Amphorae in the Phoenician-Punic World: The State of the Art 9789042949089, 9042949082

Table of contents :
Cover
Title
Contents
AMPHORES PHÉNICIENNES PUNIQUES
AMPHORA PRODUCTION AND TRADE IN WESTERN IBERIA: AN OVERVIEW

Citation preview

ANCIENT NEAR EASTERN STUDIES SUPPLEMENT 62

AMPHORAE IN THE PHOENICIAN-PUNIC WORLD The State of the Art Edited by

Roald F. DOCTER, Eric GUBEL, Víctor MARTÍNEZ HAHNMÜLLER and Andrea PERUGINI

PEETERS 󰀂󰀀󰀂󰀂

ANCIENT NEAR EASTERN STUDIES SUPPLEMENT 62

ANCIENT NEAR EASTERN STUDIES SUPPLEMENT 62

AMPHORAE IN THE PHOENICIAN-PUNIC WORLD The State of the Art Edited by

Roald F. DOCTER, Eric GUBEL, Víctor MARTÍNEZ HAHNMÜLLER and Andrea PERUGINI

PEETERS LEUVEN – PARIS – BRISTOL, CT. 2022

Series Editors: Claudia Sagona and Andrew Jamieson A catalogue record for this book is available from the Library of Congress.

ISBN 978-90-429-4908-9 eISBN 978-90-429-4909-6 D/2022/0602/124 Cover illustration: Phoenician and Punic Amphora Trade in the Mediterranean (V. Martínez Hahnmüller) © Peeters, Bondgenotenlaan 153, B-3000 Leuven, Belgium All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced or translated in any form, by print, photoprint, microfilm, microfiche or any other means without written permission from the publisher PRINTED IN BELGIUM BY

Peeters N.V., Warotstraat 50, B-3020 Herent

CONTENTS

Foreword . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Roald F. DOCTER, Eric GUBEL, Victor MARTÍNEZ HAHNMÜLLER and Andrea PERUGINI

ix

GENERAL TOPICS Amphores phéniciennes puniques  : Deux décades de recherches en Méditerranée centrale et occidentale . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Joan RAMON TORRES Another kind of salting: The salt-cured meat in Phoenician amphorae  . . . . . . Carmen Ana PARDO BARRIONUEVO Enough to feed an army? Amphora production, agricultural yield and logistics during the Second Punic War  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Víctor MARTÍNEZ HAHNMÜLLER

1

29

49

CYPRUS AND THE EAST New evidence on Phoenician amphora types and amphoric inscriptions (dipinti, stamps) Eric GUBEL

77

One-handled ‘amphorae’ from Beth Shan (Jordan Valley, Israel)  . . . . . . . . . Samuel WOLFF

101

Levantine-type transport amphorae in Cyprus during the Bronze and Iron Ages: Issues and Perspectives  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Adriano ORSINGHER

107

A new Phoenician-Punic Amphoric tradition of Ptolemaic Egypt: Imports or Egyptian imitation? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Sylvie MARCHAND and Max LUACES

131

NORTH AFRICA The analysis of amphorae from Carthaginian settlement assemblages  . . . . . . . Roald F. DOCTER

145

vi

CONTENTS

Les amphores de l’horizon phénicien à Utique . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Imed BEN JERBANIA

157

SICILY From potter’s kiln to seafaring: Underwater Punic amphorae from western Sicily . Francesca OLIVERI and M. Pamela TOTI

181

Transport amphorae and the historical space: City – chora – hinterland . . . . . . Rebecca KLUG

195

Some remarks on amphora circulation at Palermo (sixth–second century BCE) . . Babette BECHTOLD

211

SARDINIA Amphorae from Sant’Imbenia (Alghero, Sardinia)  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Marco RENDELI, Elisabetta GARAU and Beatrice DE ROSA

237

The Phoenician and Punic amphorae from Pani Loriga (Area A)  . . . . . . . . . Tatiana PEDRAZZI

255

Phoenician and Punic amphorae from the waters of Nora (Sardinia). The recoveries of Michel Cassien (1978–1984)  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Emanuele MADRIGALI

265

Punic amphora lids. Evidence of a particular class of pottery from central west Sardinia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Jeremy HAYNE and Peter VAN DOMMELEN

281

Between Carthage and Rome: The island of Proratora in Sardinia  . . . . . . . . Paola CAVALIERE, Jeremy HAYNE and Giuseppe PISANU Phoenician, Greek and Punic amphorae in Olbia: Overall picture and current problems  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Paola CAVALIERE, Rubens D’ORIANO and Giuseppe PISANU

295

305

BALEARIC ISLANDS Punic amphorae in post-Talayotic Menorca (fifth to first century BCE) . . . . . . Helena JIMÉNEZ VIALÁS, Fernando PRADOS MARTÍNEZ, Joan Carles DE NICOLÁS MASCARÓ and Andrés María ADROHER AUROUX

323

CONTENTS

Punic amphorae in the Pla del Rey (Valldemossa, Mallorca, Spain)  . . . . . . . . Guy DE MULDER

vii 341

IBERIAN PENINSULA The amphorae from Baria (Villaricos, Spain)  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . José Luis LÓPEZ CASTRO, Carmen Ana PARDO BARRIONUEVO and Laura MOYA COBOS Amphora production in Punic and Late Punic Malaka (Málaga, Spain). New evidence from the Carranque – Juan XXIII area  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Cristina CHACÓN, Ana ARANCIBIA, Antonio M. SÁEZ ROMERO and Bartolomé MORA SERRANO The local production of amphorae in Turdetania during the Second Iron Age: A typological, compositional and commercial analysis of manufacture and distribution Francisco José GARCÍA FERNÁNDEZ, Violeta MORENO MEGÍAS and Eduardo FERRER ALBELDA Amphora production in Gadir (Cádiz Bay, Spain): An update . . . . . . . . . . . Antonio M. SÁEZ ROMERO A study on the Late Punic amphorae from the Circle of the Strait: From production to distribution patterns in the western Mediterranean  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Max LUACES Punic amphorae in the interior of the Guadalquivir Valley: Origin, distribution and contents  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Eduardo FERRER ALBELDA, Francisco José GARCÍA FERNÁNDEZ and Violeta MORENO MEGÍAS Amphora production during the first millennium BCE on the Lower Tagus: The set from Quinta do Almaraz (Cacilhas, Almada, Portugal) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ana OLAIO

353

365

385

401

427

443

461

Amphora production and trade in western Iberia: An overview . . . . . . . . . . Elisa DE SOUSA and Ana Margarida ARRUDA

479

Punic amphorae in northwest Iberia: Origin, distribution and commercial dynamics Eduardo FERRER ALBELDA, Josefa REY CASTIÑEIRA, Javier RODRÍGUEZ-CORRAL, Antonio M. SÁEZ ROMERO and Francisco José GARCÍA FERNÁNDEZ

499

FOREWORD

During three days in December 2016, Ghent was the centre of Phoenician-Punic amphora studies. The idea for organising a congress explicitly dedicated to amphorae in the Phoenician-Punic world came up when we realised that our shared interest in the subject had never been met by a thematic congress. In fact, in the past there had been congresses dedicated to Greek, Etruscan and Roman amphorae and in these, sometimes, Phoenician and Punic amphorae found their way too, but we felt that the time had come to send out a call to see whether there would be interest for meeting up. We were pleasantly surprised that no less than 75 specialists from 12 countries sent in 45 abstracts, most of which thereafter presented their research with oral communications and/or posters. The fact that these were mostly multi-authored contributions shows that this domain of archaeology is more and more following international standards. What followed were three days filled with a stimulating exchange of data, views and discoveries. We are proud to present here the written and expanded versions of most of these papers, collected in a thematic volume that will undoubtedly form a point of reference for the wider academic community of ‘amphorologists’ and scholars of Phoenician-Punic Studies. There are several persons and institutions that we would like to thank for their contribution in making the congress to a success. In the first place we gratefully acknowledge the financial support of the Special Research Fund of the Faculty of Arts of Ghent University; the Marie Sklodowska-Curie grant scheme, the Centro de Estudios Fenicios y Púnicos (CEFyP), the Free University Brussels (VUB), the Royal Museums of Art and History at Brussels (KMKG), the Koninklijke Academie voor Nederlandse Taal en Letterkunde (Royal Academy of Dutch Language & Literature; KANTL) and the Peeters Publishing House at Leuven. During the congress, we received help from a team of Master students in archaeology, Postdocs and volunteers at Ghent University: Vanessa Boschloos, Julie Deryckere, Guy Dierkens, Paulien Fonteyn, Elenora van Brabant, Cedric Van Huffel and Jens Vanneste, who we explicitly thank here for their support. Finally, we would like to thank the editors of the Ancient Near Eastern Studies (ANES) for having considered to include this volume in their prestigious series, the reviewers for their pertinent remarks and the entire ANES editorial team for having meticulously copyedited the full manuscript. September 2021 Roald F. DOCTER Eric GUBEL Victor MARTÍNEZ HAHNMÜLLER Andrea PERUGINI

AMPHORES PHÉNICIENNES PUNIQUES : DEUX DÉCADES DE RECHERCHES EN MÉDITERRANÉE CENTRALE ET OCCIDENTALE Joan RAMON TORRES RÉSUMÉ Le rôle des amphores phéniciennes puniques, tel qu’indicateur incontournable d’aspects notamment économiques et commerciaux, tout au cours de la non négligeable période qui couvre les huit siècles antérieurs au changement d’ère, a reçu depuis les deux dernières décades de recherche internationale un véritable coup de fouet. Après la parution en 1995 de l’ouvrage général, rédigé sous l’objectif d’ordonner une masse de matériaux et d’idées alors disparates, intitulé (en langue espagnole) « Les amphores phéniciennes puniques de la Méditerranée centrale et occidentale » on a assisté dans ce domaine à un véritable essor, non pas seul qualitatif, mais aussi quantitatif. Tel que l’organisation du congrès m’a demandé, je me propose ici d’esquisser un bilan, forcément bref, des principaux acquis qui se sont produits dans ces derniers vingt ans et, en même temps, de mettre l’accent sur les problèmes les plus saillants qui, à mon avis, traînent encore, sans qu’on y aperçoive, dans beaucoup de cas, et à court délai, de possibles solutions.

INTRODUCTION Il y a quelques mois, le Professeur Roald Docter, mon ami depuis longtemps, m’a renseigné de son idée d’organiser un congrès sur le thème des amphores phéniciennes puniques, s’il était capable (il a réussi, heureusement) d’obtenir les moyens nécessaires, tout en me proposant à ce sujet une « Keynote ». À la vérité, même en ayant consulté tout type de dictionnaires et en avoir parlé avec d’autres collègues qui connaissent l’anglais mieux que moi, j’ai eu du mal à comprendre le sens exacte du mot et, franchement, le temps passé, je continue à l’avoir. Avec d’autant plus d’alarme, j’a lu par la suite que le titre qu’il me proposait pour cette keynote était, à la lettre : « Two decades of Ramon ». D’autant que j’ai trouvé une bonne idée – car il n’arrive pas toujours de nous rencontrer physiquement tous ensemble – j’ai accepté sans hésitation, en changeant, bien sûr, ce titre pour un autre moins personnaliste, attitude qui va pas avec moi : « deux décades de recherche », ce qui enfin, n’allait pas assurément adultèrer trop les objectifs profonds de mon ami. Me voici donc dans un congrès baptisé « Amphorae in the Phoenician-Punic World : the State of the Art ». Et voilà un autre anglicisme, à la page, paraît-il, avec l’objectif d’aborder l’état de la question sur le sujet, analyser les progrès où ont est arrivé, ensemble aux moyens techniques qui l’ont permis. Même s’il n’est pas possible pour tout le monde de partager ces modes sémantiques, à qualifier de capricieuses et changeantes, sur les principes basiques on y est tout de même d’accord. Dans la littérature scientifique du XXe siècle, en italien, en espagnol, voire en français, sans épuiser le répertoire, on lisait souvent des expressions comme … « une chose si vulgaire

J. RAMON TORRES

2

qu’une amphore » et je m’interroge maintenant à propos des formules alchimiques qui ont fait basculer, d’un but à l’autre, presque tout à coup, leur perception historique et archéologique : thème vulgaire, inutile, gênant, dépourvu en somme de tout intérêt – à l’avis bien sûr des mécréants – juste hier ; objet de dévotion, aujourd’hui, voire de rencontres internationales sous la devise de son « état de l’art ». Dans tous les cas, ami Roald, grand merci !

I. DEUX

MOTS SUR LE PASSÉ

Si le point de départ de notre discours – je souligne, par désir exprès des organisateurs – est inévitablement la parution, l’an 1995, de l’ouvrage intitulée « Les amphores phéniciennes puniques de la Méditerranée Centrale et Occidentale » (dorénavant, Ramon 1995), permettezmoi, tout d’abord, d’en dire quelques mots. Le premier, c’est qu’on a affaire ici d’un travail rédigé en 1990, sans aucun génère d’ordinateur, c’est à dire, sans le word, le photoshop, le freehand, l’Illustrator, l’Autocad ni, forcément les caméras numériques, qui ont tellement changé notre vie, notre manière de travailler et bien sûr notre pensée, tous les échanges d’information avec les collègues voie postale ordinaire. Ce simple détail justifierait à lui seul une nouvelle édition qui, naturellement tiendrait compte les nouveautés de toute espèce qui se sont produites dès lors (types à rejeter, finalement, d’autres à incorporer, raffinement de certaines propositions, etc.), au cours, non pas de 20 ans, mais plutôt de 26, un quart de siècle, et pourtant, certes, l’ouvrage imprimé par l’Université de Barcelone est dans vos mains depuis deux décennies. Une nouvelle édition moderne, en conservant toutefois les principes que je crois incontournables. Seconde chose que j’ai à vous dire concerne le temps et le rythme de la recherche : j’ai écrit ce livre sans trop des prétentions d’ordre personnel, j’ai même mis une T– devant chaque numéro de type amphorique (sinon inutile car assez expliqué dans le texte, l’ordre des hiérarchies) pour éviter (vainement après tout) y trouver mon nom, lassé de faire de rêves avec d’amphores « Dressel » ou d’amphores « Mañá ». La principale, voire la seule ambition, était celle d’établir un certain degré d’ordre dans le chaos immense, qu’au tout début des années 80, quand, en fait, j’ai commencé mes recherches sur les amphores phéniciennes puniques, était ce monde. Aujourd’hui, j’éprouve la satisfaction immense de constater comme, grâce à l'effort de tant de collègues, la connaissances de ces amphores est arrivé à un un degré, non pas seul égal à celui de leurs homologues en contemporanéité (grecques ou romaines), mais parfois même dans un stade supérieur. Passés quelques ans, quand je me suis aperçu que dans plusieurs études, d’importants études souvent, des T–, G– etc., apparaissant par dizaines, sans pourtant être cité, même dans la bibliographie générale, j’ai compris que la créature à elle-seule était capable de se débrouiller ; mon objectif était donc accompli. En tout cas, et c’est là où je voulais en venir, si une inactivité permanente, dont une aire géographique très large y est encore touchée, devient, il va sans dire, bien mauvaise, je reste sur mes gardes à propos de travaux menés sous des temps trop courts, dans les mêmes endroits, et concernant à-peu-près les mêmes aspects. Voici une réalité, débiteuse en quelque

AMPHORES PHÉNICIENNES PUNIQUES

3

sorte de la politique scientifique et académique de l’Union Européenne, qui imprime un esprit de compétitivité, parfois mal comprise, que je constate tout de même en Espagne.

II. UN PARCOURS SUR LA GÉOGRAPHIE DES ÉTUDES AMPHORIQUES PHÉNICIENS PUNIQUES DES DERNIERS VINGT-CINQ ANS AUTOUR DE LA MÉDITERRANÉE CENTRALE ET OCCIDENTALE Beaucoup de publications concernant, d’une façon ou d’autre, les amphores objet de notre rencontre ont vu la lumière au cours des derniers vingt ans. Toutefois il faut séparer ici les études au caractère spécifique de ceux où les amphores sont considérées ensemble à d'autres données dans un cadre d’analyse de fouilles ou de simples collections. Comme il ne pouvait en être autrement, voici une masse immense de nouvelle information qui, tout en dépendant des circonstances et d’autres processus d’ordre plutôt aléatoire, possède une valeur inégale, mais qui sert toujours à densifier les cartes distribution et par conséquent à enrichir la connaissance du commerce méditerranéen. Quoi de neuf et quoi de déjà vu ? Parce qu’il s’agit d’un thème vaste, je dois forcément de résumer – en faisant omission injuste du nom et des ouvrages de tant de collègues, du à la pénurie de l’espace disponible ; je m’en excuse vivement – tout en focalisant sur les grandes lignes que je trouve les plus significatives de cette étape de recherche. Si vous y êtes d’accord, je vais faire un tour rapide pour la géographie qui nous concerne et par la suite je vais envisager la question sous des optiques plutôt générales. Quand à la géographie, si on met de côté les aires commerciales, bien plus vastes, les zones (j’emploie expressément ce mot et non pas celui de pays) concernées tant que productrices d’amphores phéniciennes puniques, sont les des deux Maurétanies, la côte du sud de la Péninsule Ibérique, Ibiza, une partie importante de la Sardaigne, l’ouest de la Sicile, naturellement l’Afrique (mot que je vais employer ici dans un sens restrictif, celui de l’actuelle Tunisie à l’intérieur de la Fossa Regia, creusée en 146 av. J.-C.), et mis à part le cas des petites îles, Malte et finalement la Tripolitaine. À remarquer que même dans ces territoires, il s’agit toujours d’un phénomène plutôt côtier. La Césarienne Si j’aborde, pour commencer, la Césarienne, j’en finis d’un seul mot : on est en même point qu’il y a trente ou quarante ans, de telle sorte que ses amphores, leurs types, leurs aires de production et leurs chronologies restent de parfaites méconnues et, par conséquent, de leur commerce on n’en sait rien ; les raisons de cette situation scientifiquement pénible sont fort connues par tout le monde. La Tingitane Dans ce territoire, à moitié méditerranéen et à moitié atlantique, où il s’avère, paraît-il, un panorama vasculaire en quelque sorte semblable à celui de la côte opposé ibérique, la situation au cours des dernières années s’est caractérisée pour un statisme mineur, car la

J. RAMON TORRES

4

recherche a continué dans d’importants gisements, comme Lixus, Banasa et Kouass, parmi d’autres. À ne pas oublier que ces deux derniers, depuis longtemps sont de réputés centres de production, fait – qu’à l’époque où les ateliers du sud de l’Espagne n’étaient guère connus – a provoqué un véritable mirage sur les amphores, et d’autres catégories vasculaires, du Maroc ancien. À la vérité, les problèmes basiques restent encore là, parce que, même si l’on sait à coup sûr que plusieurs parmi eux ont fabriqué des types amphoriques (SG–11.2.1.0 à Kouass ?, S–12.0.0.0 dans la plupart ?, SG–7.4.3.0 dans presque tous ?), leurs caractéristiques spécifiques, qui permettraient les identifier et les isoler d’autre semblables, ne sont pas établies.1 On a par conséquent le sentiment de marcher toujours sur un terrain où les doutes dépassent largement les certitudes, de telle sorte que personne risque d’assurer que telle pièce appartient à tel ou tel atelier. Le sud de la Péninsule Ibérique Par contre, sur la côte de l’Andalousie se place l’une des aires de recherche amphorique phénicienne punique, et même romaine, les plus actives pour l’instant. Ici, de micro géographies, comme celle de la baie de Cádiz, ont offert la possibilité d'établir un véritable laboratoire expérimental, favorisé, certes, par la trouvaille d’un nombre extraordinaire d’ateliers et, en même temps, des possibilités d’étude en parallèle des industries productives connexes. On connaît donc la plupart des types – à l’exception de quelques uns de la S–12.0.0.0 des quatrième-troisième siècles, par manque de matériel intègre –, leur chronologie et les contenus probables, et on connaît en partie les ateliers, notamment à San Fernando,2 où pas mal de fours à cuisson ont été mis à jour, mais à peine du reste d’éléments physiques qui composaient l’ensemble des ateliers. Rien n’autorise pour l’instant à remonter d’une forme nette les chronologies de la production d’amphores au delà de la fin du VIe siècle, moment dans lequel l’industrie gaditaine a reçu un coup de fouet, dont les agents, il se peut même externes, constituent une énigme pour l’instant. Le reste de la côte andalouse, jusqu’à la zone de Villaricos, en Almerie, offre une problématique tout à fait distincte. En effet, d’évidences de fours à potier, dont la date se place aux alentours du 700 av. J.-C., ont été fouillés, par exemple au Cerro del Villar3 et on en a découvert d’autres plus tardifs (septième et sixième siècles av. J.-C.) au Vélez et au Algarrobo.4 D’autre part, d’études archéométriques, à qualifier de nombreux, sont parvenus, paraît-il, à un suffisant degré de résolution pour qu’on puisse certifier la provenance de nombreuses amphores des huitième-septième siècles av. J.-C. dont la présence jalonne, non pas seul toute la côte orientale espagnole, mais nul doute la Méditerranée centrale, dans les centres productifs du Guadalorce, Vélez et Algarrobo, d’ailleurs assez connus dans la littérature scientifique. Dans ce cadre je veux attirer l’attention sur trois faits. Le premier, l’absence de données, étrange toutefois, concernant les aires productifs des amphores archaïques phéniciennes à l’Est de Malaga, plus précisément au long d’une vaste côte métamorphique qui atteint le Sud 1

 Cf.  Cf. 3  Cf. 4  Cf. 2

un résumé de cette situation dans Aranegui et al. (2004). Ramon et al. 2007 ; Sáez 2008, parmi d’autres nombreux travaux. Delgado 2011. Martín et al. 2006.

AMPHORES PHÉNICIENNES PUNIQUES

T–10.3.1.1

T–3.1.1.3

T–3.1.1.1

T–2.1.1.4

5

Fig. 1. 1) Dessin de l’auteur ; 2) d’après Bartoloni 2012 ; 3) d’après Ramon 1995 ; 4) d’après Sourisseau 2013.

d’Alicante, là où se trouvent tout de même trois villes qualifiées de phéniciennes par les sources historiques : Sex, Abdera et Baria. Le second, le fait que les plus anciennes amphores de l’extrême occident, du T–10.3.1.1, que j’ai défini après, en 2006 (Fig. 1 : 1),5 se trouvent déjà ensemble aux complexes vasculaires que l’on considère pour l’instant les plus anciens (Concepcion, Cómico),6 grosso modo du premier tiers du huitième siècle av. J.-C., ce qui place la production d’amphores dans les territoires autour du point où cent ans plus tard fut fondée la Malaka phénicienne, parmi les plus anciennes, voire la première, de la Méditerranée centro-occidentale. 5 6

 Cf. Ramon 2006.  Cf. Torres et al. 2014 ; Ramon 2017.

6

J. RAMON TORRES

En troisième lieu, un autre aspect, non négligeable, qui ressort de la nouvelle recherche : l’absence dans tout ce cadre économique de productions amphoriques qu’à coup sûr puissent être qualifiées de gaditanes. Certes, dans le programme de notre congrès une présentation spécifique sur le thème y est prévue, nonobstant, car sur le véritable rôle et l’importance de la ville atlantique pèse encore une mythologie trop lourde, je préfère délimiter le territoire par avance. Ibiza Pour ce qui est d’Ibiza, nul doute le centre productif phénicien punique important, le plus au Nord de cette longue aire occidentale, les nouveautés qui se sont produites ces dernières années touchent presque exclusivement le plan quantitatif. Je n’ai pas grande chose à ajouter à ce qui est déjà écrit depuis longtemps. À ne pas oublier, en tout cas, un commencement à petite échelle de la production au début du sixième siècle, suivi d’un raffermissement progressif, avec de moments algides entre le cinquième et le deuxième siècle av. J.-C., où plusieures séries se sont succédées à tour de rôle. Leur morphologie est parvenue à un degré considérable de personnalité, accompagné toutefois de l’emprunt en parallèle de tout type de formes grecques et romaines, comme il est aussi le cas de Gadir, et nul doute d’autres centres, malheureusement bien pire connus pour l’instant. Ici on a identifié d’estampilles dont la chronologie se remonte aux siècles cinquième et quatrième av. J.-C. (Figs. 6–8), en quelque sorte à la page du monde grec et centre méditerranéen ; on y reviendra plus tard. Maintenant, la recherche sur les amphores d’Ibiza est devenue un phénomène intégral, avec la fouille extensive de centaines d’hectares de champs cultivés de vignes, fait qui a défini l’archéologie insulaire préventive récente, tout en donnant une explication nette a l’énorme projection commerciale extérieure qui ont connu ses amphores. La Sardaigne En Sardaigne, et je passe à la Méditerranée centrale, c’est le phénomène rattaché aux amphores, que l’on qualifie type Sant‘Imbenia, la mode actuelle, mes collègues y reviendront juste après. Pour ma part, je trouve qu’il est question ici d’un processus complexe d’interaction, où il faudra bien séparer ce qui appartient aux phéniciens de ce qu’appartient aux autochtones, et plus exactement des nuragiques. En tout cas, le problème de ces amphores, qui touche le début de l’époque coloniale, se pose tout de même sur quatre axes : morphologies peut être empruntées de la Phénicie orientale ou simplement du monde oriental, technologie autochtone, graffiti avant cuisson, parfois en langue phénicienne ou en tout cas pas autochtone, et projection commerciale extérieure sur un rayon large, qui pour l’instant concerne dès la Tunisie jusqu’à l’Atlantique. Difficile ici d’ignorer un processus de collaboration franchement intéressant et illustratif, tel que d’autres chercheurs l’ont remarqué, bien que je préfère ne pas considérer ces amphores parmi celles vraiment phéniciennes. Cette nouveauté ne doit cependant de nous faire négliger le reste de la production amphorique sarde, à qualifier d’importante ; celle-ci, dans des centres phéniciens, comme Sulky, a commencé tôt, peut-être, non plus tard que la moitié du huitième siècle av. J.-C.

AMPHORES PHÉNICIENNES PUNIQUES

7

Des analyses conduites sur des échantillons d’amphores archaïques, présumées T–3.1.1.1, T–3.1.1.2 et T–2.1.1.2, auraient confirmé la production de ces types en Sardaigne,7 bien que parfois leur classification n’est pas nette. En réalité, le type, qu’en 2006 M. Botto a prétendu isoler « pour la première fois »,8 fut identifié, bien par avance, justement lors d’un colloque tenu à Sant’Antioco le 1997 – sur la base d’un exemplaire (Fig. 1 : 2) de la nécropole de Portoscuso.9 Malgré qu’en parallèle à la production des carthaginoises T–3.1.1.1, ce type mérite à lui seul une carte d’identité (T–3.1.1.3, cf. ci-après). Je profite maintenant l’occasion pour souligner qu’il a été trouvé à Guardamar10 et par la suite à Utique, selon les renseignements d’I. Ben Jerbania. Les travaux subaquatiques mis à point dans les lacunes de Santa Giusta, à Othoca11 et de Santa Gilla, à Cagliari,12 on permis la trouvaille d’un nombre important d’amphores complètes, ou presque, qui souvent gardent encore leur contenu et, enfin, les amphores du forum de Nora ont été étudiés en profondeur,13 avec de nouveaux études archéométriques, bien que le degré extrême de leur fragmentation pose, encore une fois, des limites, parfois incontournables, notamment concernant les classifications précises. Par contre, même si pas mal de formes, jadis classées du point de vue typologique, ont été produites dans le Sud et l’Ouest de cette grande île pendant toute l’époque punique, ce qui viennent confirmer les études archéométriques,14 dont un bon nombre de « fabriques » ont été isolées, en réalité, peu d’ateliers, voire aucun, n’est physiquement connu pour l’instant, et voilà encore l’une des choses qui restent à faire. La Sicile Si je passe maintenant à la Sicile, j’aperçois une aire de travail où la recherche amphorique, au cours des dernières décennies, a été bien active et les résultats fort intéressants. Il y a vingt ans on naviguait à la dérive concernant les types et la portée productive de certaines villes qualifiées de phéniciennes par les sources anciennes, et dont a priori il n’était pas question de nier une réalité potentielle dans le terrain amphorique. Et, pourtant, sauf le cas de Mozia, où même des structures de cuisson anciennes étaient déjà connues et où, d’autre part, il était possible de signaler provisoirement des types fabriqués dans cette ville, le reste de centres, comme le cas de Panormos, Solunto et Lylibé restaient absolument dans l’ombre. Maintenant, la découverte d’ateliers à Solunto, à Lilibé et même à Selinunte, accompagnée la normalement d’études archéométriques, a permis d’esquisser un cadre intéressant, même si à mon avis il n’est pas exempt de problèmes, dont on n’a pas l’espace pour s’y attarder maintenant (cf. toutefois, ici 4.2). 7

 Cf. Botto et al. 2005, pp. 93–94.  Cf. Botto et al. 2005, p. 69. 9  Cf. Ramon 2000, pp. 283–284. 10  Cf. González 2011, figs. 4 et 26. 11  Cf. del Vais et Sanna 2009 ; del Vais et Sanna 2012. 12  Cf. Solinas 1997, pp. 177–183. 13  Cf. Finocchi 2009. 14  Cf. Botto et al. 2005 ; Finocchi 2009 ; Bechtold 2015, parmi d’autres. 8

J. RAMON TORRES

8

Selon ces travaux,15 les villes de Palerme et Solunto, entre c. 600 et 500 av. J.-C., auraient donc produit des amphores T–2.1.1.2, T–13.2.2.1, T–1.1.2.1/2.2, T–1.3.2.1, T–1.4.1.1/2.1, T–1.4.2.2 ; entre la fin du sixième et le cinquième siècles av. J.-C., le T–1.4.3.1, T–1.4.4.1, T–1.3.2.3 et T–1.4.5.1 ; pendant le quatrième et le premier tiers du troisième siècle av. J.-C. les types T–4.2.2.6, T–4.2.2.7, T–4.2.1.2/3, T–2.2.1.1, T–2.2.1.2, T–7.1.2.1, T–6.1.1.2, T–6.1.2.1/7.1.2.1 et, juste après, y compris le deuxième siècle av. J.-C., les T–6.1.2.1/7.1.1.2, T–6.1.1.3, T–7.1.1.1, T–4.2.1.1/4.2.1.7, T–4.2.1.5, T–5.2.3.1, T–7.2.1.1, T–7.4.3.1, T–7.6.1.1/2. Mozia, pendant l’époque archaïque, aurait fabriqué, d’abord, les types T–3.1.1.2, T–2.1.1.1, T–2.1.1.2, T–13.2.1.2, T–1.3.2.1, T–1.4.2.1, T–1.4.3.1 ; au cinquième-quatrième siècles av. J.-C. les T–1.4.4.1, T–1.3.2.3, T–4.1.1.3, T–4.2.1.1, T–4.2.1.7, T–4.2.1.6, T–4.2.1.2, T–4.2.2.1/4.1.1.2/4.2.1.4 ; et au quatrième-deuxième siècles av. J.-C. les T–2.2.1.2, T–4.2.1.5, T–4.2.1.3/5.2.3.2, T–6.1.2.1/7.1.1.2, T–7.1.1.1, T–7.2.1.1, T–7.5.3.1/7.6.2.1, T–7.6.2.1. Lilibée, de sa part, les T–2.2.1.2, T–4.2.1.3, T–4.2.1.5, T–5.2.3.2, T–6.1.1.3 et, finalement, Selinonte les types T–8.1.1.1, T–4.2.1.5, T–4.2.1.3/5.2.3.2, T–5.2.3.1, T–3.2.1.2. Laissons maintenant de côte Mozia, dont la situation était à peu près connue par avance, la leçon qui s’ensuit de ce tas de nouveautés est celle d’un répertoire morphologique presque commun à toutes ces villes, qu’il faudra bien préciser, notamment concernant les détails morphologiques, qui doivent d’exister forcement, avec du matériel nouvel. À ne pas oublier qu’à Lilibée et à Selinunte, l’action, voire la fondation, punique ne dépasse pas la fin du cinquième et/ou le début du quatrième siècles av. J.-C., inutile par conséquent d’y chercher des productions de ce genre antérieures. Dans le cadre productif de Solunto et Palerme – où on verra bien dans l’avenir si d’autres antérieurs apparaissent – le type le plus ancien repéré pour l’instant est le T–2.1.1.2, qui signale nettement le début du sixième siècle av. J.-C. Ça ne m’étonne pas, car plusieurs versions de ce type ne peuvent pas dissimuler une forte influence tyrrénique, notamment dans les anses, fait qui parait tout-à-fait logique chez les deux centres du nord de la Sicile occidentale. Par contre, j’ai du mal à croire que le T–2.1.1.2 ait été produit à Mozia, compte tenu que sa présence sur place est trop réduite, bien entendu que le peu de fragments de bords publiés comme tels, n’appartiennent pas à ce type.16 Je du mal aussi à croire – d’autant plus si j’envisage ces types (ensemble à tout le reste) comme un phénomène architectonique intégral – que des T–1.3.2.3 et des T–8.1.1.1 aient été fabriquées à son tour dans des ateliers de Solunto / Palerme et de Selinunte ; tout de moins dans un cas, au vu du matériel publié, je suis tenté d’élargir la carte de distribution des amphores d’Ibiza, dans d’autres, simplement de réfuter la classification proposée. En plus, l’influence de modèles carthaginois, spécialement les cylindriques T–4.2.1.5, T–5.2.3.1, parmi d’autres, est signalée. À quoi bon s’étonner de ce phénomène, en connaissant par les sources historiques le rôle de Carthage sur la Sicile ?

