colour diversity of the samples, caused by varied temperatures and atmosphere of the original firing or by other factors connected with lamps use and post-depositional conditions. It was especially helpful for the classification of fragments that had originally been fired in a reducing atmosphere (e.g. Knidian lamps). In the case of the latter, observation of the inclusions and comparison of the fabric colours after refiring was much easier.

The results of the WD-XRF analyses showed that some samples differ from each other in terms of elemental composition despite the same appearance of fabric, shape, decoration and classification to one PF. This is usually observed within PGs represented only by two or three lamps subjected to laboratory analysis. It is likely related to an insufficient number of analysed samples to show the continuum of the internal variability of a PG. For this reason, it is important to examine as many samples as possible. Thin section petrography proved to be an informative method for such cases, even for lamps with fine fabrics and thin walls. The observations made under the petrographic microscope allowed for a better understanding of sample associations and the causes of the internal variability of the PGs.

Overall, the research presented here revealed a complex picture of lamp production and distribution in Nea Paphos during the Hellenistic and Early Roman periods. The next step is to apply the methodology used in this study to lamps from other sites in order to increase the reference database and define lamp production centres in other parts of the island. Additionally, further investigation of supposed Cypriot fine ware pottery groups is essential to better understand lamp origins and supply patterns. To pinpoint the origin of PG 6 lamps, for example, further analysis of Late Roman D/Cypriot Red Slip Ware is necessary. To verify the assumption that they were manufactured at more than one place, namely south-western Turkey and south-western Cyprus, a large number of samples representing these wares from both locations should be investigated thoroughly using scientific analysis. Other PGs of presumably Cypriot origin, i.e. PG 5 and PG 13, as well as some long-distance imports, such as PG 3 and PG 14, also require further investigation. Undoubtedly, the discovery of actual lamp workshops or other direct evidence of manufacture is essential for understanding their origin and supply patterns.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The project was carried out within the framework of the grant PRELUDIUM 10 – no. 2015/19/N/HS3/01810 financed by the National Science Centre, Poland. Additional financial support has been provided by the European Social Fund – programme POWER – no. WND-POWR.03.02.00-00-1025/17 – for the thin-section petrography. This research would not have been possible without the support of E. Papuci-Władyka, the director of the Paphos Agora Project, who granted the permission to study and publish the lamps, as well as the Department of Antiquities, Cyprus, which issued the sampling permit. The illustrations presented in the paper were made by A. Oleksiak (the photographs of the lamps and their fragments), A. Jurkiewicz-Cora (some of the drawings) and the authors.

Table A1. Typology and chronology of lamps from the Paphos Agora excavations and concordance with Production Groups (PG) and existing classifications.

Table A2. Elemental composition of the samples; oxides, LOI (loss on ignition) and sum are expressed in wt% and elements in ppm.

Table A3. Petrographic descriptions. Abbreviations used: PG = Production Group; PPL = plane polarised light; XPL = crossed polarised light; a = angular; sa = subangular; r = rounded; wr = well rounded; TCFs = textural concentration features.

Table A4. The macroscopic characterisation of production groups (PG). Definition of terms used in the table: Frequency: Rare = less than 2%; Few = 2–15%, Frequent = 15–30%; Common = 30–50%; Size: Fine = smaller than 0.25 mm; Medium = 0.25–0.5 mm; Coarse = 0.5–1 mm; Hardness: Soft = can be easily scratched with a fingernail; Fairly Hard = can be hardly scratched with a fingernail; Hard = can be scratched with a knife; Very Hard = can't be scratched with a knife; Feel of Surface: Smooth = no irregularities can be felt; Powdery = leaves powder on the finger; Slightly rough = with few irregularities; Rough = with frequent irregularities; Texture of Fresh Break: Conchoidal = porcelains, high fired fabrics without inclusions, breaks like flint, obsidian or glass; Smooth = flat, without ripple marks; Irregular = with frequent inclusions, medium and angular irregularities; Rather hackly = with common inclusions, large and angular irregularities. The colours were recorded using the Munsell Soil Color Charts (2013).

Table A5. List of samples subjected to refiring, WD-XRF and thin section petrography, including information about inventory numbers, part of lamp, and photographs. The samples are presented according to Production Group (PG).

Footnotes

1 An important corpus of reference data, mainly for the ‘factory lamps’, is available online <http://repository.edition-topoi.org/collection/CRMC/object/RMLP> accessed August 2020.

2 In the Rhodes case, the results of scientific analyses are presented as a separate appendix, in a volume dedicated to the typological and stylistic study of lamps from the 3rd to the 7th century ad.

3 Some of the results of these studies are already published; see Kajzer Reference Kajzer2020 with references.

4 The Paphos Agora Project is conducted by the Institute of Archaeology, Jagiellonian University, Krakow, Poland and directed by E. Papuci-Władyka (www.paphos-agora.archeo.uj.edu.pl/).

5 The lamps not included in the MGs increase the variability of the assemblage, indicating presumably additional production centres. However, the different macroscopic characteristics might be, in some cases, the result of post-depositional conditions.

6 Cluster analysis proved less successful. This is because in the present dataset there is (in some PGs) quite high internal variability, which, alongside the apparent compositional overlap of different groups (as also confirmed by thin section petrography) and overall low number of samples per group, does not provide favorable conditions for successful application of hierarchical clustering.

7 Eight of the PGs essentially overlap with certain MGs (PG 4 with MG 2, PG 7 with MG 3, PG 8 with MG 4, PG 9 with MG 7, PG 10 with MG 9, PG 11 with MG 8, PG 12 with MG 6, and PG 13 with MG 11). PG 5 and PG 6 include samples that were classified into more than one MG (MG 4 and MG 5). Samples of PG 1, PG 2 and PG 3 formed MG 1, while samples of PG 14 and PG 15 were initially classified together as MG 10.

8 Amathus: Nicolaou Reference Nicolaou1985, 281, no. 27, pl. 52:52; Aphendrika: Dray and du Taylor Reference Dray and du Taylor1951, 111–12; Idalion: Karageorghis Reference Karageorghis1964; Kition, Kontoura Trachonia: Vessberg Reference Vessberg, Vessberg and Westholm1956, 184; Kyra: Pieridou Reference Pieridou1963, 37; Palaepaphos: Bezzola Reference Bezzola2004, 7–21; Salamine: Oziol and Pouilloux Reference Oziol and Pouilloux1969, 16; Tsambres: Dray and du Taylor Reference Dray and du Taylor1951, 111–12.

9 Agora: Kajzer Reference Kajzer2019, 91; Reference Kajzer2020, 285, Macroscopic Group 1; Fabrika Hill and Sanctuary of Toumballos: Kajzer Reference Kajzer2019, 91; Maloutena: Młynarczyk Reference Młynarczyk1978, 236; Reference Młynarczyk, Daszewski and Meyza1998, 54.

10 Pentedeka, Georgakopoulou and Kiriatzi Reference Pentedeka, Georgakopoulou, Kiriatzi and Klebinder-Gauß2012, 125–8. These have originally been analysed for elemental composition using ICP-OES but were subsequently reanalysed with WD-XRF. Their composition is also compatible with typical Attic pottery from contexts in Athens and beyond, recently analysed at the Fitch Laboratory using WD-XRF.

11 Greece: Argos: Bovon Reference Bovon1966, 11, pls 2–3; Athens: Howland Reference Howland1958; Corinth: Broneer Reference Broneer1930, 45–6; Lesbos: Bailey Reference Bailey1975, 30; Aegean region: Delos: Bruneau Reference Bruneau1965, 20–2; Kalymnos: Bailey Reference Bailey1975, 30; Kos: Dimakis Reference Dimakis and Triantafyllidis2017, 328; Rhodes: Bailey Reference Bailey1975, 30; Asia Minor: Ephesus: Bailey Reference Bailey1975, 30; Cyprus: Kition: Gjerstad et al. Reference Gjerstad, Lindros, Sjöqvist and Westholm1935, 288; Bailey Reference Bailey1975, 56; Oziol Reference Oziol, J and Salles1993a, 296; Reference Oziol and Karageorghis2003, 280; Kourion: McFadden Reference McFadden1946, 475, pl. 38; Marion and Soli: Oziol Reference Oziol1977, 37, nos 54–5; Nea Paphos – Agora: Kajzer Reference Kajzer2019, 94; Reference Kajzer2020, 285, Macroscopic Group 2; Nea Paphos – Fabrika Hill: Kajzer Reference Kajzer2019, 94; Nea Paphos – Maloutena: Młynarczyk Reference Młynarczyk1978, 237–8; Levant: Al-Mina: Bailey Reference Bailey1975, 30; Antioch: Waagé Reference Waagé and Stillwell1941, 56; Byblos: Frangié and Salles Reference Frangié and Salles2011a, 278, pl. 1; Beirut: Frangié-Joly Reference Frangié-Joly2017, 65; Akko, Shiqmona, Tell Keisan, Beth Yerah, Samaria, Gezer, Jerusalem, Maresha and Ein Gedi: Sussman Reference Sussman2009, 13–15; Egypt: Alexandria: Młynarczyk Reference Młynarczyk1990b, 156; Naukratis, Bubastis: Bailey Reference Bailey1975, 30; Cyrenaica: Benghazi and Tocra: Bailey Reference Bailey1975, 30.

12 With an exception of only one lamp analysed by Picon and Blondé (Reference Picon and Blondé2002, 15). However, the description of the appearance of fabric and type of this lamp is not provided in the publication.

13 The authors meant Late Roman Cypriot Red Slip Ware, known also as Late Roman D.

14 However, the problem of the provenance of these wares is still unsolved due to the recent discovery of the Late Roman D production sites in south-western Asia Minor (Jackson et al. Reference Jackson, Zelle, Vandeput and Köse2012; Hammond et al. Reference Hammond, Gabrieli, Ferguson, Glascock and Wismann2018, 121). Since the results of scientific analyses do not exclude the Cypriot provenance, some researchers argue that, in fact, the ware was produced independently in different regions (Poblome and Firat Reference Poblome, Firat, Cau, Reynolds and Bonifay2011, 50).

