Academia.eduAcademia.edu

Figure 10 – uploaded by Nicholas Hudson

See full PDFdownloadDownload figure
Fig. 10. Map of sites that yielded deposits used in the analysis.

Figure 10 Map of sites that yielded deposits used in the analysis.

Related Figures (23)

Fig. 1. Hellenistic funerary altar of Hellanion of Tarsus with banquet scene, second century B.C.E. (© Trustees of the British Museum).
Fig. 1. Hellenistic funerary altar of Hellanion of Tarsus with banquet scene, second century B.C.E. (© Trustees of the British Museum).
Fig. 2. Symposion scene from Herculaneum, mid first cen- tury C.E. Naples, Museo Archeologico Nazionale (© Scala/ Art Resource, NY).
Fig. 2. Symposion scene from Herculaneum, mid first cen- tury C.E. Naples, Museo Archeologico Nazionale (© Scala/ Art Resource, NY).
Fig. 3. Banquet scene in stibadium from the Tomb of the Banquet, Constanza, mid fourth century C.E. (courtesy A. Barbet).
Fig. 3. Banquet scene in stibadium from the Tomb of the Banquet, Constanza, mid fourth century C.E. (courtesy A. Barbet).
Fig. 4. Mosaic from Carthage, late fourth century C.E. Tunis, Musée National du Bardo (© G. Mermet/Art Resource, NY [modified to highlight details]).
Fig. 4. Mosaic from Carthage, late fourth century C.E. Tunis, Musée National du Bardo (© G. Mermet/Art Resource, NY [modified to highlight details]).
Fig. 5. Detail of the stibadium mosaic from the House of the Buffet Supper, Antioch, early third century C.E. (© Depart- ment of Art and Archaeology, Princeton University, neg. 3148).
Fig. 5. Detail of the stibadium mosaic from the House of the Buffet Supper, Antioch, early third century C.E. (© Depart- ment of Art and Archaeology, Princeton University, neg. 3148).
Fig. 6. Stibadium mosaic from the House of the Buffet Supper, Antioch, early third century C.E. (© Department of Art and Archaeology, Princeton University, neg. 4493).
Fig. 6. Stibadium mosaic from the House of the Buffet Supper, Antioch, early third century C.E. (© Department of Art and Archaeology, Princeton University, neg. 4493).
Fig. 7. Examples of Late Roman banquet scenes: left, banquet or Eucharist scene with baskets of bread and dishes with fish from the Catacomb of St. Callixtus, fourth century C.E.; right, banqueting scene with diners and plates of fish, poultry, and possibly a cake or pudding from the so-called Catacomb of Vibia, likely second half of fourth century C.E. Letters indicate platters of food and the diners that have access to them. amples within a single assemblage. The qualification of vessels as “large” consists not only of rim diameter but also volume, or capacity. Following the param- eters outlined by Henrickson and McDonald, shared vessels (which they call “family-capacity” vessels) have a mean rim diameter of 24 cm and volumes that are three times that of individual vessels. Shared dining can thus be defined as consisting of large dishes to be shared by multiple diners, as evinced by the catacomb representations. Smaller dishes used for supplementary items such as sauces and relishes, while absent from these scenes, were likely a component of shared service, as suggested by the popularity of such side dishes expressed in the written record. Large service vessels were also a likely component to the shared service kit, used to trans- port food from kitchen to table as well as refill shared dishes as needed.
Fig. 7. Examples of Late Roman banquet scenes: left, banquet or Eucharist scene with baskets of bread and dishes with fish from the Catacomb of St. Callixtus, fourth century C.E.; right, banqueting scene with diners and plates of fish, poultry, and possibly a cake or pudding from the so-called Catacomb of Vibia, likely second half of fourth century C.E. Letters indicate platters of food and the diners that have access to them. amples within a single assemblage. The qualification of vessels as “large” consists not only of rim diameter but also volume, or capacity. Following the param- eters outlined by Henrickson and McDonald, shared vessels (which they call “family-capacity” vessels) have a mean rim diameter of 24 cm and volumes that are three times that of individual vessels. Shared dining can thus be defined as consisting of large dishes to be shared by multiple diners, as evinced by the catacomb representations. Smaller dishes used for supplementary items such as sauces and relishes, while absent from these scenes, were likely a component of shared service, as suggested by the popularity of such side dishes expressed in the written record. Large service vessels were also a likely component to the shared service kit, used to trans- port food from kitchen to table as well as refill shared dishes as needed.
Table 1. Dining Service Categories and Their Material Compositions. of the 20th century produced a new approach to the study of the Roman convivium in which there was an attempt to harmonize the written and physical remains of the Early Imperial period. Of particular note is the work by D’Arms, who introduced the tenets of an- thropological theory, which he felt were an untapped resource to understand better the meaning of the for- malized cena, the principal social meal of the Roman day.** He proposed that the cena functioned to rein- force existing social hierarchies and helped maintain order in Roman society.’ He introduced new ques- tions that have shaped the study of Roman dining for the past 20 years, such as whether status boundaries were maintained or blurred by the private meal and whether the distribution of food reinforced those same boundaries.** D’Arms suggested that to answer such nuanced questions, we must “draw on more disparate materials than have sometimes been exploited in the past,” believing that the more common sources of evidence alone (principally literary and art historic) were not enough.”