15

 Cf. notamment Bechtold 2015.  Cf. par exemple, Toti 2002, tab. 2.

16

AMPHORES PHÉNICIENNES PUNIQUES

9

À qualifier aussi de remarquable, devient l’étude et la publication de groupes importants d’amphores puniques, qui est fort illustratif, non pas seul pour des raisons commerciales, mais aussi pour les renseignements morphologiques qui comportent ; c’est le cas, par exemple, de nécropoles appartenant à deux villes, en réalité grecques, Camarina17 et Himère.18 Malte À Malte, on sait quelque chose des amphores phéniciennes puniques, mais encore, toujours à mon avis, reste beaucoup à faire, avant d’établir d’une façon définitive, dans un sens large du terme, leur temps et leur forme. Certes, on connaît presque à coup sûr un petit nombre de types à la fabrication insulaire, dont quelques uns à la morphologie commune à celle d’autres centres en dehors de l’île, qui pourtant s’étalent dans un délai temporaire trop long, demeurant trop d’espaces vides. Dans ce sens-là un acquis des dernières années c’est la confirmation de la fabrication insulaire, parmi d’autres apparentés, de types comme T–2.2.1.2 et T–3.2.1.2,19 qui ont connu une significative exportation, même lointaine, en dehors de l’île, au contraire de ce qui s’est passé avec des types archaïques, comme T–2.1.1.1 et T–3.1.1.2, dont l’insularité n’est pas claire. Par contre, de nouveaux types anciens à corps ovoïde peuvent joindre cette production insulaire (Fig. 1 : 4). La Libye En Libye, où peu de nouveautés se sont produites, ressort l’étude et la publication des matériaux amphoriques issus des fouilles faites par la Society for Libyan Studies et le Département des Antiquités de la Libye, entre 1999 et 2006, à Euesperides (actuelle Benghazi), une ville grecque de la Cyrénaïque, aux origines archaïques, qui fut complètement abandonnée peu avant le 250 av. J.-C.20 Les amphores puniques, dont le pourcentage est de 5-6 %, selon la méthode de calcul, appartiennent aux types T–2.2.1.2, T–7.1.2.1, T–4.2.1.2, T–4.2.1.5, en plus d’un solitaire bord d’amphore T–7.2.1.1 ; un fragment de corps, finalement, appartient à une production de l’extrême Occident, à classer parmi le SG–11.2.1.0. En somme, des données intéressantes pour ce qui est du cadre commercial par rapport à l’Est des types concernés, et aussi par la date ante quem fournie par l’abandon du site. En même temps, les productions amphoriques phéniciennes puniques, à qualifier véritablement de tripolitaines, restent ici et là en Libye des absolues méconnues. L’Afrique En Afrique, là où Carthage reste toujours le point clef, l’information issue des fouilles urbaines menées à point au cours des dernières vingt années, a apporté une vision bien plus précise du monde des amphores, car de surcroît elles ont mérité une attention spéciale, qui 17

 Cf. Sourisseau 2013.  Cf. Vassallo 1999 ; Bechtold 2015. 19  Schmidt et Bechtold 2013. 20  Cf. Göransson 2007, pp. 33–35. 18

J. RAMON TORRES

10

Fig. 2. 1) D’après Ramon 1995 ; 2) d’après Bartoloni 2014 ; 3) d’après Madrigali et Zara sous presse.

a donné comme résultat la parution d’études importants. Ces études, qui en premier lieu ont visé l’époque archaïque,21 ont fini par couvrir toutes les étapes historiques de la ville, jusqu’à la destruction de 146 av. J.-C. Dans tous les cas, l’analyse des repères provenant des fouilles au carrefour du decumanus maximus et le cardo X, ensemble à celles de Bir Massaouda, en a constitué la base.22 Concernant les amphores archaïques, notre avis a été donné peu après,23 bien que les matériaux ont été revus dix ans après, lors de la publication monographique de la fouille,24 cela a été fait dans des termes pareils. Fruit aussi de cette étape, c’est donc l’étude qui concerne la totalité des matériaux amphoriques, y compris ceux d’origine grec ou ibérique, parmi d’autres ethnicités, sur la base de publications antérieures et le résultat d’un programme archéométrique concernant deux cents trente échantillons du « site 2 », entre la fin du sixième et la fin du quatrième siècle av. J.-C., travail élargi jusqu’à l’époque tardive.25 Je suis content de trouver ici plein de confirmations autour de la plupart de propositions que j’ai faites jadis concernant la provenance de types, comme c’est le cas des T–3.1.1.1, T–1.4.2.1, T–4.1.1.2, T–4.1.1.3, T–4.2.1.2, T–4.2.1.5, T–4.2.1.6, T–5.2.3.1, T–5.2.3.2,26 T–7.2.1.1, T–7.4.2.1, T–7.4.3.1, T–13.1.1.3, pour ne citer que les plus saillants. 21

 Cf. Docter 1997.  Cf. Docter 2007 ; Bechtold 2007 ; Bechtold 2008 ; Bechtold 2010 ; Bechtold et Docter 2010, parmi d’autres travaux. 23  Cf. Ramon 2000. 24  Cf. Docter 2007. 25  Cf. Bechtold 2007 ; 2008 ; 2010. 26  Cf. Bechtold et Docter 2010. 22

AMPHORES PHÉNICIENNES PUNIQUES

11

Et pourtant, des énigmes pèsent encore sur les amphores carthaginoises. Par exemple, le moment exacte de la parution des amphores T–3.1.1.1 (Fig. 1 : 3 et Fig. 2 : 1), qui nul doute sont les plus anciennes. En effet, bien que présentes dans la première phase du cardo X,27 leur absence dans les horizons les plus anciens trouvés jusqu’à présent à Utique28 devrait de constituer une mise en garde face aux datations plus hautes que le deuxième quart du huitième siècle av. J.-C. D’autres problèmes encore, par exemple, la questions des types ovoïdes du plein septième siècle av. J.-C., aggravé par le fait que peu de vases dans des conditions d’étude acceptable ont été repérés et le matériel disponible pose de problèmes de classification. On se demande encore s’il existe à Carthage une production en pâte KTS (“Karthago-Ton-Struktur”) de types importants, tels que T–2.1.1.1 (Fig. 2 : 3), T–2.1.1.2 (Fig. 2 : 2), T–2.2.1.2 ou T–3.2.1.2, selon la description faite à partir de trouvailles sur d’autres points disparates. Une autre question, à la portée plus générale, concerne les productions amphoriques africaines : Carthage métropole et/ou Carthage région? Malheureusement, le matériel provenant d’ateliers urbains ou périurbains de la ville est encore trop fragmentaire, même pour un classement précis (c’est le cas de l’horizon archaïque tardive sous le cardo IX, publié par Vegas,29 bien qu’au vu du peu publié, cet atelier semble avoir fabriqué d’avantage le type T–1.3.2.1 et/ou T–1.4.2.1), tandis que la production des importants fours à potier tardifs, fouillés par Gauckler au terrain Dermech est à peine connue, à l’exception d’amphores T–4.2.1.5 et T–5.2.3.1 estampillées, dont de surcroît quelques unes ont été analysées, révélant des différences chimiques par rapport à leurs homologues fabriquées à Utique, 30 d’autres encore, comme ceux découverts à Douïmès par Delattre, on n’en sait rien. Mis à part Carthage, dans son rayon territorial immédiate, on est parvenu à identifier d’autres centres de fabrication, par exemple, à Neapolis, dans le terrain ben Abda,31 à Mnihla, à seul 19 km à l’ouest de Carthage32 et dans les alentours d’Utique, Besbassia33 (les deux derniers repris dans ce congrès). On en connaissait auparavant d’autres, comme Le Belvédère et La Rabta, à Tunis, sans pourtant disposer jamais d’un cadre clair de leur production vasculaires. En tout cas, la présence d’amphores T–4.2.1.5 / T–5.2.3.1 (quatrième et troisième siècles av. J.-C.) et T–7.4.2.1/T–7.4.3.1 (deuxième siècle av. J.-C.) sans, bien sûr, épuiser le répertoire – car il ne faut pas oublier les versions hellénisantes tardives, dont on parlera ci-après – devient un commun dénominateur parmi ces ateliers, avant la chute de la métropole ; après cette date, les types appartenant au G–7.5.0.0 ont pris le relais, tandis que le poids de celles à la forme non traditionnellement punique – les fausses « tripolitaines anciennes » (Fig. 7 : 11) – s’est considérablement agrandi. Nul doute qu’à cette époque-là les centres de production se sont multipliés.

27

 Cf.  Cf. 29  Cf. 30  Cf. 31  Cf. 32  Cf. 33  Cf. 28

Docter 2007. Ben Jerbania et Redissi 2014, parmi d’autres travaux. Vegas 1990. Maraoui et Bouhlel 2011. Ben Tahar 2010. Ben Jerbania 2013. Maraoui et Bouhlel 2011.

J. RAMON TORRES

12

Hors de frontières, l’archéologie sous-marine Voilà un monde à part, que j’ai réservé exprès pour conclure mon tour géographique. Commençons par dire qu’avec les épaves on ne sait jamais a priori si les navires ont sombré dans le point de destin ou, par contre, au milieu d’un long parcours, voire en dehors du trajet prévu. Dans ce terrain – qui a plein de choses à nous offrir – vous allez me permettre de dire qu’en réalité, toutes comptes faits, la situation est absolument décevante. Certes, j’apprécie énormément les travaux entamés en Sardaigne parmi lesquels ceux de Nora (Fig. 2 : 3), vus dans ce colloque, en Sicile, en Pantelleria,34 qui enrichissent, notre connaissance. Par exemple, le champ de bataille navale des Égades, en cours d’étude ces dernières années, avec le particulier intérêt d’une date précise (241 av. J.-C.), dont on en connaît même le jour, est à suivre avec attention par des raisons spécialement chronologiques, même si pour l’instant seul une amphore T–3.2.1.2 a été repérée.35 Et pourtant, les matériaux éparpillés au fond du large deviennent toujours en puissance un piège contextuel. Mis à part ces cas qui, certes, rentrent dans le terrain des nouveautés, si on considère les centaines de kilomètres de côte qui longe tout le nord de l’Afrique, des Maurétanies, de la Libye et le sud et l’est de l’Espagne, tout en pondérant les acquis, le bilan est franchement pénible. En effet, moins d’une dizaine de points, où il est raisonnable de faire des conjectures sur la présence d’épaves phéniciennes puniques, est connu dans ce long parcours, (même entre guillemets, il faut bien le dire) grâce au travail des clandestins, sans pourtant rien de vraiment sérieux du côté scientifique. Une exception, par exemple, le navire 2 de Mazarrón, sombré aux alentours du 600 av. J.-C. et qui pendant longtemps est resté la seule chose à faire importante de la part des autorités de l’archéologie sous-marine espagnole. Mais, hélas! : il ne transportait qu’une seule amphore et, par comble, pas de céramiques d’autre type, ce qui du point de vue chronologique met ce vase, qui appartient d’ailleurs à un type (T–10.1.2.1) fort connu, trouvé en milieu intacte, dans une sorte de situation hors contexte. D’autres indices d’épaves ont été signalées, par exemple, à la côte de Malaga36 avec des amphores T–12.1.1.1 ; même cargaison dans une autre celle–ci à très grande profondeur (presque 900 m) à la mer d’Alboran, dénommée « Melkarth », dont non moins de deux cents amphores ont été filmées37 et pourtant sauf l’attribution au type cité, rien n’est connu. Heureusement, pour nous conforter un peu de ce panorama général issu de l’archéologie sous-marine, j’insiste encore, absolument gris, arrive au secours l’épave de Xlendi, un gisement bien préservée, grâce à la grande profondeur où il gît, qui est par chance la cible d’un équipe performant, sur la base de sophistiqués moyens techniques. Le profil tridimensionnel du gisement a été dessiné avec un remarquable degré de précision et quelques échantillons ont été prélevés.38 Alors, à-peu-près, le même cadre qu’on 34

 Cf.  Cf. 36  Cf. 37  Cf. 38  Cf. 35

Baldassari 2012 ; Fontana 2006. Olivieri 2017. Sáez 2014. Broad 1998. Sourisseau 2015.

AMPHORES PHÉNICIENNES PUNIQUES

13

voyait auparavant dans de sites comme Mozia, Carthage et Ischia, à la fin du Géométrique et le début de l’époque archaïque, où des amphores ovoïdes, que j’ai appelées tyrrhéniennes (les « centro-italiques » de Docter), se mélangent à des amphores phéniciennes T–2.1.1.1, dont l’origine, en défaut pour l’instant d’analyses archéométriques, est à chercher dans les ateliers de Mozia, parmi d’autres possibles. En somme, un rayon de lumière sur les amphores phéniciennes et les trafics commerciaux en Méditerranée centrale dans la première moitié du septième siècle av. J.-C.

III. QUELQUES

ASPECTS GÉNÉRAUX

Quelques questions d’ethnicité L’étude des amphores phéniciennes puniques de l’extrême occident, dès le début, notamment dès l’époque de Mañá, sinon avant, a été accablé par le problème de distinguer parmi les amphores proprement coloniales de celles que les peuples ibériques à une très vaste échelle ont fabriqué par la suite, au regard des modèles coloniaux. Il nous a fallu nous casser bien la tête et nous voire pris au piège, une et mille fois, jusqu'à arriver à séparer les unes des autres. En tout cas, pour nous le concept est simple : amphore fabriqué dans l’atelier d’une communauté phénicienne punique égal à amphore phénicienne punique, étant tordues par la plupart d’autres variables.

Fig. 3. 1) D’après Vassallo 1999 ; 2) d’après González 2011.

14

J. RAMON TORRES

Fig. 4. 1) D’après Vassallo 1999 ; 2) d’après Sourisseau 2013 ; 3) d’après Bechtold 2015 ; 4) d’après Sourisseau 2013.

AMPHORES PHÉNICIENNES PUNIQUES

15

Fig. 5. 1) D’après Bechtold 2015 ; 2) d’après Vassallo 1999.

À ce propos-là j’ai encore à dire que cette espèce de guerre n’est pas encore complètement finie. Par exemple, j’attends impatient l’intervention ici de nos collègues d’Almeria concernant les amphores de Baria, pour voire tranché le débat à propos des groupes amphoriques, très caractéristiques, trouvés profusément à la nécropole de Villaricos ; ceux-ci, considérées puniques pour ma part, et classées par conséquent dans la typologie, d’autres collègues par la suite on contesté cette ethnicité à la faveur du monde ibérique et c’est pourquoi l’identification et la localisation des ateliers qui les ont produites devient une quête importante. Je profite, pour lancer encore une mise en garde, en fait déjà vieille, qui naturellement concerne ce thème : trop d’enthousiasme en Espagne, voire en Portugal, dans le sens de vouloir, à tout prix, être phéniciens puniques, comme si autrement il n’y avait que la honte : non ! l’histoire c’est l’histoire. Attention par conséquent à pas mal de qualificatifs, qui comportent trop de connotations, que l’on voit souvent dans ce territoire. Heureusement, si on met de côté quelques questions ponctuelles concernant la phénicité ou la tyrrénité (qu’on me passe l’expression) de certaines productions ovoïdes du début de l’époque archaïque, ce génère de problème ne touche vraiment que la Péninsule Ibérique.

J. RAMON TORRES

16

La classification : les rejets et les incorporations D’un côté, les études récents sont parvenus à écarter parmi les productions phéniciennes puniques quelques uns des types établis dans Ramon 1995, c’est le cas notamment de T–4.2.2.5, T–8.1.1.2 et, fort probablement, T–15.1.1.1. D’autre, le nouvel matériel a permis de mieux en saisir quelques uns dont leur définition reposait sur des bases matérielles plutôt faibles. C’est le cas de quelques productions de l’extrême occident appartenant à la première moitié du sixième siècle av. J.-C., grâce à des exemplaires complets de la nécropole d’Himère et du site de la Fonteta. De la ville sicilienne, voici une T–10.2.1.1 (Fig. 3 : 1),39 dont le lèvre est similaire à ceux de l’atelier du secteur 3/4 du Cerro del Villar et du site de Guardamar, faciès Fonteta V (Fig. 3 : 2),40 attribuée à des ateliers de Málaga, un modèle de ce type particulièrement allongé. Il en va de même concernant quelques productions de la Sicile occidentale ; par exemple, de l’habitat d’Himère,41 une T–4.2.2.1 (Fig. 5 : 2), trouvée dans l’horizon de destruction de 409 av. J.-C., devient un excellent point d’encrage temporel pour cette forme de Mozia, qui en même temps permet d’apprécier le considérable degré d’allongement des formes cylindriques avant la fin du cinquième siècle av. J.-C., ou encore un magnifique exemplaire probablement carthaginois T–1.4.2.1 (Fig. 4 : 4) de la tombe 238 de Rifriscolaro à Camarina,42 très allongé dans ce cas, qui agrandit lui aussi le dossier de types, dont le matériel disponible, avec les problèmes évoqués ci-avant, est d’habitude très fragmentaire. De surcroît, tel que prévu, parmi les publications récentes on aperçoive clairement de nouveaux types, bien que par général ses inventeurs, avec toute la bénévolence du monde envers Ramon 1995, ont essayé de les classer parmi ceux déjà connus. Aucun problème de ma part à leur donner, comme bien il le faut, de nouveaux numéros de type dont, sans entrer dans les détails, en voici le simple avancement de quelques uns : Dans la nécropole de Rifriscolaro, non moins de deux amphores, issues des t. 258 et t. 323, dont l’endroit de production (Carthage ou Sicile) reste a préciser, du point de vue morphologique, se trouvent à mi chemin entre le T–2.1.1.2 et le T–1.3.2.1,43 vont être classifiées T–2.1.1.3 (Fig. 4 : 2). Encore à Rifriscolaro, un autre nouvel type d’amphore ovoïde de la tombe 637,44 en provenance probablement maltaise ; on peut le baptiser T–2.1.1.4 (Fig. 1 : 4). À Himère, par exemple, l’amphore du contexte 8123 de la nécropole Ouest,45 bien que par son allure générale elle est très proche du type T–1.4.2.2 (probablement sarde), quelques différences conseillent d’établir un nouvel type, le T–1.4.2.3 (Fig. 5 : 1), fabriqué, à l’avis de Bechtold, à Solunto ou Panormos. D’autre part, l’amphore du contexte 1180 de la nécropole Est,46 par son diamètre anormalement centralisé, est en soi un type, qui va être classifié 39

 Cf.  Cf. 41  Cf. 42  Cf. 43  Cf. 44  Cf. 45  Cf. 46  Cf. 40

Vassallo 1999, fig. 16 : 58. González 2011, fig. 35 : 20175. Vassallo 1999, fig. 20 : 68. Sourisseau 2013, fig. 53. Sourisseau 2013, fig. 53, type 2a. Sourisseau 2013, fig. 51. Bechtold 2015, fig. 16 : 1. Bechtold 2015, fig. 24 : 5.

AMPHORES PHÉNICIENNES PUNIQUES

17

Fig. 6. 1) D’après Martínez 1999 ; 2) d’après Martínez 1999, modifié par Sáez 2016.

maintenant comme T–2.1.1.4 (Fig. 4 : 3), une production, encore à l’avis de Bechtold, de Mozia. Et finalement, comme déjà dit depuis longtemps,47 l’amphore RA35, présumée encore produite à Mozia, de la nécropole Est,48 avec sa légère carène et son profil un peu concave convexe dans le haut du corps, bien que proche du T–2.1.1.2, est encore un type différent : dorénavant T–2.2.1.5 (Fig. 4 : 1). En Sardaigne, le jour où l’important matériel subaquatique mis à jour les dernières années, sera complètement publié on aura nul doute plein de nouveautés de ce génère, mais pour l’instant on va se contenter de donner à l’amphore de Portoscuso,49 commentée ci avant et à coup presque sûr, le premier strictement phénicien fabriqué en Sardaigne, plus exactement à Sulky, le type T–3.1.1.3 (Fig. 1 : 2). Un autre type, à toute probabilité produit en Afrique, était en fait connu depuis longtemps dans les couches du deuxième siècle av. J.-C. et, pourtant, aucun exemplaire complet 47

 Cf. Ramon 2000, p. 284.  Cf. Vassallo 1999, fig. 16 : 59. 49  Cf. Bartoloni 2012, fig. 1 : b. 48

J. RAMON TORRES

18

n’était publié à cette époque là, ce qui empêchait de le ranger. Maintenant on dispose de quelques exemplaires avec son architecture intégrale dont, par exemple, un trouvée dans un ensemble fort intéressant à l’Alberca (Lorca, Murcia),50 dont la chronologie se place fort probablement au début du deuxième siècle av. J.-C., sinon un peu avant. On peut le considérer dérivée directement du T–7.7.1.1, mais il se n’écarte cependant par quelques détails morphologiques, parmi lesquels son fond plutôt pointu et, donc, le T–7.4.2.3 (Fig. 6 : 1) lui convient. Finalement, par rapport aux productions de l’extrême occident, sauf quelque peu de cas trop fragmentaires encore pour les classer, peu de nouveautés typologiques se sont produites. On peut citer toutefois un exemplaire, trouvé encore à l’Alberca51 qui, comme bien apprécié par A. M. Sáez,52 répond à un type non classé auparavant ; fabriqué nul doute au sud de l’Espagne dans la deuxième moitié du troisième siècle av. J.-C., voire le début du deuxième siècle av. J.-C., il est proche du T–8.2.1.1, mais il révèle des influences de la Méditerranée centrale, ce qui en fait lui confère une personnalité spécifique : on peu lui donner le T–8.2.1.2 (Fig. 6 : 2). À propos des contenus Voici toujours un problème d’autant plus grave qu’il vise précisément sur l’essence de cette économie dont les amphores y participent à l’échelle de conteneurs. Même si parfois on y trouve associés d’une façon plus ou moins nette d’évidences de leur contenu, on n’est jamais sûr qu’il ne s’agit pas d’une utilisation secondaire. Toutefois, on accepte pour l’instant que la grande production d’amphores du sud de l’Espagne doit d’être rattachée à une l’industrie des saumures de poissons, on accepte en même temps communis opinio que les amphores d’Ibiza étaient par l’essentiel des conteneurs de vin et cependant, dans un cas et l’autre, c’est impossible de nier pour l’instant d’usages différents. D’autre part, on a trouvé souvent, notamment dans les amphores de la Sardaigne, des conserves de viande, bovidés, ovicapridés, etc., sans que, comme déjà dit, on puisse affirmer si c’était leur contenu principale, voire l’habituel. En même temps, les analyses chimiques qu’on essaye de faire ci et là, donnent dans beaucoup d’occasions où elle est invisible l’œil nu, des évidences de poix, sans qu’on puisse affirmer à coup sûr s’il s’agit simplement d’une habitude générale par rapport à l'imperméabilisation commune des vases ou dans le but de recevoir des produits spécifiques. Dans d’autres, caractérisés par des couches bien visibles de goudron noir, à l’instar des amphores grecques et romaines, on accepte d’habitude le vin. C’est un consensus bien connu, à la quelle chose il ne reste qu’ajouter que ce traitement concerne, de plus en en plus dans notre connaissance, une majeure quantité de types puniques.

50

 Cf. Martínez 1999, fig. 10 : 60027.  Cf. Martínez 1999, fig. 10 : 60026. 52  Cf. Sáez 2016. 51

AMPHORES PHÉNICIENNES PUNIQUES

19

À propos des signes indicateurs Un autre aspect que je voudrais toucher maintenant, est celui des signes indicateurs qui apparaissent parfois sur les amphores puniques, plus exactement les estampilles. Dans ce terrain, tout en suivant les lectures qui, dans le cas de celles épigraphiques en faisaient les spécialistes, dans Ramon 1995 j’ai fait à mon tour un simple travail d’inventaire. J’ai essayé tout de même de rattacher, quand il était objectivement possible, des estampilles à des types précis d’amphores et par conséquent à des datations et des aires productrices. Passés le ans, je crains que les vieux problèmes à la base d’une compréhension globale de ce phénomène, restent toujours les mêmes. Compte tenu de la simplicité du geste, on se demande pourquoi les potiers puniques ont utilisées les matrices des estampilles d’une façon si occasionnelle. Ce fait en soi, qui empiriquement doit d’être considéré une réalité incontournable, limite apparemment la valeur, voir la signifiance, de l’estampillage des vases, bref : à quoi bon estampiller un pourcentage si dérisoire ? N’oublions pas qu’une amphore reste toujours un fait individuel, une unité en soi, indépendante par rapport aux autres, même si on les rassemble dans des cargaisons. Pourrait personne imaginer la frappe de mil pièces de monnaie (un terrain où le rôle des états reste indiscutable) dont seul deux ou trois avec l’avers et l’opposé imprimés avec les emblèmes et les légendes caractéristiques ? Non, bien sûr, alors il s’impose d’aborder la question sous une différente optique. Au problème antérieur, s’ajoutent d’autres interrogations qui dans ce cas rentrent plutôt dans le terrain de la signification. Observons, par exemple, que les emblèmes qui apparaissent dans les estampilles (rarement, tête de cheval / palmier ou des thons, fort probablement, issus du monnayage) sont connus dans différentes aires, tandis que d’autres (la plupart, enfin) sont revêtus d’une espèce de teinture religieuse, un terrain où se placent tous les motifs qui, en même temps, caractérisent les stèles des tophets, notamment de celui de Carthage (signe dit de Tanit, caducée, croissant lunaire – ce dernier, d’habitude, accompagné du disque solaire –, idoles bouteille, des vases, tels que des oenochoés, brûle-parfums, et des représentations végétales comme rosettes, palmettes et feuilles de lierre), à part de rares visages humains. Le problème ici est celui de voir la main de structures sacerdotales sur le plan économique et non des icônes habituels dans la vie quotidienne. Sans être en situation de répondre d’une façon tranchante, je plaiderai plutôt pour la seconde, et je n’oublie pas que, sauf le cas des motifs très spécifiques, comme le signe de Tanit, la plupart de ces représentations est d’autant plus habituelle sur les estampilles grecques, d’où nul doute procède la source d’inspiration. Pour ce qui concerne les estampilles épigraphiques, où d’habitude on n’y voit que des anthroponymes, le problème se pose spécialement dans deux volets : le premier, la lecture, car ils sont trop souvent abrégés, voire réduits parfois à une seule lettre, ce qui rend les signes ambivalents ; le second, et nul doute le principal, l’identification du rôle des personnages : potier-vendeur du vase, embouteilleur ou exportateur/commerçant. Ces estampilles, laconiques à la limite, ne fournissent aucun renseignement dans ce sens-là, bien que moi, je tiens plutôt à privilégier la deuxième des possibilités, sans écarter, bien sûr, la troisième. Bref, on connaissait déjà des estampilles sur les types, apparentés au groupe productif de Carthage et centres environnants, sur d’amphores T–4.2.1.2, T–4.2.1.5, T–4.2.1.8,

20

J. RAMON TORRES

Fig. 7. 1) D’après Morel 1999 ; 2) d’après Ben Tahar 2010 ; 3–4) d’après Pisanu 2010 ; 5) d’après Gaudina et al. 2000 ; 6) d’après Zamora 2005 ; 7–8) d’après Ramon et Amadasi 2009 ; 9–10) d’après Tremoleda et Santos 2013 ; 11) d’après Heras et Bustamante 2007.

T–4.2.2.6?, T–5.2.3.1, T–5.2.3.2, T–7.2.1.1, T–7.4.1.1, T–7.4.2.1, T–7.4.3.1, T–7.5.1.1, T–7.5.2.2 et T–7.7.1.1, tandis qu’en Sardaigne seul une, sur le type T–5.1.1.1. On savait en même temps que les T–2.2.1.2 avaient aussi parfois des estampilles et maintenant, compte tenu qu’on soutient la production de ce type amphorique dans des points différents de la Sicile, en plus de Malte, il faudra bien préciser à qui appartiennent ces estampilles. Plus à l’occident, à Ibiza on en connaissait ce temps-là uniquement sur d’amphores T–8.1.3.2 et, à Gadir, sur d’amphores T–7.4.3.3, T–8.2.1.1, T–9.1.1.1, T–12.1.1.1, T–12.1.1.2.

