Five Schöne-Mau (Pompeii) XV/Peacock and Williams Class 12 so-called ‘carrot’ amphorae were sampled from the stores in Pompeii (figures 1-4), where they appear to be not common, in contrast to east Cilician Agora G 198. One of the major production centres of these small, narrow containers in the 1st century AD was Beirut, just outside the Hellenistic walls (Site BEY 015), where excavations discovered a workshop producing not only these (figure 5) but also the Beirut amphora type (which carried wine: Woodworth and Reynolds 2021) and complex range of other forms including Reynolds AM 72, a form probably imitating the Dressel 14 fish amphora, as well as a wide range of cooking pots, bowls, lids, drains and thin-walled wares (Reynolds et al. 2008-2009).  

The carrot amphora, with ring handles on the shoulder, simple rolled or band rim and tronco-conical body, is in the ‘hole-mouth jar’ local Levantine-Phoenician tradition that continued into the Roman period, like the larger Hellenistic to 3rd century Tyrian amphora or the Kingsholm 117 type, close to the Tyrian shape (Figure 7), and Gazan amphorae of the 2nd to 7th century. Both carrot amphorae and Kingsholm 117 have been found in large numbers in Rome (Rizzo 2014, 340-341, 343-344; Contino and D’Alessandro 2014). Carrot amphorae have a much wider and more plentiful distribution in Gaul, the Rhine provinces and Britain (153 examples were found in the excavations at Colchester in the 1930s) as well as reaching the Danube provinces from the 1st to 3rd century (for more details, see Reynolds et al 2008-2009, with references). 

Chemical analyses of carrot amphorae from BEY 015 and imports in southern Gaul provide evidence that some of the latter were Beirut products but others were not. Indeed, the range of published typological variants, such as those in Vienne, suggest that carrot amphorae were produced in other locations (Vipard 1995; Lemaître et al. 2005; Reynolds et al. 2008-2009) (Figure 6): here one is reminded of imports of likely North Palestinian small amphora Augst 46-47 (Figure 8) or the larger Celéstins 1A/Colchester 105/Peacock and Williams Class 65 that also found their way to southern Gallic ports and travelled inland to sites such as Lyons and Vienne (Lemaître 2000) (Figure 9). These other forms have fabrics close to those of North Palestinian Agora M 334, whose kilns have been found west of Galilee. Caesarea is likely to have been one of the ports of export for these. Some (or perhaps all) of the sampled examples from Pompeii were Beirut products.  

As for their contents, it has been argued (Reynolds et al. 2008-2009, 76-77) that the carrot amphora is the ‘twisted cone’ (‘torta meta’) carrying ‘cottana’ (small figs) in Martial (Epigrams, 13.28; 7.53), who also refers to ‘Damascene’ or ‘Syrian’ dried damson plums (i.e. prunes: ‘damascena’ and ‘syriaca pruna’) carried in ‘pointed jars’ (‘acuta testa’) (Martial, Epigrams, 5.18) and these are the ‘vas Damascenorum’ that he offered as a gift for the Saturnalia festival (Epigrams, 13.29). So, like one of the Colchester 105/Célestins 1 found at Avenches containing carbonized dates, it seems likely that the carrot amphora carried various types of dried fruit (figs, prunes and dates).  

It seemed opportune to test this hypothesis by sampling the Pompeian vessels. Could these dried fruits leave traces of their presence in the amphorae? The results of the chemical residues were yet again surprising, as they appear to indicate the presence of wine, though further tests are necessary to determine whether this is simply reuse. Could there be a connection with the production of Kingsholm 117, given their shared presence in Rome and the likelihood that the former contained wine, as surely did its counterpart in Tyre? Clearly, more residues analyses of carrot amphorae, such as those in Gaul, and both carrot amphorae and Kingsholm 117 in Rome are needed to provide some answers to these questions.