Table 1. Dining Service Categories and Their Material Compositions. of the 20th century produced a new approach to the study of the Roman convivium in which there was an attempt to harmonize the written and physical remains of the Early Imperial period. Of particular note is the work by D’Arms, who introduced the tenets of an- thropological theory, which he felt were an untapped resource to understand better the meaning of the for- malized cena, the principal social meal of the Roman day.** He proposed that the cena functioned to rein- force existing social hierarchies and helped maintain order in Roman society.’ He introduced new ques- tions that have shaped the study of Roman dining for the past 20 years, such as whether status boundaries were maintained or blurred by the private meal and whether the distribution of food reinforced those same boundaries.** D’Arms suggested that to answer such nuanced questions, we must “draw on more disparate materials than have sometimes been exploited in the past,” believing that the more common sources of evidence alone (principally literary and art historic) were not enough.”
Fig. 8. The Knossos table assemblage from the so-called Villa Dionysos, late second century C.E. Vessel numbers refer to the catalogue entries in Hayes 1983 (no. 4 = Candarli Form 1; no. 10 = Candarli Form 2; no. 22 = Candarli Form 4; no. 24 = Candarli Form 5; no. 26 = Candarh Form 3; no. 36 = African Red Slip Form 8A).
Fig. 8. The Knossos table assemblage from the so-called Villa Dionysos, late second century C.E. Vessel numbers refer to the catalogue entries in Hayes 1983 (no. 4 = Candarli Form 1; no. 10 = Candarli Form 2; no. 22 = Candarli Form 4; no. 24 = Candarli Form 5; no. 26 = Candarh Form 3; no. 36 = African Red Slip Form 8A).
Table 2. Assemblages and Deposits Presented Chronologically. cipals of the analysis. This is a real concern and one that cannot be fully assuaged by the current data. An important feature of the death assemblages included in the study, however, is that they are not from depos- its that accrued over long periods within a restricted physical context and so are perhaps more closely related to life assemblages than to site-wide ceramic assemblages.” I analyze each dining assemblage according to the functional groups of personal, side, shared, and service vessels described above (see table 1). With the ceramic assemblages, I make use of existing ceramic typologies to classify vessels but do not rely on these typologies to determine vessel function. This is because typologies are constructed to illustrate chronological evolutions of forms and types within a production tradition. Af-
Table 2. Assemblages and Deposits Presented Chronologically. cipals of the analysis. This is a real concern and one that cannot be fully assuaged by the current data. An important feature of the death assemblages included in the study, however, is that they are not from depos- its that accrued over long periods within a restricted physical context and so are perhaps more closely related to life assemblages than to site-wide ceramic assemblages.” I analyze each dining assemblage according to the functional groups of personal, side, shared, and service vessels described above (see table 1). With the ceramic assemblages, I make use of existing ceramic typologies to classify vessels but do not rely on these typologies to determine vessel function. This is because typologies are constructed to illustrate chronological evolutions of forms and types within a production tradition. Af-
Fig. 11. Calculating vessel volumes with the “summed cyl- inder” method. Bowl from Aphrodisias, fourth—fifth cen- turies C.E. To measure volume, I use a method called “summed cylinders,” which permits the calculation of volume from profile drawings by superimposing a series of stacked cylinders that fit the contours of the vessel.*” The volume of each cylinder is then calcu- lated using the standard formula of (V=x x r? x ht.). The vessel volume, or rough capacity, is thus the sum of all cylinder volumes (fig. 11). assemblages would greatly alter the general characteristics of table settings. Further study would certainly add much to the discussion of dining assemblages. My thanks to an anonymous reviewer for the AJA for the Possidius reference. 56 Henrickson and McDonald 1983. 57Rice 1987, 221-22.
Fig. 11. Calculating vessel volumes with the “summed cyl- inder” method. Bowl from Aphrodisias, fourth—fifth cen- turies C.E. To measure volume, I use a method called “summed cylinders,” which permits the calculation of volume from profile drawings by superimposing a series of stacked cylinders that fit the contours of the vessel.*” The volume of each cylinder is then calcu- lated using the standard formula of (V=x x r? x ht.). The vessel volume, or rough capacity, is thus the sum of all cylinder volumes (fig. 11). assemblages would greatly alter the general characteristics of table settings. Further study would certainly add much to the discussion of dining assemblages. My thanks to an anonymous reviewer for the AJA for the Possidius reference. 56 Henrickson and McDonald 1983. 57Rice 1987, 221-22.