15 The narrow depression around the filling hole is sometimes interpreted as a prototype of a discus (Wismann Reference Wismann, Wriedt Sørensen and Winther Jacobsen2006, 345).

16 Bailey (Reference Bailey1975, 163) suggested that lamps in this type found on Rhodes were produced from the first half of the 3rd century bc. But the finds from Cyprus seem to be slightly later. Młynarczyk (Reference Młynarczyk, Daszewski and Meyza1998, 54; Reference Młynarczyk2012, 37) dated analogical lamps from Maloutena between the mid-3rd and the beginning of the 2nd centuries bc. Similar chronology is suggested for those unearthed at Paphos – Agora (Kajzer Reference Kajzer2020, 286, Macroscopic Group 4). These dates fit well with the chronology of Hellenistic Rhodian amphorae imported in significant numbers to Nea Paphos (see below).

17 The study of the pottery is conducted by L. Betina and is currently being prepared for publication. Elemental analyses have been conducted at the Fitch using WD-XRF.

18 Cyprus: Eurychou-Phoenikas: Nicolaou Reference Nicolaou1984, 249, no. 245, pl. 56:120; Geronisos: Connelly and Młynarczyk Reference Connelly and Młynarczyk2002, 313, no. 26; Kition: Oziol Reference Oziol1995, 242; Kourion: Oliver Reference Oliver1983, 247, 252–3, nos 3–4, pl. 39:3,4; Nea Paphos – Maloutena: Młynarczyk Reference Młynarczyk, Daszewski and Meyza1998, 54, fig. 3; Nea Paphos – Agora: Kajzer Reference Kajzer2019, 96; Reference Kajzer2020, 286, Macroscopic Group 4; Nea Paphos – House of Dionysos, Theatre, Sanctuary of Toumballos and Fabrika Hill: Kajzer Reference Kajzer2019, 96; Palaepaphos: Lund Reference Lund, Sørensen and Rupp1993, 118; Pegeia: Raptou, Stylianou and Vassiliou Reference Raptou, Stylianou and Vassiliou2002, 207, 213, pl. 3:49; Delos: Kajzer and Marzec Reference Kajzer and Marzecforthcoming; Levant: Beirut: Frangié Reference Frangié2011, 306–7, figs 6–8; Frangié-Joly Reference Frangié-Joly2017, 65; Byblos: Frangié and Salles Reference Frangié and Salles2011a, 279, pl. 1; Akko, Tell Keisan, Tel Anafa, Beth-Yerah, Samaria and Tirat Yehuda: Sussman Reference Sussman2009, 24–5; Egypt: Alexandria and Tell Atrib: Młynarczyk Reference Młynarczyk1997, 19; Reference Młynarczyk2012, 37; Cyrenaica: Benghazi: Bailey Reference Bailey, Barker, Lloyd and Reynolds1985a, 196; Reference Bailey1985b, 3.

19 Vessberg Reference Vessberg, Vessberg and Westholm1956, 185, dated lamps with piriform profile to as late as the 1st century ad. But such late examples probably need to be considered as residual.

20 The form of handle known also from other Knidian vessels; see Kögler Reference Kögler2011, pl. 15.

21 The body shape with cut edges, grey colour and a bulge on the foot, interpreted sometimes as imitation of a rivet, resembles metal lamps, as suggested by some researchers; see Kelsall Reference Kelsall2018, 89.

22 Greece: Athens: Howland Reference Howland1958, 13; Corinth: Broneer Reference Broneer1930, 53–4; Aegean region: Delos: Bruneau Reference Bruneau1965, 33–4; Kos: Dimakis Reference Dimakis and Triantafyllidis2017, 329; Samothrace: Dusenbery Reference Dusenbery1998, 830–1, no. RDS8-2; Asia Minor: Knidos: Kögler Reference Kögler, Briese and Vaag2005; Reference Kögler2011, pls 7, 11, 22, 41–2; Pastutmaz Sevmen Reference Pastutmaz Sevmen and Bruns Özgan2013; Milet: Menzel Reference Menzel1969, 16, pl. 7:4; Priene: Fenn Reference Fenn2016, 104, pl. 62; Bailey Reference Bailey1975, 124–31; Cyprus: Geronisos: Connelly and Młynarczyk Reference Connelly and Młynarczyk2002, 313, no. 28; Kition: Młynarczyk Reference Młynarczyk, Daszewski and Meyza1998, 56; Kourion: Kajzer Reference Kajzer, Given, Mavromatis and Gabrieliforthcoming; Makronisos: Hadjisavvas Reference Hadjisavvas1997, fig. 118, no. 22w; Nea Paphos – Agora: Kajzer Reference Kajzer2020, 287–8, Macroscopic Group 8; Nea Paphos – Sanctuary of Toumballos: Giudice Reference Giudice1992, 227, nos A20–1, figs 5:20–2; Nea Paphos – Maloutena: Młynarczyk Reference Młynarczyk1978, 241; Reference Młynarczyk, Daszewski and Meyza1998, 55–6; Nea Paphos – Fabrika Hill, House of Orpheus, House of Dionysos: Kajzer Reference Kajzer2019, 106; Palaepaphos: Bezzola Reference Bezzola2004, 36–7; Cilicia: Tarsus: Goldman and Jones Reference Goldman, Jones and Goldman1950, 89; Levant: Antioch: Waagé Reference Waagé and Stillwell1941, 57; Beirut: Frangié Reference Frangié2011, 313–5, fig. 14; Frangié-Joly Reference Frangié-Joly2017, 65; Byblos: Frangié and Salles Reference Frangié and Salles2011a, 280, pl. 3; Gamla, Jaffa (Yaffo), Maresha and Samaria: Sussman Reference Sussman2009, 29; Egypt: Karanis: Shier Reference Shier1978, 19; Cyrenaica: Benghazi: Bailey Reference Bailey, Barker, Lloyd and Reynolds1985a, 196; Reference Bailey1985b, 6.

23 Unfortunately, due to the poor state of preservation, no correlation has so far been observed between the ornament variant and nozzle shape.

24 Their functional meaning is still not very clear and is being discussed (compare Sussman Reference Sussman2009, 67), but they possibly functioned as air holes.

25 Greece: Antykithera shipwreck: Vivliodetis Reference Vivliodetis, Kaltsas, Vlachogianni and Bouyia2012, 164–7, nos 159–64; Athens: Howland Reference Howland1958, 166–9; Chios: Bailey Reference Bailey1965, 66; Giuliani Reference Giuliani, Roman and Gudea2008, 92; Corinth: Broneer Reference Broneer1930, 66–70; Crete, Eretria: Giuliani Reference Giuliani, Roman and Gudea2008, 92; Aegean region: Delos: Bruneau Reference Bruneau1965, 51–78; Kos: Dimakis Reference Dimakis and Triantafyllidis2017, 329; Rhodes: Giuliani Reference Giuliani, Roman and Gudea2008, 92; Samos: Bailey Reference Bailey1965, 66; Giuliani Reference Giuliani, Roman and Gudea2008, 92; Samothrace: Dusenbery Reference Dusenbery1998, 831–2; Tenos: Giuliani Reference Giuliani, Roman and Gudea2008, 92; Cyprus: Geronisos: Connelly and Młynarczyk Reference Connelly and Młynarczyk2002, 297, 313, nos 29–30; Kition: Vessberg Reference Vessberg, Vessberg and Westholm1956, 122, fig. 37:15; Kourion: McFadden Reference McFadden1946, 468, nos 5–6; Kyra: Pieridou Reference Pieridou1963, 36, nos 46, 48; Nea Paphos – Agora: Kajzer Reference Kajzer2019, 110; Reference Kajzer2020, 288–9, Macroscopic Group 9; Nea Paphos – Fabrika Hill, Theatre, the House of Dionysos, the House of Orpheus: Kajzer Reference Kajzer2019, 110; Nea Paphos – Maloutena: Młynarczyk Reference Młynarczyk1978, 242, no. 38; Nea Paphos – Toumballos Sanctuary: Giudice Reference Giudice1992, 227, no. A19, fig. 5:19; Palaepaphos: Bezzola Reference Bezzola2004, 48–50; Panagia Ematousa: Wismann Reference Wismann, Wriedt Sørensen and Winther Jacobsen2006, 348; Asia Minor: Assos: Giuliani Reference Giuliani, Roman and Gudea2008, 92; Ephesus: Giuliani Reference Giuliani, Roman and Gudea2008, 92; Reference Giuliani2011, 534; Iassos, Labraunda, Metropolis: Giuliani Reference Giuliani, Roman and Gudea2008, 92; Pergamon: Nohlen and Radt Reference Nohlen and Radt1978, 61; Priene: Fenn Reference Fenn2016, 103–4, 178–81, pls 62, 103–4; Sardis: Shear Reference Shear1922, 401–2, figs 9–10; Troia: Giuliani Reference Giuliani, Roman and Gudea2008, 92; Cilicia: Tarsus: Goldman and Jones Reference Goldman, Jones and Goldman1950, 89–90; Levant: Antioch: Waagé Reference Waagé and Stillwell1941, 61; Beirut: Élaigne Reference Élaigne2007, 116; Frangié Reference Frangié2011, 320–2, figs 29–34; Frangié-Joly Reference Frangié-Joly2017, 66; Ashdod, Bet Shean, Caesarea, Jaffa (Yaffo), Maresha, Oboda Tiberias, Samaria, Schechem and Tel Anafa: Sussman Reference Sussman2009, 69; Cyrenaica: Benghazi: Bailey Reference Bailey1985b, 6–7; Giuliani Reference Giuliani2011, 534.