AMPHORES PHÉNICIENNES PUNIQUES

21

Concernant les nouveautés des derniers vingt ans, l’estampillage des T–3.2.1.2 s’est agrandi, par exemple, avec la publication de la collection Whitaker,53 et pourtant ici il faudra regarder en face le même problème : de Malte ou de la Sicile? Quoi qu’il en soit, on aperçoit un style très proche à celui de l’Afrique. En Sardaigne, quelques amphores de Santa Gilla54 ont agrandi un petit peu le panorama, avec une T–4.2.1.1, qui porte une palmette en relief, au bas de l’anse, une autre, T–4.1.1.3, le croissant avec le disque solaire, d’autres pièces, malheureusement fragmentaires (SG–4.1.1.0) avec des rosaces toujours placées dans la partie inférieure de l’anse. En plus, toujours dans le cadre de l’estampillage sarde, d’autres exemples, dont un déjà connu, le dauphin incisé, sont apparus, toujours à Tharros (Fig. 7 : 5), tandis qu’à Olbia, deux nouvelles estampilles sur d’amphores sardes (impossibles à classer, car trop fragmentaires) présentent des motifs nouveaux : une cratère (emblème toutefois déjà vu en Sardaigne) et une amphore (Fig. 7 : 3-4).55 À souligner que cette dernière dessine le profil d’une amphore grecque orientale (corinthienne A?), un surplus dans le cadre des emprunts au monde hellénique de la part de l’estampillage punique, un véritable « amphoras on amphoras », comme le dirait bien C. G. Koehler. Concernant les estampilles sur d’amphores africaines, bien sûr, plus de trouvailles ici et là, se sont produites, à peu d’exceptions – près répétant des modèles déjà vus, et en confirmant leur présence – par exemple, à Pantelleria – sur le T–7.2.1.1.56 À propos des exceptions, deux icônes nouveaux, d’un côté une estampille circulaire de Byrsa, publiée par J. P. Morel (Fig. 7 : 1),57 sur l’anse d’une amphore T–7.2.1.1 (probablement) qui, avec une définition considérable, malgré sa petite taille, reproduit le profil d’une amphore du même type. Le second, un éléphant, publiée par S. Ben Tahar (Fig. 7 : 2),58 en provenance du terrain Ben Abda, en proximité du four cité avant, et dont l’iconographie ramène au monnayage Barquide en Espagne, bien que les éléphants apparaissent eux aussi sur des stèles carthaginoises. En tout cas, il s’agit d’une amphore T–5.2.3.1, fabriquée nul doute dans un atelier de la côte tunisienne. En synthèse, je constate une vocation multiforme de la part de l’estampillage africain, dans le sens d’exhiber, parfois seul des symboles, parfois seul des motifs épigraphiques, mais de surcroît un remarquable répertoire de combinaisons parmi. Étant donné que d’autres collègues vont aborder dans ce congrès la question des estampilles formées par la répétition deux fois d’une même lettre, je considère opportunes deux remarques : la première, qu’elles apparaissent notamment sur les types T–4.2.1.5/T–4.2.1.8, T–5.2.3.1 et T–7.2.1.1? La seconde, dans les cas où on est parvenu à examiner des amphores complètes, qu’il arrive souvent que les deux anses – et pas une seule – ont la même estampille, ce qui d’autre part les rend encore moins nombreuses. Il s’ensuit alors que le phénomène des doubles lettres se place dans un délai temporaire précis, qui apparemment n’atteint pas le deuxième siècle av. J.-C. À l’état de nos connaissances, Ibiza a eu dans ce domaine une vocation toujours épigraphique (pas d’icônes seuls pour l’instant, mais combinés avec de l’épigraphie dans celles 53

 Cf. Toti 2003, pl. CVIII.  Cf. Solinas 1997, pp. 177–183. 55  Cf. Pisanu 2010, figs. 11–12. 56  Cf. Baldassari 2012, fig. 4. 57  Cf. Morel 1999, fig. 44. 58  Ben Tahar 2010, p. 43, fig. 7. 54

J. RAMON TORRES

22

tardives) ; par contre, Gadir et la Sardaigne ont renoncé, paraît-il, à l’épigraphie (bien entendu, dans le cas de la ville atlantique, seul avant le premier siècle av. J.-C.), de telle forme qu’on y trouve des symboles uniquement. Pourquoi ça? Voici un autre énigme difficile à éclaircir, pour l’instant. Revenant aux ateliers de Gadir, outre le répertoire jadis connu, d’autres exemples sont venus enrichir le corpus. D’un côté, l’augmentation du nombre d’items connus, de l’autre, la parution de nouveaux types ; ces derniers élargissent vers le haut, jusque probablement le tournant du quatrième-troisième siècles av. J.-C., la chronologie, et se rattachent, paraît-il, au modèle ancien du T-8.2.1.1. Outre d’emblèmes divers (têtes humaines, uraeus, etc.), des protomés de cheval sont proches de l’iconographie des monnaies du cercle de Carthage à tel point qu’on se demande jusqu’où il s’agit d’une simple question formelle. À Ibiza on a constaté la présence d’estampilles, toujours avec des anthroponymes puniques, sur les corps d’amphores T–1.3.2.3 (Fig. 7 : 6) et T–8.1.1.1 (Fig. 7 : 7-8).59 Et c’est pourquoi, avec un début avant la fin du cinquième siècle av. J.-C., l’estampillage dans des ateliers insulaires est à classer parmi les plus anciens du monde punique centro-occidentale. Finalement, en Sicile, les ateliers puniques n’ont mis d’estampilles que sur les amphores T–3.2.1.2. Et cependant, comme déjà dit, ces dernières, ensemble a celles T–2.2.1.2, ont été aussi fabriqués en Malte ; il serait donc important de savoir à qui appartiennent. À côté de ces progrès, à qualifier plutôt de discrets – et j’aborde maintenant le cas particulier des amphores avec des estampilles ΜΑΓΩΝ et ΑΡΙΣ (Fig. 7 : 9-10) – je me demande pourquoi on est venu compliquer des choses qu’au départ étaient simples. Bien qu’à toute évidence – car trouvées dans les couches de destruction de la ville – existantes avant la chute de Carthage, bien qu’en ayant repéré des cols du T–7.4.3.1 avec ces deux noms, bien qu’en sachant d’ailleurs que cette ville abritait la partie la plus significative de trouvailles de ce type, sous la recherche d’un seul « espace philologique possible », on a voulu éloigner plus de 600 km au Sudest, jusqu’à Leptis Magna et la Tripolitaine, leur aire de production.60 Et bien que de surcroît des vases inspirés à des formes hellénistiques, avec l’estampille Magon (fait qui se répète avec Aris), avaient préalablement été attribués à la pâte Carthage-Tunisie, tout ce tas d’évidences n’a pas pourtant empêché cette déportation. Maintenant, arrivé le jour où des fours à potier producteurs de ces formes hellénisantes ont été identifiés – hélas! dans le sens géographique contraire – à peu de kilomètres à l’Ouest de Carthage, on s’est tout à coup rendu compte qu’on avait parlé trop longuement, voire trop frivolement, d’amphores « Tripolitaines anciennes », en privilégiant une géographie, là où aucune preuve venait démontrer la fabrication de ces types, et en construisant un véritable mythe autour de l’huile tripolitain. Je crains encore le mot « Africaine ancienne », qui dans le bout de rectifier cette gaucherie, on essaye maintenant d’introduire, toutefois dans le cadre d’une mentalité prisonnière encore d’embûches, et dans ce cas celle de considérer romaines des amphores, qu’à mon avis, sont bien et bel puniques. Est-ce que personne trouverait normal, bien entré deuxième siècle av. J.-C., juste quand les productions puniques couvraient sa dernière étape, les qualifier d’«anciennes» ? 59

 Cf. Zamora 2005 ; Ramon et Amadasi 2009.  Cf. Aranegui 2002 ; Tremoleda et Santos 2013, pp. 79–80, fig. 13.

60

AMPHORES PHÉNICIENNES PUNIQUES

23

En plus, ces amphores, dont la production s’est prolongée jusqu’à la plupart du premier siècle av. J.-C., bien que rarement, portent d’autres types d’estampilles ; je profite l’opportunité pour attirer l'attention sur une de ces amphores, une avec le signe de Tanit, récemment publié en Espagne.61 Le signe, en cartel rond, est entouré de points (Fig. 7 : 11), comme il arrive dans d’autres cas sur d’amphores T–7.5.2.1.62 Une autre estampille avec le même thème, trouvée à Carthage, fut publiée par M. Vegas.63 L’essor de l’archéométrie Voilà un monde très spécialisé, dans lequel, comme fort probablement la plupart de vous, je ne suis qu’un profane. Il y a 25 ans, on avait affaire d’une discipline qui faisait ses premiers pas dans le monde de la céramologie ou, tout de même, dans le monde spécialisé qui nous concerne ici. Maintenant, il est difficile de voire un seul étude sans son complément archéométrique, qui souvent en devient spécifiquement le thème central. En fait, on observe une évolution pareille à celle qu’ont subi les examens médicales, terrain dans lequel, sans un nombre suffisant, parfois élevé, d’analyses, aucun professionnel risque aujourd’hui la moindre diagnose. Voilà donc le cadre clinique qui nous entoure, plein d’expectatives, certes, mais qui ne doit pas nous faire oublier le sens historique de l’archéologie. Parfois je regrette seul qu’on se trouve encore souvent dans des espaces trop compartimentés, là où un résultat devient difficile à comparer avec un autre, ou que la compatibilité présumée de tel échantillon avec un territoire déterminé suffise à fermer le dossier, sans explorer d’alternatives différentes, parfois même plus logiques. Toutefois, grâce à ce véritable essor archéométrique, nul doute la principale contribution des dernières décennies à l’étude des amphores phéniciennes puniques, ensemble à l’application généralisée d’analyses quantitatives aux études des complexes vasculaires, notre connaissance est bien plus riche, bien plus exacte, même si d’innombrables questions attendent encore une réponse.

BIBLIOGRAPHIE ARANEGUI, C. 2002 “Las ánforas con la marca MAGWN,” dans Vivre, produire et échanger : Reflets méditerranéens, Mélanges offerts à Bernard Liou (Archéologie et Histoire Romaine 8), édité par L. Rivet et M. Sciallano, pp. 409–415. Montagnac : Éditions Monique Mergoil. ARANEGUI, C., ALAOUI, K. et FERRANDIS, J. 2004 “Alfares y producciones cerámicas en Mauritania Occidental. Balance y perspectivas,” dans Talleres Alfareros y producciones cerámicas en la Bética romana (ss. II a.C.–VII d.C.). Actas del Congreso Internacional Figlinae Baeticae 2003, Cadiz (British Archaeological Reports International Series 1266), édité par by L. Lagóstena Barios et D. Bernal Casasola, pp. 363–378. Oxford : Archaeopress.

61

 Cf. Heras et Bustamante 2007, figs. 3–4.  Cf. Baldassari 2006, fig. 13. 63  Cf. Vegas 1999, fig. 121 : 5. 62

24

J. RAMON TORRES

BALDASSARI, R. 2012 “L’esplorazione subacquea a Cala Tramontana e Cala Levante. I materiali rinvenuti nelle indagini subacquee. Le anfore da trasporto e la ceramica,” dans Archeologia subaquea a Pantelleria «...de cossurensibus et poenis navalem egit...», édité par L. Abelli, pp. 191–211. Bologna : Ante Quem. BALDASSARI, R. et FONTANA, S. 2006 “Le anfore a Pantelleria tra l’età punica e la prima età romana,” dans Pantelleria Punica. Saggi critici sui dati archeologici e riflessioni storiche per una nuova generazione di ricerca, édité par E. Acquaro et B. Cerasetti, pp. 41–62. Bologna : Ante Quem. BARTOLONI, P. 2012 “Un’anfora commerciale fenicia dal tofet di Sulky e il rituale funebre fenicio e punico,” dans EPI OINOPA PONTON. Studi sul Mediterraneo antico in ricordo di Giovanni Tore, pp. 397–404. Oristano : S’Alvure. 2014 “Ceramica fenicia in Sardegna : la collezione Biggio,” Sardinia, Corsica et Baleares Antiqvae. An International Journal of Archaeology XII : 9–59. BECHTOLD, B. 2007 “Transportamphoren des 5.–2. Jhs.,” dans Karthago. Die Ergebnisse der hamburger Grabung unter dem Decumanus Maximus, édité par H. G. Niemeyer, R. F. Docter et K. Schmidt, pp. 662–698. Mainz am Rhein : Philipp von Zabern. 2008 Observations on the Amphora Repertoire of Middle Punic Carthage (Carthage Studies 2). Ghent : Ghent University. 2010 “The pottery repertoire from late 6th–mid 2nd century BC Carthage. Observations based on the Bir Messaouda excavations,” Carthage Studies 4 : 1–82. 2013 “Distribution patterns of western Greek and Punic Sardinian amphorae in the Carthaginian sphere of influence (6th–3rd century BCE),” Carthage Studies 7 : 43– 119. 2015 Le produzioni di anfore puniche della Sicilia occidentale (VII–III/II sec. a.C.) (con i contributi di Giuseppe Montana, Luciana Randazzo e Karin Schmidt) (Carthage Studies 9). Ghent : Ghent University. BECHTOLD, B. et DOCTER, R. F. 2010 “Transport amphorae from Punic Carthage : An overview,” dans Motya and the Phoenician Ceramic Repertoire between the Levant and the West, 9th–6th Century BC. Proceedings of the International Conference held in Rome, 26th February 2010 (Quaderni di Archeologia Fenicio-Punica 5), édité par L. Nigro, pp. 85–116. Roma : Missione Archeologica a Mozia. BEN JERBANIA, I. 2013 “Observations sur les amphores de tradition punique d’après une nouvelle découverte près de Tunis,” Antiquités Africaines 49 : 179–197. BEN JERBANIA, I. et REDISSI, T. 2014 “Utique et la Méditerranée centrale à la fin du IXe s. et au VIIIe s. av. J.-C. : les enseignements de la céramique grecque géométrique,” Rivista di Studi Fenici XLII/2 : 177– 204. BEN TAHAR, S. 2010 “Découverte fortuite de nouveaux vestiges à Nabeul : terrain Ben Abda,” dans Actes du 1er Séminaire de l’Unité de Recherche 06 INP 03 : Histoire et Patrimoine du littoral tunisien (Nabeul, 2008), pp. 41–64. Tunis : Ministère de la culture et de la sauvegarde du patrimoine. BOTTO, M., DERIU, A., NEGRI, D., ODDONE, M., SEGNAN, R. et TROJSI, G. 2005 “Caratterizzazione di anfore fenicie e puniche mediante analisi archeometriche,” Mediterranea 2 : 57–106. BROAD, W. J. 1998 “Deep-Sea clues to an ancient culture discovered,” The New York Times : 12 October. DE ROSA, B. 2014 “Anfore Sant’Imbenia dal sito nuragico di Sant’Imbenia (Alghero, Sardegna) : studi archeometrici,” dans Materiali e contesti nell’età del Ferro sarda (Rivista di Studi Fenici

AMPHORES PHÉNICIENNES PUNIQUES

25

XLI), édité par P. van Dommelen et A. Roppa, pp. 225–236. Pisa-Roma : Fabrizio Serra. DEL VAIS, C. et SANNA, I. 2009 “Ricerche su contesti sommersi di età fenicio e punica nella laguna di Santa Giusta (OR). Campagne 2005–2007,” Studi Sardi 34 : 123–142. 2012 “Nuove ricerche subacquee nella laguna di Santa Giusta (OR) (campagna del 2009– 2010),” ArcheoArte. Rivista elettronica di Archeologia e Arte, Supplemento al numero 1 : 201–233. DELGADO, A. 2011 “La producción de cerámica fenicia en el extremo Occidente : hornos de alfar, talleres e industrias domésticas en los enclaves coloniales de la Andalucía mediterránea (siglos VIII–VI a.C.),” dans Yoserim : la producción alfarera fenicio-púnica en Occidente (Treballs del Museu Arqueològic d’Eivissa i Formentera 66), édité par B. Costa et J. Hernández, pp. 9–48. Eivissa : Govern de les Illes Balears. DOCTER, R. F. 1997 Archaische Amphoren aus Karthago und Toscanos. Fundspektrum und Formentwicklung. Ein Beitrag zur phönizischen Wirtschaftsgeschichte. Amsterdam : Proefschrift Universiteit van Amsterdam. 2007 “I. Transportamphoren. 1. Archaische Transportamphoren,” dans Die Ergebnisse der hamburger Grabung unter dem Decumanus Maximus, édité par H. G. Niemeyer, R. F. Docter et K. Schmidt, pp. 616–662. Mainz am Rhein : Philipp von Zabern. FINOCCHI, S. 2009 “Le anfore fenicie e puniche,” dans Nora. Il Foro Romano. Storia di un’area urbana dall’età fenicia alla tarda antichità. 1997–2006, édité par J. Bonetto, G. Falezza et A. R. Ghiotto, pp. 373–467. Padova : Università degli studi di Padova. FOURMONT, M. 1992 “Les ateliers de Sélinonte (Sicilie),” dans Les ateliers de Pottiers dans le monde grecque aux époques géometrique, archaïque et classique (Athène, 1987) (Bulletin de Correspondance Hellénique supplément XXIII), édite par F. Blondé et J. Y. Perreault, pp. 57–68. Athènes : École française d’Athènes. GASSNER, V., TRAPICHLER, M. et BECHTOLD, B. (eds.) 2015 FACEM : Provenance Studies on Pottery in the Southern Central Mediterranean from the 6th to the 2nd c. B.C. (version 4 of 6/6/2015) http://facem.at/ (1 Feburary 2021). GAUDINA, E., MATAZZI, P., PISANU, G. et VIGHI, S. 2000 “Prospezione archeologica a Capo San Marco 1998,” Quaderni della Soprintendenza archeologica per le provincie di Cagliari e Oristano 17 : 123–140. GONZÁLEZ, A. 2011 “Las ánforas (Tipos 1 a 6),” dans A. González, “La Fonteta. Excavaciones de 1996– 2002 en la colonia fenicia de la actual desembocadura del río Segura (Guardamar del Segura, Alicante),” dans Seminarios Internacionales sobre temas fenicios, Vol. I, édité par A. González Prats, pp. 291–374. Alicante : Instituto Alicantino de Cultura Juan Gil-Albert. GÖRANSSON, K. 2007 The Transport Amphorae from Euesperides : The Maritime Trade of a Cyrenaican City 400–250 BC (Acta Archaeologica Lundensia Series 25). Stockholm : Almquist and Wiksell International. HERAS, F. J. et BUSTAMANTE, M. 2007 “Contribución al estudio de las ánforas tardorrepublicanas del enclave militar de “El Santo” de Valdetorres (Badajoz, España),” Vipasca, Arqueologia e História 2/2ª Série : 318–324. MADRIGALI, E. et ZARA, A. Sous presse  “Anfore fenicie e puniche con contenuti alimentari dai rinvenimenti di Michel Cassien a Nora,” poster presenté au 8th Congresso Internazionale di Studi Fenici e Punici, Carbonia-Sant’Antioco, October 2013 https://unipd.academia.edu/ArturoZara (5 March 2020).

26

J. RAMON TORRES

MARAOUI, B. et BOUHLEL, S. 2011 “Petrographic and mineralogy characterisation of local punic plain ware from Carthage and Utica,” dans Ceramics of the Phoenician-Punic World : Collected Essays (Ancient Near Eastern Studies Supplement 36), édité par C. Sagona, pp. 327–347. Leuven-ParisWalpole, MA. : Peeters. MARTÍN, E., RAMÍREZ, J. DE D. et RECIO, A. 2006 “Producción alfarera fenicio-púnica en la costa de Vélez-Málaga (siglos VIII–V a.C.),” Mainake 28 : 257–287. MARTÍN, E., RECIO, Á., RAMÍREZ, J. DE D. et MACÍAS, M. 2007 “Enterramiento fenicio en Las Chorreras (Vélez-Málaga. Málaga),” Mainake XXIX : 557–581. MARTÍNEZ, M. 1999 “Excavación arqueológica en la zona de La Alberca (Lorca, Murcia). Un horno alfarero de los siglos VII–VI a.C. y un centro comercial y militar de época tardopúnica y romana,” Memorias de arqueología 14 : 213–260. MOREL, J.-P. 1999 Vie et mort dans la Carthage punique d’après les fouilles de Byrsa (VIIe-IIe siècles av. J.C.). Tunis : Le Musée de Carthage et l’Institut français de coopération. OLIVERI, F. 2017 “I reperti punici del sito della Battaglia delle Egadi,” dans VIII Congresso Internazionale di Studi Fenici e Punici (Carbonia–Sulcis ottobre 2013) (Folia Phoenicia 1), édité par M. Guirguis, pp. 85–90. Pisa-Roma : Fabrizio Serra. PISANU, G. 2010 “Olbia punica e il mondo tirrenico,” Bollettino di Archeologia Online 1/Volume Speciale : 26–35. RAMON, J. 1995 Las ánforas fenicio-púnicas del Mediterráneo Central y Occidental (Col·lecció Instrumenta 2). Barcelona : Universitat de Barcelona. 2000 “Ánforas fenicias en el Mediterráneo Central : nuevos datos, nuevas perspectivas,” dans La ceramica Fenicia di Sardegna : Dati, Problematiche, Confronti, Atti del Primo Congresso Archeologico Sulcitano (S. Antioco, 19–21 settembre 1997) (Collezione de Studi Fenici 40), édité par P. Bartoloni et L. Campanella, pp. 277–292. Roma : Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche. 2006 “La proyección comercial mediterránea de los centros fenicios malagueños en época arcaica,” Mainake XXVIII : 189–212. 2017 “Amphorae,” dans F. González de Canales, L. Serrano Pichardo, J. Llompart Gómez, M. Garcia Fernández, J. Ramon Torres, A. J. Domínguez Monedero et A. Montaño Justo, “Archaeological finds in the deepest anthropogenic stratum at 3 Concepcion Street in the city of Huelva, Spain,” Ancient West & East 16 : 33–35. RAMON, J. et AMADASI, M. G. 2009 “Dos sellos sobre ánforas púnico-ebusitanas,” dans Ses Païsses (Artà, Mallorca). Excavaciones en el edificio 25 (“Climent Garau”). Campañas 2004, 2005, 2006 (Arqueobalear. El portal dela arqueologia Balear), édité par J. Aramburu-Zabala, pp. 728–736. Palma : Arqueobalear. RAMON, J., SÁEZ, A., SÁEZ A. M. et MUÑOZ, A. 2007 El taller alfarero tardoarcaico de Camposoto (Monografías de Arqueología 26). Sevilla : Junta de Andalucía. SÁEZ, A. M. 2008 La producción cerámica en Gadir en época tardopúnica (siglos –III/–I) (British Archaeological Reports International Series 1812). Oxford : Archaeopress. 2014 “Estudio de las ánforas de un pecio púnico inédito de la costa de Málaga,” dans I Congreso de Arqueología Náutica y Subacuática Española, édité par X. Nieto, A. Ramírez et P. Recio, pp. 36–50. Cádiz : Universidad de Cádiz.

AMPHORES PHÉNICIENNES PUNIQUES

27

“Ramon T–8211 (Costa Bética Ulterior),” dans Amphorae ex Hispania. Paisajes de producción y de consumo http://amphorae.icac.cat/amphora/ramon-t-8211-baeticaulterior-coast (20 July 2021). SCHMIDT, K. et BECHTOLD, B. 2013 “Fabrics of Malta,” dans Facem FACEM (version 6/12/2013) http://facem.at/img/ pdf/2013_12_06_schmidt_bechtold.pdf (1 February 2021). SOLINAS, E. 1997 “La laguna di Santa Gilla : testimonianze di età punica,” Phoinikes B Shrdn. I fenici in Sardegna. Nuove adquisicione, édite par P. Bernardini, R. D’Oriano et P. G. Spanu, pp. 177–181. Cagliari : Memoria storica. SOURISSEAU, J.-C. 2013 “Les amphores phénico-puniques de la nécropole de Rifriscolaro à Camarine (fouilles P. Pelagatti, 1969–1979, tombes 1–1800). Caractérisation et aspects de la circulation des produits puniques en Sicile orientale au VIe av. J.-C.,” dans Camarina. Ricerche in corso (Roma, 2013), édité par M. Bonanno Aravantinos et M. Pisani, pp. 109–149. Roma : Tored. 2015 “Xlendi, Réflexions sur la cargaison de l’épave Programme ANR,” dans Contenus numériques et interactions 2013, Version 1.1. TORRES, M., LÓPEZ, E., GENER, J. Mª, NAVARRO, M. Á., PAJUELO, J. M., MAYA, R. et JURADO, G. 2014 “El material cerámico de los contextos fenicios del “Teatro Cómico” de Cádiz : un análisis preliminar,” dans Los Fenicios en La Bahía de cádiz. Nuevas investigaciones, édité par M. Botto, pp. 51–82. Pisa-Roma : Fabrizio Serra. TOTI, M. P. 2002 “Anfore fenicie e puniche,” dans Mozia. Gli scavi nella “Zona A dell’abitato”, édité par M. L. Famà, pp. 275–304. Bari : Edipuglia. 2003 “Anfore fenicie e puniche della Collezione Whitaker (Museo G. Whitaker, isola di Mozia),” dans Quarte Giornate Internazionali di Studi sull’Area Elima (Erice 2000), édité par A. Corretti, pp. 1203–1214. Pisa : Scuola normale superiore di Pisa. TREMOLEDA, J. et SANTOS, M. 2013 “El comercio oriental en época helenística : los sellos anfóricos. El oriente griego en la península ibérica,” dans El Oriente griego en la península ibérica. Epigrafía e historia (Bibliotheca Archaeologica Hispana 39), édité par M. P. de Hoz et G. Mora, pp. 61–110. Madrid : Real Academia de la Historia. VASALLO, S. 1999 “Himera, necropoli di Pestavecchia. Un primo bilancio sulle anfore da trasporto,” Kokalos 45 : 329–379. VEGAS, M. 1990 “Archaische Töpferöfen in Karthago,” Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts Römische Abteilung 97 : 33–56. 1999 “Phöniko-punische Keramik aus Karthago,” dans Die deutschen Ausgrabungen in Karthago (Karthago III), édité par F. Rakob, pp. 93–219. Mainz am Rhein : Philipp von Zabern. ZAMORA, J. A. 2005 “Un bollo punico da Puig de La Nau de Benicarló (Castellón) e la questione della stampigliatura anforica nell’occidente mediterraneo,” Estudi epigrafici e liguistici sul Vicino Oriente antico 22 : 53–71. 2016

Joan RAMON TORRES Prehistory, Ancient History and Archaeology University of Barcelona Spain

ANOTHER KIND OF SALTING: THE SALT-CURED MEAT IN PHOENICIAN AMPHORAE Carmen Ana PARDO BARRIONUEVO ABSTRACT Salted meat was one of the most important commodities traded in the Phoenician period, at least, from the seventh century BCE onwards. We can study this type of economic activity through three key points of evidence: the direct preservation of the contents of the amphorae, the chemical analysis of organic residues on the inner surfaces of these containers and, indirectly, through the absence of specific anatomic components in the faunal studies. We have also tried to relate the production centers of these amphorae with the centres of consumption from the archaeological record of each amphora type. In relation to the production of these preserves, we can see how the Phoenician settlements of Sardinia may have been the main exporters of salt-cured meat. In the rare cases where we find the complete contents of the amphora, we are able to analyse the constituents of the preservatives. Thus, in some cases, the meat was preserved in oil, wine or vinegar and, sometimes, seasoned with nuts such as pine nuts or hazelnuts. Additionally, in cases where charcoal remains have been preserved, we could deduce a smoking process of the meat prior to its packaging.

INTRODUCTION In any society, prolonging the life of food is an essential concern. Thus, food preservation was essential for human subsistence since it provided some assurance in case of famine or productive scarcity. That is why, once obtained, the food in its natural state should be treated before consumption, either through cooking, or through conservation using dehydration techniques or anaerobic ones with oil, honey, wine or vinegar. Conservation was carried out in different ways, such as smoking or meat dehydration, which, in most cases, is impossible to discern. However, in some instances, the preservation of the contents in the pottery containers, or the analysis of their residues, may inform us about the original content and, sometimes, about the sort of preparations carried out. Besides the need for later consumption, it is also possible to explore the economic aspects of the Phoenician society in relation to the study of preserved food contained in the amphorae and their distribution throughout the Mediterranean during the first millennium BCE. At this point we should note that historiography has traditionally focused on the distribution of salt-fish, even if this was not the only type of food preserves that were produced and exported (Fig. 1). The trade of brine or pickled meat should have been one of the main foodstuffs traded. In this contribution, we begin the evolution of the Phoenician amphora trade and its relationship with the contents, then we will analyse the direct and indirect data of preserved meat preparations. To conclude, we will discuss trade distribution patterns from the location of these containers.

C. A. PARDO BARRIONUEVO

30 I. GENERAL EVOLUTION Amphora

OF THE

Chronology

PHOENICIAN AMPHORA TRADE Content

Place

References

Santa Giusta Lagoon (Oristano, Italy)

Del Vais and Sanna 2009, pp. 132–133 and 137.

Bartoloni B–30

6 c. BCE

Remains of young or juvenile sheep/goat, adult bovine, birds and fish

Bartoloni D

End of the 4th c. – beginning of the 3rd c. BCE

Fish remains

Olbia (Sardinia, Italy)

Cavaliere 2000, pp. 67–68.

PE–24

2nd c. BCE

Vine seeds

Illa dels Conills (Cabrera, Spain)

Pons 2005, pp. 759, 762 and 776.

Punic Ibiza Amphora

Unknown

Fish remains

Alorda Park, Calafell (Spain)

Juan Tresserras and Matamala 2004, p. 284.

Pellicer B/C

Content analysis: Palmitic acid and End of the 6th c. – beginning of the Myristic acid, perhaps some sheep, goat or 5th c. BCE cow milk derivate

Marchena (Sevilla, Spain)

García Fernández et al. 2016, pp. 67 and 79.

Pellicer B/C

First half of the 5th c. BCE

Content analysis: Palmitic acid and Myristic acid, perhaps some sheep, goat or cow milk derivate

Marchena (Sevilla, Spain)

García Fernández et al. 2016, pp. 67 and 79.

Pellicer B/C

5th c. BCE

Content analysis: high quantity of Palmitic acid and some Myristic acid linked with animal fats, probably rumiants

Marchena (Sevilla, Spain)

García Fernández et al. 2016, pp. 67 and 79.

T–1.2.1.1

First half of the 6th c. BCE

Lamb remains, sheep/ goat, vine seeds and charchoal

Coltelazzo A’s Shipwreck (Nora, Italy)

Parker 1992, pp. 151–152.

T–1.2.1.2

First two thirds of the 6th c. BCE

Remains of young or juvenile sheep/goat, adult bovine, birds and fish

Santa Giusta Lagoon (Oristano, Italy)

Del Vais and Sanna 2009, pp. 132–133 and 137.

T–1.3.2.3

First half of the 5th c. BCE

Resin/tar

Na Guardis (Mallorca, Spain)

Juan Tresserras and Matamala 2004, p. 285.

T–1.3.2.3

Second half of the 5th c. BCE

Resin/tar

Es Palmer (Ibiza, Spain)

Ramon 1995, p. 264; Ramon 1991, p. 36 and 134.

T–1.4.2.1

6th c. – beginning of the 5th c. BCE

Lamb remains, sheep/goat, vine seeds and charchoal

Coltelazzo A’s Shipwreck (Italy)

Parker 1992, pp. 151–152.