Fig. 12. Measurements of small and large Roman table vessels. en © Sn Ane Examples of real dining assemblages help illustrate the effect (fig. 13). Here the late second-century de- posit of Knossos and the early seventh-century deposit of Alexandria provide useful examples of how vessel sizes can be determined and illustrated. The two de- posits appear much the same, consisting of vessels of similar size ranges in terms of both rim diameter and vessel volume. The significant difference between the two deposits lies rather in the proportions of small and large vessels present in each (fig. 14). The Knossos de- posit is dominated by small vessels, composing 85% of the total (with an average of 0.4 liters), whereas large vessels make up only 15% (2.3 liter average). In the Alexandria deposit, the proportion of small and large vessels is nearly at parity, where 49% are small (0.47 li- ter average) and 51% are large (1.8 liter average).
Fig. 12. Measurements of small and large Roman table vessels. en © Sn Ane Examples of real dining assemblages help illustrate the effect (fig. 13). Here the late second-century de- posit of Knossos and the early seventh-century deposit of Alexandria provide useful examples of how vessel sizes can be determined and illustrated. The two de- posits appear much the same, consisting of vessels of similar size ranges in terms of both rim diameter and vessel volume. The significant difference between the two deposits lies rather in the proportions of small and large vessels present in each (fig. 14). The Knossos de- posit is dominated by small vessels, composing 85% of the total (with an average of 0.4 liters), whereas large vessels make up only 15% (2.3 liter average). In the Alexandria deposit, the proportion of small and large vessels is nearly at parity, where 49% are small (0.47 li- ter average) and 51% are large (1.8 liter average).
different—that is to say, categorized separately by ware and other morphological differences—but share cer- tain physical characteristics that “unite” them within the dining assemblage. These consist of examples of African Red Slip Hayes Form 107, Egyptian Red Slip Hayes R, and Egyptian Red Slip Rodziewicz W15 (fig. 15).°' The principal physical characteristics in com-
different—that is to say, categorized separately by ware and other morphological differences—but share cer- tain physical characteristics that “unite” them within the dining assemblage. These consist of examples of African Red Slip Hayes Form 107, Egyptian Red Slip Hayes R, and Egyptian Red Slip Rodziewicz W15 (fig. 15).°' The principal physical characteristics in com-
Fig. 13. Simple scatter graphs of the vessels present in the Knossos (deft) and Alexandria (right) table assemblages.
Fig. 13. Simple scatter graphs of the vessels present in the Knossos (deft) and Alexandria (right) table assemblages.
Fig. 15. Examples of similar forms within and among different production traditions: ARS = African Red Slip Ware; ERS = Egyptian Red Slip Ware; SRSW = Sagalassos Red Slip Ware.
Fig. 15. Examples of similar forms within and among different production traditions: ARS = African Red Slip Ware; ERS = Egyptian Red Slip Ware; SRSW = Sagalassos Red Slip Ware.
Fig. 16. Scatter graphs of the Knossos (left) and Alexandria (right) table assemblages with consideration of high and low frequenc forms.
Fig. 16. Scatter graphs of the Knossos (left) and Alexandria (right) table assemblages with consideration of high and low frequenc forms.
Fig. 17. Proportions of different vessel classes based on size and form along with their associated functional possibilities.
Fig. 17. Proportions of different vessel classes based on size and form along with their associated functional possibilities.
Fig. 18. The Knossos and Alexandria table assemblages arranged by functional categories. Vessel numbers refer to original publication numbers. Knossos = Hayes 1983; Alexandria = Rodziewicz 1984.
Fig. 18. The Knossos and Alexandria table assemblages arranged by functional categories. Vessel numbers refer to original publication numbers. Knossos = Hayes 1983; Alexandria = Rodziewicz 1984.
Fig. 20. Average percentages of each vessel category present in status and convivial dining assemblages.
Fig. 20. Average percentages of each vessel category present in status and convivial dining assemblages.
Fig. 21. Personal and shared vessel types by site: 1, ledge-rim bowls; 2, hammer-head rim bowls; 3, knobbed-rim bowls,
Fig. 21. Personal and shared vessel types by site: 1, ledge-rim bowls; 2, hammer-head rim bowls; 3, knobbed-rim bowls,
Fig. 22. Schematic views of dining settings: /eft, status dining (Kaiseraugst treasure setting); right, convivial dining (Alexandria table setting).
Fig. 22. Schematic views of dining settings: /eft, status dining (Kaiseraugst treasure setting); right, convivial dining (Alexandria table setting).
Related topics:
Late Antique ArchaeologyRoman PotteryLate Roman PotteryEarly Christian ArchaeologyRoman ArtRoman Archaeology
580 California St., Suite 400
San Francisco, CA, 94104
© 2025 Academia. All rights reserved