26 Greece: Athens: Howland Reference Howland1958, 143–5; Aegean region: Delos: Bruneau Reference Bruneau1965, 81–8; Cyprus: Famagusta: Karageorghis Reference Karageorghis1966, 336, fig. 90; Nea Paphos – Agora: Kajzer Reference Kajzer2019, 102–3; Reference Kajzer2020, 289, Macroscopic Group 10; Nea Paphos – Fabrika Hill, Theatre, Sanctuary at Toumballos: Kajzer Reference Kajzer2019, 102–3, Nea Paphos – Ktima necropolis: Kajzer Reference Kajzer2019, 102–3; Karageorghis Reference Karageorghis1986, 874, fig. 118; Nea Paphos – Maloutena: Młynarczyk Reference Młynarczyk1978, 241–2, nos 30–3; Reference Młynarczyk, Daszewski and Meyza1998, 55, fig. 1f; Papuci-Władyka Reference Papuci-Władyka1997, 132; Nicosia: Oziol Reference Oziol1977, 59, nos 132–3; Palaepaphos: Bezzola Reference Bezzola2004, 48, nos 222–4; Panagia Ematusa: Wismann Reference Wismann, Wriedt Sørensen and Winther Jacobsen2006, 346; Cilicia: Tarsus: Goldman and Jones Reference Goldman, Jones and Goldman1950, 101, fig. 194; Levant: Antioch: Waagé Reference Waagé and Stillwell1941, 59, nos 40–1; Beirut: Mikati Reference Mikati1998, 92, pl. 10:2a,b; Frangié Reference Frangié2011, 317–19; Byblos: Frangié and Salles Reference Frangié and Salles2011a, 281; Sarepta: Pritchard Reference Pritchard1988, 174–8, fig. 74; Sussman Reference Sussman2009, 41; Sidon: Rey-Coquais Reference Rey-Coquais1963, pl. 1, no. 1; Tyre: Marchand Reference Marchand, Bikai, Fulco and Marchand1996, 57, no. 1; Élaigne Reference Élaigne and Peignard-Giros2019, 390; Achziv, Akko, Bet Guvrin, Dalhamiya, Geva, Hagoshrim, Jaffa (Yaffo), Ramat Rachel and Tel Dan: Sussman Reference Sussman2009, 41, 54, 123–6, 134–43; Tel Anafa: Młynarczyk Reference Młynarczyk1997, 35; Sussman Reference Sussman2009, 41; Dobbins Reference Dobbins, Berlin and Herbert2012; Beersheva, Pella, Sha'ar ha-Amaqim and Umm el-Emed: Młynarczyk Reference Młynarczyk1997, 23–4; Ashdod, Atlit, Cesarea, Bet Shean, Maresha, Nessana, Samaria, Shiqmona, Tel Dor, Tel Gezer and Tel Mevorkh: Młynarczyk Reference Młynarczyk1997, 23–4, 35; Sussman Reference Sussman2009, 54, 134–43; Bet Shemesh, Beth Zur and Masada: Młynarczyk Reference Młynarczyk1997, 23; Jerusalem and Tirat Yehuda: Barag and Hershkovitz Reference Barag, Hershkovitz, Aviram, Foerster and Netzer1994, 13.

27 Bettles Reference Bettles2003, similar to Fabric Class 1A, 139–52; Michniewicz and Młynarczyk Reference Michniewicz and Młynarczyk2017, similar to Petrographic Group 1 – Algae, 50; Gilboa and Goren Reference Gilboa and Goren2015, similar to Group Mi1, 93; Gilboa, Waiman-Barak and Jones Reference Gilboa, Waiman-Barak and Jones2015, similar to Group B1, 82; Waiman-Barak Reference Waiman-Barak, Mazar and Panitz-Cohen2016–20, similar to Group 2a, 29–30.

28 Nea Paphos – Agora: Kajzer Reference Kajzer2019, 130; Reference Kajzer2020, 290–1, Macroscopic Group 11; Nea Paphos – Fabrika Hill, Theatre, Sanctuary at Toumballos, House of Dionysos, House of Orpheus: Kajzer Reference Kajzer2019, 130; Nea Paphos – Maloutena: Młynarczyk Reference Młynarczyk, Daszewski and Meyza1998, 58; Nea Paphos – Ktima necropolis: Raptou Reference Raptou2004, 312–13.

29 Cyprus: Kourion, Marion and Salamis: Oziol Reference Oziol1977, 75–218; Bailey Reference Bailey1988, 301–13, nos Q2358–Q2549; Palaepaphos: Bezzola Reference Bezzola2004, 53; Tamassos: Hayes Reference Hayes1980, 77. Only single examples were reported from Levant: Tubas, Baalbek, and Egypt: Fayoum: Hayes Reference Hayes1980, 77–9.

30 Miguel Gascón and Buxeda i Garrigós Reference Miguel Gascón and Buxeda i Garrigós2013; Gilboa and Goren Reference Gilboa and Goren2015, similar to Group Mi1; Waiman-Barak Reference Waiman-Barak, Mazar and Panitz-Cohen2016–20, similar to Group 2b, 30.

31 Beirut: Mikati Reference Mikati1998, 64–5, pl. 20; Sarepta: Pritchard Reference Pritchard1988, 185–6; Tel Dor: Rosenthal-Heginbottom Reference Rosenthal-Heginbottom and Chrzanovski2012; Tyre: Rey-Coquais Reference Rey-Coquais1963, 156–7, nos 28–33; Marchand Reference Marchand, Bikai, Fulco and Marchand1996, 64–5; Apollonia, Bet Shean, Caesarea, Evlayim, Geva, Hanita, Huqoq, Jerusalem, Maresha, Meron, Nahal Hadera, Nahariyya, Naim, Nazareth, Netanya, Rosh HaAyin, Sajur, Sasa, Schechem, Sha'ar HaAmaqim, Susita, Tel Halif, Tel Zafit, Tiberias and Tiv'on: Sussman Reference Sussman2012, 55–67, 230–60, nos 254–481.

32 Amathus: Abadie-Reynal Reference Abadie-Reynal, Karageorghis, Picard and Tytgat1987, 57, no. 12, pl. XXX; Archimandrita: Bezzola Reference Bezzola2004, 66, nos 269–70, pls 7–8, 23; Kourion – Episkopi: Oliver Reference Oliver1983, 255, no. 48, pl. 41:9; Nea Paphos – Agora and Fabrika Hill: Kajzer Reference Kajzer2019, 118; Nea Paphos – Maloutena: Młynarczyk Reference Młynarczyk, Daszewski and Meyza1998, 57; Salamis: Oziol Reference Oziol1977, 184–9, nos 546–55; Karageorghis Reference Karageorghis1978, no. 73, pl. 19.

33 Waagé Reference Waagé and Stillwell1941, 60; Goldman and Jones Reference Goldman, Jones and Goldman1950, 89–90. Also personal communication with A. Eblighatian who is studying lamps from Antioch-on-the-Orontes.

34 For Early Hellenistic colour-coated ware, see Marzec Reference Marzec2017, 239; Marzec and Kajzer Reference Kajzer2020, 230–1; for Late Hellenistic and Early Roman Eastern Sigillata A, see Lund Reference Lund2015, 164–5; Marzec and Kajzer Reference Kajzer2020, 234–5; Kajzer and Marzec Reference Kajzer and Marzec2020, 250–1.

35 They did not form a group among the material excavated between 2011 and 2016, and many of them were recovered during the seasons 2017–19.