T–1.4.2.1

6th c. – beginning of the 5th c. BCE

Resin/tar

Nora (Sardinia, Italy)

Cavalieri 2000, pp. 47–48 and 50–53.

th

ANOTHER KIND OF SALTING

31

Amphora

Chronology

Content

Place

References

T–1.4.2.1

6th c. – beginning of the 5th c. BCE

Remains of young or juvenile sheep/goat, adult bovine, birds and fish

Santa Giusta Lagoon (Oristano, Italy)

Ramon 1995, p. 264; Del Vais and Sanna 2009, pp. 132–133 and 137.

T–1.4.2.1

6th c. – beginning of the 5th c. BCE

Content analysis: beeswax, pine resin and animal fat or vegetable oil

Monte Sirai (Sulcis, Italy)

Bordignon et al. 2005, pp. 192–193, 195–196, 203 and 208.

T–1.4.4.1

5th c. BCE

Meat preserved in wine

Scoglio del Coltellazzo (Nora, Italy)

Ramon 1995, pp. 264.

T–1.4.4.1

5th c. BCE

Resin/tar

Nora (Sardinia, Italy)

Cavalieri 2000, pp. 47–48 and 50–53.

T–1.4.4.1

5th c. BCE

Remains of sheep/goat and bovine, related to pine nuts and hazelnuts with olive oil and the amphora interior was covered with resin/tar

Santa Giusta Lagoon (Oristano, Italy)

Solinas 1997, pp. 177 and 179.

T–2.1.1.2

End of the 7th c. – last third of the 6th c. BCE

Sheep/goat

Torre la Sal, Castellón (Spain)

Wagner 1978, pp. 323 and 330; Guerrero and Roldán Bernal 1992, p. 38; Ramon 1995, pp. 47 and 264.

T–2.1.1.2

End of the 7th c. – last third of the 6th c. BCE

Remains of lamb, sheep/goat, vine seeds and charcoal

Coltelazzo A’s Shipwreck (Nora, Italy)

Parker 1992, pp. 151–152.

T–2.1.1.2

End of the 7th c. – last third of the 6th c. BCE

Content analysis: beeswax, olive oil and vegetable resin related to preserved meat

Nora (Sardinia, Italy)

Bordignon et al. 2005, pp. 192–193, 195–196, 198–200, 204–206, 208 and 215.

T–3.1.1.1

Content analysis: Second half of the beeswax, olive oil and th th 8 c. – 7 c. BCE pine resin

Sulcis (Sardinia, Italy)

Bordignon et al. 2005, pp. 192–193, 195–196, 202–203 and 208.

Santa Giusta Lagoon (Oristano, Italy)

Ramon 1995, p. 264.

Santa Giusta Lagoon (Oristano, Italy)

Solinas 1997, pp. 177 and 179.

T–4.1.1.3

T–4.1.1.4

Second half of the 5th c. – beginning of the 4th c. BCE

Faunal remains

Remains of sheep/goat and bovine, related to pine nuts and Last third of the hazelnuts with olive th 5 c. – first half of oil, the inside of the 4th c. BCE amphora is almost always covered with resin/tar

C. A. PARDO BARRIONUEVO

32 Amphora

T–4.1.1.4

Chronology

Content

Place

Content analysis: pine Last third of the resin, vegetable oil, oil Nora’s Hinterland and beeswax that 5th c. – first half of (Sardinia, Italy) could be related to 4th c. BCE preserved meat

References Bordignon et al. 2005, pp. 192–193, 195–196, 198–200, 205–206, 208 and 215.

T–4.2.1.2

1st c. BCE

Resin/tar

Binisafúller’s Shipwreck (Menorca, Spain)

Ramon 1995, p. 264.

T–4.2.1.7

End of the 5th c. – beginning of the 4th c. BCE

Burned fat

Motya (Sicily, Italy)

Toti 2002, p. 277.

T–4.2.1.8

4th c. BCE

Sheep/goat, suids and bovine

Olbia’s Harbour (Sardinia, Italy)

Dell’Amico 1986, p. 131.

Fish remains (Mugil End of the 5th c. – auratus, Centracanthus cirrus and Maena beginning of the smaris) and coated 4th c. BCE interior (reused?)

Olbia (Sardinia, Italy)

Delusso and Wilkens 2000, p. 65; Cavaliere 2000, pp. 67–68 and 70–71.

T–4.2.1.10

T–4.2.2.4 T–5.2.1.2 T–5.2.2.2 T–9.2.1.1

2nd – 1st c. BCE

Pig

Olbia (Sardinia, Italy)

Ramón 1995, p. 264.

Last third of the 3rd c. BCE

Content analysis: high quantity of Palmitic acid and some Myristic acid linked with animal fats, probably rumiants

Marchena (Sevilla, Spain)

García Fernández et al. 2016, pp. 67 and 79.

T–4.2.2.5?

Last third of the 3rd c. BCE

Content analysis: high quantity of Palmitic acid and some Myristic acid linked with animal fats, probably rumiants

Marchena (Sevilla, Spain)

García Fernández et al. 2016, pp. 67 and 79.

T–5.2.1.1

3rd c. – 2nd c. BCE

Content analysis: beeswax, cedar resin and perhaps animal fats

Monte Sirai (Sulcis, Italy)

Bordignon et al. 2005, pp. 192–193, 195–196, 203–204 and 208.

T–5.2.1.3

3rd c. – 2nd c. BCE

Content analysis: beeswax, cedar resin and perhaps animal fats

Monte Sirai (Sulcis, Italy)

Bordignon et al. 2005, pp. 192–193, 195–196, 203–204 and 208.

T–5.2.1.3

3rd c. – 2nd c. BCE

Resin/tar

Binisafúller’s Shipwreck (Menorca, Spain)

Guerrero et al. 1991, pp. 10–11 and 16; Ramon 1991, p. 134.

T–5.2.3.1

End of the 3rd c. – beginning of the 2nd c. BCE

Resin/tar

Tonnara-Triscina (Sicily, Italy)

Ramón 1995, p. 264.

T–4.2.2.5

ANOTHER KIND OF SALTING

Amphora

Chronology

33

Content

Place

References

rd

T–5.2.3.1

End of the 3 c. – beginning of the 2nd c. BCE

Lime (reused?)

Cádiz (Spain)

Niveau de Villedary y Mariñas 2009, p. 180.

T–5.2.3.1

End of the 3rd c. – beginning of the 2nd c. BCE

Remains of very fragmented molluscs (reused?)

Cádiz (Spain)

Niveau de Villedary y Mariñas 2009, p. 180.

T–5.2.3.1

End of the 3rd c. – beginning of the 2nd c. BCE

Remains of molluscs (reused?)

Cádiz (Spain)

Niveau de Villedary y Mariñas 2009, p. 180.

T–5.2.3.1

End of the 3rd c. – beginning of the 2nd c. BCE

Remains of molluscs and fish (reused?)

Cádiz (Spain)

Niveau de Villedary y Mariñas 2009, p. 180.

T–5/T–4

Mid of the 3rd c. BCE

Resin/tar

Marsala’s Shipwreck (Sicily, Italy)

Bones 1981, p. 61.

T–7

Unknown

Content analysis: wine sweetened with honey

Alorda Park (Calafell, Spain)

Juan Tresserras and Matamala 2004, p. 285.

T–7.2.1.1

End of the 3rd c. – beginning of the 2nd c. BCE

Resin/tar

Na Guardis (Mallorca, Spain)

Guerrero and Roldán Bernal 1992, pp. 46–47.

T–7.2.1.1

End of the 3rd c. – beginning of the 2nd c. BCE

Resin/tar

Cala Gadir (Pantelleria, Italy)

Baldassari and Fontana 2000, pp. 959 and 961; 2006, pp. 45 and 50.

T–7.3.1.1

End of the 3rd c. – first half of the 2nd c. BCE

Resin/tar

Cala Gadir (Pantelleria, Italy)

Baldassari and Fontana 2000, pp. 959 and 961; 2006, pp. 46 and 50; Chioffi and Tusa 2006, pp. 106–107.

T–7.3.1.1

3nd c. – 1st c. BCE

Probably lime

Cabo Boeo (Sicily, Italy)

Falsone and Bound 1986, pp. 169 and 172.

T–7.3.1.1

End of the 3rd c. – first half of the 2nd c. BCE

Resin/tar

Cala Gadir (Pantelleria, Italy)

Chioffi and Tusa 2006, p. 106.

T–7.3.1.1

End of the 3rd c. – first half of the 2nd c. BCE

Resin/tar

Cala Gadir (Pantelleria, Italy)

Chioffi and Tusa 2006, p. 107.

T–7.4.1.1

First half of the 2nd c. BCE

Resin/tar

Cala Gadir (Pantelleria, Italy)

Baldassari and Fontana 2000, pp. 959 and 961; 2006, pp. 46 and 50.

T–7.4.2.1

First half of the 2nd c. BCE

Resin/tar

Cala Gadir (Pantelleria, Italy)

Baldassari and Fontana 2000, pp. 959 and 961; 2006, pp. 46 and 50.

T–7.4.2.1

First half of the 2nd c. BCE

Hazelnuts and nuts

Cabo Boeo (Marsala, Italy)

Falsone and Bound 1986, pp. 169 and 172.

T–7.4.2.1

First half of the 2nd c. BCE

Resin/tar

Olbia’s Harbour (Sardinia, Italy)

Dell’Amico 1986, p. 131, n. 69.

C. A. PARDO BARRIONUEVO

34 Amphora

Chronology

Content

Place

References

T–7.4.3.1

First half of the 2nd c. BCE

Resin/tar

Na Guardis y Riells – La Clota (Mallorca, Spain)

Ramón 1995, p. 265.

T–7.4.3.1

First half of the 2nd c. BCE

Resin/tar

Cales Coves (Menorca, Spain)

Guerrero 1984, p. 72.

T–7.4.3.1

First half of the 2nd c. BCE

Resin/tar

Cala Gadir (Pantelleria, Italy)

Chioffi and Tusa 2006, p. 108.

T–7.4.3.3

End of the 2nd c. – first half of the 1st c. BCE

Resin/tar

Cap Negret (Alicante, Spain)

Ramon 1995, p. 265.

T–7.4.3.3

End of the 2nd c. – first half of the 1st c. BCE

Resin/tar

Cala Gadir (Pantelleria, Italy)

Baldassari and Fontana 2000, pp. 959 and 961; 2006, pp. 49–50; Chioffi and Tusa 2006, pp. 66 and 109.

T–7.4.3.3

End of the 2nd c. – first half of the 1st c. BCE

Mussels

Lixus (Larache, Morocco)

Aranegui 2005, p. 28.

Cala Gadir (Pantelleria, Italy)

Baldassari and Fontana 2000, pp. 959 and 961; 2006, p. 47 and 50; Chioffi and Tusa 2006, pp. 66 and 109.

Resin/tar

Cala Gadir (Pantelleria, Italy)

Baldassari and Fontana 2000, pp. 959 and 961; 2006, pp. 47 and 50; Chioffi and Tusa 2006, pp. 66 and 110. Baldassari and Fontana 2000, pp. 959 and 961; 2006, pp. 49–50; Chioffi and Tusa 2006, p. 110.

T–7.5.2.1

2nd c. BCE

Resin/tar

T–7.5.2.1

2nd c. BCE

T–7.5.2.2

End of the 2nd c. – beginning of the 1st c. BCE

Resin/tar

Cala Gadir (Pantelleria, Italy)

T–7.5.2.2

End of the 2nd c. – beginning of the 1st c. BCE

Olives and olive branches

Madrague de Montredon’s Shipwreck (Marseille, France)

Ramón 1995, p. 264.

T–7.5.2.3

1st c. BCE

Resin/tar

Gurza’s Necropolis (Montenegro)

Ramón 1995, p. 265.

T–7.6.1.1

End of the 2nd c. – mid of the 1st c. BCE

Resin/tar

Colònia de San Jordi’s Cove (Mallorca, Spain)

Ramón 1995, p. 264.

T–7.6.1.1

End of the 2nd c. – mid of the 1st c. BCE

Resin/tar

Cala Gadir (Pantelleria, Italy)

Baldassari and Fontana 2000, pp. 959 and 961; 2006, pp. 49–50; Chioffi and Tusa 2006, p. 66.

T–8.1.1.1

4th c. BCE

Rabbit bones (reused?)

Ullastret (Gerona, Spain)

Ramon 1991, p. 134; 1995, p. 264.

ANOTHER KIND OF SALTING

35

Amphora

Chronology

Content

Place

References

T–8.1.1.1

4th c. BCE

Resin/tar

Binisafúller Shipwreck (Menorca, Spain)

Ramon 1995, p. 265.

T–8.1.1.1

4th c. BCE

Resin/tar

Binisafúller Shipwreck (Menorca, Spain)

Guerrero et al. 1991, pp. 10–11 and 16; Ramon 1991, p. 134.

T–8.1.1.1

4th c. BCE

Resin/tar

Na Guardis (Mallorca, Spain)

Guerrero and Roldán Bernal 1992, p. 65.

T–8.1.1.2

4th c. – 2nd c. BCE

Content analysis: olive oil

Gadir’s Hinterland (Spain)

Carretero 2007, pp. 48, 110, 118, 206, 208 and 210–211.

T–8.1.1.2

4th c. – 2nd c. BCE

Content analysis: olive oil

Alcalá del Río (Sevilla, Spain)

García Fernández et al. 2016, pp. 67, 79–80 and 82.

T–8.1.1.2

th

nd

Content analysis on several amphorae: preserved olives or olive oil

Cádiz (Spain)

Juan Tresserras and Matamala 2004, p. 285.

th

nd

Content analysis on several amphorae: preserved olives or olive oil

Cerro Naranja (Jerez de la Frontera, Cádiz, Spain)

Juan Tresserras and Matamala 2004, p. 285.

4 c. – 2 c. BCE

T–8.1.1.2

4 c. – 2 c. BCE

T–8.1.2.1

4th c. – 3rd c. BCE Rabbit bones (reused?)

Ullastret (Gerona, Spain)

Ramon 1995, p. 264.

T–8.1.2.1

4th c. – 3rd c. BCE

Resin/tar

Benisafúller Shipwreck (Menorca, Spain)

Guerrero et al. 1991, pp. 10–11 and 16; Ramon 1991, p. 134.

T–8.1.3.1

240–190 BCE

Pig bones (reused?)

Pozo de Hort Xim (Ibiza, Spain)

Ramon 1995, p. 264.

T–8.1.3.2

200–120 BCE

Resin/tar

Na Guardis (Mallorca, Spain)

Ramon 1995, p. 265.

T–8.1.3.2

200–120 BCE

Resin/tar

Turó de Ses Beies (Mallorca, Spain)

Ramon 1995, p. 265.

T–8.1.3.2

200–120 BCE

Resin/tar

Turó de Ses Beies (Mallorca, Spain)

Ramon 1991, pp. 132–135.

T–8.1.3.2

200–120 BCE

Resin/tar

Mazarrón (Murcia, Spain)

Guerrero and Roldán Bernal 1992, p. 159.

T–8.1.3.2

200–120 BCE

Grape seeds

Illa dels Conills (Cabrera, Spain)

Pons 2005, pp. 759, 762 and 776.

T–8.2.1.1

End of the 3rd c. BCE

Content analysis: olive oil

Alcalá del Río (Sevilla, Spain)

García Fernández et al. 2016, pp. 67 and 79.

T–9.2.1.1.

Last quarter of the 2nd c. – last third of the 1st c. BCE

Hazelnuts

Olbia’s Harbour (Sardinia, Italy)

Dell’Amico 1986, p. 131.

C. A. PARDO BARRIONUEVO

36 Amphora

Chronology

Content

Place

References

th

T–10.1.1.1

Mid 8 c. – mid 7th c. BCE

Conifers’ resin/tar

Sulcis (Sardinia, Italy)

Fanari 1993, pp. 82 and 85.

T–10.1.1.1

Mid 8th c. – mid 7th c. BCE

Content analysis: animal fats, both fish and meat, and vegetable resins

Sulcis (Sardinia, Italy)

Bordignon et al. 2005, pp. 192–193, 195–196, 202–203, 208 and 213.

T–10.1.1.1 T–10.1.2.1

700–650 BCE

Content analysis: fish brine

La Fontenta (Alicante, Spain)

Sternberg 2007, p. 396.

T–10.1.1.1 T–10.1.2.1

Mid 7th c. – mid 6th c. BCE

Fish remains

Ronda (Málaga, Spain)

Aguayo et al. 1991, p. 571.

T–10.1.2.1

Mid 7th c. – mid 6th c. BCE

Fish remains

Guardamar (Alicante, Spain)

Juan Tresserras and Matamala 2004, p. 284.

T–10.1.2.1

Mid 7th c. – mid 6th c. BCE

Content analysis: oil

Aldovesta (Tarragona, Spain)

Juan Tresserras and Matamala 2004, p. 285.

T–10.1.2.1

Mid 7th c. – mid 6th c. BCE

Content analysis: remains of resin and wine or vinegar

Puig Roig (Tarragona, Spain)

Juan Tresserras and Matamala 2004, p. 285.

T–10.1.2.1

Mid 7th c. – mid 6th c. BCE

Content analysis: remains of resin and wine or vinegar in two amphorae

Torrelló de Boverot (Castellón, Spain)

Juan Tresserras and Matamala 2004, p. 285.

T–10.1.2.1

Mid 7th c. – mid 6th c. BCE

Content analysis: remains of resin and wine or vinegar

Ullastret (Gerona, Spain)

Juan Tresserras and Matamala 2004, p. 285.

T–10.1.2.1

Mid 7th c. – mid 6th c. BCE

Fish remains

Torrelló de Boverot (Castellón, Spain)

Juan Tresserras and Matamala 2004, p. 284.

T–10.1.2.1

Mid 7th c. – mid 6th c. BCE

6 amphorae with cereals (39 caryopses of Hordeum vulgare, one of Triticum sp., one of Triticum aestivum-durum, one of Triticum dicoccum) and broad beans

Cancho Roano (Bajadoz, Spain)

Maluquer et al. 1986, pp. 231–232 and 249; Cubero 1993, p. 215.

T–11.2.1.3

Second half of the 6th c. – last third of the 5th c. BCE

Tuna remains

Camposoto (San Fernando, Cádiz, Spain)

Frutos and Muñoz 1996, pp. 142 and 164; Gago Vidal et al. 2000, pp. 46–47.

T–11.2.1.3

510–400 BCE

Fish remains

Corinth (Greece)

Williams 1978, pp. 19–20.

T–12.1.1.1

End of the 3rd c. BCE

Content analysis: olive oil

Alcalá del Río (Sevilla, Spain)

García Fernández et al. 2016, pp. 67 and 79.

Fig. 1. List of amphorae and their contents.

ANOTHER KIND OF SALTING

37

The production of amphorae represents direct evidence of the agricultural and livestock surplus of a given community.1 However, the packaging and transportation of products could also be executed in other organic containers such as sacks, boxes, wineskins or barrels, and, possibly, in bulk. Wood, for instance, used both in boxes and barrels, may have been preferred over pottery in many cases because it is lighter. Archaeological examples of such containers (even if they were found empty) include five boxes located in the Ma’agan Mihka’el’s Shipwreck (Israel) dated between 430 and 390 BCE.2 Following this thread, in Castillo de Doña Blanca (Cádiz, Spain) a bronze ring was recovered and may be related to wine packaging in barrels.3 Consequently, it has been argued that the large presence of oil amphorae in settlements, in comparison to those of wine, maybe related to the redistribution of the latter in wineskins once they arrived at the commercial ports.4 Such may have been the case of a refuse heap of T–10 and T–8 amphorae from the end of the sixth century BCE, located at the foot of the Sierra de San Cristóbal (Cádiz, Spain). According to some scholars, this may indicate the emptying of the amphorae upon arrival at the redistribution centre of Castillo de Doña Blanca (Cádiz, Spain).5 Be that as it may, amphorae would have been the predominant containers in trade, especially in maritime exchanges. Their presence in inland settlements argues for some beneficial properties of the conservation and transport of packed products. Because of their physical features, especially their durability over time, they can be found in almost all archaeological contexts. Therefore, they are an essential tool to study the trade of food products as they can provide data on their origin, destination and content. However, despite their prevalence in archaeological contexts and their increasingly precise chronological and typological knowledge, food trade studies still offer several problems. The main obstacle is the lack of data on the contents due to the absence of preserved organic remains, and the scarce content analyses that we have. Thus, although from the values provided by the isotopes in residue analysis, it is possible to distinguish between lipids derived from ruminant and monogastric animals (single-chambered stomach);6 these techniques are not yet common in Phoenician studies.7 On the other hand, depending on the conditions experienced by the organic matter, lipids particularly,8 and the post-depositional processes undergone by the pottery, the results could differ substantially.9 Second, we acknowledge the occasional reuse of the amphorae after they were stripped of their original content which could lead us to misinterpret their original purpose. Moreover, if we have any residue of the original content, the most common feature is the presence of resins (see Fig. 1). Resins have been traditionally associated with a content of wine, vinegar 1

 Morel 2000, pp. 411–415.  Parker 1992, pp. 151 and 247–248. 3  López Garí et al. 2009, p. 16. 4  Celestino and Blánquez 2007, p. 49. 5  Barrionuevo et al. 1993, p. 77. 6  Kedroswski et al. 2009, pp. 120–121. 7  Technique applied on the study of residues according to García Ferández et al. (2016, pp. 67 and 79, VI-85/A-7/35 and VI-85/A-19sur/20). 8  Kedroswski et al. 2009, p. 112. 9  Evershed 2008, p. 28; García Fernández et al. 2016, pp. 72–73. 2

C. A. PARDO BARRIONUEVO

38

or marinaded meat or fish.10 However, we now know that it was used to waterproof all kinds of amphorae, including those intended to have an olive oil content.11 On the other hand, the presence of grape seeds inside certain amphorae may be linked to raisins,12 but it is also possible that these seeds were part of the dressing of the meat or fish products.13 Something similar also occurs with the beeswax remains in some amphorae which have been related to the waterproofing of the containers or as an evidence of honey as the only content,14 but that may also be linked with a recipe to preserve meat or fish. Although each type could be manufactured for a specific content, 15 some authors16 hypothesise that any of these amphorae could be used concurrently to transport different products. However, it is most likely that both proposals were valid in a diachronic way. Thus, until the end of the sixth century BCE, T–10 amphorae would be destined to hold different contents, including both liquid and solid, fishing and agrarian products. From that century on, the increase of types would be due to an identification of the types with their contents. Moreover, during the third and second centuries BCE, local variations would appear in a generalised way.17 As stated previously, the beginning of production and trade of agricultural resources in west Phoenician colonies has been attested by the creation and export of T–1018 amphorae since the middle of the eighth century BCE.19 From the last third of the seventh century BCE, amphorae T–10.1.2.1 acquired a great distribution in the Mediterranean basin.20 An example of this is the high percentage reached by these amphorae in Mazarrón’s Wreck (Spain), where they reached up to 66 per cent of the total pottery remains.21 This progressive increase in the trade of agricultural products until the sixth century BCE would force an economic reorientation and intensification of the Phoenician commercial networks. 22 This also overlapped with a reduction in transport costs due to technical improvements in the ships, an increase in naval construction, and a general decrease in piracy.23 From the sixth century BCE onwards, the trade in luxury goods was largely replaced by food products as it is shown on most wrecks of this century, whose main cargo were amphorae.24 Be that as it may, from the last third of the fourth century until the second century BCE, the summit of redistribution and exchange should be framed. During these turbulent centuries, 10

 Chioffi and Tusa 2000, pp. 67 and 107–110; Juan and Matamala 2004, p. 285; Niveau de Villedary y Mariñas 2009, p. 179. 11  Bernal and Domínguez Petit 1999, pp. 287 and 291–292; Pecci and Cau Ontiveros 2010. 12  Celestino and Blánquez 2007, p. 51. 13  Pardo 2015, p. 206. 14  Bordignon et al. 2005, p. 211. 15  Bernal 2004, p. 32. 16  Guerrero et al. 1991, p. 14. 17  Pardo 2015, p. 206. 18  Alvar and González Wagner 1988, p. 174; González Wagner 1989, pp. 91–92 and 100; López Amador and Ruiz Gil 2007, p. 18. 19  Ramon 1995, p. 230. 20  Ramon 1995, p. 280. 21  Negueruela et al. 1997, p. 276. 22  Aubet 1993, pp. 24–25. 23  López Pardo 1995, p. 100. 24  Martín Ruiz 2007, pp. 148 and 161; 2010, p. 133.

ANOTHER KIND OF SALTING

39

Fig. 2. Distribution of amphoras with preserved meat and hypothetical export centres.

and especially during the Second Roman-Carthaginian War, Phoenician markets, that had been encouraged by the demand generated by the conflict, continued with the same upward trend.25

II. DIRECT AND INDIRECT EVIDENCE AND WESTERN MEDITERRANEAN

OF PRESERVED MEAT AND ITS TRADE IN THE

CENTRAL

For this study, we have relied on the archaeological record in relation to the conservation of organic matter inside containers, the analysis of remains on pottery, studies on structures devoted to storage or preservation processes and, finally, wildlife analysis (Fig. 2). Although more attention has been paid to the trade of marine derivatives (mainly garum and fish salting), the archaeological information on the contents of western Phoenician amphorae shows the importance of preserved meat in the Mediterranean (see Table 1). Thus, thanks to the direct (content recovery) and indirect data (residue analysis), we can state that almost half of the amphorae, of which we know their content, were intended for preserved meat of several kinds.

25

 Ramon 1995, p. 291.

C. A. PARDO BARRIONUEVO

40

Moreover, the only salted recipe that is preserved from Roman times refers to the preservation of pork.26 Specifically, it is an excerpt from Columella’s work,27a Roman author born in Gadir, who was very influenced by the Phoenician tradition and bearer of some direct quotes from the Carthaginian author Mago.28 This Julio-Claudian scholar advised to leave the pig without drinking before the slaughter. After that, the meat would be chopped and rubbed with fine salt every day until the excess moisture is removed. Next, the meat would be buried in salt for nine to twelve days and then the pieces would be cleaned to remove the salt. After that, the meat would be smoked and, finally, would be kept in a container where they would alternate layers of salt and meat. After this process, the meat could be kept for up to six months. Thus, it is possible that the salting was complemented with smoking although it could also be dehydration directly through smoking and/or submersion in oil,29 and perhaps seasoned with spices and honey.30 Archaeologically, we can verify the process of dehydration in La Fonteta’s oven (Spain) which was wedged with stones that may have been used to smoke meat or fish, and which can be dated from the third quarter of the sixth century BCE.31 As a testimony to these practices, the head of an ox and a pig, which may have been smoked or salted, were recovered from the wreck of Marsala which was dated to the third century BCE.32 In some cases, it is the next phase of the process that has been archaeologically attested, that is, the preservation of small portions of food in pottery. At Morro de Mezquitilla (Spain), 10 containers were found under the floor of complex K and another three were found beneath building H. These handmade ceramics, from the eighth century BCE, contained sheep and goat meat.33 Later, during the fifth century BCE, some amphorae of Pani Loriga (Italy) were cut out and embedded in a stone and clay structure in rooms two and five of zone B. The content analysis of the amphorae, type Bartoloni D–3 or Ramon T–4.1.1.3, showed animal fats, vegetables and dairy products.34 On the other hand, the identification and recording of wildlife remains has provided interesting information about the trade of preserved meat. Thus, the lack of certain osteological pieces of the domestic fauna in some archaeological records raises the possibility of their exportation. This information, together with the meat contents of different amphorae, would indicate the development of a livestock economy beyond self-sufficiency. At Huelva (Spain), the lack of representation of the axial parts of the body and upper limbs from Suidae, in the seventh century BCE records,35 may be an indication of preserved meat trade. Also, in Abul (Portugal), between the seventh and sixth centuries BCE, the absence of bone parts 26

 García Vargas 2001, p. 19.  Collumella, Res Rusticae 12.53. 28  Devillers and Krings 1996, pp. 504–507 and 510. 29  Campanella 2003, p. 124. 30  Bordignon et al. 2005, p. 211. 31  Gailledrat 2007, p. 147. 32  Bones 1981, p. 54. 33  Schubart 1985, pp. 150 and 160; 1986, p. 66; 2006, pp. 103–104. 34  Botto and Oggiano 2012, pp. 159–160 and 163–164. 35  Morales Muñiz et al. 1994, p. 311. 27

ANOTHER KIND OF SALTING

41

with a higher meat intake from the mammals studied would indicate an export of salted or smoked meat.36 This data is consistent with the fauna analysis based upon amphorae from Santa Giusta Lagoon (Oristano, Italy).37 Unfortunately, the links between the content and the amphora cannot always be assessed since an important part of the the remains, from the seventh and second centuries BCE, were studied togheter as a closed set, and not chronogically. Be that as it may, we know that most of the remains came from infant or juvenile individuals belonging to the following species: goats or sheep (1319 identified remains), bovids (756 remains), birds (145 remains) and an important number of ichthyofauna (335 remains). In addition, most of the bones corresponded to the torso of the animal (52–58 per cent of the identified remains), although less fleshy parts such as the legs, especially from sheep and goats, were also well represented. It is more common to establish the meat content of amphorae with the study of their remains. For instance, residue analysis of an amphora T–10.1.1.1, that was found in Sulkis, has shown that it contained animal fats, both fish and meat, and vegetable resins.38 As a result, we could speak of a trade of preserved foods in a rural centre in the Strait of Gibraltar area.39 However, so far, the most evidence of preserved meat comes from Sardinian Phoenician settlements. To this effect, it has been identified in several T–2.1.1.2 amphorae produced in Nora, dated between the end of the seventh and the beginning of the sixth century BCE40 (Fig. 3).41 In addition, some T–2.1.1.2 and T–1.4.2.1 amphorae, dated between the sixth and the fifth century BCE,42 and some Bartoloni B–30 models, of the late eighth to the first half of the sixth century BCE,43 located in the lagoon of Santa Giusta, had skeletal remains that were subjected to some type of marinating. Specifically, the contents included juvenile or young ovicaprids but also adult bovines, birds and fish. From these analyses, it could be established that there were two stages for the preserved meat industry: first, the meat was seasoned with pine nuts and spices, and then, later, with seeds, a pine cone and a goat.44 Another explanation has been given for the remains found inside the amphorae T–1.2.1.1, T–1.4.2.1 and T–2.1.1.2 of Cotelazzo’s Shipwreck, where the presence of animal bones, vine seeds and charcoal, has been related to a process in which the meat had been dried beforehand and then packaged in a wrapper of vine leaves.45 Also, in Santa Gilla Lagoon, close to Cagliari (Sardinia, Italy), T–1.4.4.1 amphorae of the fifth century BCE have been found together with locally produced T–4.1.1.4 amphorae from the last quarter of the fifth century and the first half of fourth century BCE46. The amphorae contained ovicaprid and bovine remains in addition to pine nuts and hazelnuts 36

 Cardoso 2000, p. 287.  Portas et al. 2015, pp. 166–168. 38  Bordignon et al. 2005, pp. 192–193, 195–196, 202–203, 208 and 213. 39  Ramon 1995, p. 230. 40  Ramon 1995, p. 178. 41  Bordignon et al. 2005, pp. 192–193, 195–196, 198–200, 204–206, 208 and 215. 42  Ramon 1995, p. 174. 43  Bartoloni 1988, p. 34. 44  Del Vais and Sanna 2009, pp. 132–133 and 137. 45  Parker 1992, pp. 151–152. 46  Ramon 1995, pp. 176 and 186. 37

42

C. A. PARDO BARRIONUEVO

Fig. 3. Consumption centres of Archaic amphorae with meat (eighth to the beginning of the sixth century BCE).

