Excavation of Vault 1 at Caesarea Maritima yielded a stratified corpus of ceramics that included a high percentage of amphorae. The amphorae were catalogued both by morphology and by fabric, the fabric analysis being based on thin-section petrographic and heavy mineral analyses. These combined results were compared with recent amphora studies conducted by Peacock and Williams (1986). The analysis allowed the Caesarea amphorae to be grouped into classes for which probable date, origin, and contents could be determined. Knowledge of origin and contents allowed economic conclusions on the uses of Vault 1 over time and suggestions concerning the economic system through which Caesarea functioned. Special emphasis is placed on analysis of the so-called Gaza Amphora in the determination of where it was manufactured.
Current issues are now on the Chicago Journals website. Read the latest issue.The Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research (BASOR) is a leader among peer-reviewed academic journals of the ancient Near East. For nearly a century, since 1919 when William F. Albright originally founded it as the Bulletin of the American School of Oriental Research in Jerusalem, BASOR has served as a highly respected interdisciplinary English-language forum for scholars worldwide in subject areas such as archaeology, art, anthropology, archaeometry, bioarchaeology, archaeozoology, biblical studies, history, literature, philology, geography, and epigraphy.
Since its origins in 1890 as one of the three main divisions of the University of Chicago, The University of Chicago Press has embraced as its mission the obligation to disseminate scholarship of the highest standard and to publish serious works that promote education, foster public understanding, and enrich cultural life. Today, the Journals Division publishes more than 70 journals and hardcover serials, in a wide range of academic disciplines, including the social sciences, the humanities, education, the biological and medical sciences, and the physical sciences.
This item is part of a JSTOR Collection.
For terms and use, please refer to our
Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research
© 1988 The University of Chicago Press