References

REFERENCES

Abadie-Reynal, C. 1987. ‘Céramique romaine’, in Karageorghis, V., Picard, O. and Tytgat, C. (eds), La nécropole d'Amathonte Tombes 113–367, vol. 2: Céramiques non chypriotes (Nicosia), 4558.Google Scholar
Ambraseys, N. 2009. Earthquakes in the Mediterranean and Middle East: A Multidisciplinary Study of Seismicity up to 1900 (Cambridge).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
‘Amr, K. 1987. The Pottery from Petra: A Neutron Activation Analysis Study (BAR-IS 324; Oxford).Google Scholar
Bailey, D.M. 1965. ‘Lamps in the Victoria and Albert Museum’, OpAth 6, 183.Google Scholar
Bailey, D.M. 1972. Greek and Roman Pottery Lamps (Oxford).Google Scholar
Bailey, D.M. 1975. A Catalogue of the Lamps in the British Museum, vol. 1: Greek, Hellenistic and Early Roman Pottery Lamps (London).Google Scholar
Bailey, D.M. 1980. A Catalogue of the Lamps in the British Museum, vol. 2: Roman Lamps Made in Italy (London).Google Scholar
Bailey, D.M. 1985a. ‘The lamps of Sidi Krebish, Benghazi (Berenice): imported and local products’, in Barker, G., Lloyd, J. and Reynolds, J. (eds), Cyrenaica in Antiquity (BAR-IS 236; Oxford), 195204.Google Scholar
Bailey, D.M. 1985b. Excavations at Sidi Khrebish Benghazi (Berenice), vol. 3.2: The Lamps (LibAnt Supp. 5; Tripoli).Google Scholar
Bailey, D.M. 1988. Catalogue of the Lamps in the British Museum, vol. 3: Roman Provincial Lamps (London).Google Scholar
Balandier, C. 2011. ‘Le defense do Chypre et l'importance strategique de l'ile das la politique lagide’, in Demetriou, A. (ed.), Proceedings of the IV International Cyprological Congress, Lefkosia 29 April–3 May 2008 (Nicosia), 367–76.Google Scholar
Balandier, C. (ed.) 2016a. Nea Paphos. Fondation et développement urbanistique d'une ville chypriote de l'antiquité à nos jours. Études archéologiques, historiques et patrimoniales. Actes du Ier colloque international sur Paphos, Avignon 30, 31 Octobre et 1er Novembre 2012 (Ausonius Éditions, Mémoires 43; Bordeaux).Google Scholar
Balandier, C. 2016b. ‘Fabrika, un quartier résidentiel à Paphos? Résultats archéologiques et réflexion historique sur l’évolution urbaine de secteur Nord-Est de la ville antique’, in Balandier , 121–45.Google Scholar
Balandier, C. 2017. ‘Paphos, colline de Fabrika: résultats de la deuxieme campagne de fouilles de la Mission archéologique française à Paphos (MafaP) 2009’, RDAC, 717–70.Google Scholar
Barag, D, and Hershkovitz, M. 1994. ‘Lamps from Masada’, in Aviram, J., Foerster, G., and Netzer, E. (eds), Masada IV: The Yigael Yadin Excavations 1963–1965, Final Reports (Jerusalem), 1147.Google Scholar
Barker, C. 2013. ‘Rhodian amphorae from Cyprus: a summary of the evidence and the issues’, in Lawall, M. and Lund, J. (eds), The Transport Amphorae and Trade of Cyprus (Gösta Enbom Monographs 3; Aarhus), 101–10.Google Scholar
Barker, C. 2016. ‘The theatre precinct of Nea Paphos (Fabrika): recent excavations by the Australian mission’, in Balandier , 91104.Google Scholar
Bekker-Nielsen, T. 2000. ‘The foundation of Nea Paphos’, in Isager, S. and Nielsen, I. (eds), Proceedings of the Danish Institute at Athens, vol. 3 (Athens), 195207.Google Scholar
Berlin, A. and Stone, P. 2016. ‘The Hellenistic and Early Roman pottery’, in Hartal, M., Syon, D., Stern, E. and Tatcher, A. (eds), ‘Akko II. The 1991–1998 Excavations (Israel Antiquities Authority Reports No. 60; Jerusalem), 133202.Google Scholar
Bes, P. 2015. Once Upon a Time in the East: The Chronological and Geographical Distribution of Terra Sigillata and Red Slip Ware in the Roman East (Roman and Late Antique Mediterranean Pottery 6; Oxford).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Betina, L. 2019. ‘Petrographic evaluation of selected Geometric and Archaic vessels: identifying imports and defining Ephesian reference groups’, in von Miller, A. (ed.), Archaische Siedlungsbefunde in Ephesos (Ephesos 13.3; Vienna), 425–71.Google Scholar
Bettles, E. 2003. Phoenician Amphora Production and Distribution in the Southern Levant: A Multi-Disciplinary Investigation into Carinated-Shoulder Amphorae of the Persian Period (539–332 bc) (BAR-IS 1183; Oxford).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bezeczky, T. 2013. The Amphorae of Roman Ephesus (Ephesos 15.1; Vienna).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bezzola, S. 2004. Lucerne fittili dagli scavi di Palaepaphos. Ausgrabungen in Alt-Paphos auf Zypern, vol. 5 (Mainz am Rhein).Google Scholar
Blinkenberg, C. 1931. Lindos, vol. 1: Fouilles et découvertes 1902–1914. Les petits objets (Berlin).Google Scholar
Blondé, F., Ballet, P. and Salles, J.-F. (eds) 2002. Céramiques hellénistiques et romaines. Productions et diffusion en Méditerranée orientale (Chypre, Égypte et côte Syro-Palestinienne). Actes du colloque tenu à la Maison de l'Orient méditerranéen Jean Pouilloux du 2 au 4 mars 2000 (Travaux de la Maison de l'Orient Méditerranéen 35; Lyon).Google Scholar
Boardman, J. 1988. ‘Trade in Greek decorated pottery’, OJA 7.1, 2733.Google Scholar
Bovon, A. 1966. Lampes d'Argos (Paris).Google Scholar
Broneer, O. 1930. Corinth IV.2. Terracotta Lamps (Cambridge).Google Scholar
Bruneau, P. 1965. Délos XXVI. Les lampes (Paris).Google Scholar
Buxeda i Garrigós, J. 1999. ‘Alteration and contamination of archaeological ceramics: the perturbation problem’, JAS 26, 295313.Google Scholar
Buxeda i Garrigós, J. and Kilikoglou, V. 2003. ‘Total variation as a measure of variability in chemical data sets’, in van Zelst, L. (ed.), Patterns and Process: A Festschrift in Honor of Dr Edward V. Sayre (Suitland, MD), 185–98.Google Scholar
Ceci, M. and Schneider, G. 1994. ‘Analisi chimiche su gruppi di lucerne bollate di fabbricazione urbana’, in Epigrafia della produzione e della distribuzione. Actes de la VIIe Rencontre franco-italienne sur l’épigraphie du monde romain (Rome, 5–6 juin 1992) (Rome), 433–46.Google Scholar
Connelly, J. 2010. ‘Cyprus in the age of empires: Hellenistic and Roman periods, 310 bcad 330’, in Hadjisavvas, S. (ed.), Cyprus: Crossroads of Civilizations (Nicosia), 173–95.Google Scholar
Connelly, J. and Młynarczyk, J. 2002. ‘Terracotta oil lamps from Geronisos and their contexts’, RDAC, 293316.Google Scholar
Copley, M., Bland, H., Rose, P. and Horton, M. 2005. ‘Gas chromatographic, mass spectrometric and stable carbon isotopic investigations of organic residues of plant oils and animal fats employed as illuminants in archaeological lamps from Egypt’, The Analyst 130.6, 860–71.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Daszkiewicz, M. and Raabe, J. 1995. ‘Alexandria and Nea Paphos: lamp producing centres. A technological point of view’, in Meyza and Młynarczyk , 212–31.Google Scholar
Dimakis, N. 2015. ‘Lamps, symbolism and ritual in Hellenistic Greece’, in Polychroniadis, Z.T. and Evely, D. (eds) AEGIS: Essays in Mediterranean Archaeology Presented to Matti Egon by the Scholars of the Greek Archaeological Committee UK (Oxford), 165–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dimakis, N. 2017. “Λύχνοι από το ιερό του Απόλλωνα στην αρχαία Αλάσαρνα της Κω. Μία πρώτη παρουσίαση”, in Triantafyllidis, P. (ed.), Το Αρχαιολογικό Έργο στα Νησιά του Αιγαίου. Διεθνές Επιστημονικό Συνέδριο, Ρóδος, 27 Νοεμβρίου–1 Δεκεμβρίου 2013. TOMOΣ Γ (Μytilene), 327–35.Google Scholar
Dobbins, J.J. 2012. ‘The lamps’, in Berlin, A.M. and Herbert, S.C. (eds), Tel Anafa, vol. 2.2: Glass Vessels, Lamps, Objects of Metal, and Groundstone and Other Stone Tools and Vessels (Ann Arbor, MI), 99214.Google Scholar
Dobosz, A. 2016. ‘Transport amphorae found in Nea Paphos and the trade relations of the town during the Hellenistic period’, in Balandier , 189–202.Google Scholar
Dobosz, A. 2020. ‘Hellenistic and Roman transport amphorae’, in Papuci-Władyka , 323–62.Google Scholar
Domżalski, K. 2007. ‘Hellenistic fine pottery production in the Eastern Mediterranean as reflected by imports in the Pontic area’, in Gabrielsen, V. and Lund, J. (eds), Black Sea Studies, vol. 6: The Black Sea in Antiquity: Regional and Interregional Economic Exchanges (Aarhus), 161–81.Google Scholar
Dray, E. and du Taylor, J.P. 1951. ‘Tsambres and Aphendrika: two Classical and Hellenistic cemeteries’, RDAC, 24123.Google Scholar
Dusenbery, E. 1998. Samothrace, vol. 11.1: The Nekropoleis: Catalogues of Objects by Categories (Princeton, NJ).Google Scholar
Élaigne, S. 2002. ‘L'introduction des céramiques fines du bassin oriental de la Méditerranée à Alexandrie: importations et imitations locales’, in Blondé, Ballet and Salles , 159–73.Google Scholar
Élaigne, S. 2007. ‘Les importations de céramiques fines hellénistiques à Beirut (site BEY 002) aperҫu du faciès nord levantin’, Syria 84, 107–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Élaigne, S. 2012. La vaisselle fine de l'habitat alexandrin. Contribution à la connaissance de la mobilité des techniques et des produits céramiques en Méditerranée du IIe siècle av. J.C. à l’époque claudienne (Études Alexandrines 21; Cairo).Google Scholar