Fig. 4. Consumption centres of Sardinian amphorae with meat (fifth to fourth century BCE).

ANOTHER KIND OF SALTING

43

Fig. 5. Consumption centres of central Mediterranean amphorae with meat (fourth to second century BCE).

with olive oil and an interior, almost always, covered with resin.47 Although this type of amphora has been linked to the transportation of cereals, in Nora48, content analyses have shown traces of pine resin, vegetable oil, oil (from animal or vegetal origin) and beeswax that could indicate preserved meat.49 Once again in the Santa Gilla Lagoon, an amphora of Ramon’s type 4.1.1.3 was recorded, produced between the second half of the fifth century BCE and the first half of the following century,50 which contained faunal remains (Fig. 4).51 Amphorae from the fourth to the second century BCE have been also documented close to Othaca (Italy) with bones of domestic animals inside, while others preserved hazelnuts and pine cones (Fig. 4).52 In the Bajo del Guadalquivir’s area, the residue analysis from amphorae types Pellicer B or C and Ramon T–4.2.2.5, dating from the last third of the third century BCE, have provided a high amount of palmitic acid and some stearic acid associated with animal fats, probably ruminants. Finally, Iboshim’s amphorae, T–8.1.1.1 and T–8.1.2.1, recovered in Ullastret (Spain), contained rabbit bones. Although, in this case, it has been hypothesised to have been a later reuse.53 47

 Solinas 1997, pp. 177 and 179.  Bartoloni 1988, p. 50. 49  Bordignon et al. 2005, pp. 192–193, 195–196, 198–200, 205–206, 208 and 215. 50  Ramon 1995, p. 186. 51  Ramon 1995, p. 264. 52  Bartoloni 1988, p. 21. 53  Ramon 1991, p. 134; 1995, p. 264. 48

44

C. A. PARDO BARRIONUEVO

CONCLUSIONS Although the need to preserve food is a prevailing premise in every human society, there are different methods to produce it. Meat, given its high nutritional and economic value, would be one of the first products to stimulate the development of conservation methods as we have seen in relatively large quantities and even for trade. This last activity seems to be demonstrated after the analysis of the data which inform us about the importance of meat amphorae in the archaeological record since they exceed the number of amphorae devoted to marine products. It is not surprising, therefore, to see the existence of specialised areas of meat preservation such as those located in the Phoenician territories of central western Sardinia or the southwest of the Iberian Peninsula. It is in this last region where studies have focused on the specific parts of the animal consumed (Onoba and Abul). These studies have shown that there is a correlation between the Turdetania’s amphorae of the fifth century BCE and the exportation of preserved meat. In addition, according to the scarce analysis on the faunal remains of these amphorae, the parts of the animal with the highest meat content were preferentially used. On the other hand, the contents were not only meat or fish. The preserved preparations could contain all kinds of food as has been recorded in some amphorae of the late seventh and early sixth centuries BCE, such as the amphorae recovered in Santa Giusta Lake. Thus, the artificial debate created by contemporary historiography between salted fish and preserved meat should be eliminated in order to understand the global food trade in antiquity.

BIBLIOGRAPHY AGUAYO, P., CARRILERO, M. and MARTÍNEZ, G. 1991 “La presencia fenicia y el proceso de aculturación de las comunidades del Bronce Final de la Depresión de Ronda (Málaga),” in Atti del II Congresso Internazionale di Studi Fenicia e Punica (Roma, 1987). Vol. II, edited by E. Acquaro, pp. 559–571. Roma: Istituto per la Civiltà Fenicia e Punica del Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche. ALVAR, J. and GONZÁLEZ WAGNER, C. E. 1988 “La actividad agrícola en la economía fenicia de la Península Ibérica,” Gerión 6: 169–185. ARANEGUI GASCÓ, C. 2005 “Las campañas de excavaciones,” in Lixus-2. Ladera sur. Excavaciones arqueológicas marroco-españolas en la colonia fenicia. Campañas 2000–2003 (Saguntum Extra 6), edited by C. Aranegui Gascó, pp. 13–34. Valencia: Universidad de Valencia. AUBET SEMMLER, M. E. 1988 “El comerç fenici i les comunitats del Ferro a Catalunya,” Laietania 8: 23–40. BALDASSARI, R. and FONTANA, I. 2000 “Anfore a Pantelleria: appunti per una storia economica dell’isola nell’antichità,” in Lo spazio marittimo del Mediterraneo occidentale: geografía storica ed economia (Atti del XIV Convegno di Studio L’Africa Romana, Sassari, 2000). Vol. II, edited by M. Khanoussi, P. Ruggeri and C. Vismara, pp. 953–989. Sassari: Carocci. 2006 “Le anfore a Pantelleria tra il periodo púnico e la prima età romana,” in Pantelleria punica. Saggi critici sui dati archeologici e riflessioni storiche per una nuova generazione di ricerca (Studi e Scavi 15), edited by E. Acquaro and B. Cerasetti, pp. 41–61. Bologna: Ante Quem. BARRIONUEVO CONTRERAS, F. J., PÉREZ PÉREZ, C. and HUERTAS JIMÉNEZ, C. 1993 “Excavaciones de urgencia en las inmediaciones del yacimiento arqueológico de Castillo de Doña Blanca,” Anuario Arqueológico de Andalucía 1991/III: 75–79.

ANOTHER KIND OF SALTING

45

BARTOLONI, P. 1988 Le anfore fenicie e puniche di Sardegna (Studia punica 4). Roma: Università degli Studi di Roma. BERNAL CASASOLA, D. 2004 “Ánforas de transporte y contenidos. A propósito de la problemática de algunos envases de los siglos II y I a.C.,” in Las industrias alfareras y conserveras fenicio-púnicas de la bahía de Cádiz (Actas de los XVI Encuentros de Historia y Arqueología, San Fernando, 2000) (Spal Monografías 13), edited by G. de Frutos and A. Múñoz, pp. 321–378. Córdoba: Publicaciones Obra Social y Cultural CajaSur. BERNAL CASASOLA, D. and DOMÍNGUEZ PETIT, M. D. 1999 “Análisis químico de resinas en ánforas romanas de vino y salazones de pescado: problemática y resultados,” in Arqueometría y arqueología, edited by J. Capel Martínez, pp. 269–294. Granada: Universidad de Granada. BONES, M. 1981 “Diet: bones and vegetable matter,” in Atti della Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei. Notizie degli scavi di Antichità 30/1976: pp. 53–67. BORDIGNON, F., BOTTO, M., POSITANO, M. and TRUJSI, G. 2005 “Identificazione e studio di residui organici su campioni di anfore fenicie e puniche provenienti dalla Sardegna Sud-occidentale,” Mediterranea 2: 189–217. BOTTO, M. and OGGIANO, I. 2012 “Le site phénico-punique de Pani-Loriga (Sardaigne). Interprétation et contextualisation des résultats d’analyses organiques de contenus,” in Les huiles parfumées en Méditerranée occidentale et en Gaule, VIIIe siècle av.–VIIIe siècle apr. J.-C., edited by D. Frère and L. Hugot, pp. 151–166. Rennes: Presses Universitaires de Rennes. CAMPANELLA, L. 2003 “L’uomo e il cibo,” in El hombre fenicio. Estudios y materiales (Serie arqueológica 9), edited by J. A. Zamora, pp. 113–125. Roma: CSIC. CARDOSO, J. L. 2000 “Les mammifères d’Abul,” in Le site phénicien d’Abul (Portugal). Comptoir et sanctuaire, edited by F. Mayet and C. Tavares da Silva, pp. 281–291. Paris: De Boccard. CARRETERO POBLETE, P. A. 2007 Agricultura y comercio púnico-turdetano en el Bajo Guadalquivir. El inicio de las explotaciones oleícolas peninsulares (siglos IV-II a.C.) (British Archaeological Reports International Series 1703). Oxford: Archaeopress. CAVALIERE, P. 2000 “Anfore puniche utilizzate come contenitori di pesce. Un esempio olbiese,” Mélanges de l’École française de Rome. Antiquité 112/1: 67–72. CELESTINO PÉREZ, S. and BLÁNQUEZ PÉREZ, J. 2007 “Origen y desarrollo del cultivo del vino en el Mediterráneo: la Península Ibérica,” Reviste Universum 22/I (Viticultura y Ciencias Sociales): 32–60. CERASETTI, B. 2000 “Punic Pantelleria preliminary report,” Rivista di Studi Punici 1: 101–114. CHIOFFI, M. and TUSA, S. 2006 “Il relitto di Gadir e l’evidenza punica nel mare,” in Pantelleria punica. Saggi critici sui dati archeologici e riflessioni storiche per una nuova generazione di ricerca (Studi e Scavi 15), edited by E. Acquaro and B. Cerasetti, pp. 63–111. Bologna: Ante Quem. CUBERO, C. 1993 “Estudio de muestras carpológicas del yacimiento de Cancho Roano (Zalamea de la Serena),” in El palacio-santuario de Cancho Roano IV (El Sector Norte), edited by S. Celestino Pérez and F. J. Jiménez Ávila, pp. 215–221. Badajoz: B. Gil Santacruz. DE FRUTOS REYES, G. and MUÑOZ VICENTE, A. 1996 “La industria pesquera y conservera púnico-gaditana: balance de la investigación. Nuevas perspectivas,” Spal 5: 133–165.

46

C. A. PARDO BARRIONUEVO

DELL’AMICO, P. 1986 “Le anfore del Porto di Olbia,” in Archeologia Subacquea 3 (Bollettino d’Arte Supplemento 37–38), edited by P. A. Gianfrotta, pp. 125–134. Roma: Istituto Poligrafico dello Stato. DELUSSU, F. and WILKENS, B. 2000 “Le conserve di pesce. Alcuni dati da contesti italiani,” Mélanges de l’École française de Rome. Antiquité 112/1: 53–65. DEL VAIS, C. and SANNA, I. 2009 “Ricerche su contesti sommersi di età fenicia e púnica nella laguna di Santa Giusta (OR). Campagne 2005–2007,” Rivista di Studi Sardi 34: 123–149. DEVILLERS, O. and KRINGS, V. 1996 “Autour de l’agronome Magon,” in Atti del’XI Convegno di Studio L’Africa Romana (Cartagine, 1994). Vol. I, edited by M. Khanoussi, P. Ruggeri, and C. Vismara, pp. 489–516. Sassari: Il Torchietto. EVERSHED, R. P. 2008 “Experimental approaches to the interpretation of absorbed organic residues in archaeological ceramics,” World Archaeology 40/1: 26–47. FALSONE, G. and BOUND, M. 1986 “Archeologia subacquea a Marsala,” in Archeologia Subacquea 3 (Bollettino d’Arte Supplemento 37–38), edited by P. A. Gianfrotta, pp. 161–176. Roma: Istituto Poligrafico dello Stato. FANARI, F. 1993 “Un’anfora contenente resina proveniente dal Mare di Sulcis,” Quaderni della Soprintendenza per i Beni Archeologici per le Province di Cagliari e Oristano 10: 81–91. GAGO VIDAL, M. H., CLAVAÍN GONZÁLEZ, I., MUÑOZ VICENTE, A., PEDIGONES MORENO, L. and DE FRUTOS REYES, G. 2000 “El complejo industrial de salazones gaditano de Camposoto, San Fernándo (Cádiz): Estudio Preliminar,” Habis 31: 37–61. GAILLEDRAT, E. 2007 “Architecture domestique et urbanisme des phases IV et V (v. 600–525/5000 av. J.-C.),” in Fouilles de la Rábita de Guardamar II. L’établissement protohistorique de la Fonteta (fin VIIIe–fin VIe siècle av. J.-C.) (Collection de la Casa de Velázquez 96), edited by P. Rouillard, E. Gailledrat and F. Sala Sellés, pp. 140–155. Madrid: Casa de Velázquez. GARCÍA FERNÁNDEZ, F. J., FERRER ALBELDA, E., ÁLVAREZ MATEOS, P. and DURÁN BARRANTES, M. M. 2016 “Análisis de residuos orgánicos y posibles contenidos en ánforas púnicas y turdetanas procedentes del valle del Guadalquivir,” Saguntum 48: 59–87. GARCÍA VARGAS, E. 2001 “Pesca, sal y salazones en las ciudades fenicio-púnicas del sur de Iberia,” in De la mar y de la tierra: producciones y productos fenicio-púnicos (XV Jornadas de Arqueología fenicio–púnica, Eivissa, 2000) (Treballs del Museu Arqueologic d’Eivissa e Formentera 47), edited by B. Costa Ribas and J. H. Fernández Gómez, pp. 9–66. Ibiza: Museo Arqueologico de Ibiza y Formentera. GONZÁLEZ WAGNER, C. E. 1989 “Fenicios en Occidente: la colonización agrícola,” Rivista di Studi Fenici XVII/1: 61–102. GUERRERO AYUSO, V. M. 1984 Asentamiento Punico de Na Guardis (Excavaciones arqueológicas en España 133). Madrid: Ministerio de Cultura. GUERRERO AYUSO, V. M., MIRÓN, J. and RAMON, J. 1991 “El pecio de Benisafúller (Menorca), un mercante púnico del siglo III a.C.,” Meloussa 2: 9–30. GUERRERO AYUSO, V. M. and ROLDÁN BERNAL, B. 1992 Catálogo de las ánforas prerromanas. Museo Nacional de Arqueología Marítima. Cartagena: Ministerio de Cultura.

ANOTHER KIND OF SALTING

47

JUAN TRESSERRAS, J. and MATAMALA, J. C. 2004 “Los contenidos de las ánforas en el Mediterráneo Occidental. Primeros resultados,” in La Circulació d’Amfores al Mediterrani Occidental durant la Protohistoria (segles VIII–III a.C.): Aspectes Quatitatius i Anàlisi de Contingusts (Actes de la II Reunió Internacional d’Arqueologia de Calafell) (Arqueo Mediterrània 8), edited by J. Sanmartí, D. Ugolini, J. Ramon and D. Asensio, pp. 283–291. Barcelona: Universitat de Barcelona. KEDROWSKI, B. L., CRASS, B. A., BEHM, J. A., LUETKE, J. C., NICHOLS, A. L., MORECK, A. M. and HOLMES, C. E. 2009 “GC/MS analysis of fatty acids from ancient hearth residues at the Swan Point archaeological site,” Archaoemetry 51/1: 110–122. LÓPEZ AMADOR, J. J. and RUIZ GIL, J. A. 2007 “Arqueología de los vegetales y la agricultura en el Puerto de Santa María,” Revista de Historia de El Puerto 39: 11–39. LÓPEZ GARÍ, J. M., MARLASCA MARTÍN, R. and YLL, R. 2009 “El paisatge fòssil d’Eivissa Antiga. Els retalls pel conreu a època púnica i romana,” Fites 9: 7–18. LÓPEZ PARDO, F. 1995 “Aportaciones a la expansión fenicia en el Marruecos atlántico: alimentos para el comercio,” in Actas del II Congreso Internacional El Estrecho de Gibraltar (Ceuta, 1990). Vol. II, edited by E. Ripoll and M. F. Ladero, pp. 99–110. Madrid: UNED. MALUQUER DE MOTES, J., CELESTINO, S., GRACIA, F. and MUNILLA, G. 1986 El santuario protohistórico de Zalamea de la Serena, Badajoz. Barcelona: Universidad de Barcelona, Departamento de Prehistoria y Arqueologia. MARTÍN RUIZ, J. A. 2007 La crisis del siglo VI a.C. en los asentamientos fenicios de Andalucía (Colección Monografías 30). Málaga: Diputación Provincial de Málaga (CEDMA). 2010 “El comercio cananeo y fenicio a través del cargamento transportado en los pecios hallados en el Mediterráneo,” Revista Atlántica-Mediterránea de Prehistoria y Arqueología Social 12: 127–138. MORALES MUÑIZ, A., SERRANO ENDOLZ, L., DE LA TORRE RUIZ, M. A., ROSELLÓ IZQUIERDO, E. and MORENO NUÑO, R. 1994 “Análisis de la fauna de mamíferos del yacimiento tartésico de “Calle del Puerto nº10 (Huelva),” in El hábitat antiguo de Huelva (Periodos Orientalizante y Arcaicos). La primera excavación arqueológica en la Calle del Puerto, edited by J. P. Garrido Roiz and E. M. Orta, pp. 265–320. Madrid: Ministerio de Cultura. MOREL, J. P. 2000 “Quelques remarques sur l’économie phénico-punique dans ses aspects agraires,” in Actas del IV Congreso Internacional de Estudios Fenicios y Púnicos (Cádiz, 1995). Vol. I, edited by M. E. Aubet and M. Barthélemy, I, pp. 411–423. Cádiz: Universidad de Cádiz. NEGUERUELA MARTÍNEZ, I., MOYA, A., MARTÍN BAÑOS, C., CORREA CIFUENTES, C. and PÉREZ BONET, M. A. 1997 “El yacimiento fenicio de la playa de la Isla (Mazarrón). Campaña de 1997,” Memorias de Arqueología 12: 273–290. NIVEAU DE VILLEDARY Y MARIÑAS, A. M. 2009 Ofrendas, banquetes y Libaciones. El ritual funerario en la necrópolis púnica de Cádiz (Spal Monografías XII). Sevilla: Universidad de Sevilla. PARDO BARRIONUEVO, C. A. 2015 Economía y sociedad rural fenicia en el Mediterráneo Occidental. Sevilla: Universidad de Sevilla. PARKER, A. J. 1992 Ancient Shipwrecks of the Mediterranean and the Roman Provinces (British Archaeological Reports International Series 580), Oxford: BAR Publishing.

48

C. A. PARDO BARRIONUEVO

PECCI, A. and CAU ONTIVEROS, M. A. 2010 “Análisis de residuos orgánicos en ánforas: el problema de la resina y el aceite,” in Estudios sobre el Monte Testaccio (Roma) V (Col·lecció Instrumenta 35), edited by J. M. Blázquez Martínez and J. Resemesal Rodríguez, pp. 593–600. Barcelona: Universidad de Barcelona. PONS VALENS, J. M. 2005 “El jaciment punicoebusità de l’illa dels Conills (Cabrera),” Mayurqa 30: 753–779. PORTAS, L., FARINA, V., DEL VAIS, C., CARCUPINO, M., GAZZA, F., SANNA, I. and ZEDDA, M. 2015 “Anatomical study of animal remains from Phoenician-Punic amphorae found in the Santa Giusta Pond, Sardinia (Italy),” Journal of Biological Research 88/5073: 166–169. RAMON TORRES, J. 1991 Las ánforas púnicas de Ibiza (Trabajos del Museo Arqueológico de Ibiza y Formentera 20). Ibiza: Museo Arqueológico de Ibiza y Formentera. 1995 Las ánforas fenicio-púnicas del Mediterráneo Central y Occidental (Col·lecció Instrumenta 2). Barcelona: Universitat de Barcelona. SCHUBART, H. 1985 “Morro de Mezquitilla. Informe preliminar sobre la campaña de excavaciones de 1982 realizada en el asentamiento fenicio cerca de la desembocadura del río Algarrobo,” Noticiario Arqueológico Hispano 23: 141–174. 1986 “El asentamiento fenicio del s. VIII a.C. en el Morro de Mezquitilla (Algarrobo, Málaga),” in Los Fenicios en la Península Ibérica. Arqueología, cerámica y plástica (Aula Orientalis 3). Vol. I, edited by G. del Olmo Lete and M. E. Aubet, pp. 59–83. Sabadell: Ausa Editorial. 2006 Morro de Mezquitilla. El Asentamiento Fenicio-Púnico en la Desembocadura del Río Algarrobo (Anejos de la Revista Mainake 1). Madrid: Centro de Ediciones de la Diputación de Málaga. SOLINAS, E. 1997 “La laguna di Santa Gilla: testimonianze di etá púnica,” in Phoinikes B SHRDN. I Fenici in Sardegna: Nuove Acquisizioni, Catalogo della Mostra. Oristano, Antiquarium Arborense, luglio–dicembre 1997, edited by P. Bernardini, R. D'Oriano and P. G. Spanu, pp. 176–186. Cagliari: La Memoria Storica. STERNBERG, M. 2007 “Pêche et exploitation des milieux aquatiques,” in L’établissement protohistorique de La Fonteta (fin VIIème-fin VIème siècle av. J.-C.) (Collection de la casa Velázquez 96), edited by P. Rouillard, E. Gailledrat and F. Salas, pp. 372–398. Madrid: Casa de Velázquez. TOTI, M. P. 2002 “Anfore fenicie e puniche,” in Mozia. Gli scavi nella “Zona A” dell’abitato, edited by M. L. Famà, pp. 275–304. Bari: Edipuglia. WAGNER, J. 1978 “El yacimiento submarino de Torre La Sal. Cabanes (Castellón),” Cuadernos de Prehistoria y Arqueología Castellonenses 5: 305–337. WILLIAMS, C. K. 1978 “Corinth 1977, Forum Southwest,” Hesperia. The Journal of the American School of Classical Studies at Athens 47/1: 1–39.

Carmen Ana PARDO BARRIONUEVO Department of Geography, History and Humanities University of Almería Spain

ENOUGH TO FEED AN ARMY? AMPHORA PRODUCTION, AGRICULTURAL YIELD AND LOGISTICS DURING THE SECOND PUNIC WAR Víctor MARTÍNEZ HAHNMÜLLER ABSTRACT In this contribution we discuss the Carthaginian logistics during the Second Punic War, focusing on the amount of food resources needed to supply the soldiers of the Carthaginian armies. The quantity of food required is so high that it seems unattainable through the agricultural yields suggested by some current theoretical models. For this reason, we propose new methods to confront the problem by studying the distribution and volume of Punic amphorae after defining its presence in Carthaginian logistics.

INTRODUCTION The rich information that we currently have about the conflict that brought face to face Rome and Carthage at the end of the third century BCE entails that this turbulent historical period becomes an excellent field to develop methodological models that help us to better understand societies of the past that, due to various historical circumstances, ended up unjustly nullified by being integrated, or eliminated, by the dominant Greco-Roman culture. In that sense, although unquestionably biased, both politically and thematically, the literary information that we have on the Second Punic War is very rich from quantitative and qualitative points of view. In fact, only a few later episodes of Antiquity and none previous, attracted the attention of so many historians, philosophers, dramatists and poets. As if it were not enough, in the last decades we have seen an impressive growth in archaeological finds that can be linked to this military conflict. This phenomenon, which reflects the historical reality, is especially intense in the Iberian Peninsula and the Balearic Islands. However, progressively, it is spreading to other battlefronts such as the Italian Peninsula, the islands of Sardinia and Sicily and, although more tentatively, in North Africa or the island of Malta. In any case, and like it happens with Classical texts, these archaeological contexts often have a common feature: war. We also have profuse numismatic, iconographic and epigraphic information, but on the topic of this paper it is of less value than the data obtained from the Classical authors or the archaeological contexts. The subject at hand, that is the Carthaginian logistics during the conquest of Iberia and Second Punic War, has been fairly well treated by scholars. However, most of them are restricted to interpreting the information provided by Classical authors in order to discern the way in which the Carthaginian army was supplied at its most critical moments, especially during the Hannibalic expedition to Italy.1 Special attention has also 1

 Proctor 1971, pp. 83–203; Lazenby 1978, pp. 29-48; Klingbeil 2000; Schrier 2006, pp. 501–522.

V. MARTÍNEZ HAHNMÜLLER

50

been paid to the famous maneuver of the iugum Calliculae executed by Hannibal Barca in the ager Falernus.2 Finally, some authors have tried to explain the movements of the Carthaginian army during the first phase of the war on the Italian front as a direct result of logistical needs.3 Even so, despite its importance, studies on logistics in Antiquity are relatively scarce.4 Perhaps, this is because it has been considered that short-distance operations would not require large logistical efforts, which, as we shall see, is uncertain in all cases, and especially during the great expeditions of the Hannibalic War or the conquests of Alexander the Great.5 We must not forget that the axiom “the army marches on its stomach” would always apply to all armies.6 It is also true that logistics hold a very secondary position in Classical authors’ narratives, outshined by the development of the battles.7 Be that as it may, we must understand logistics as the instruments for the provision of all the resources required to carry out military operations. This would include the identification and regulation of needs, their swift satisfaction, the distribution of material among the soldiers and other members of the army and the upkeep of the equipment and facilities necessary for storage, custody and distribution.8 As we will see below, the alimentary needs of the armies were of such a scale that they have been precisely compared with moving cities.9 The difficulties of providing constant and enough supplies for the marching or stationed soldiers were vast and, moreover, they had to be faced frequently.10 To ease these tasks, external supplies were sourced, usually by sea, for which it was a sine qua non requirement that the army would be near the coast or in contact with a waterway or have allies that were willing and able to supply the required food.11 In hostile ground, the main concern of the soldiers and those in charge of the logistics would be the provisioning,12 since, on many occasions, the external supply could not be guaranteed. In these times, it was common to use Cato the Elder’s tactics during his campaign against the Iberians of 195 BCE. Indeed, the practise of Living off the land was widely used by armies as it was very profitable, diminished the resources of the enemy and did not require complex supply systems.13 Only a few (or more than a few) soldiers were sent to forage on enemy territory and to acquire supplies from defeated cities and tribes.14 Difficulties increased during billeting periods, because it was necessary to gather the provisions to spend the winter15 and the army also had to use other means to stock up. One of the largest 2

 Lazenby 1978, pp. 69–70; Fronda 2011, pp. 245–246.  Seibert 1989, pp. 214–215; Klingbeil 2000, pp. 16 and 22; Ferrer Maestro 2004, p. 440; Erdkamp 2011, p. 73. 4  Seibert 1989, p. 213; Klingbeil 2000, p. 15. 5  Seibert 1989, p. 213. 6  Davies 1971, p. 122. 7  Seibert 1989, p. 214. 8  Seibert 1989, p. 214. 9  Klingbeil 2000, p. 22. 10  Davies 1971, p. 122; Klingbeil 2000, p. 15. 11  Erdkamp 2011, pp. 69–70. 12  Klingbeil 2000, p. 15. 13  Erdkamp 2011, p. 69. 14  Davies 1971, p. 122. 15  Klingbeil 2000, p. 15. 3

ENOUGH TO FEED AN ARMY?

51

complementary sources of supplies were civilians, either through requisitions, or through mandatory sales at fixed prices.16

A LOT OF MOUTHS TO FEED: NOTES ON FOOD IN THE CARTHAGINIAN ARMIES OF THE SECOND PUNIC WAR Although we have left the thorough analysis of Carthaginian logistics during the Barcid hegemony for another time,17 we will take advantage to remember their major features, in order to demonstrate that such a section of the Carthaginian army occupied a main role during the Second Punic War. This goes against the idea that some Classical authors had raised and which was severely criticised by Polybius.18 Interestingly, this idea of inadequacy or even the nonexistence of Carthaginian logistics, in this context, has been tentatively raised by some authors.19 However, there is currently some consensus in considering the Carthaginian supply system during the Second Punic War to have been of high quality, with a carefull preparation,20 high efficiency,21 and potentially superior to Roman logistics, at least in the first years of the war.22 Thanks to the information handed down to us by Polybius,23 we know that an officer named Hasdrubal was in charge of the Carthaginian logistics of the Italian expeditionary corps and that he had an undetermined number (although abundant) of foremen at his command. The active presence of this officer in the war councils is reliable proof of its importance and influence in strategic decisions. 24 Among the functions of this head of logistics,25 we know that he had to manage the teams in charge of supplying the army. Moreover, unless expressly ordered by the general, he oversaw distributing the spoils of war. 26 The functions of his subordinates,27 unfortunately, are not very clear and, occasionally, if the general decided so, he could use some soldiers on supplying tasks. Klingbeil28 suggests that they would be entrusted with daily food preparation and distribution to the soldiers so that, despite not fighting, they would be an essential part of the Carthaginian army. As we can see, although interesting, the information available is very restricted, all resulting from the participation of the aforementioned officer and his subordinates in military operations (especially in the maneuver mentioned before involving several oxen at Falerno). The absence of proper Carthaginian information is even more remarkable when we try to deduce of the volume of resources involved in maintaining the various Carthaginian armies 16

 Davies 1971, p. 123.  Martínez Hahnmüller forthcoming a. 18  III, 47, 6–10. 19  For a detailed list, see Klingbeil (2000, p. 16). 20  Ferrer Maestro 2004, p. 440. 21  Seibert 1989, p. 215. 22  Ñaco del Hoyo 2011, p. 377. 23  III, 66, 6; 93, 4–5 and 8. 24  Klingbeil 2000, p. 18. 25 Λειτουργιῶν τεταγμένον in Greek. 26  Walbank 1957, p. 400; Klingbeil 2000, p. 19. 27  Λειτουργοῖς in Greek. 28  Klingbeil 2000, pp. 19–20. 17

V. MARTÍNEZ HAHNMÜLLER

52

that remained active during the Second Punic War and the preceding moments. The first problem that we must face is the lack of knowledge on the actual forces that the different Carthaginian armies deployed and their evolution over time. Indeed, despite the fact that the figures provided by Polybius on the troops that accompanied Hannibal Barca in his transalpine crossing seem to have originated from the Carthaginian general himself and, therefore, must be taken as true and accurate, it is only feasible to discern the evolution of that Carthaginian army until the battle of Cannas. After this battle, fought in August 216 BCE, information about Carthaginian troops went unnoticed as there were no more pitched battles on the Italian front. There is only partial data on the losses, reinforcements and the final troops that went with Hannibal back to North Africa to try to defend his homeland. If the panorama is poor for the general who gives his name to the conflict, it is not difficult to imagine how scarce, incidental, irregular and unreliable the information available is for other important war fronts of the conflict such as those in Iberia or Africa. As it has to be expected, other minor fronts, such as the Sardinian, the Sicilian or even the Maltese or the Balearic one, do not possess much information. This is probably why many authors, when dealing with Carthaginian logistics, have limited themselves to estimating supplies for the Hannibal army in the first stages of the military campaign.29 However, even taking due care of the figures offered by Titus Livius, Appian and Diodorus Siculus, we can get a rough idea of the evolution of the Carthaginian forces on the different war fronts (Fig. 1 and Fig. 2). It is remarkable that, since the year 228 BCE, although it can probably be traced back to the arrival of Hamilkar Barka at the Iberian Peninsula in 237 BCE, the Carthaginian army deployed almost 60,000 soldiers in Iberia, including militaries on foot and on horseback. Furthermore, it is to be expected that the Libyan territory was well protected during the years immediately before the beginning of the Second Punic War. We do not know the precise figures, although it seems logical to think that most of the Carthaginian forces were in the main area of action, that is Iberia during its conquest. From the beginning of the hostilities with Saguntum, and therefore of the irreversible confrontation against Rome, the Carthaginian troops amounted to almost 120,000 soldiers. This figure remained more or less steady until the year 218 BCE, when many soldiers perished both during the hard transalpine expedition and after the first clashes against Rome for the control of Iberia. After these setbacks, Carthage only had at its disposal around 90,000 soldiers. The unanswered Carthaginian victories in Italy and, in 215 and 214 BCE, the creation of new war fronts in Sardinia and Sicily would contribute to the massive incorporation of allies that would also encourage the arrival of reinforcements to the main active battlefronts. In this last year, the number of soldiers that had to be supplied by the Carthaginian general reached almost 170,000. The loss on these fronts reduced the burden of the Carthaginian intendancy to 150,000 men in 212 BCE, a figure that would remain relatively stable until the loss of the Iberian Qart Hadasht. At this moment, reinforcements were sent to Italy (Hasdrubal Barka’s army) and to the Iberian Peninsula, reaching again more than 170,000 troops deployed and supplied by the North African Empire. 29

 Ferrer Maestro 2004, p. 440; Quesada Sanz 2005, pp. 137–138.