Élaigne, S. 2019. ‘Les assemblages hellénistiques de Tyr (Liban, Mission franco-libanaise)’, in Peignard-Giros, A. (ed.), Daily Life in a Cosmopolitan World: Pottery and Culture During the Hellenistic Period Proceedings of the 2nd Conference of IARPotHP Lyon, November 2015, 5th–8th (Vienna), 381–95.Google Scholar
Élaigne, S. and Lemaître, S. 2014. ‘De la vaisselle et du vin chypriote au Létôon de Xanthos à l’époque romaine’, Topoi 19, 565–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fenn, N. 2016. Späthellenistische und frühkaiserzeitliche Keramik aus Priene. Untersuchungen zu Herkunft und Produktion. Priene 4 (AF 35; Wiesbaden).Google Scholar
Frangié, D. 2011. ‘Les lampes hellénistiques de Beyrouth (chantiers 002/026)’, in Frangié and Salles , 303–35.Google Scholar
Frangié, D. and Salles, J.-F. 2011a. ‘Lampes de Byblos’, in Frangié and Salles , 259–302.Google Scholar
Frangié, D. and Salles, J.-F. (eds) 2011b. Lampes antiques du Bilad es Sham. Jordanie, Syrie, Liban, Palestine (Paris).Google Scholar
Frangié-Joly, D. 2017. Le site de Bey-144. Fouilles et étude de la céramique (période hellénistique–début de l'ère romaine) (BAR-IS 2881; Oxford).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Georgakopoulou, M., Hein, A., Müller, N.S. and Kiriatzi, E. 2017. ‘Development and calibration of WD-XRF routine applied to provenance studies on archaeological ceramics’, XRay Spectrometry 46, 186–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gibbins, D.J.L. 1989. ‘The Roman wreck of c. ad 200 at Plemmirio, near Siracusa (Sicily): second interim report. The domestic assemblage 1: medical equipment and pottery lamps’, IJNA 18.1, 125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gilboa, A. and Goren, Y. 2015. ‘Early Iron Age Phoenician networks: an optical mineralogy study of Phoenician bichrome and related wares in Cyprus’, Ancient West and East 14, 73110.Google Scholar
Gilboa, A., Waiman-Barak, P. and Jones, R. 2015. ‘On the origin of Iron Age Phoenician ceramics at Kommos, Crete: regional and diachronic perspectives across the Bronze Age to Iron Age transition’, BASOR 374, 75102.Google Scholar
Giudice, F. 1992. ‘Paphos, Garrison's Camp Campagna 1988’, RDAC, 205–50.Google Scholar
Giudice, F., Giudice, E., Giudice, G. and Chiarello, G.S. 2017. ‘Paphos, Garrison's Camp. XIIa Campagna (1999)’, RDAC, 771809.Google Scholar
Giuliani, A. 2008. ‘The export of Hellenistic Ephesian lamp-workshops and their influence on the local production in the East’, in Roman, C. and Gudea, N. (eds), Lychnological Acts, vol. 2: Trade and Local Production of Lamps from the Prehistory until the Middle Age. Acts of 2nd International Congress on Ancient and Middle Age Lighting Devices, Zalău / Cluj-Napoca, 2006 (Cluj-Napoca), 91–6.Google Scholar
Giuliani, A. 2011. ‘New aspects on the chronology of Hellenistic lamps from Ephesos’, Ζ' επιστημονική συνάντηση για την ελληνιστική κεραμική: Αίγιο 4–9 Απριλίου 2005, 533–8.Google Scholar
Gjerstad, E., Lindros, J., Sjöqvist, E. and Westholm, A. 1935. The Swedish Cyprus Expedition, vol. 2 (Stockholm).Google Scholar
Goldman, H. and Jones, F. 1950. ‘The lamps’, in Goldman, H. (ed.), Excavations at Gözlü Kule, Tarsus, vol. 1: The Hellenistic and Roman Periods (Princeton, NJ), 84135.Google Scholar
Gordon, J. and Cova, E. 2010. ‘Romanesis in Cyprus: a lamp from Athienou-Malloura’, Cahiers du Centre d’Études Chypriotes 40, 277–94.Google Scholar
Gunneweg, J., Perlman, I. and Yellin, J. 1983. The Provenance Typology and Chronology of Eastern Terra Sigillata (Qedem 17; Jerusalem).Google Scholar
Hadjisavvas, S. 1997. Agia Napa: Excavations at Makronisos and the Archaeology of the Region (Nicosia).Google Scholar
Hammond, M., Gabrieli, R.S., Ferguson, J.R., Glascock, M.D. and Wismann, T. 2018. ‘Compositional analysis of Cypriot cookware from Kourion's Amathous Gate Cemetery and the Theatre at Fabrika Hill, Nea Pafos’, RDAC New Series 1, 113–40.Google Scholar
Harris, W. 1980. ‘Roman terracotta lamps: the organization of an industry’, JRS 70, 126–45.Google Scholar
Hayes, J. 1967. ‘Cypriot sigillata’, RDAC, 6577.Google Scholar
Hayes, J. 1980. Ancient Lamps in the Royal Ontario Museum, vol. 1: Greek and Roman Clay Lamps (Toronto).Google Scholar
Hayes, J. 1985. ‘Sigillate orientali’, in Bianchi Bandinelli, R. (ed.), Enciclopedia dell'arte antica classica e orientale. Atlante delle Forme Ceramiche II, Ceramica Fine Romana nel Bacino Mediterraneo (Tardo Ellenismo e Primo Impero) (Rome), 196.Google Scholar
Hayes, J. 1991. Paphos, vol. 3: The Hellenistic and Roman Pottery (Nicosia).Google Scholar
Hein, A. and Kilikoglou, V. 2017. ‘NAA analysis of Late Roman lamps from Rhodes’, in Katsioti , 651–7.Google Scholar
Heres, G. 1968. ‘Die Werkstatt des Lampentöpfers Romanesis’, FuB 10, 185211.Google Scholar
Howland, R. 1958. The Athenian Agora: Results of Excavations Conducted by the American School of Classical Studies at Athens, vol. 4: Greek Lamps and their Survivals (Princeton, NJ).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hughes, M., Leese, M. and Smith, M. 1988. ‘The analysis of pottery lamps mainly from Western Anatolia, including Ephesus by NAA’, in Bailey , 461–85.Google Scholar
Jackson, M., Zelle, Z., Vandeput, L. and Köse, V. 2012. ‘Primary evidence for Late Roman D Ware production in southern Asia Minor: a challenge to “Cypriot Red Slip Ware”’, AnatSt 62, 89114.Google Scholar
Kajzer, M. 2019. ‘Produkcja i dystrybucja hellenistyczno-rzymskich lampek oliwnych we wschodnim Basenie Morza Śródziemnego w oparciu o znaleziska z rejonu Nea Pafos na Cyprze’ (unpublished PhD thesis, Jagiellonian University in Krakow).Google Scholar
Kajzer, M. 2020. ‘Hellenistic and Roman lamps’, in Papuci-Władyka , 283–96.Google Scholar
Kajzer, M. forthcoming. ‘Clay oil lamps’, in Given, M., Mavromatis, Ch. and Gabrieli, R.S. (eds), City and Cemetery: Excavations at Kourion's Amathous Gate Cemetery, Cyprus: The Excavations of Danielle A. Parks (Annual of the American Schools of Oriental Research).Google Scholar
Kajzer, M. and Marzec, E. 2020. ‘Roman table wares (ca. 30 bce to the 7th century ce)’, in Papuci-Władyka , 249–77.Google Scholar
Kajzer, M. and Marzec, E. forthcoming. ‘The Hellenistic ceramic oil lamps from Sarapieia A and B of Delos’.Google Scholar
Karageorghis, V. 1964. ‘Excavations in the Necropolis of Idalion, 1964’, RDAC, 2984.Google Scholar
Karageorghis, V. 1966. ‘Chronique des fouilles et découvertes archéologiques à Chypre en 1965’, BCH 90, 297389.Google Scholar
Karageorghis, V. 1978. Excavations in the Necropolis of Salamis, vol. 4 (Nicosia).Google Scholar
Karageorghis, V. 1986. ‘Chronique des fouilles et découvertes archéologiques à Chypre en 1985’, BCH 110.1, 823–80.Google Scholar
Katsioti, A. 2017. The Lamps of Late Antiquity from Rhodes (Oxford).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kelsall, P. 2018. Lighting the Ancient World: The Development, Manufacture, Art and Uses of the Pottery Oil Lamp (Staffordshire).Google Scholar
Kimpe, K., Jacobs, P. and Waelkens, M. 2001. ‘Analysis of oil used in late Roman oil lamps with different mass spectrometric techniques revealed the presence of predominantly olive oil together with traces of animal fat’, Journal of Chromatography A 937, 8795.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kiriatzi, E., Georgakopoulou, M. and Pentedeka, A. 2011. ‘Pottery production and importation at Bronze Age Kolonna: the ceramic fabrics and the island's landscape’, in Gauss, W. and Kiriatzi, E. (eds), Pottery Production and Supply at Bronze Age Kolonna, Aegina: An Integrated Archaeological and Scientific Study of a Ceramic Landscape (Vienna), 69156.Google Scholar
Kögler, P. 2005. ‘Import, export, imitation: trade and the economic power of late Hellenistic and early Imperial Knidos according to the fine pottery’, in Briese, M.B. and Vaag, L.E. (eds), Trade Relations in the Eastern Mediterranean from the Late Hellenistic Period to the Late Antiquity: The Ceramic Evidence. Acts from a Ph.D. Seminar for Young Scholars, Sandbjerg Manorhouse, 12–15 February 1998 (Halicarnassian Studies 3; Odense), 5062.Google Scholar
Kögler, P. 2011. Feinkeramik aus Knidos vom mittleren Hellenismus bis in die mittlere Kaiserzeit (ca. 200 v. Chr. Bis 150 n. Chr) (Wiesbaden).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lapp, E. 2016. The Clay Lamps from Ancient Sepphoris: Light Use and Regional Interactions (Winona Lake, IN).Google Scholar
Lawall, M.L. 2004. ‘Archaeological context and Aegean amphora chronologies: a case study of Hellenistic Ephesos’, in Eiring, J. and Lund, J. (eds), Transport Amphorae and Trade in the Eastern Mediterranean (Monographs of the Danish Institute in Athens 5; Athens), 171–88.Google Scholar
Loeschcke, S. 1919. Lampen aus Vindonissa (Zürich).Google Scholar
Lund, J. 1993. ‘Pottery of Classical, Hellenistic and Roman periods’, in Sørensen, L.W. and Rupp, D.W. (eds), The Land of Paphian Aphrodite, vol. 2: The Canadian Palaipaphos Survey Project – Artifact and Ecofactual Studies (SIMA 104.2; Gothenburg), 79177.Google Scholar