ENOUGH TO FEED AN ARMY?

Author

Quote

Infantry Cavalry

Diodorus

25.12.1

50000

Diodorus

25.12.1

60000

Livy

21.8.3

Livy

21.22.2–3

12650

2450

Livy

21.21.12– 13

18720

Polybius

3.35.1

Livy

53

Total

Context

General

Chronology

6000

56000

Hasdrubaal the Fair’s Appointment

Hasdrubaal the Fair

228 BCE

8000

68000

Qart Hadasht Foundation

Hasdrubaal the Fair

228– 219 BCE

150000 Siege of Saguntum

Hannibaal Barka

219 BCE

15100

Hasdrubaal Barka’s army

Hasdrubaal Barka

219– 218 BCE

1200

19920

North African reinforcements

Unknown

219– 218 BCE

90000

12000

102000

Ebro crossing

Hannibaal Barka

218 BCE

21.23.1

90000

12000

102000

Ebro crossing

Hannibaal Barka

218 BCE

Livy

21.61.1

8000

1000

9000

Ebro crossing

Hasdrubaal Barka

218 BCE

Livy

21.23.4

10000

1000

11000

North of Ebro River region defense

Hanno

218 BCE

Polybius

3.35.5

10000

1000

11000

North of Ebro River region defense

Hanno

218 BCE

Appianus

Hann. 4

9000

12000

21000

Pyrenees Crossing

Hannibaal Barka

218 BCE

Polybius

3.35.7

50000

9000

59000

Pyrenees Crossing

Hannibaal Barka

218 BCE

Polybius

3.56.4

20000

6000

26000

Pyrenees Crossing

Hannibaal Barka

218 BCE

Hannibaal Barka

218 BCE

Livy

21.38.3–4

80000

10000

90000

Arrival in Italy (Lucius Cincius Alimentus’s version)

Livy

21.38.2

100000

20000

120000

Arrival in Italy (highest version)

Hannibaal Barka

218 BCE

Livy

21.38.2

20000

6000

26000

Arrival in Italy (lowest version)

Hannibaal Barka

218 BCE

Livy

21.55.2

18000

10000

28000

Battle of the Trebia

Hannibaal Barka

218 BCE

Livy

22.46.6

40000

10000

50000

Battle of Cannae

Hannibaal Barka

216 BCE

Polybius

3.114.5

40000

10000

50000

Battle of Cannae

Hannibaal Barka

216 BCE

Battle of Iliturgi

Hasdrubaal Barka, Mago Barka and Hannibal Bomilkar

216 BCE

Livy

23.49.9

60000

V. MARTÍNEZ HAHNMÜLLER

54 Livy

23.32.5– 12

12000

1500

13500

Carthaginian army of Sardinia

Hasdrubaal

216 BCE

Livy

23.32.5– 12

12000

1500

13500

North African reinforcements

Mago Barka

216 BCE

Livy

24.35.3

25000

3000

28000

Carthaginian army of Sicily

Himilko

214 BCE

Appianus

Sic. 4

20000

5000

25000

Carthaginian army of Sicily

Hippocrates

214 BCE

210– 209 BCE

Appianus

Ib. 19

25000

2500

27500

Each of the three Hasdrubaal Carthaginian Barka, Mago armies settled in Barka and Iberia before Qart Hasdrubaal Hadasht’s siege? Gisco

Appianus

Ib. 25

70000

5000

75000

Battle of Carmo/ Baecula

Hasdrubaal Barka and Mago Barka

209– 208 BCE

Appianus Hann. 52

48000

8000

56000

Alps crossing

Hasdrubaal Barka

208– 207 BCE

Polybius

11.20.2

70000

4000

74000

Battle of Ilipa/ Silpia

Hasdrubaal Gisco

207– 206 BCE

Livy

28.12.13

Battle of Ilipa/ Silpia (less credible Mago Barka version)

207– 206 BCE

Livy

28.12.13

Livy

27.49.5

Livy

29.35.10

30000

Appianus

Lib. 13

Polybius

70000

54500

Battle of Ilipa/ Silpia (main version)

Mago Barka

207– 206 BCE

62400

Battle of the Metauro

Hasdrubaal Barka

207 BCE

3000

33000

Siege of Utica

Hasdrubaal Gisco

205– 204 BCE

20000

7000

27000

Siege of Utica

Hasdrubaal Gisco

205– 204 BCE

14.1.14– 15

30000

3000

33000

Carthaginian Army after the loss of Iberia

Unknown

205 BCE

Livy

28.46.7–8

12000

2000

14000

Siege of Genua

Mago Barka

205 BCE

Livy

30.7.13

30000

Battle of the Great Plains

Hasdrubaal Gisco and Syphax

203 BCE

Polybius

14.7.9

30000

Battle of the Great Plains

Hasdrubaal Gisco and Syphax

203 BCE

Appianus

Lib. 40

50000

Battle of Zama

Hannibaal Barka

202 BCE

Polybius

15.14.9

>40000

Battle of Zama

Hannibaal Barka

202 BCE

50000

4500

Fig. 1. Carthaginian troops according to the Classical authors.

ENOUGH TO FEED AN ARMY?

Libia

Sardinia

Sicily

Balearic Islands

Year

Iberia

228 BCE

56000

56000

224 BCE

68000

68000

Winter of 219 BCE

117100

117100

Spring of 219 BCE

117100

19920

137020

Winter of 218 BCE

102000

19920

121920

Spring of 218 BCE

43000

59000

19920

121920

Summer of 218 BCE

43000

26000

19920

88920

Autumn of 218 BCE

43000

28000

19920

90920

216 BCE

56500

50000

19920

126420

215 BCE

56500

50000

19920

13500

214 BCE

56500

50000

19920

13500

212 BCE

56500

50000

19920

210 BCE

82500

50000

19920

152420

Winter of 208 BCE

82500

50000

19920

152420

Spring of 208 BCE

55500

98000

19920

173420

207 BCE

74000

42000

19920

135920

Winter of 205 BCE

33000

42000

33000

108000

Spring of 205 BCE

42000

33000

14000

89000

204 BCE

42000

33000

14000

89000

203 BCE

42000

33000

75000

42000

42000

202 BCE

Italy

55 Total

139920 28000

167920

28000

154420

Fig. 2. Estimation of Carthaginian troops deployed during the Second Punic War.

Nevertheless, the high number of soldiers failed to change the negative trend of the war for Carthage and the devastating defeats of Metauro and Ilipa, and to a lesser extent Baecula, left the Carthaginian army with just over 130,000 troops. The definitive withdrawal from Iberia, with a small army led by Magon Barca in 205 BCE, further reduced the figure to a little less than 110,000 soldiers. The additional defeats in Libya would not benefit Carthage either and would continue to reduce the burden of the logistics, reaching less than 90,000 men at the end of that year, around 75,000 in 203 BCE and about 42,000 men in the final confrontation of Zama. Of course, the loss of forces came with a huge decrease in both territorial and financial resources. In this sense, the losses of Italy, Iberia and the latter mining districts were especially important. In summary, to simplify the calculations and, therefore, make our methodological proposal more understandable, the information that we can deduce from the Classical authors is that the Carthaginian army, during the period analysed had at least 34,000 soldiers on foot and 8000 knights at their worst (in the battle of Zama) to reach, at their peak (208 BCE),

V. MARTÍNEZ HAHNMÜLLER

56

147,500 soldiers on foot and 25,000 soldiers on horseback. However, as we have seen, the troops deployed during most of the war were not below 120,000 soldiers except during the first stages and at the end of the conflict. These troops formed the two great Carthaginian armies of the Iberian and Italic fronts and the billeting reserves of Libya, so we consider them to be representative enough to give us an idea of the huge quantities of supplies that they needed and that the logistics officers and their subordinates had to deal with. At this point, that is, taking for granted the figures that the Classical authors have left us regarding the strength of the Carthaginian armies, we must face a new difficulty resulting from the disappearance of the Carthaginian sources that, would have dealt with the Carthaginian army with due depth and knowledge. In this sense, although our information is relatively extensive for high-ranking officers and Carthaginian officers,30 the overall data that we have on the Carthaginian army is much more limited. All Classical authors emphasise that they were mercenary armies, with the ultimate goal of clearly differentiating them from citizen and tribal armies. However, there are reasonable doubts that all the soldiers, deployed from the extensive list of peoples that formed the Carthaginian army during the Second Punic War, according to the inscription of the temple of Hera of Crotona, were mercenaries. Polybius31 states that the Carthaginians used mercenary troops for hire, so it is logical to think that at least these, although probably also allied soldiers, received a stipend for their military services that would likely include the expenses of maintenance and equipment.32 Unfortunately, the only specific information on the Carthaginian army’s food is drawn from a somewhat extreme episode.33 Between the arguments that originated the Mercenary War, we can find a claim of the mercenaries (it also affected the Libyan soldiers) that, occasionally, the Carthaginian soldiers received their rations of wheat as an extra to their pay, that is, subsidised by the Carthaginian logistics.34 At least during the First Punic War, on occasions, the soldiers had to pay in advance for these supplies, with the promise that, at the end of the war, this investment would be returned at the highest price of wheat during the conflict. In order to ease this information gap, we will use the data available for the Republican and Imperial Roman and Hellenistic areas. Here, some papyri, inscriptions and passages from Classical authors provide figures that, by remaining relatively stable despite the chronological and spatial distance, make us think that they would not differ much from those that concern us here.35 The closest chronological and spatial information is the well-known passage of Polybius in which he described the food received by Roman soldiers, knights and their allies during the second century BCE.36 The Megalopolitan historian and diplomat stated that the Roman infantryman’s ration of food was two-thirds of an Attic medimnos per month, while that of 30

 Martínez Hahnmüller 2018.  VI, 52, 4. 32  Ferrer Maestro 2004, p. 443. 33  Polybius I, 68, 8–9 and 70, 3. 34  Klingbeil 2000, pp. 19–20. 35  Erdkamp 2011, p. 68. 36  VI, 39, 12–15. 31

ENOUGH TO FEED AN ARMY?

57

a Roman knight was seven medimnoi of barley and two of wheat each month. On their side, the Allied infantrymen received the same amount as the Romans, while the Allied knights only obtained one and one-third medimnoi of wheat and five of barley. Converting these figures to current international measures,37 we could say that Roman soldiers and infantry allies would receive 26.5 kg of wheat per month. Meanwhile, the Allied knights would obtain about 53 kg of wheat and 198.75 kg of barley, while the Romans would get as much as 79.5 kg of wheat and 278.25 kg of barley. These figures are very much like those identified from other places such as high-imperial papyri that refer, respectively, to the supply of barley to a Roman ala and to the daily cereal consumption of a soldier.38 Thanks to the late Roman regulation we also know that the military diet would be complemented daily, at least by 360 CE, with about 0.91 kg of meat, 0.95 l of ordinary wine and 0.06 l of oil.39 More evidence is offered by a papyrus on the supplies of the Roman army deployed in Egypt in 199 CE. It explicitly mentions wheat, lentils, hams, oxen, calves, goats, pigs and wine, all of them used to feed the soldiers. Other cereals were destined for fodder, so they would almost exclusively be used to feed the animals. Finally, radish oil is also mentioned as a substitute for olive oil in the region and it was used especially for cooking food.40 Additionally, thanks to the Classical authors and the epigraphic record, we know that fish, wild fruits, nuts, vegetables (especially beans and lentils), beer and seafood were also consumed by Roman soldiers.41 However, as it happened in the Roman forts, most of these products were not supplied directly by those in charge of Carthaginian logistics, but instead it were the soldiers who had to find ways to obtain them. This was done usually through extortion, private purchases, in taverns or settlement markets near camps, hunting or family member gifts.42 In the Carthaginian case, despite the great variety of peoples that defined their armies and, therefore, different culinary customs and tastes, we believe that the main food would come from cereal derivatives, especially wheat.43 In view of the above, we could estimate, approximately, that each infantryman of the Carthaginian army annually would require around 315 kg of wheat, 330 kg of meat, 345 l of wine and just over 20 l of oil. The knights, if we follow the Roman model, would presumably receive three times more. Additionally, they would be supplied with more than 3 t of barley to feed their mounts. However, in the Roman case, the magnitude of food resources obtained by the knights is the result of a privileged socio-economic status that would not always be equivalent in the case of the Carthaginian riders. For this reason, we consider it more accurate to define the needs of the Carthaginian cavalry following the allied model,

37  Based on the calculation of Erdkamp (2011, p. 68), who estimated that the Attic medimnos during the second century BCE was equal to about 39.75 kg. Meanwhile, Klingbeil (2000, pp. 17 and 20), related this medimnos to litres, concluding that the above-mentioned measure would be equal to 60.54 l, and, thus, its weight fluctuating between a minimum of 27121.92 and a maximum of 52548.72 g. 38  Davies 1971, p. 123; Klingbeil 2000, p. 17. 39  Davies 1971, p. 122, n. 1; Kron 2008, p. 83. 40  Davies 1971, p. 125. 41  Davies 1971, pp. 126–133; Kron 2008, p. 85. 42  Davies 1971, pp. 123–124. 43  Klingbeil 2000, p. 20.

V. MARTÍNEZ HAHNMÜLLER

58

that is, double of a foot soldier (around 630 kg of wheat, 660 kg of meat, 690 l of wine and just over 40 l of olive oil) and 2.3 t of barley for their horses. Along with the horses, it would be necessary to evaluate the supply needs of the beasts of burden, with a consumption of at least 2 kg per day of dry fodder.44 Elephants, at least in the case of the Asian ones, would need 220 kg of fresh grass daily,45 which would exponentially increase the need for fodder cereals, such as barley, when proper fodder could not be used or found. To get an idea of the impact of beasts of burden and elephants on the Carthaginian armies, we must remember that Hannibal made the march to Italy with 20 elephants and around 4000 beasts of burden. The latter figure comes from the knowledge that Hannibal carried enough supplies to feed his entire army for ten days.46 So, following the previous thread, in 214 BCE, when Carthage had deployed the largest number of soldiers (almost 170,000 in total), the Carthaginian armies had to be supplied with the huge figures of more than 3700 kL of oil, almost 64,000 kL of wine, just over 62,000 t of meat, around 59,000 t of wheat and more than 46,000 t of barley.

MEASURING THE IMMEASURABLE: METHODOLOGICAL PROPOSALS TO ESTIMATE AGRICULTURAL YIELDS IN THE PAST

Setting aside the chronological and spatial evolution of the food needs of the Carthaginian armies during the Second Punic War for another paper,47 we want to emphasise the huge amount of resources required by the armies in Antiquity and the obvious problems that would suffer the different economic systems of every city, tribe or alliance that, for one reason or another, were in their way. In fact, although the food resources needed to supply the Carthaginian armies on a regular basis were very high, they only constituted a small part of the food rate with which the Second Punic War taxed the Mediterranean fields in the last third of the third century BCE. Indeed, the Carthaginian armies fought against equally large Roman military groups and against many local armies allied with one or the other side. If that were not enough, populations, directly or indirectly, affected by the conflict (there were many in the central, western and eastern Mediterranean), also had to feed their population and trade with their surpluses. Although, in this last aspect, armies in fight would be the best markets to aspire to.48 Finally, the hazards of the war itself and the importance of logistics meant that some agricultural areas, especially on the Italian front, were razed or burned to prevent the enemy, whether Roman or Carthaginian, from supplying from it. The question that arises from this brief excursus is not whether the resources available in the affected territory would be enough to supply the armies engaged in warfare and the populations that inhabited the regions through which they traveled. Rather, it was a historical fact 44

 Erdkamp 2011, p. 68.  Ferrer Maestro 2004, p. 444. 46  Klingbeil 2000, pp. 17–18. 47  Martínez Hahnmüller forthcoming a. 48  Polanyi 1994, p. 159. 45

ENOUGH TO FEED AN ARMY?

59

and, therefore, we can be sure that it was. The actual question is what were the productivity rates at this time, did they remained stable over time, and is it possible to know them and, if so, what is the best way to calculate them? However, we face an insoluble problem because agricultural yield is not a constant. Factors such as the types of exploitation and crop, the cultivation intensity, the climatic conditions, the water supplies, the availability of markets and the hazards of war or disease can make the agricultural yield vary considerably from one year to another. Nonetheless, despite these obstacles, the number of methodologically sound proposals willing to give an estimate of the agricultural performance is surprising, although, definitively limited to specific agricultural products in certain areas during particular historical moments. The interest regarding agricultural yield can be traced back to the beginning of history since agriculture was the main economic sector in Antiquity. Thus, for example, already in Ebla, in the fourteenth century BCE, there are a dozen tablets that highlight the number of olive trees and their oil production. Among the less productive farms, there is an example of a property of 5400 olive trees, which produced a total of 24 jugs of oil per year (around 730 l).49 However, already at that time, large differences in yields could be perceived. In the same chrono-spatial context, we discovered a farm that, despite only having 600 olive trees, achieved about 540 l of oil. Biblical studies also offer some information about olive yields. The Hebrew Mishna states that an olive tree should produce between 12 and 17 kg of olives.50 This high inconsistency between agricultural yields, even in regions where bioclimatic conditions are similar, would be one of the reasons why the agronomists of Antiquity, in most cases, dispensed with offering yields, choosing instead instructions to improve them. In this sense, it should be remembered that, despite the importance of agriculture in the Ancient World, agronomy would be considered one of the least pure sciences because its knowledge was based on empirical experience and its implementation was highly reliant on cultural habits and environmental conditions.51 Fragments or references of the works of some 30 agronomists have been preserved ranging from the Greek Dark Ages, with the Works and Days of Hesiod, to the Byzantine era, with the compilation of the Geoponica, passing through the famous work of the Carthaginian agronomist Mago. When discussing agricultural productivity, at least in preserved passages, the Classical authors usually avoid absolute figures, except when they discuss exceptionally high yields. Rather, they tend to establish relationships between the extent of agricultural land, people and the tools needed to obtain the best yields. In this sense, for instance, Teichner52 recalls that Cato, in his work On Agriculture,53 establishes that an efficient use of double oil presses could be achieved with a property of about 120 iugera (30 ha). Later,54 he would also describe the republican model of oil production as a 240 iugera (60 ha) olive grove with at least 5000 olive trees. He also describes the size of the vineyards of that 49

 Brun 2003, p. 143.  Brun 2003, p. 143. 51  Thibodeau 2016, p. 519. 52  Teichner 2008, p. 545. 53  V, 5. 54  On Agriculture XII, 2. 50

V. MARTÍNEZ HAHNMÜLLER

60

time (second century BCE), offering a slightly lower allotment area, around 100 iugera (about 25 ha).55 According to Pliny the Elder,56 a single grape press had to fill 20 cullei (about 105 hL) and, therefore, it had to be enough to process the grapes obtained in a vineyard of about 20 ha (five iugera).57 Again, the famous Roman censor suggested that, to properly take advantage of these vineyards, the land must be farmed by a total of 16 persons among the most technical personnel along with one worker for every ten iugera.58 Pliny remains around these figures,59 while Columela stated that for seven iugera (1.8 ha), a total of 14 people were required.60 Of course, although they generally emphasised the ways of obtaining the highest possible productivity, this does not mean that, at times, they made direct reference to yields. However, as we have advanced, generally, they referred to the best crops. For instance, according to Cato,61 some vineyards of the ager Gallicus provided ten cullei per iugera, that is, about 211 hL per hectare. From the original information of Varro62 we know that the property of Marcius Libo, near Faventia, provided 300 amphorae per iugera (around 316 hL per hectare). Columela stated that the Remnius Palaemo’s vineyard, replanted under the direction of Acilius Stenhelus, and sold to Seneca, provided eight cullei per iugera (around 169 hL per hectare).63 This slightly contradicts Pliny the Elder’s account on the same property since he reduced the yield to seven cullei per iugera (around 148 hL per hectare).64 Finally, again, Columela stated that his property of Caere,65 in the best years, had provided him with 100 amphorae of wine per iugera (around 104 hL per hectare).66 Less frequent, although no less interesting, are the general yields that some agronomists established as goals to be achieved. Thus, for instance, Cato wished to obtain a dollium with the capacity to store 800 cullei as the production of five harvests of wine in a vineyard of 100 iugera, that is, about 34 hL per hectare per year.67 Graecinus ensured that an average yield of at least 20 amphorae per iugera had to be achieved, that is, about 21 hL per hectare.68 Columella,69 however, considers that this should be the minimum yield for a carefully cultivated vineyard with poorly fertile vines. Therefore, he raised the normal yield to about 30–40 amphorae per iugera, that is to say, 31.5–42 hL per hectare. Following the logic of the Gaditan author, a good yield would be to obtain three cullei per iugera (around 63 hL per hectare).70  On Agriculture XI.  Natural History XVIII, 317. 57  Brun 2003, p. 59. 58  Cato the Elder, On Agriculture XI, 1. 59  Natural History XVII, 215. 60  III, 3, 8. For more comments on this topic, Brun 2003, p. 41. 61  Quoted by Varro in Rerum Rusticarum I, 2, 7. 62  Although quoted this time by Columela III, 3, 2. 63  III, 3, 3. 64  Natural History XIV, 49–52. 65  III, 3, 3. 66  Tchernia 1989, p. 360. 67  On Agriculture XI. 68  Quoted by Columela III, 3, 7. 69  III, 7, 7. 70  Tchernia 1989, p. 360. 55 56

ENOUGH TO FEED AN ARMY?

61

Even so, these figures have been subject to several debates because they introduced a much higher production than the one obtained in some regions of Europe in post-medieval times.71 In fact, for instance, the yields offered by Columela are very similar to those obtained from the mixed farms of northern Europe and England during the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries.72 This fact has led many historians to consider the figures of the Classical authors uncertain. But it is striking that, using the advice of these Classical agronomists, you can obtain similar yields to those achieved in Roman times. In eighteenth century England, British agronomists suggested to their fellow farmers to cultivate the land with the skill and versatility of the Romans.73 Something similar happened in the United States of America. During the nineteenth century, we find translations of Roman agronomic works used as examples for American agrarian life as in the case of Adam Dickson, and his Husbandry of the Ancients of 1788, and Fairfax Harrison and his Roman Farm Management published in 1918.74 Although it would be interesting, we are not going to break down the evolution of productivity by regions, seasons or crops, since it would not be useful for the purpose of this contribution. Instead, we will briefly review some of the existing methodological proposals, with special emphasis on the set of data on which they are based and the chrono-geographical context in which it has been applied. Thus, and even though the yields stated by Classical authors have been vigorously debated, they are still a direct (or at least indirect) source on the issue at hand. However, when these data are lacking, researchers have tried to find a formula to satisfy this statistical curiosity based on the available information that, unfortunately, fluctuates a lot, both in time and space. For instance, an attempt has been made to calculate the general productivity of Classical Greece from the information collected in two inscriptions on the Eleusis accounts of the years 329 and 328 BCE.75 These inscriptions mention the first fruits of wheat and barley that the ten tribes of Attica and other dependent territories were committed to deliver to the sanctuary of Eleusis. From the information of the inscriptions, productivity has been established based on donations and the presumed proportion of the total of the harvest (specifically 1/600th of the barley produced and 1/1200th of the wheat was donated).76 In the case of high-imperial Roman era Egypt, interesting estimates have been made based on the rates of agricultural production conserved in the papyrological documentation. Thanks to these papyri, it has been established that wheat cultivation provided about 11–12 artabas (a measure of volume equivalent to about 40 l or 30 kg) per arura (c. 0.275 ha) during most of this period except for the fourth century, when it fell to only seven artabas per arura.77

71

 For some examples of scholars offering low production estimates (barely enough for subsistence) from the productivity indexes of Eastern Europe or Russia production, see Kron (2008, p. 97). 72  Kron 2002, p. 55, n. 9 and pp. 76–77; Zgur 2007, pp. 141 and 149. 73  Zgur 2007, p. 148. 74  White 1956, p. 85. 75  Inscriptiones Graecae II2 1672 and I3 78. 76  Gallego 2004, pp. 26–27. 77  Van Minnen 2000, p. 212.

V. MARTÍNEZ HAHNMÜLLER

62

Fortunate for answering these questions are the calculations, in more recent times, where the conservation of administrative documents allows establishing different methods to propose agricultural productivity, even preferring some calculations over others. Thus, for instance, estimates of productivity in Belgium can be made through inventories of Flemish successions, the 1766 cadastre, and other literary sources.78 However, Clark, in his study on English agricultural productivity in medieval and modern times, reveals that very different results are obtained from the information of successions or sales and, thus, he suggests prioritising the calculation of productivity based on the payment that labourers obtained in the fields in which they worked.79 For periods or regions where we do not hold any written information, the methodological proposals become more technical and, consequently, more complex to understand. These proposals tend to offer very stable geographical and chronological figures, which, as we have seen, are far from being adjusted to the agricultural reality. All these models are based on information from Classical authors, medieval writings and ethnographic comparisons and their association with the archaeological record.80 Some of the most elaborate proposals come from the northeast of the Iberian Peninsula, where the appearance of large concentrations of silos has become a highly relevant theoretical problem. One of these archaeological sites is Mas Castellar, where a production of 1800 t of cereal was established based on the relationship between the surface of the town (2500 m2), its population (assessed between 150 and 214 people), their consumption (considered around 230 kg per person per year) and a reserve of one quarter of the total production. Therefore, this settlement would reach a surplus of 1307.2 t, assuming that its hinterland was some 1000 ha in size and was exploited entirely for cereal (neither fallow nor other crops).81 Meanwhile, Gracia Alonso accurately considered an average yield in cereal production for the Iberian world of around 750 kg per ha, based on the average yield for the Greek area of the time. From these calculations, the author proposes that Mas Castellar would have to exploit 57.1 ha only to produce the amount of cereal required for the subsistence of the town (a figure that he estimates at 42.88 t).82 Then he applied the actus system, which calculates the allocation of land plots needed to produce the above-mentioned quantity of cereal so that the number of people needed to cultivate it may be determined. In the case at hand, this would be about 113 people (just over half of the Iberian site population). He concluded that, even taking this model to the limits, that is, proposing that 80 per cent of the population (172 people) worked in agriculture, it would only obtain a maximum production of 65.55 t, in times of good harvest. After deducting the one quarter needed for new cultivation (16.387 t) and the amount required for consumption (42.880 t), only a surplus of 6.283 t would remain, representing a quantity excessively reduced to suppose a cereal trade. These numbers would demonstrate, for this author, that Mas Castellar was a cereal concentration 78

 Dejongh 1999, pp. 12–18.  Clark 1991, pp. 445–460. 80  Gracia Alonso 2009, pp. 54–55. 81  Pons’ model of 1993 quoted by Gracia Alonso (2009, p. 55). 82  Gracia Alonso 2009, pp. 55–56. 79

ENOUGH TO FEED AN ARMY?

63

point, thus opening new debates on the contemporaneity of the silos, their durability and the rate of concentration and transport of the grain. Similarly, Sanmartí proposed in 1993 that the Phocean city of Emporion would hold 1300 ha of hinterland. Therefore, the Greek colony would be self-sufficient since it required 350 t of grain per year that could theoretically be covered by the exploitation of 1226 ha. Be that as it may, Sanmartí established the chora of the Greek city based on agricultural information. The assessed cultivated area for the survival of the population was 460 ha, to which it should be added a margin of 153 ha left for the new seeds and a biannual fallow of 613 ha.83 Again, Gracia Alonso applied his actus system to define the required and available workforce, concluding that 1216 people would be needed to complete agricultural tasks, which equates to four fifths of the population estimated by Sanmartí at 1500 people. In Gracia Alonso’s opinion, the population of Emporion would be greater if the most common demographic calculation proposals were applied because it was a city with 5 ha of built area. However, as he pointed out, the increase in population would also mean an increase in the demand for cereal. He concluded, therefore, that a population of 3000 people would require 690 t of cereal annually or 985.55 t if the figure of 4285 inhabitants was reached. This would mean that, just to survive, this Greek trade port of Iberia would have to exploit between 920 and 1314 ha. Moreover, keeping in mind both fallow and new seeds, the Emporion’s chora should reach a surface between 2362 and 3416 ha in size. In addition, it would imply that 79–80 per cent of the population was intended for agricultural tasks, which is insupportable if we consider the most common contemporary parameters in the division of labour in the Greek polis and emporia.84 Of these proposals, the most striking feature is the great variability in the results. Thus, for instance, while Pons suggested a productivity of 1800 t per hectare during Iberian times, this figure is reduced to 750 kg by Gracia Alonso.85 In the case of the Greek area, he estimates the yields of Continental Greece to be 8 hL of wheat and 13 hL of barley per hectare. In the eastern area of the Iberian Peninsula, yields would increase up to 13–16 hL of wheat and 20 hL of barley per hectare.86 Other theoretical models seek to determine the relationship between the exploited area and the population to establish productivity in Antiquity. Alonso i Martínez,87 for instance, relying on information from Classical authors, and comparisons with yields from medieval times, proposed a relationship under optimal conditions of 4:1 from the original seed. Therefore, for a standard family of five members, a consumption of 1250 l of cereal per year has been assessed. This would be equivalent to a need for 312.5 l of seed that would provide a final production of 1562.5 l. Thus, an agricultural extension of at least 1.8 ha would be required for each family to subsist, or even 3.6 ha if half the harvest was left fallow. Moreover, all these figures would be in optimal conditions, because in bad years the yield would be closer to 2:1, exponentially increasing territorial needs. 83

 Model quoted by Gracia Alonso (2009, pp. 56–57).  Gracia Alonso 2009, pp. 56–57. 85  Gracia Alonso 1995, pp. 104–105. 86  Gracia Alonso 1995, pp. 101–102. 87  Alonso i Martínez 2000, pp. 40–42. 84

V. MARTÍNEZ HAHNMÜLLER

64

Similar calculations were made by researchers who worked in Tsoungiza (Northeast Peloponnese) who estimate that, for the initial Helladic period, the 200 inhabitants that were assessed for the settlement would require 120 ha of cereals. Unsurprisingly, this area seems to match to the actual chora of the city. Be that as it may, it would suppose the need for 0.6 ha per person. Similarly, the reconstruction, carried out by Klein Goldewijk and his collaborators, for the 2017 HYDE 3.2 model suggests the general need for about 0.03 ha per person between 6000 BCE and 200 CE for the Peloponnese, offering a figure of 0.5 ha per person.88 These yields are greatly reduced by other authors such as Bintliff, who in his 1977 work, suggested the need for 1.4 ha per person to subsist. In 2009, Ruddiman and Ellis estimated that a 2–6 ha per person would be needed for the first farmers. Even lower are the results from the KK10 scenario of Kaplan and his collaborators in their 2011 work. They present a need of 4 ha per person for the Peloponnese and an average 5.5–6.5 ha per person for the rest of Europe.89 Weiberg’s team chose a middle ground since they estimate 1 ha per person during the Classical era as the minimum required to survive, considering both the possible annual losses and the reserves needed to replant and feed the cattle.90 The size of the agricultural land needed would range from 2 ha per person at the end of the Early Neolithic-Helladic I to 3.2 ha in the Classical or Hellenistic era.91 These are just a few of the many methods developed to estimate agricultural yield in Antiquity, but we believe they are eloquent enough as a testimony to the difficulty of measuring agricultural productivity. As we have seen, the same data or similar information allows researchers to propose very different alternatives that often come from their personal conceptions on the economic capacity of past societies. On this matter, the agricultural productivity from the past is not analysed in an objective and impartial way, because agricultural yields are shaped by what each one expects is the productivity of the people that they are analysing. All this entails, especially in the most sophisticated models, cyclical models in which the indexes feed them back on the productive conception of the societies. Furthermore, as we have seen in some examples, it is not unusual to use unknown variables to support their models, such as demography, cultivated area, the number of people who worked in the fields, the crops used or the potential application of some technological innovations. All this in an attempt, which we consider pointless, to measure the immeasurable. We would not like to finish this section without highlighting some aspects that we believe could have great relevance in the very high agricultural productivity that central and western Europe experienced during the end of the third century BCE. A productivity that, in turn, allowed the large armies to be fed without the communities that were involved in the war which, in one way or another, had their livelihood or commercial capacity compromised. In this sense, we side with Kron in that one of the factors that most affects productivity is the possibility of selling their agricultural surpluses.92 In a context in which the preservation 88

 Quoted by Weiberg et al. (2019, p. 11).  Quoted by Weiberg et al. (2019, p. 11). 90  Weiberg et al. 2019, p. 11. 91  Weiberg et al. 2019, pp. 15–16. 92  Kron 2008, p. 79. 89

ENOUGH TO FEED AN ARMY?