Lund, J. 2006. ‘On the circulation of goods in Hellenistic and Early Roman Cyprus: the ceramic evidence’, in Wriedt Sørensen, L. and Winther Jacobsen, K. (eds), Panayia Ematousa, vol. 2: A Rural Site in South-Eastern Cyprus (Monographs of the Danish Institute at Athens 6.2; Athens), 3149.Google Scholar
Lund, J. 2015. A Study of the Circulation of Ceramics in Cyprus from the 3rd Century bc to the 3rd Century ad (Gosta Enbom Monographs 5; Aarhus).Google Scholar
McCann, A. and Oleson, J. 2004. Deep-Water Shipwrecks off Skerki Bank: The 1997 Survey (JRA Supp. Ser. 58; Portsmouth).Google Scholar
McFadden, G. 1946. ‘A tomb of the necropolis of Ayios Ermoyenis at Kourion’, AJA 50, 449–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marangou, A. 2006. ‘Quelques conteneurs phéniciens d’époque hellénistique découverts à Chypre’, Cahiers du Centre d’Études Chypriotes 36, 5562.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marchand, J. 1996. ‘The lamps’, in Bikai, P., Fulco, W. and Marchand, J. (eds), Tyre: The Shrine of Apollo (Amman), 5767.Google Scholar
Marzec, E. 2017. ‘Provenance and technology of colour-coated ware pottery from Nea Paphos on Cyprus (from the late 4th to the 1st century bce)’ (unpublished PhD thesis, Jagiellonian University in Krakow).Google Scholar
Marzec, E., and Kajzer, M. 2020. ‘Hellenistic table wares (from the 4th to the 1st century bc)’, in Papuci-Władyka , 223–47.Google Scholar
Marzec, E., Kiriatzi, E., Müller, N.S. and Hein, A. 2018. ‘The provenance and technology of a group of Hellenistic colour-coated ware pottery from the excavations at Nea Paphos on Cyprus’, JAS Reports 21, 1035–43.Google Scholar
Marzec, E., Kiriatzi, E., Müller, N.S. and Hein, A. 2019. ‘An integrated typological, technological and provenance investigation of Late Hellenistic colour-coated pottery from Nea Paphos, Cyprus’, Archaeological and Anthropological Science 11, 4103–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Menzel, H. 1969. Antike Lampen im Römisch-Germanischen Zentralmuseum zu Mainz, 2nd edn with suppl. (Römisch-Germanisches Zentralmuseum zu Mainz Katalog 15; Mainz).Google Scholar
Meyza, H. 2002. ‘Cypriot Sigillata and its hypothetical predecessors’, in Blondé, Ballet and Salles , 23–31.Google Scholar
Meyza, H. 2007. Nea Paphos V. Cypriot Red Slip Ware: Studies on a Late Roman Levantine Fine Ware (Warsaw).Google Scholar
Meyza, H. 2014. ‘Polska misja archeologiczna na Cyprze’, in Borowska, M., Kordos, P. and Maliszewski, D. (eds), Cypr, dzieje, literature, kultura, vol. 1 (Warsaw), 433–41.Google Scholar
Meyza, H. and Młynarczyk, J. (eds) 1995. Hellenistic and Roman Pottery in the Eastern Mediterranean – Advances in Scientific Studies: Acts of the II Nieborów Pottery Workshop (Warsaw).Google Scholar
Michaelides, D., Papantoniou, G. and Dikomitou-Eliadou, M. 2014. ‘Moulding expressions of culture: the terracotta figurines from the House of Orpheus, Nea Paphos’, in Gagatsis, A. (ed.), The A.G. Leventis Research Projects (Nicosia), 7591.Google Scholar
Michniewicz, J. and Młynarczyk, J. 2017. Archaeometry and Archaeology of Levantine Jars Used in Western Galilee/Southern Phoenicia (Sha'ar Ha'Amakim, Tell Keisan) between the Persian and the Late Roman Period (Poznań).Google Scholar
Miguel Gascón, E. and Buxeda i Garrigós, J. 2013. ‘Characterisation of possible Phoenician pottery production of Tyre’, Applied Clay Science 82, 7985.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mikati, R. 1998. ‘The AUB Souks excavations 1994–95: the terracotta lamps’ (unpublished MA thesis, American University of Beirut).Google Scholar
Miszk, Ł. 2020. ‘Stratigraphy and architecture of the agora’, in Papuci-Władyka , 127–84.Google Scholar
Mitsopoulou-Leon, V. 1991. Die Basilika am Staatsmarkt in Ephesos. Kleinfunde, vol. 1: Keramik hellenistischer und römischer Zeit (Ephesos 9.2.2; Vienna).Google Scholar
Młynarczyk, J. 1978. ‘Hellenistic terracotta lamps from Nea Paphos’, RDAC, 235–53.Google Scholar
Młynarczyk, J. 1990a. Nea Paphos III. Nea Paphos in the Hellenistic Period (Warsaw).Google Scholar
Młynarczyk, J. 1990b. ‘An Early Hellenistic lamp in the Graeco-Roman Museum in Alexandria’, RDAC, 155–7.Google Scholar
Młynarczyk, J. 1995. ‘Alexandria and Paphos: lamp producing centres’, in Meyza and Młynarczyk , 203–39.Google Scholar
Młynarczyk, J. 1997. Alexandrian and Alexandria-Influenced Mould-Made Lamps of the Hellenistic Period (BAR-IS 677; Oxford).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Młynarczyk, J. 1998. ‘Lampki terakotowe z polskich wykopalisk w Nea Pafos’, in Daszewski, W. and Meyza, H. (eds), Cypr w badaniach polskich. Materiały z Sesji Naukowej zorganizowanej przez Centrum Archeologii Śródziemnomorskiej UW im. prof. K. Michałowskiego (Warsaw), 5166.Google Scholar
Młynarczyk, J. 2005. ‘The “pink powdery ware” at Yeronisos: a local West Cypriot ware of the late Hellenistic period’, ÉtTrav 20, 137–49.Google Scholar
Młynarczyk, J. 2009. ‘Sailors and artisans: the Egyptian connections of ceramic finds from Yeronisos’, in Michaelides, D., Kassianidou, V. and Merrillees, R.S. (eds), Proceedings of the International Conference: Egypt and Cyprus in Antiquity. Nicosia, 3–6 April 2003 (Oxford), 210–15.Google Scholar
Młynarczyk, J. 2012. Terracotta Oil Lamps, Tell Atrib III 1985–1995 (Warsaw).Google Scholar
Munsell Soil Color Charts. 2013. Munsell Soil-Color Charts with Genuine Munsell Color Chips (Grand Rapids, MI).Google Scholar
Nicolaou, K. 1966. ‘The topography of Nea Paphos’, in M.L., Bernhard, (ed.), Mélanges offerts à Kazimierz Michałowski (Warsaw), 561602.Google Scholar
Nicolaou, K. 1975. ‘Archaeological news from Cyprus, 1973’, AJA 79.2, 125–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nicolaou, K. 1976. ‘Archaeological news from Cyprus, 1974’, AJA 80.4, 361–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nicolaou, K. 1977. ‘Archaeological news from Cyprus 1975’, AJA 81.4, 528–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nicolaou, K. 1978. ‘Archaeological news from Cyprus 1967’, AJA 72.4, 369–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nicolaou, K. 1980. ‘Archaeological news from Cyprus 1977–1978’, AJA 84.1, 6373.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nicolaou, I. 1984. ‘A Hellenistic and Roman tomb at Eurychou-Phoenikas, 1983’, RDAC, 234–56.Google Scholar
Nicolaou, I. 1985. ‘Excavations at the Eastern Necropolis of Amathus in 1984, tombs 423–7’, RDAC, 257–85.Google Scholar
Nocoń, K. 2020. ‘Hellenistic and Roman kitchen and cooking pottery’, in Papuci-Władyka , 297–322.Google Scholar
Nohlen, K. and Radt, W. 1978. Kapikaya. Ein Felsheiligtum bei Pergamon. Im Anhang: Topographische Karte von Pergamon (AvP 12; Berlin).Google Scholar
Oliver, A. 1983. ‘Tomb 12 at Episkopi’, RDAC, 245–56.Google Scholar
Orton, C. and Hughes, M. 2013. Pottery in Archaeology (Cambridge).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Outschar, U. and Zabehlicky-Scheffenegger, S. 1998. ‘Graue Platten’, in Zabehlicky-Scheffenegger, S. (ed.), RCRFragmenta. Beiträge zur Keramik in Ephesos. Herausgegeben anläßlich des XXI Internationalen RCRF-Kongress in Ephesos und Pergamon 1998 (RCRFActa 34: Vienna and Selçuk), 1213.Google Scholar
Oziol, Th. 1977. Salamine de Chypre, vol. 7: Les lampes du Musée de Chypre (Paris).Google Scholar
Oziol, Th. 1993a. ‘Lampes’, in J, .F. Salles, (ed.), Les niveaux hellénistiques. Kition-Bamboula, vol. 4: Recherches sur les civilizations (Paris), 295309.Google Scholar
Oziol, Th. 1993b. Les lampes au Musée de la Fondation Piéridès, Larnaca (Chypre) (Nicosia).Google Scholar
Oziol, Th. 1995. ‘Kition et Salamine: les lampes hellénistiques’, in Meyza and Młynarczyk , 239–46.Google Scholar
Oziol, Th. 2003. ‘Les lampes des niveaux phéniciens et post-phéniciens de Kition’, in Karageorghis, V. (ed.), Excavations at Kition, vol. 6: The Phoenician and Later Levels (Nicosia), 265303.Google Scholar
Oziol, Th. and Pouilloux, J. 1969. Salamine de Chypre, vol. 1: Les lampes (Paris).Google Scholar
Papuci-Władyka, E. 1995. Nea Pafos. Studia nad ceramiką hellenistyczną z polskich wykopalisk (1965–1991) (Krakow).Google Scholar
Papuci-Władyka, E. 1997. ‘Nea Paphos: the cistern south of the Villa of Theseus’, Polish Archaeology in the Mediterranean 9, 130–5.Google Scholar
Papuci-Władyka, E. (ed.) 2020. PAPHOS AGORA, vol. 1: The Results of the Jagiellonian University Interdisciplinary Research in Nea Paphos (2011–2015) (Krakow).Google Scholar
Papuci-Władyka, E. and Machowski, W. 2016. ‘Paphos Agora Project: preliminary results of the 2011–2012 seasons of the Jagiellonian University (Krakow, Poland) excavations’, in Balandier , 67–77.Google Scholar
Papuci-Władyka, E., Machowski, W. and Miszk, Ł. 2018. ‘“Paphos Agora Project” (PAP) 2011–2014: first preliminary report on excavations by the Jagiellonian University in Krakow, Poland’, RDAC, 533–69.Google Scholar