65

of food is limited, having a huge and unstoppable demand is a principle incentive to increase productivity. The Second Punic War, and in general the preceding and subsequent military conflicts, entailed unprecedented food needs in this area of the Mediterranean and the peasants would take (or would be forced to take) advantage of this circumstance to increase their yields within their capabilities. The rural model of agricultural exploitation of this period, still characterised by the predominance of medium and small size properties, would also beneficially affect agricultural productivity and profitability,93 since this kind of exploitation is easier to control efficiently. Furthermore, as the owners generally exploited the land directly, the motivation to increase production would be felt more because their wealth and subsistence depended directly on them. Finally, we should not forget the importance of weather conditions. Dendroclimatology studies and literary information show that the Second Punic War happened during a mild climate,94 which would imply especially favourable conditions for obtaining high yields. In this sense, the only Classical author to make references to extremely ice conditions during Hannibal’s cross of the Alps is Silius Italicus,95 while Polybius and Titus Livius make no reference to it. This leads to Neumann to suppose that Silius would be exaggerating the conditions based on his own experiences because, at the time of the poet’s life, there was an extreme cold phase.96 On the other hand, the information obtained from the tree rings allows us to establish warm temperatures with a climate similar to the 1920s, although slightly more stable.97

REUSING AMPHORAE. AMPHORA CAPACITY CALCULATIONS TO ESTIMATE AGRICULTURAL SURPLUS Given the topic of this publication, it may seem somewhat out of place to have dealt so extensively with logistics and agricultural yields. However, as we will see from now on, we consider that amphorae can be used to clarify some of the issues that were mentioned before and to propose a new method to calculate agricultural production in Antiquity. The amphora was one of the most important containers for trade, transport and storage since, at least, the first millennium BCE. Although it surely coexisted with other transport containers made of perishable materials such as wood (barrels), weave (sacks) or skins (wineskins), these, in general, have not survived. On the other hand, pottery containers, due to their hardness and resistance, constitute the perfect instrument for archaeological studies. As will be shown in this volume, they allow us to solve many questions of an economic, chronological, productive and social nature, in addition to suggesting new ones. The research developed in recent decades by specialists in underwater archaeology has established that the amphora was the main container for the maritime trade of food products 93

 Kron 2008, pp. 99 and 101.  Neumann 1992, pp. 139–150. 95  III, 477–482. 96  Neumann 1992, pp. 144–145. 97  Neumann 1992, pp. 145–147. 94

V. MARTÍNEZ HAHNMÜLLER

66

during Antiquity as it represents the primary artefact recovered from hundreds of wrecks of this period in the Mediterranean.98 However, when discussing land trade, the issue is much more complicated and, generally, wineskins, sacks, and barrels are believed to be the most used containers for the transport of foodstuffs by land. This presupposition is based upon the fact that they are lighter and more formally adapted to animal transport. Therefore, they seem to be the most logical option for land trade. The presence of abundant amphora remains in inland settlements has been explained, consequently, either as the result of local production or the use of river communication routes. In this line of thought, it has been suggested that the supply for the armies during the Second Punic War would have been carried out with wineskins, sacks, and barrels. However, we firmly believe that this dichotomy between trade by land and sea should be questioned, at least during the period under revision in this paper. The current archaeological outlook shows how amphorae occupy a central place in the productive and commercial activities of these moments, regardless of whether the exporting or receiving centre was near the coast, on the banks of a river or near a road. So much so, that, if our reading is correct, local communities, over time, would dispense with other means of transporting their agricultural products. Rather, communities would opt to go for the creation of their own pottery containers that, in the Iberian Peninsula, would take similar forms to those made by potters in the West Phoenician cities. In this sense, although the ports and sites that hold strategic points of the communication routes would possess a much greater diversity in terms of the origin of the productions than the inland sites, the latter would have had a significant number of amphora containers, mainly from local or regional production. Amphorae would make up for their increased weight with other benefits. Firstly, the amphora provided constant internal temperature and humidity indexes, which benefited the preservation of the transported food products. Despite the disadvantage of increasing the weight, it was a container that was ideal for transporting and storing merchandise because it had high resistance and durability. Furthermore, due to the abundance of the raw materials required for their creation, amphorae were relatively low-cost products. Finally, thanks to the great elasticity of the clay in its semi-solid state, these containers could be adapted to their contents, with narrow borders for salted products and more open ones for olive oil. These features, their importance at this moment and the clear link between their distribution and the movement of the armies,99 has recently led us to suggest the possibility that at least part of the logistics of the Carthaginian armies were carried out by these containers as the iconographic, literary and archaeological records seem to indicate.100 Leaving aside the details for the aforementioned publication, it is enough to highlight here that amphorae were part of the Punic and Hellenistic iconographic set. Amphorae appear both in religious contexts, such as the Carthage Tophet and in the iconography associated with the funerary area, as well as in productive contexts (with stamps showing some known amphora types). Therefore, it is hardly surprising that we have found depictions of pack animals carrying baskets 98

 Parker 1992.  Martínez Hahnmüller 2016. 100  Martínez Hahnmüller forthcoming a. 99

ENOUGH TO FEED AN ARMY?

67

Fig. 3. Modern Spanish frames to carry large pitchers. a) Esparto grass frame from Azpe; b) Wooden and esparto grass frame from Montehermoso; c) Wooden and iron frame from Bujalance.

for amphora transportation. These frames, normally made from esparto grass, wicker, wood or other similar materials, had divisions in which the amphorae could be easily placed (Fig. 3). In this way, although the recovered images do not come from war contexts, the beasts of burden and some types of recognisable amphorae are combined, making it plausible that products had been transported this way by Carthaginian logistics. In close relation to this, from later times, such as the Roman Imperial era, letters have been recovered in which the soldiers, deployed in military, forts ask for food to be sent by their family and friends. In some of these, the shipment of amphorae is specified.101 This proves that, at least during this period, part of the supply had been done with amphorae, a fact that has been widely confirmed due to the location of amphora remains in these forts.102 Nonetheless, the most obvious proof of this phenomenon, during the Second Punic War, comes from the archaeological record. As we have already mentioned in another paper,103 there is a direct relationship between the high density of Carthaginian amphora findings and the place where the main military operations developed according to Classical authors. Even 101

 Davies 1971, pp. 134–135.  Davies 1971, p. 131. 103  Martínez Hahnmüller 2016, p. 107. 102

V. MARTÍNEZ HAHNMÜLLER

68

more persuasive is the presence of these heavy pottery containers on the battlefields, as evidenced by the specific case of Baecula,104 or in the temporary sites, such as the Roman camp of Nova Classis in Tarragona.105 Once the importance of amphorae in the storage of agricultural goods, trade and the logistics of this period has been highlighted, we only have to present a new model with which we believe we can estimate the production of surplus. Consequently, we can see how models of estimating agricultural yield in which there is practically no room for surpluses should be dismissed. Certainly, the model that we propose here is extremely simple when compared to the others presented above. However, like all forms of mathematical interpretations of the past, it comes with problems and difficulties and is based on premises on which not all researchers will agree. Our proposal to calculate the productive surplus is based on archaeometric analyses, both in studies of capacity and content, which also requires a detailed study of distribution. In any case, the formula is as follows: S=V×n So, the productive surplus (S) is equal to the capacity of the amphorae (V) multiplied by the number of amphorae recovered (n). Of course, calculating the production surplus from the amphorae implies considering that the amphorae were the only containers used for their transport. We know was not true because they would coexist with other containers made of perishable materials such as wood, weave and leather. However, we consider that, at least in the context that concerns us (roughly, the Mediterranean of the second half of the first millennium BCE), amphorae would be the main containers for trade and storage of food surpluses. Therefore, we think that if these variables were known in detail, the results obtained would be very close to the intended figures. Be that as it may, it is necessary to bear in mind a series of questions regarding the amphora production process when using this formula to obtain the production yields. Indeed, it is of paramount importance to know when, where and what the amphorae were made for. Firstly, to make a chronological estimate, it is necessary to know the approximate date of production and commercialisation of these amphorae. Since, unfortunately, we do not have, for the western Mediterranean, an amphora epigraphic set as systematic and extensive as some of the cities in the eastern Mediterranean (such as the stamps of Rhodes), we are forced to use more extensive chronological ranges. But unlike other typological sets, such as the case of Phoenician-Punic amphorae, we have to deal with relatively short and welldefined periods of time. These serve our purposes perfectly thanks to the excellent typological work of Ramon Torres and the nuances and adaptations developed through new excavations and re-studies of materials from ancient archaeological investigations.106 Likewise, the geographical issue on amphora studies has advanced very much through abundant macroscopic and microscopic analyses and, especially, the increasingly frequent 104

 Rueda Galán et al. 2015, pp. 503–514.  Noguera Guillén 2009, pp. 331–332. 106  Ramon Torres 1995. 105

ENOUGH TO FEED AN ARMY?

69

physical analyses of pottery clays. For this reason, in recent years, the production place of a large portion of Phoenician and Punic amphorae can be established with some degree of certainty. The definition of the functionality of the amphorae has been a slow and complex process. Although they were generally intended to contain food products, their occasional reuse and adaptation to other functions (such as the sewage works in some Phoenician cities), has led to great skepticism when defining an association between content and container. The promising chemical analyses conducted in order to outline the amphora contents during the late 90s and the beginning of the present century,107 which have recently been resumed,108 have made it possible to define some very interesting relations. However, both the fragmentary state in which amphorae are usually recovered, which hinders the secure association between base and rim, as well as other methodological issues, such as the difficulty of chemically differentiating some food products, leaves the question of content incomplete. To ease the absence of chemical analysis, different methods have been used to suggest the content of some amphorae, including typological features, links with certain productive activities, iconographic representations and, in some rare cases, through the physical preservation of their contents (generally coming from underwater contexts). Keeping in mind these setbacks, we will now evaluate our knowledge of the variables. The first of these, the capacity, is perhaps the best known of them. This is due to the use and diffusion of current infographic techniques which make the reconstruction of the volume of an amphora very straightforward, without turning to complicated quantum calculations.109 Currently, it is relatively easy to obtain a fairly accurate estimate of the capacity of an amphora if we have a drawing of its complete section. In order to obtain even more precise indexes, we have chosen to use photogrammetric techniques to obtain these sections and, therefore, obtain the volume of these containers with a millimeter-accurate measurement. This, in turn, has allowed us to develop new methodological proposals on productive standardisation with interesting chronological, geographical and content implications.110 Of course, if we do not have at least one complete copy, or enough fragments to reconstruct the complete section of the amphora, we will not be able to estimate its capacity. However, in the context of the Second Punic War, there are very few amphora types which are impossible to reconstruct and they are of little relevance to the present proposal since, for the moment, they have very limited distribution and production. The second variable is much more complex to estimate because, although we have two alternatives for calculating it, neither is exempt from serious methodological problems that imply significant limitations. The first of these, the calculation of amphorae distribution, is the least hypothetical since it is limited to making a count of the findings of a certain type of amphora on the widest possible scale. The biggest restriction of this technique is that not all the amphorae that were commercialised have been recovered archaeologically. Consequently, no matter how high the number of amphorae considered, it will always remain a 107

 Cañabate Guerrero and Sánchez Vizcaíno 1995; Juan Tresserras and Matamala Mellín 2004; Petit Domínguez et al. 2003. 108  García Fernández et al. 2017. 109  Docter 1992. 110  Martínez Hahnmüller forthcoming b.

V. MARTÍNEZ HAHNMÜLLER

70

lower quantity than the real one. Although this number grows as new archaeological excavations or exhaustive studies of materials are developed, the fact remains that there are still too many contexts yet to be discovered including many which, due to the urban trends of the second half of the twentieth century, have probably been lost forever. The absence of these containers in the final calculation is scarcely eased by the count of all the amphorae and not only those that were used for commercial or storage purposes. In this sense, in order to reduce the discrepancy between the actual number produced and that which is recorded, we believe that the amphorae that were reused in other areas (such as constructions or water conduction) or that were never used (such as pottery waste) should not be excluded. Another important obstacle to this counting technique is of a methodological nature, because not all the findings have been published. Sometimes, even though the amphorae are published, we find that they have not been adequately represented graphically or that the counting system for the minimum number of vessels has not been clearly defined. The second way to estimate amphora production is to return to the kilns where they were produced. Indeed, thanks to the exhaustive studies on the pottery kilns of Torre Alta by Sáez Romero, it has been possible to define their volume and the number of amphorae that could be baked in each firing.111 Thus, for instance, these authors were able to calculate that these Late Punic period kilns would have had room for 34 to 54 amphorae of types 12.1.1.1/2 of Ramon’s typology. Its relationship with capacity has led them to estimate that each batch of amphorae would entail a production of between 1024.4 and 1625.4 l of content.112 Although there are some doubts regarding the cover and, consequently, the kiln’s precise capacity, the model proposed by these authors seems very successful and close to reality. The main setbacks that this production calculation system must face are archaeological and methodological. Indeed, one of its handicaps is the shortage of pottery workshops recorded in many of amphora-producing centres from this and other periods. However, at least in Punic times, the typology of pottery kilns remains quite similar, so this problem could be avoided, using the much better studied models of Torre Alta. The second difficulty is theoretical and it mainly consists of defining the number of amphora batches that would have been produced. The authors believe that the amount must be between one or two every week depending on the needs of the future content.113 The question of the seasonality of the manufacture of amphorae is also controversial. They suggest an active period of only eight months due to its association with the seasonality of the activities related to the production of salted fish and fish sauces.114 Finally, it is also necessary to hypothetically define the specific number of kilns that would be dedicated to these productions. In the aforementioned Torre Alta’s case, it has been defined thanks to a thorough territory analysis.115 As an example and to conclude, we will apply our formula following both counting systems for the most representative Carthaginian amphora type produced during the Second Punic War, the T–5.2.3.1 model of Ramon’s typology. Produced in different workshops in North 111

 García  García 113  García 114  García 115  García 112

Vargas Vargas Vargas Vargas Vargas

and and and and and

Sáez Sáez Sáez Sáez Sáez

Romero Romero Romero Romero Romero

2018, 2018, 2018, 2018, 2018,

pp. 179 and 183–185. pp. 183–185. p. 185. p. 185. pp. 183–184.

ENOUGH TO FEED AN ARMY?

71

Fig. 4. Ramon’s T–5.2.3.1 distribution.

Africa, such as Carthage, Utica, and Hadrumetum, due to their shape and the resin remains that have been documented inside, they have been hypothetically linked with the transport of Punic wine.116 From our study of the distribution of Carthaginian amphorae in the context of the Second Punic War,117 we have been able to count just over 1000 amphorae of this type (Fig. 4). Our volumetric studies have allowed us to define its capacity average of about 44.5 l. The total result is about 45,000 l of wine, which would imply a poor annual surplus of just over 2,500 l per year, far from the figures required by the Carthaginian army. However, if we apply the count model proposed by García Vargas and Sáez Romero, the results are, as to be expected, much greater, and that only accounts for the kilns that have been archaeologically located so far. In fact, the five kilns that we know produced amphorae of the type 5.2.3.1, would have produced around 250 amphorae in each batch, which would have meant increasing the annual production to around 12,000 individuals. In other words, an annual production of more than 525,000 l of wine, which would still be far from the needs of the Carthaginian armies. Of course, we could exponentially increase production assuming the existence of more workshops and kilns (which we are certain that they will be located in the future) or a greater frequency of firing (which could also be possible), but this is not the object of this contribution. 116  Ramon Torres (1995, p. 264), although this scholar also suggested that the content could have been salted fish. 117  Martínez Hahnmüller 2016.

V. MARTÍNEZ HAHNMÜLLER

72

Be that as it may, it should also be noted that Ramon’s type 5.2.3.1 is only one of the 18 Punic models of amphorae produced at this time, so, probably, other types may have transported wine as well. In addition, much of the supply of the Carthaginian armies would have been made through local products (with Phoenician and Iberian amphorae in Iberia, with Magna-Graecan and Sicilian amphorae in Italy and Sicily, etc.). In any case, even taking these low estimates, the results are very eloquent because they allow us to verify the very high productivity of the Phoenician cities and, especially, of Carthage and its empire, since these provided for the export of surpluses. CONCLUSIONS To the question of whether Carthage had enough productive capacity to feed their troops during the Second Punic War, we have no choice but to answer affirmatively. If we believe the Classical authors on the numbers of the military personnel who took part in the Second Punic War on the Carthaginian side, the alimentary needs would have been extremely high but, at the same time, would have been met. Of course, Carthage did not have to feed its troops with its own rural production, but it could buy it from their allies, requisition it from their subdued peoples, or steal it from their enemies. But these realities only delve into the question, they do not solve it. Indeed, although other towns could contribute to alleviating the heavy nutritional burden of the Carthaginian armies, it should not be forgotten that even greater forces were deployed by Rome and that these cities and towns also had their own needs and, sometimes, even their own armies. Therefore, if we accept that the Second Punic War had the dimensions suggested by the Classical authors, which is being corroborated by archaeology, we must accept that the agricultural productive capacity was up to the task. In a confrontation in which up to five military fronts were simultaneously active, the image of the conflict that comes from the Classical authors revolves around the violence of the confrontations, the severity of the attacks on both sides and, above all, the magnitude of the war. But there is hardly any room for hunger. The few and justified episodes of famine, such as the hardest days of the Hannibalic crossing of the Alps or some, very rare, long-lasting sieges, suggests that the fields and peasants were up to the challenge. Although the climatic impact cannot be completely dismissed, and seems to have been especially benevolent in this context, what this scenario suggests to us is the high productive capacity of the peasants who lived in the conflict zones. These high yields are linked to very effective farming systems, which are demonstrate both in agronomic works and in the archaeological record.118 However, it is not a phenomenon that started in these final moments of the third century BCE, but rather the culmination of a process that began, at least, during the previous century.119 The Second Punic War pushed these effective economic strategies to the limit. The result of the warlike confrontation and the political and socio-economic consequences that came after the Carthaginian defeat, would be the germ of the new productive systems that the Roman Empire would impose over its dominions. 118 119

 Pardo Barrionuevo 2015, pp. 116–117.  Pardo Barrionuevo 2015, p. 115.

ENOUGH TO FEED AN ARMY?

73

In spite of the great expenses that the Carthaginian armies entailed annually, Carthage was able to meet the costs. Indeed, the Iberian mines would grant Carthage a margin of about 18 t per year of silver profit, discounting the expenses resulting from the maintenance of the army.120 However, it is not less important to highlight that the territory that Carthage dominated, and its complex system of alliances and submissions, was able to supply these armies. Nor is the Carthaginian logistics system any less commendable (the same goes for the Roman one), because it was able to foresee and even satisfy the needs of huge armies on the move, larger and hungrier than many cities. We are of the opinion that the ancient concept of feeding on enemy territory (which Cato the Censor would make famous in his 195 BCE campaign against the Iberian rebels) as a mode of supply has been overestimated. It is difficult to imagine that the Roman and Carthaginian armies could feed constantly and efficiently from the enemy territory. Consequently, we follow Seibert’s opinion and, although it was deemed not worth mentioning by Classical authors, the Carthaginian army (in order to have endured until 203 BCE in Italy) would have received shipments of supplies from their home territories.121 Unfortunately, we are only aware of one of those coming from North Africa. Perhaps the Carthaginian armies supplied themselves with food, troops and other military tools through a land supply line that would connect the Iberian Peninsula and the Italic Peninsula through the Alps,122 or perhaps the shipments would have arrived by sea at ports controlled by Carthage or its allies.123 Surely, in the years to come, thanks to the advance of archaeological activity and the increasingly prominent presence of archaeological contexts of the Second Punic War, many of the questions raised in this contribution will be solved more definitively. However, one can be already satified with the conclusion that the Carthaginian military capacity, equal to that of Rome without any kind of restraint, could count on a very high agricultural yield at these crucial moments of military confrontations. Although Carthage (or Rome) did not directly have the resources or means to feed its troops, the Mediterranean fields and the people who inhabited and worked them were more than prepared for the challenge and the amphorae are an extremely expressive testimony of this. BIBLIOGRAPHY ALONSO I MARTÍNEZ, N. 2000 “Cultivos y producción agrícola en época ibérica,” in Ibers. Agricultors, artesans i comerciants. III Reunió sobre Economia en el Món Ibèric (Valencia, 1999) (Saguntum Extra 3), edited by C. Mata Parreño and G. Pérez Jordà, pp. 25–46. Valencia: Universitat de Valencia. BRUN, J.-P. 2003 Le vin et l’huile dans la Méditerranée antique. Viticulture, oléiculture et procédés de fabrication. Paris: Éditions Errance. CAÑABATE GUERRERO, M. L. and SÁNCHEZ VIZCAÍNO, A. 1995 “Análisis de indicadores bioquímicos del contenido de la recipientes arqueológicos,” Complutum 6: 281–292. 120

 Ferrer Maestro 2004, pp. 445 and 447.  Seibert 1989, p. 216. 122  Seibert 1989, pp. 217–221. 123  Seibert 1989, pp. 216–217. 121

74 CLARK, G. 1991

V. MARTÍNEZ HAHNMÜLLER

“Yields per acre in English agriculture, 1250–1860: Evidence from labour inputs,” The Economic History Review 44/3: 445–460.

DAVIES, R. W. 1971 “The Roman military diet,” Britannia 2: 122–142. DEJONGH, G. 1999 “New estimates of land productivity in Belgium, 1750–1850,” The Agricultural History Review 47/1: 7–28. DOCTER, R. F. 1992 “Amphora capacities and archaic Levantine trade,” Hamburger Beiträge zur Archäologie 15–17 (1988–1990): 143–188. ERDKAMP, P. 2011 “Manpower and food supply in the first and second Punic wars,” in A Companion to the Punic Wars, edited by D. Hoyos, pp. 58–76. Malden: Wiley-Blackwell. FERRER MAESTRO, J. J. 2004 “Gastos de guerra y administración de bienes de dominio público en la gestión púnica en España,” in El mundo púnico. Religión, antropología y cultura material. Actas del II Congreso Internacional del Mundo Púnico, Cartagena, 2000, edited by G. Matilla Séiquer, A. Egea Vivancos and A. González Blanco, pp. 439–449. Murcia: Universidad de Murcia. FRONDA, M. P. 2011 “Hannibal: Tactics, strategy and geostrategy,” in A Companion to the Punic Wars, edited by D. Hoyos, pp. 242–259. Malden: Wiley-Blackwell. GALLEGO, J. 2004 “La agricultura en la Grecia antigua. Los labradores y el despegue de la pólis,” Historia Agraria 32: 13–34. GARCÍA FERNÁNDEZ, F. J., FERRER ALBELDA, E., ÁLVAREZ MATEOS, P. and DURÁN BARRANTES, M. M. 2017 “Análisis de residuos orgánicos y posibles contenidos en ánforas púnicas y turdetanas procedentes del valle del Guadalquivir,” Saguntum 48: 59–87. GARCÍA VARGAS, E. and SÁEZ ROMERO, A. M. 2018 “Todo el pescado vendido. Una lectura cuantitativa de la producción púnica y romana de ánforas, sal y salazones en la Bahía de Cádiz,” in Cuantificar las economías antiguas. Problemas y Métodos (Col·lecció Instrumenta 60), edited by J. Remesal Rodríguez, V. Revilla Calvo and J. M. Bermúdez Lorenzo, pp. 161–214. Barcelona: Universitat de Barcelona. GRACIA ALONSO, F. 1995 “Producción y comercio de cereal en el N.E. de la Península Ibérica entre los siglos VI-II a.C.,” Pyrenae 26: 91–113. 2009 “Producción y almacenamiento de excedentes agrícolas en el Nordeste peninsular entre los siglos VII y II a.C. Análisis crítico,” in Sistemas de almacenamiento entre los pueblos prerromanos peninsulares, edited by M. R. García Huerta and D. Rodríguez González, pp. 9–71. Cuenca: Universidad de Castilla-La Mancha. JUAN TRESSERRAS, J. and MATAMALA MELLÍN, J. C. 2004 “Los contenidos de las ánforas en el Mediterráneo Occidental. Primeros resultados,” in La circulació d’àmfores al Mediterrani occidental durant la Protohistòria (segles VIII-III aC): aspectes quantitatius i anàlisi de continguts. Actes de la II Reunió Internacional d’Arqueologia de Calafell (Calafell, 21, 22 i 23 de març del 2002) (Arqueo Mediterrània 8), edited by J. Sanmartí Grego, D. Ugolini, J. Ramon Torres and D. Asensio i Vilaró, pp. 283–291. Barcelona: Universitat de Barcelona. KLINGBEIL, P.-E. 2000 “La marche d’Hannibal: ravitaillement et stratégie,” Antiquités Africaines 36/1: 15–38. KRON, G. 2002 “Archaeozoological evidence for the productivity of Roman livestock farming,” Münsterische Beiträge zur Antiken Handelgeschichte 21/2: 53–73.

ENOUGH TO FEED AN ARMY?

2008

75

“The much maligned peasant. Comparative perspectives on the productivity of the small farmer in Classical antiquity,” in People, Land, and Politics. Demographic Developments and the Transformation of Roman Italy 300 BCE–AD 14, edited by L. De Ligt and S. Northwood, pp. 71–119. Leiden/Boston: Brill.

LAZENBY, J. F. 1978 Hannibal’s War. A Military History of the Second Punic War. Warminster: Aris and Phillips. MARTÍNEZ HAHNMÜLLER, V. 2016 “Comercio en tiempos de guerra: la distribución anfórica cartaginesa durante el período Bárquida,” Spal 25: 83–111. 2018 “Entre la ambición y el patriotismo. La supremacía bárquida y su relación con Cartago,” Latomus 77/2: 395–415. forthcoming a  “Amphoras, foremans and beasts of burden. Carthaginian logistics from Classical authors and archaeological information.” forthcoming b  “Fill what’s empty, empty what’s full. Capacity calculations using photogrammetry.” NEUMANN, J. 1992 “Climatic conditions in the Alps in the years about the year of Hannibal’s crossing (218 BCE),” Climatic Change 22: 139–150. NOGUERA GUILLÉN, J. 2009 “Los campamentos romanos en el curso inferior del río Ebro durante la Segunda Guerra Púnica,” in LIMES XX. Estudios sobre la frontera romana, 20th International Congress of Roman Frontier Studies, León, 2006 (Anejos de Gladius 13). Vol. 2, edited by A. Morillo Cerdán, N. Hanel and E. Martín Hernández, pp. 329–338. Madrid: Polifemo. ÑACO DEL HOYO, T. 2011 “Roman economy, finance, and politics in the Second Punic War,” in A Companion to the Punic Wars, edited by D. Hoyos, pp. 376–392. Malden: Wiley-Blackwell. PARDO BARRIONUEVO, C. A. 2015 Economía y sociedad rural fenicia en el Mediterráneo Occidental. Sevilla: Universidad de Sevilla. PARKER, A. J. 1992 Ancient Shipwrecks of the Mediterranean and the Roman Provinces (British Archaeological Reports International Series 580). Oxford: BAR Publishing. PETIT DOMÍNGUEZ, M. D., GARCÍA GIMÉNEZ, R. and RUCANDIO, M. I. 2003 “Chemical characterization of Iberian amphorae and tannin determination as indicative of amphora contents,” Microchimica Acta 141/1–2: 63–68. POLANYI, K. 1994 El sustento del hombre. Madrid: Mondadori. PROCTOR, D. 1971 Hannibal’s March in History. Oxford: Clarendon Press. QUESADA SANZ, F. 2005 “De guerreros a soldados. El ejército de Aníbal como un ejército cartaginés atípico,” in Guerra y ejército en el mundo fenicio-púnico, XIX Jornadas de Arqueología FenicioPúnica, Eivissa, 2004 (Treballs del Museu Arqueologic d’Eivissa e Formentera 56), edited by B. Costa and J. H. Hernández, pp. 129–162. Eivissa: Museu Arqueològic d’Evissa i Formentera., RUEDA GALÁN, C., RODRÍGUEZ MARTÍNEZ, A., MORENO PADILLA, M. I., GÓMEZ CABEZA, F., GUTIÉRREZ SOLER, L. M., ARJONILLA BUENO, A., MARTÍNEZ CARRILLO, A., MORA MONDÉJAR, M. C. and RUIZ RODRÍGUEZ, A. 2015 “La cerámica en el Cerro de las Albahacas y en el oppidum de Los Turruñuelos,” in La Segunda Guerra Púnica en la Península Ibérica. Baecula, arqueología de una batalla, edited by J. P. Bellón Ruiz, A. Ruiz Rodríguez, M. Molinos Molinos, C. Rueda Galán and F. Gómez Cabeza, pp. 477–519. Jaén: Universidad de Jaén.