Parker, A. 1992. Ancient Shipwrecks of the Mediterranean and the Roman Provinces (BAR-IS 580; Oxford).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Parks, D. 1999. ‘Burial customs of Roman Cyprus: origin and development’ (unpublished PhD thesis, University of Missouri-Columbia).Google Scholar
Pastutmaz Sevmen, D. 2013. ‘Stoa'da bulunan kandiller’, in Bruns Özgan, C. (ed.), Knidos. Ergebnisse der Ausgrabungen von 1996–2006 (Knidos-Studien 4; Istanbul), 198207.Google Scholar
Pentedeka, A., Georgakopoulou, M. and Kiriatzi, E. 2012. ‘Understanding local products and exploring sources of imports: petrographic and chemical analysis of Classical pottery from Kolonna, Aegina’, in Klebinder-Gauß, G. (ed.), Keramik aus klassischen Kontexten im Apollon-Heiligtum von Ägina-Kolonna. Lokale Produktion und Importe. Ägina-Kolonna (Forschungen und Ergebnisse 6; Vienna), 102–70.Google Scholar
Picon, M. 1991. ‘Quelques observations complémentaires sur les altérations de composition des céramiques au cours du temps: cas de quelques alcalins et alcalino-terreux’, Revue d'Archéométrie 15, 117–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Picon, M. and Blondé, F. 2002. ‘Les résultats d'un programme d'analyses effectué sur l’île de Chypre’, in Blondé, Ballet and Salles , 13–21.Google Scholar
Pieridou, A. 1963. ‘A Hellenistic–Roman tomb at Kyra’, RDAC, 3340.Google Scholar
Poblome, J. and Firat, N. 2011, ‘Late Roman D: a matter of open(ing) or closed horizons?’, in Cau, M., Reynolds, P. and Bonifay, M. (eds), Late Roman Fine Wares: Solving Problems of Typology and Chronology. A Review of the Evidence, Debate and New Contexts (Roman and Late Antique Mediterranean Pottery 1; Oxford), 4955.Google Scholar
Pritchard, J.B. 1988. Sarepta, vol. 4: The Objects from Area II, X: The University Museum of the University of Pennsylvania Excavations at Sarafand (Beirut).Google Scholar
Raptou, E. 2004. ‘A painted Roman tomb at Paphos (P.M. 3510)’, MeditArch 17, 311–21.Google Scholar
Raptou, E., Stylianou, E. and Vassiliou, E. 2002. ‘A Hellenistic tomb at Pegeia (P.M. 3534)’, RDAC, 201–34.Google Scholar
Rathossi, Ch., Tsolis-Katagas, P. and Katagas, C. 2004. ‘Technology and composition of Roman pottery in northwestern Peloponnese, Greece’, Applied Clay Science 24, 313–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rautman, M. 1997. ‘Ceramic petrography report’, in Herbert, S. (ed.), Tell Anafa, vol. 2.1 (JRA Supp. Ser. 10; Ann Arbor, MI), 212–35.Google Scholar
Renson, V., Slane, K.W., Rautman, M.L., Kidd, B., Guthrie, J. and Glascock, M.D. 2016. ‘Pottery provenance in the Eastern Mediterranean using lead isotopes’, Archaeometry 58, suppl. 1, 5467.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rey-Coquais, J.P. 1963. ‘Lampes antiques de Syrie et du Liban’, MélBeyrouth 39.2, 147–65.Google Scholar
Rice, P.M. 1987. Pottery Analysis: A Sourcebook (Chicago, IL).Google Scholar
Rosenthal-Heginbottom, R. 2012. ‘Lamps from Tel Dor (Dora) – local production and Egyptian iconographic influence’, in Chrzanovski, L. (ed.), Le luminaire antique. Lychnological Acts 3, Actes du 3e Congrès International d’études de l'ILA, Université d'Heidelberg, 21–26.IX.2009 (Monographies Instrumentum 44; Montagnac), 311–20.Google Scholar
Rotroff, S.I. 1997. The Athenian Agora. Results of Excavations Conducted by the American School of Classical Studies at Athens, vol. 29: Hellenistic Pottery, Athenian and Imported Wheelmade Table Ware and Related Material (Princeton, NJ).Google Scholar
Rotroff, S.I. 2000. ‘Molds: production and preparation – use and spread’, in Kazakou, M. and Nestoridou, G. (eds), Ε′ Επιστημονική Συνάντηση για την Ελληνιστική Κεραμική. Χρονολογικά Προβλήματα. Κλειστά Σύνολα (Athens), 496501.Google Scholar
Rotroff, S.I. 2006. ‘The introduction of the moldmade bowl revisited: tracking a Hellenistic innovation’, Hesperia 75.3, 357–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Salles, J.-F. 1993. Kition-Bamboula I. Les niveaux hellénistiques (Paris).Google Scholar
Schneider, G. 1993. ‘Studies of Roman lamps from the Northern Provinces and from Rome’, in Olcese, G. (ed.), Ceramica e archeometria: lo stato degli studi: Atti delle Giornate Internazionali di Studio (Castello di Montegufoni, 26–27 Aprile 1993) (Florence), 132–8.Google Scholar
Schneider, G. 2000a. ‘Chemical and mineralogical studies of Late Hellenistic to Byzantine pottery production in the Eastern Mediterranean’, RCRFActa 36, 525–36.Google Scholar
Schneider, G. 2000b. ‘X-ray fluorescence analysis of vernice nera, sigillata and firmalampen from North Italy’, in Brogiolo, G. and Pietro Olcese, G. (eds), Produzione ceramica in area padan tra il II seclo a.c. e il VII secolo d.c.: nuovi dati e prospettive di ricerca. Convegno internazionale di Desenzano del Garda, 8–10 Aprile (Mantua), 103–6.Google Scholar
Schneider, G. 2014. ‘Chemische Analysen von Firmalampen und von Lampen in Wetterauer Ware in Frankfurt, Beitrag’, in Huld-Zetsche, I. (ed.), Die Lampen aus den römischen Töpfereien von Frankfurt am Main-Nied (Schriften des Archäologischen Museums Frankfurt am Main 25; Frankfurt am Main), 3550.Google Scholar
Schneider, G. and Daszkiewicz, M. 2019. ‘Chemical composition of ancient ceramics: Roman lamps’ (available online <http://repository.edition-topoi.org/collection/CRMC/object/RMLP> accessed August 2021).+accessed+August+2021).>Google Scholar
Schneider, G. and Wirz, E. 1992. ‘Chemical answers to archaeological questions – Roman terracotta lamps as documents of economic history’, in Mery, S. (ed.), Sciences de la terre et céramiques archéologiques. Expérimentations, applications. Documents et travaux (Institut géologique Albert-de-Lapparent Centre Polytechnique Saint-Louis à Cergy 16; Paris), 1348.Google Scholar
Schwedt, A., Mommsen, H. and Zacharias, N. 2004. ‘Post-depositional elemental alterations in pottery: neutron activation analyses of surface and core samples’, Archaeometry 46, 85101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Şenel, M. 2002. Geological Map of Turkey – Denizli (1/500,000) (Ankara).Google Scholar
Shear, T.L. 1922. ‘Sixth preliminary report on the American excavations at Sardes in Asia Minor’, AJA 26, 389409.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shier, L.A. 1978. Terracotta Lamps from Karanis, Egypt: Excavations of the University of Michigan (Ann Arbor, MI).Google Scholar
Slane, K. 1997. ‘The fine wares’, in Herbert, S.C. (ed.), Tel Anafa, vol. 2.1: The Hellenistic and Roman Pottery (JRA Supp. Ser. 10; Ann Arbor, MI), 247416.Google Scholar
Şoforoğlu, M. and Summerer, L. 2016. ‘Light for the dead: some thoughts on funerary lamps in light of the Hellenistic/Roman tomb in Kormakiti/Korucam’, in Summerer, L. and Kaba, H. (ed.), The Northern Face of Cyprus New Studies in Cypriot Archaeology and Art History (Istanbul), 259–75.Google Scholar
Sørensen, L.W. and Pentz, P. 1992. Lindos IV.2: Excavations and Surveys in Southern Rhodes: The Post-Mycenaean Period until Roman Times and the Medieval Period (Copenhagen).Google Scholar
Sussman, V. 2009. Greek and Hellenistic Wheel and Mould-Made Closed Oil Lamps in the Holy Land: Collection of the Israel Antiquities Authority (BAR-IS 2015; Oxford).Google Scholar
Sussman, V. 2012. Roman Period Oil Lamps in the Holy Land: Collection of the Israel Antiquities Authority (BAR-IS 2447; Oxford).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vessberg, O. 1953. ‘Hellenistic and Roman lamps in Cyprus’, OpAth 1, 115–29.Google Scholar
Vessberg, O. 1956. ‘Terracotta lamps’, in Vessberg, O. and Westholm, A. (eds), The Swedish Cyprus Expedition, vol. 4.3: The Hellenistic and Roman Periods in Cyprus (Lund), 120–7, 184–93.Google Scholar
Vivliodetis, E. 2012. ‘The lamps’, in Kaltsas, N., Vlachogianni, E. and Bouyia, P. (eds), The Antikythera Shipwreck: The Ship, the Treasure, the Mechanism (Athens), 164–8.Google Scholar
Waagé, O. 1941. ‘Lamps’, in Stillwell, R. (ed.), Antioch on the Orontes, vol. 3: The Excavations of 1937–1939 (Princeton, NJ), 5582.Google Scholar
Waiman-Barak, P. 2016–20. ‘Petrographic analysis of Iron Age IIA decorated Phoenician containers and a Cypriot flask’, in Mazar, A. and Panitz-Cohen, N. (eds), Tel Rehov: The 1997–2012 Excavations. Vols I–V (Qedem 59–63; Jerusalem), 2836.Google Scholar
Weinberg, S.S. 1962. ‘Excavations at Prehistoric Elateia 1959’, Hesperia 31.2, 158209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Whitbread, I.K. 1995. Greek Transport Amphorae: A Petrological and Archaeological Study (Fitch Laboratory Occasional Paper 4; Athens).Google Scholar
Więch, M. 2017. ‘Searching for the kitchen in the Early Roman phase of the “Hellenistic” House at Nea Paphos (Cyprus)’, ÉtTrav 30, 439–57.Google Scholar
Wismann, T. 2006. ‘The lamps’, in Wriedt Sørensen, L. and Winther Jacobsen, K. (eds), Panayia Ematousa, vol. 1: A Rural Site in South-Eastern Cyprus (Monographs of the Danish Institute at Athens 6.1; Athens), 338–54.Google Scholar
Figure 0

Fig. 1. Location of Paphos on a map of Cyprus and the Nea Paphos ancient city plan. Based on J. Młynarczyk's (1990a) research with modifications by the Paphos Agora Project.

Figure 1

Fig. 2. Aerial photo showing the area excavated by the Paphos Agora Project (photo A. Oleksiak).

Figure 2

Table 1. Nea Paphos Agora lamps: macroscopic groups and selection of samples for refiring, WD-XRF and petrographic analysis.

Figure 3

Fig. 3. The principal component plot of the WD-XRF data including 22 elements for the 64 samples. (a) in correlation with macroscopic groups adjust after refiring (MG). (b) in correlation with petrographic fabrics (PF). (c) in correlation with production groups (PG). (d) projections of elements loading the first two principal components.

Figure 4

Fig. 4. A graph showing the research process.

Figure 5

Fig. 5. Photographs of the analysed samples. Individual numbers and PGs are provided.

Figure 6

Fig. 6. Production Group 1: (a) photograph and drawing of lamp inv. no. PAP13/III/332/L2 and (b) fresh break and thin section (XPL) photomicrographs of sample PAP17/101.

Figure 7

Table 2. Mean chemical compositions (oxides are expressed in wt% and elements in ppm) and relative standard deviation (rsd) of PG 1, PG 8, PG 10 and colour coated ware (CCW) of presumed local origin (Marzec et al. 2018, table 4), as well as elemental compositions of three samples classified to PG 2. Data normalised to 100%.

Figure 8

Fig. 7. Production Group 2: (a) photograph and drawing of lamp inv. no. PAP14/I/63/L1. Fresh break and thin section (XPL) photomicrographs of samples (b) PAP17/104 and (c) PAP17/109.

Figure 9

Table 3. Compositions (oxides are expressed in wt% and elements in ppm) of two samples classified to PG 3 and mean chemical composition and relative standard deviation (rsd) of Fabric Group 5 of colour coated ware (CCW) pottery (Marzec 2017, Fabric Group 5). Data normalised to 100%.

Figure 10

Fig. 8. Production Group 3: (a) photograph of a lamp inv. no. PAP13/III/348/L1 and (b) fresh break and thin section (XPL) photomicrographs of sample PAP17/106.

Figure 11

Fig. 9. Production Group 4: (a) photographs of lamp fragments inv. nos PAP14/III/418/L2, PAP14/III/420/L1, and PAP15/III/806/L1, and (b) fresh break photomicrograph of sample PAP17/113.

Figure 12

Fig. 10. The distribution of PG 4 and PG 7 in the Eastern Mediterranean.

Figure 13

Table 4. Mean chemical composition (oxides are expressed in wt% and elements in ppm) and relative standard deviation (rsd) of PG 4 and the reference group of Attic fine wares (Schneider 2000a, table 3). Data normalised to 100% for PG 4. For the reference group of Attic fine wares, major elements are normalised.

Figure 14

Fig. 11. Production Group 5: (a) photographs and drawing of lamp fragments inv. nos PAP15/I/668/L1 and PAP13/III/348/L8, and (b) fresh break and thin section (XPL) photomicrographs of sample PAP17/120.

Figure 15

Fig. 12. Production Group 6: (a) photograph and drawing of lamp inv. no. PAP16/I/969/L1 and (b) fresh break and thin section (XPL) photomicrographs of sample PAP17/119.

Figure 16

Table 5. Compositions (oxides are expressed in wt% and elements in ppm) of two samples classified to PG 6 and mean chemical composition and relative standard deviation (rsd) of Group D of colour coated ware pottery (Picon and Blondé 2002) and Eastern Sigillata D/Cypriot Sigillata (ESD/CS) (Schneider 2000a, table 3). Data normalised to 100% for PG 6. For the reference group of Eastern Sigillata D, major elements are normalised.

Figure 17

Fig. 13. Production Group 7: (a) photograph and drawing of lamp inv. no. PAP12/II/179/L1 and (b) fresh break photomicrograph of sample PAP17/117.

Figure 18

Table 6. Mean chemical composition (oxides are expressed in wt% and elements in ppm) and relative standard deviation (rsd) of PG 7 and colour coated pottery Fabric Group 6 (Marzec 2017). Data normalised to 100%.

Figure 19

Fig. 14. Production Group 8: (a) photograph and drawing of lamp inv. no. PAP14/II/286/L1. Fresh break and thin section (XPL) photomicrographs of samples (b) PAP17/124 and (c) PAP17/131.

Figure 20

Fig. 15. Production Group 9: (a) photograph and drawing of lamp fragments inv. no. PAP16/II/1222/L9 and (b) fresh break photomicrograph of sample PAP17/138.

Figure 21

Table 7. Mean chemical composition (oxides are expressed in wt% and elements in ppm) and relative standard deviation (rsd) of PG 9 and the reference group of pottery from Knidos (Schneider 2000a, table 3). Data normalised to 100% for PG 9. For the reference group of pottery from Knidos, major elements are normalised.

Figure 22

Fig. 16. The distribution of PG 9 and PG 11 in the Eastern Mediterranean.

Figure 23

Fig. 17. Production Group 10: (a) photograph and drawing of lamp inv. no. PAP16/I/972/L1. Fresh break and thin section (XPL) photomicrographs of samples (b) PAP17/149 and (c) PAP17/152.

Figure 24

Fig. 18. Production Group 11: (a) photographs and drawings of lamps inv. nos PAP14/II/254/L1 and PAP15/II/750/L1. Fresh break and thin section (XPL) photomicrographs of samples (b) PAP17/143 and (c) PAP17/145.

Figure 25

Table 8. Compositions (oxides are expressed in wt% and elements in ppm) of two samples classified to PG 11 and mean chemical composition and relative standard deviation (rsd) of the reference group of pottery from Ephesus (Schneider 2000, table 3). Data normalised to 100% for PG 11. For the reference group of pottery from Ephesus, major elements are normalised.

Figure 26

Fig. 19. Production Group 12: (a) photographs and drawings of lamps inv. nos PAP14/II/300/L1 and PAP16/IV/1052/L5 and (b) fresh break and thin section (XPL) photomicrographs of sample PAP17/132.

Figure 27

Fig. 20. The distribution of PG 12 in the Eastern Mediterranean.

Figure 28

Table 9. Mean chemical composition (oxides are expressed in wt% and elements in ppm) and relative standard deviation (rsd) of PG 12, and the compositions of PAP17/146 and two samples classified to PG 15. Data normalised to 100%.

Figure 29

Fig. 21. Production Group 13: (a) photographs and drawings of lamps inv. nos PAP16/II/775/L2, PAP12/I/37/L1, and PAP12/II/177/L6. Fresh break and thin section (XPL) photomicrographs of samples (b) PAP17/161 and (c) PAP17/162.

Figure 30

Table 10. Mean chemical composition (oxides are expressed in wt% and elements in ppm) and relative standard deviation (rsd) of PG 5, PG 13, as well as colour-coated ware (CCW) pottery Fabric Group 2 (Marzec 2017, Fabric Group 2; Marzec et al. 2018, table 4). Data normalised to 100%.

Figure 31

Fig. 22. The distribution of PG 13 and PG 15 in the Eastern Mediterranean.

Figure 32

Fig. 23. Production Group 14: (a) photograph of lamp inv. no. PAP16/II/1217/L1 and (b) fresh break photomicrograph of sample PAP17/157.

Figure 33

Table 11. Mean chemical composition (oxides are expressed in wt% and elements in ppm) and relative standard deviation (rsd) of PG 14 and the reference group Rome 1B (Ceci and Schneider 1994, cluster 1B; see also Schneider and Daszkiewicz 2019). Data normalised to 100% for PG 14. For the reference group of Rome 1B, major elements are normalised.

Figure 34

Fig. 24. Production Group 15: (a) photograph and drawing of lamp fragment inv. no. PAP12/I/38/L1 and (b) fresh break and thin section (XPL) photomicrographs of sample PAP17/155.

Figure 35

Fig. 25. (a) Fresh break and (b) thin section photomicrographs of sample PAP17/144.

Figure 36

Table 12. Classification of PGs into three general zones of supply.

Figure 37

Fig. 26. Bar chart showing the proportions of lamps representing different zones of supply in the Hellenistic and Roman periods.

Figure 38

Table A1. Typology and chronology of lamps from the Paphos Agora excavations and concordance with Production Groups (PG) and existing classifications.

Figure 39

Table A2. Elemental composition of the samples; oxides, LOI (loss on ignition) and sum are expressed in wt% and elements in ppm.

Figure 40

Table A3. Petrographic descriptions. Abbreviations used: PG = Production Group; PPL = plane polarised light; XPL = crossed polarised light; a = angular; sa = subangular; r = rounded; wr = well rounded; TCFs = textural concentration features.

Figure 41

Table A4. The macroscopic characterisation of production groups (PG). Definition of terms used in the table: Frequency: Rare = less than 2%; Few = 2–15%, Frequent = 15–30%; Common = 30–50%; Size: Fine = smaller than 0.25 mm; Medium = 0.25–0.5 mm; Coarse = 0.5–1 mm; Hardness: Soft = can be easily scratched with a fingernail; Fairly Hard = can be hardly scratched with a fingernail; Hard = can be scratched with a knife; Very Hard = can't be scratched with a knife; Feel of Surface: Smooth = no irregularities can be felt; Powdery = leaves powder on the finger; Slightly rough = with few irregularities; Rough = with frequent irregularities; Texture of Fresh Break: Conchoidal = porcelains, high fired fabrics without inclusions, breaks like flint, obsidian or glass; Smooth = flat, without ripple marks; Irregular = with frequent inclusions, medium and angular irregularities; Rather hackly = with common inclusions, large and angular irregularities. The colours were recorded using the Munsell Soil Color Charts (2013).

Figure 42

Table A5. List of samples subjected to refiring, WD-XRF and thin section petrography, including information about inventory numbers, part of lamp, and photographs. The samples are presented according to Production Group (PG).