76 SEIBERT, J. 1989

V. MARTÍNEZ HAHNMÜLLER

“Zur Logistik des Hannibal-Feldzuges: Nachschub über die Alpen?,” in Punic Wars. Proceedings of the Conference held in Antwerp, 23-26 November 1988 (Orientalia Lovaniensa Analecta 33, Studia Phoenicia 10), edited by E. Lipiński and H. Devijver, pp. 213–221. Leuven: Peeters Publishers.

TCHERNIA, A. 1986 Le vin de l’Italie romaine. Essai d’histoire économique d’après les amphores (Bibliothèque des Écoles françaises d’Athènes et de Rome 261). Roma: École Française de Rome. TEICHNER, F. 2008 Zwischen Land und Meer. Architektur und Wirtschaftsweise ländlicher Siedlungsplätze im Süden der römischen Provinz Lusitanien (Portugal) (Studia Lusitana 3). Badajoz: Museo Nacional de Arte Romano de Mérida. THIBODEAU, P. 2016 “Greek and Roman agriculture,” in A Companion to Science, Technology, and Medicine in Ancient Greece and Rome, edited by G. L. Irby, pp. 519–532. Chichester/Malden: Wiley Blackwell. VAN MINNEN, P. 2000 “Agriculture and the ‘Taxes-and-Trade’ model in Roman Egypt,” Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 133: 205–220. WALBANK, F. W. 1957 A Historical Commentary on Polybius I. Commentary on Books I–VI. Oxford: Clarendon Press. WEIBERG, E., HUGHES, R. E., FINNÉ, M., BONNIER, A. and KAPLAN, J. O. 2019 “Mediterranean land use systems from prehistory to antiquity: A case study from Peloponnese (Greece),” Journal of Land Use Science 14/1: 1–20. WHITE, K. D. 1956 “The efficiency of Roman farming under the Empire,” Agricultural History 30/2: 85–89. ZGUR, A. 2007 The Economy of the Roman Empire in the First Two Centuries A.D. An Examination of Market Capitalism in the Roman Economy. Unpublished Master’s diss. University of Aarhus.

Víctor MARTÍNEZ HAHNMÜLLER Department of Archaeology Ghent University Belgium

NEW EVIDENCE ON PHOENICIAN AMPHORA TYPES AND AMPHORIC INSCRIPTIONS (DIPINTI, STAMPS) Eric GUBEL ABSTRACT Two succinct prolegomena of this paper’s introduction focus on representations of amphorae in the visual arts of the Phoenician and Punic world respectively. Scarcely attested as they still are, they add invaluable data on some pottery types viz. subtypes, a mere typological approach seldom considers. The amphorae here nicknamed wadj recipients, for example, represent a case in point. The search for related types in the Phoenician ceramic production offered the occasion to present a selection of some new finds in the ensuing diachronic survey. As turned out to be the case with a few ill-known older ones as well, their potential as chronological markers was greater than expected. The summary presentation of recent additions to the growing corpus of Phoenician dipinti and stamped inscriptions finally, endeavours to widen the interest for this material, still all too restricted to the community of epigraphists, to an audience of ceramologists such as the one gathered in this congress.

I. PROLEGOMENA: DRINKING EARLY IRON AGE LEVANT

VESSELS AND CONTAINERS IN THE ART OF THE

LATE BRONZE-

Over the past decades, typological research on Phoenician amphorae, storage jars and drinking vessels received but little to no attention at all as to their representation in Phoenician art. As underscored by a few exceptions to this rule however, their bearing on pertinent issues such as the origin of specific types, their life span, evolution and distribution patterns are not to be underestimated as the concise review of the ill-known evidence presented here will point out. In chronological order, the latter may start with a brief reminder of the pictorial evidence illustrating the popularity of Mycenaean drinking ware in the Late Bronze Age Near East. As a relevant case in point, we may start with the Levantine bilingual cylinder seal of Kurigalzu II from Metsamor in Armenia which echoes the popularity of Late Helladic IIIb stirrup vases, in addition to an Egyptian stemmed drinking cup and a (silver) ampulla (Fig. 1: a).1 Our compatriot Dominique Collon is no doubt right in regarding this scene as mirroring the impact of the international trade relations of some production centre situated on the Levantine coast.2 In 2005, Yasur-Landau also made a case in this context by highlighting the impact of the iconography of Argolid chariot kraters especially designed for the Levantine elite on the local, 1

 Collon 2011; Lilyquist 2012, pp. 12–13, fig. 3: 8 (silver ampullae), cf. p. 36, fig. 53 (footed chalice) respectively. 2  Collon suggests Ugarit, but we cannot rule out other contemporary harbour cities yet to be explored such as Arwad or Ullaza on the Nahr el-Bared, the find spot of gold bowls with Aegean devices (Gubel, forthcoming). On the Mycenaean wares distributed in Amurru, see also Badre et al. (2005, pp. 15–47) and Badre (2006).

E. GUBEL

78




















Fig. 1. a) Cornaline cylinder seal from Metsamor (Armenia) inscribed with the name of the Kassite king Kurigalzu II (late fourteenth century BCE) in cuneiform and Egyptian hieroglyphic characters (after Collon 2011, p. 27); b) Ivory footstool plaque from Megiddo, early eleventh century BCE, The Israel Museum, Jerusalem IAA 1938-780 (Creative Commons); c) Ivory plaque from Nimrud, Fort Shalmaneser, eighth century BCE, Ashmolean Museum, Oxford 1962.603 (after Mallowan 1966, p. 553, fig. 490); d) Bichrome neck-ridge jug, Tyre al-Bass, urn burial U.49-6, 925–850/825 BCE (after Núñez 2008, fig. 14); e) Bichrome neck-ridge jug, Amathus, Tomb 22, Cypro Geometric 11 (950–850 BCE). Courtesy National Museums of World Culture– Museum of Ethnography, Stockholm, Sweden, A.022: 010 (photographer Ove Kaneberg); f) Fragmentary ivory plaque from Nimrud (SE Palace), late ninth century BCE, British Museum, London, 127116 (after Barnett 1975, pl. XXVIII: S 33s); g) Ivory panel in the Intermediate style, eighth century BCE, London, Institute of Archaeology (after Gubel 1987, fig. 55).

NEW EVIDENCE ON PHOENICIAN AMPHORA TYPES

79

southern Levantine and Cypriote production of kraters as illustrated on the early twelfth century BCE Megiddo ivories' feasting scene (Fig. 1: b).3 Besides the kraters, to which we will return later, one should draw attention on the rhyton in the form of a lion's head and another one with the head of an ibex, well attested in the Ugaritic pottery repertoire and elsewhere in the Near East and the Aegean world.4 Several ninth to early eighth century BCE Phoenician ivories represent proof as to the reception of the more prestigious contemporary productions in aristocratic midst, a variable degree of accuracy in their artistic rendering notwithstanding. Both the form and the association with Astarte embodying Hathor Lady of Drunkenness, with an amphora supported by a stand in wickerwork, tie in with the alabaster vessels used for the export of Egyptian oases wines to the Phoenician Coast (Sidon in particular) and thence to Carthage and Andalusia throughout the early first millennium BCE (Fig. 1: c).5 A tiny mid-eighth century BCE ivory fragment unequivocally features a BoR II/IV juglet placed on an Egyptianising cupboard (Fig. 1: f, cfr. d-e), whereas another one illustrating jugs or dippers of a wine service lacks the necessary diagnostic features to be compared with contemporary pottery types (Fig. 1: f).6 The reception of a set of Phoenician furniture including a sphinx throne, a footstool, a tripod table and cupboards is immortalised on a ninth century BCE north Syrian pyxis which also includes shallow bronze bowls and undefined table amphorae as elements of the wine service, besides a golden spouted vessel readily matched by a type attested at Tell Halaf, probably the production centre of such “Flame and Frond” type of ivories (Fig. 2: a).7 As for the oinochoai in the attendants’ hands, doubts are few that they represent the early Tyro-Sidonian Red Slip trefoil mouthed jugs. Some 20 ivory panels reproducing Sidonian naiskoi illustrate the main variants on these southern Phoenician Red Slipped jugs (Fig. 2: b), a major hallmark of the Phoenician penetration of the new Syrian, Cypriot, North African and western Mediterranean markets’ potential (Fig. 2: c–e). The boat scenes on the early first millennium gold bowl of Queen Yaba from Nimrud feature several identical elongated alabastron-like jars with flaring cylindrical collars, two upright handles and rounded bases (Fig. 3: a).8 The vessel’s contour coincides with that of the Egyptian wadj hieroglyph/amulet, which represents the concept of rejuvenation and eternal youth, suggesting their content may have been water, wine or beer depending on the circumstances. Needless to add that presence of lotus flowers atop our ‘wadj amphorae’ perfectly suits the concept of rejuvenation.9 They are part of the containers of foodstuffs and liquids brought by the partygoers to grace some merry picnic party in the marshes of the 3

 Yasur-Landau 2005.  Yon 2008. 5  The rather long cylindrical neck on the other hand may indicate that the artist confused the characteristics of the alabaster amphorae with the bag-shaped table amphorae to be discussed below. A re-examination of the material evidence will soon be published by L. Bonadies, meanwhile see Oggianio (2010). 6  On the use of such cupboards in the Phoenician realm, see Gubel (1996a, pp. 150–151). 7  On the Halaf-like spouted jug, see Barnett (1974, pp. 28–30) and Hussein (2016, pls. 134–137, gold). 8  Wicke et al. 2010. 9  In some cases, the oinochoai carried by the aforementioned acolytes or twin deities (Fig. 2: b) are also associated with floral elements (palmets). 4

E. GUBEL

80

a)

b)

c)

d)

e)

Fig. 2. a) Ivory pyxis of the north Syrian “Flame and Frond” group, ninth century BCE, Nimrud, North West Palace, Well AJ, Baghdad, Iraq Museum IM79514 (after Wicke 2008, pl. 55); b) Phoenician ivory plaque, ninth century BCE, Nimrud, Fort Shalmaneser, South West 12, Baghdad, Iraq Museum 65508 (after Herrmann, Laidlaw and Coffey 2009, p. 59, fig. 16, drawing by A. Searight); c) Red slip trefoil mouthed oinochoe, 925–850/825 BCE, Tyre al-Bass, urn burial U.51-3 (after Núñez 2008, fig. 14); d) Amathus Tomb 321/67, Limassol Museum 834/67 (after Bikai 1987, p. 30, no. 353, pl. XIV); e) Amathus, Tomb 13 (Cypro Geometric III), Courtesy National Museums of World Culture–Museum of Ethnography, Stockholm Sweden, A.013:039 (photographer Ove Kaneberg).

NEW EVIDENCE ON PHOENICIAN AMPHORA TYPES

81

Fig. 3. a) Sidonian gold bowl of Queen Yaba, Nimrud, c. 750 BCE, Iraq Museum Baghdad (after Wicke et al. 2010, fig. 2); b) Wadj amphora from Tyre stratum III, 740–700 BCE (after Bikai 1978, pl. VII: 4); c) Silver bowl from Athienou/Golgoi (Cyprus): 750–700, Staatliche Museen Berlin 4117 (after Gubel 1987, pl. XLI: 159); d) Ivory plaque from Praeneste, Villa Giulia Rome, 725–675 BCE (after Aubet 1971, p. 75, pl. I: B).

Nile Delta. Left unnoticed by scholars discussing the bowl, such containers reflect an actual type of pottery which is poorly attested. This is demonstrated by a comparison to a near complete example from insular Tyre’s statum III (740–700 BCE) and parallels from Egypt (Fig. 3: b).10 The scarcity of comparanda may either be explained by the possibility that this production’s acme was already over its height before the later eighth century BCE context, 10

 Bikai 1978, pl. VII: 4; Petrie 1906, pl. XVIIA: 2 (no. 5 a local imitation?), XXXIXE: 122 from Yehudiyeh and Saft el-Heneh respectively, Dynasty XXII. For Qantir-Pi-Ramesse, see Wodzínska (2010, p. 200, TIP 16, tenth century BCE, for Tanis 981–890 BCE), Wodzínska (2010, p. 202, TIP 21, Dyn. 22) and material from its cat Necropolis, see Favard-Meeks (1999, p. 90, fig. 3, background left) and Bietak (2001, p. 103, fig. 54: a on Tell el-Dab‘a).

E. GUBEL

82

a)

b)

Fig. 4. a) Bronze razor from Tharros, Tomb 7 (fifth–fourth century BCE, British Museum London 133379=56-12-23, 771 (after Barnett and Mendleson 1987, pp. 154–155, fig. 21); b) Middle Punic II amphora (after Acquaro 2015, pp. 232–233, fig. 1).

which would be compatible with the bowls’ high date during the reign of Osorkon II (872–837 BCE) in my opinion. Yet largely unpublished Nile silt examples from Delta sites, Memphis and Lisht, where the latter’s presence is established indeed warn us not to neglect this possibility. Derived from Egyptian prototypes (37.5 litres) and rarely used in sea transport,11 wadj amphorae are reproduced elsewhere in early Phoenician art on the Athienou silver bowl (Fig. 3: c), whilst they can only be interpreted inasmuch by the marsh context on the early seventh century BCE ivory Praeneste ivory plaque (Fig. 3: d). Finally, the wadj amphorae inspired productions on a smaller scale in alabaster, faience, rock crystal and glass paste, which also holds true for several other Phoenician amphoric types.12

II. DRINKING

VESSELS AND CONTAINERS IN THE ART OF THE

PUNIC

WORLD

As for more recent evidence pertaining to this introductory review, a razor from Tharros imported from Carthage may be given here as an example of pictorial evidence of amphorae in the Punic Mediterranean realm (Fig. 4: a). It features an amphora with handles placed too high in respect to the contemporary examples of the middle Punic II period, but nonetheless calls for a revision of the fifth-early fourth century BCE date as previously suggested (Fig. 4: b).13 11

 Zemer 1977, pp. 8–10, fig. 4 (same type as Wodzínska 2010).  Doumet et al. (2008, p. 56, fig. 102) is a nice example in faience from Sidon, early seventh century BCE, cf. Webb (1978, pl. VIII) for comparable derivations of the wadj amphorae. 13  Barnett and Mendelson 1987, p. 154, fig. 7: 44, quoted by Acquaro 2015, p. 233, fig. 2: 1. 12

NEW EVIDENCE ON PHOENICIAN AMPHORA TYPES

III. NOTES

83

ON NEW AMPHORIC TYPES AND EPIGRAPHIC DATING PARAMETERS

III.1. Alabastron amphorae A new addition to the repertoire of Phoenician storage and transport jars derived from the same Egyptian prototypes as the wadj amphorae comes from Agios Georgios’ tomb 1989/6 and was found with Phoenician Red Slip wares current from the late ninth to early seventh centuries BCE (Fig. 5: a).14 Slightly higher than half a metre, the find is unparalleled on the island, whether in the Kition area or elsewhere. Tyre's stratum III, however, yielded a related form with the baggy lower profile unfortunately missing (Fig. 5: d).15 With the exception of the latter’s flattened rims, the profile of these jars coincides with that of a series of alabastron recipients in gold, bronze, rock crystal and faience widely distributed among an elitarian clientèle of the early first millennium Levant, Mesopotamia and Iran.16 Consequently, a designation of ‘alabastron jars’ would not be out of place for this newly identified amphora type. The Tyrian storage jars (Fig. 5: c–d) also present affinities with the alabastron amphorae.

a)

b)

d)

c)

Fig. 5. a) ‘Alabastron’ ceramic White Painted ware amphora from Kition with red bands, 750–700 BCE (redrawn after Hadjisavvas 2014, pp. 44–45); b) contour of a red slip sample from Tell el-Burak, secondary context (650–580 BCE redrawn after Schmitt 2019, p. 19, fig. 5); c) possibly related variants from Tyre Stratum II (700–675, after Bikai 1978, pl. VII: 2) and the storage jar VII: 3 (d).

14

 Hadjisavvas 2014, pp. 44–45.  Bikai 1978, pl. VII: 3. 16  Caubet and Pierrat 2005, p. 45, fig. 388. 15

E. GUBEL

84 III.2. Amphoroid kraters

As pointed out in the introduction, the success of the Mycenaean chariot kraters gave rise to local derivations in both the Iron Age I/II Levant and Cyprus as illustrated by the example associating such an amphoroid krater with a piriform juglet used as a dipper for distributing the mixed wine (Fig. 6: a–b).17 Locally produced imitations of Cypriote White Painted III–IV kraters reused in southern Lebanon for cremation burials were found in a later ninth century BCE incineration tomb at Tambourit near Sidon together with an early Middle Geometric Argolid pyxis. Roger Saidah followed Akhziv’s excavator Michal Prausnitz in regarding this ware as a Levantine Iron Age I development of the sub-Mycenaean kraters (Fig. 6: b) – the SAPLU or Sefel lordly vessels.18 The Phoenician inscription points to a nearby locality from where wine (?) was transported to the metropolis, Sidon in this case. Its bearing on local and long distance trade is comparable with the name of a certain Sidhan/Sidqon, as well as that of another resident of Akko found on amphoric dipinti from Tell Arqa (north Lebanon) and Egypt, highlighting the towns’ involvement in international trade, as does the mention ‘ky (Akko) on an early eighth century BCE Sagona 2 amphora from Cadiz.19 Sizeable amounts of eighth century BCE cinerary urns, including both imported and local inscribed kraters of this type, have been attested in great number in Tell Rachidieh near Tyre since 1903,20 where additional material from tombs looted during the Lebanese Civil War ended up in private hands.21 The inscriptions on two kraters from Tomb IV underscore that the recurring amphoric term BT is to be understood in the Tyrian realm as ‘house’ (château > wine estate) and not as the usual bat, a measure of capacity (22 litres) out of place here on a recipient of about 38 litres.22 A few inscriptions are restricted to references to the volume of the vessels’ contents such as the one on a ninth century BCE provision jar from Hazor reading: “This bat equals 10 (Gyblite) hin”.23 Another sample considered to represent a yet unattested Phoenician anthroponym preceded by the usual lamed, but since it was constructed on the root meaning “to fill”, viz. “to replenish”, I would argue to regard it as the title “cellar master”, in casu the female person in charge of the filling process of transport vessels, sort of a Châtelaine du Liban avant la lettre. Yet another Tyrian inscription points to the krater’s original contents, in this case a mixed substance of undefined type. Elsewhere, the term qlb designates the term for kraters in Phoenician and the derivative qlby.24 Two more inscriptions establish that similar kraters were originally not exclusively used for wine, but also for the transport and storage of milk and presumably other related dairy products such as laban, cream and cheese. Finally, a glance at our first chart (Fig. 12) raises the somewhat embarrassing question as to why none 17

 Karageorghis and Des Gagniers 1974, p. 176.  Prausnitz 1966; Saidah 1977; Yasur-Landau 2005. 19  Bordreuil 1977b; Cunchillos 1992, pp. 81–83. 20  (Macridy Bey), 1942 (Maurice Chehab) and 1974 (Hafez Chehab and I. Kaoukabani). 21  Doumet-Serhal 2004. 22  Bordreuil 2004. 23  Delavault and Lemaire 1979, pp. 7–8, n. 10; Bordreuil (2004, pp. 81–82) on the Tyrian bat. 24  Gubel 1999. 18

NEW EVIDENCE ON PHOENICIAN AMPHORA TYPES

a)

85

b)

Fig. 6. a) Detail of a Cypriote amphoroid krater, 700–675 BCE (Karageorghis and des Gagniers 1974, p. 176, fig. XVII: 9); b) Amphoroid krater inscribed BT ḤBR (“Chateau” Habour ?) from Tell el-Rachidieh south of Tyre, Tomb IV: 48, 775–725 BCE, Beirut, National Museum (after Bordreuil 2004, p. 82, fig. 3).

Fig. 7. a–b) Phoenician askos and bichrome bag-shaped amphorae from Tell Kazel’s Temple period II (850/800–738 BCE) and comparanda from Carthage; c) Bird askos from the Tophet, Carthage, Musée National (Orsingher 2018, p. 51 fig. 3: 3); d) Red slip amphora from the lowest level of the Tophet’s ‘Tanit phase I’, 750–700 BCE, Carthage, Musée National 15.43 (after Docter 2013, fig. 7).

86

E. GUBEL

of the amphoroid kraters found beyond the nucleus of the Tyro-Sidonian kingdom were inscribed before, not after the firing process, surprisingly not even in nearby Akhziv.25 III.3. Bichrome and painted ware bag-shaped amphorae In a recent tribute volume, our congress’ host Roald Docter published an in-depth review of bag-shaped Phoenician amphorae with bichrome or painted designs (including the palmtree motif) current in the Phoenician Levantine network until c. 750 BCE, a date certainly not incidentally coinciding with the conquests and mass deportations under Tiglath-Pileser III.26 Among the more recent finds to be added is an example from the “Phoenician Governor’s” tomb in Kition, c. 850 BCE, corroborating the fact that this palatial and cultic ware represents the most elaborately decorated output of contemporary southern Phoenician workshops.27 The same applies to an equally intact example from Tel Rehov assigned to the tenth-ninth centuries BCE, which, when compared to the comparanda compiled here and pointing to the ninth century BCE, queries the high date proposed by the excavators.28 Most recently, the excavations of Tel Abel Beth Maacah in the northern Jordan Valley added yet another sample dated to the Iron Age IIA.29 Finally, whether a sign on another addendum from Byblos would refer to its contents (dried fish?) is all but ascertained.30 III.4. Phoenician ‘New Wine’ amphora Imported Levantine baggy jars with a low rim and shoulder parts and two handles immediately underneath, occur in Egypt as early as in the twenty-second dynasty,31 with variants characterised by carinated shoulders found at Saqqara.32 New hints as to their contents come from late Saite to early Persian Age (Darius I) shaft tomb at Abusir in the form of an amphora with bilingual inscriptions (Fig. 8).33 Introduced by the numeral 3, the Phoenician inscription reads new wine/ Ohel-milk/ removed (viz.: uncovered) our Master Milkomyaton / son of our master: ten, 1 (if not: removed Adon from Milkomyaton/son of our Master: ten, 1). The more recent sixth century BCE Aramaic inscription supposed to have been added in Egypt, transcribes the Egyptian common name Wahibre. Excavations at Elephantine, a site rich in Aramaic (and occasionally, Phoenician) jar inscriptions, yielded related types both of 25  Sincere thanks to Dr. Y. Thareani of the Akhziv mission who would relate this fact to a socio-political phenomenon (cf. Thareani 2010). 26  Docter 2013. 27  Orsingher in this volume. 28  https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Tel_Rehov_Exhibition_090316_08.jpg (17/05/2021). 29  Yahalom-Mack et al. 2018, pp. 152–154, fig. 16. 30  Homsy (2004, p. 267, pl. 8, JBL 400979) suggesting that the letter nun would stand for fish (?). Type Lehmann 1996, pl. 77: 414 (al-Mina, Sukas, ‘Arqa, Tell Kazel (?), Byblos). 31  Albeit in a context that may be of Saitic date (Aston 1996, pp. 47–48, fig. 140: 798 from Thebes el Tarif/ Intef cemetery B). Zemer (1978) type 27 is a low shouldered ovoid amphora with twisted handles from the Mediterranean Sea near Ashdod, attested at Hellenistic Tell Keisan in Galilea (Briend and Humbert 1980, pl. 7: 7) (not discussed in text) and grouped as Form 402 assigned to Assembly 7–8 (440–330 BCE) by Lehmann 1996, pl. 75. 32  Aston 2010. 33  Dušek and Mynarova 2011, pp. 179–181; cf. p. 151, fig. 208 (our Fig. 8) and 209, pp. 98–99, fig. 51.

NEW EVIDENCE ON PHOENICIAN AMPHORA TYPES

87

Fig. 8. Phoenician storage jar with bilingual dipinto text uncovered in 2004 by the Czech mission of Abusir in the shaft tomb of Menekhibnekau, General and Overseer of Libyan troops, late sixth century BCE (courtesy Czech Institute of Egyptology).

Levantine and local manufacture.34 These new data pinpoint the production and distribution of the amphora type in question to an earlier phase of the Persian period than originally assumed. Considering their modest size and diagnostic features, it could be argued that they ultimately derive from the more bag-shaped prototypes attested at Byblos and Ras el-Bassit,35 which in turn are attributed to the aforesaid early Iron Age II bichrome bag-shaped containers with the ‘palm-tree’ design widely distributed on the Phoenician coast from Ras el-Bassit up north to Galilee in the south, Cyprus and Carthage.36 The average capacity of these containers, oftentimes reused as cinerary urns, oscillates between four to nine litres.37 In terms of evolution, a notable reduction of their high straight rims and bulgy shoulder profile, as well as the fixation of twisted handles, mark chronological anchorage points in addition to an ovoid, rather than a baggy body. III.5. Bullet jars On several occasions, I raised objections against the abusive use of the term ‘Torpedo Jars’ launched by the Swedish Cypus Expedition. A specific type better described as bullet amphora and recently re-appreciated by Ida Oggiano and Luisa Bonadies is represented in late Egyptian Third Intermediate period art where they are seen carried by representatives of the extremities of a Phoenician commercial axis running all the way down from Syria to Nubia (Fig. 9).38 Provenanced finds and alabaster imitations from the Levant, Assur, North Africa and Andalusia 34

 Aston 1999.  Homsy 2003, p. 258 JR VII; cf. p. 252 CR VII, 750–600 BCE. 36  Docter 2013 with chart; Mazar 2013; Doumet 2003, pp. 44–45, fig. 6; Doumet 2004, pp. 72–74, fig. 3. 37  Doumet 2004, p. 74. 38  Oggiano 2010, pp. 181–205. 35

E. GUBEL

88

Fig. 9. ‘Torpedo’ viz. ‘Bullet’ amphorae carried by Levantine and Kushite attendants on late Third Intermediate Period Egyptian wooden spoons (after Gubel 2000, fig. 13: a).

(not to mention the Nile valley and Delta) substantiate a reconsideration of its geo-chronological distribution pattern throughout the ninth-seventh centuries BCE. Finally, it must also be pointed out that the dipinti and engraved inscriptions on the ceramic bullet jars from Cyprus (Idalion, Kition and Athienou) suggest their survival into the sixth century BCE.39 Bettles’ 2000 classification of torpedo amphorae into specific clay profile groups will no doubt be very helpful to revise the nomenclature of other torpedo family jars, the topic of a congress in its own right. The discovery of new kilns beside the industrial one exposed at Sarepta represents another decisive factor in this process. Unfortunately, the excavation of the Tell Kazel kiln, where we already unearthed many yet unbaked torpedo-like jars, abruptly came to an end due to the Syrian Spring and its dramatic aftermath. III.6. Late Persian AGE and Phoenician ‘Panatella’ amphorae Both the last two types of amphorae withheld for further comments here have a diacritic mark in common, namely the fact that they display jar handles with stamped devices, a feature dovetailing into a long-standing tradition in the Levant. The latter’s revival towards the dawn of the Hellenistic period seems to have replaced the traditional dipinti and engraved jar inscriptions. One should note, however, that in Sidon, this practise started already in the Iron Age II period, whether or not following Judaean scribal practise, as the juxtaposition of a ‘Panatella’ cigar-like type amphora with a stamped handle and a close relation with dipinto demonstrates (Fig. 10: d–f).40 III.7. Hellenistic basket handle amphorae Nowadays considered to represent an eastern Greek production arriving in great numbers at Cyprus in the seventh century BCE and throughout the following three centuries, and attested at several sites (and with multiple variants) of the Syro-Palestinian coast,41 39

 Sznycer 1984; Masson and Sznycer 1982. Whether the amphorae (Fig. 10: a and c) represent successive phases in the panatella type’s evolution, must be discussed elsewhere. 41  Sites listed in e.g. Zemer 1977, p. 31, fig. 24, Sagona Type 13; Briend and Humbert 1980, pp. 136–141; Stern 1983. New find spots include Tyre (Gubel et al. 2016). 40 

NEW EVIDENCE ON PHOENICIAN AMPHORA TYPES

89

Fig. 10. a–b) ‘Tyre S(torage) J(ar) 9’ amphora (h. 77 cm) with b) dipinto in black ink: YŠB‘L, c. 725–700 BCE, Beirut, J. Adra collection (courtesy Gaby Abousamra 2014, pp. 32–33, fig. 1); c) ‘torpedo’ amphora from Tell Arqa, level 9C, 625–575 BCE (after Thalmann 1990, fig. 1: 2); d) Sidonian “Panatela” amphora (from Susa, Louvre Museum, Antiquités orientales SB9278. Courtesy RMN-Grand Palais, Frack Raux) 425–375 BCE with a stamped jar handle prefiguring; e) the use of a monetary image initiated in the late fifth century BCE; f) AR 1/8 sheqel of Abed Ashtart I, 410-400 BCE (https://www.wildwinds.com/coins/greece/phoenicia/sidon/Betlyon_25.jpg).

Egypt42 and Carthage, the basket handle amphorae were embraced by the Phoenicians from the earliest phase of their distribution onwards. This fact is not only underscored by several Iron Age II and III amphoric inscriptions,43 but also by a yet little known post Persian Age regional production lasting until the end of the second century BCE in the 42  Aston 1999: Iron Age III type, fabric “L1” uncoated ware from Elephantine and Aston (2007, pp. 436–437) for this and similar jars current from the fourth to third centuries BCE. Defernez 2007, p. 593, fig. 24 with fig. 8 (Tell el-Herr). An example from Tell Daphne in a foundation deposit of Psammetich I was found together with the wooden rod used for its transport (Padró and Ramon 2004, p. 88, fig. 40). On local production centres in Egypt, see Bennet and Blakey (1989, Tell el-Hesi) and Daneri de Rodrigo (1998, Mendes). 43  Delavault and Lemaire 1979, p. 13, figs. 22–23 = Puech 1994. Thus, the name Gerbaal figures on a sample from a late sixth to early fifth century BCE context at Ras el-Bassit (Bordreuil 1982, pp. 191–192, fig. 3), whereas the name Adonmilk painted on a jar in the P. Stavrou collection (Nicosia) has been assigned to the sixth, if not to the seventh century BCE (Masson and Sznycer 1972, pp. 131–132, pl. XX:2).

90

E. GUBEL

Fig. 11. a) Stamped impression on a late Phoenician basket handle amphora, Tell Kazel, 112 BCE (©AUB-Tell Kazel archives); b) Phoenician Plain Fine Ware amphora from Tel Anafa, c. 125 BCE (after Berlin 1997, pl. 57: PW 480).

Syro-Lebanese Aakar plains (Tell ‘Arqa, Tell Kazel; Fig. 11: a).44 A rectangular stamp (Yarimmilk?) on the handle of one of a series of Aakariote basket handle jars, found with a Rhodian stamp (Aristanax II), in a secure context at Tell Kazel can be dated with exceptional precision to c. 112 BCE.45 Now that the basket handle amphorae increasingly appear on the radar of colleagues excavating in Egypt, more attention should be paid to this late production. Since the Beirut Downtown excavations, specialists of Roman pottery suspect the existence of a kiln near Amrit and regard my reading of the Tell Kazel stamp, not as ‘Yarimmilk,’ but rather as ‘Rommilk.’ The abudantly attested contemporary monetary monogram used in the later second century BCE by Arwad and Amrit/Marathus alike may shed new light on the discussion. 44  See respectively Lehmann (1996, pl. 80: 421 H 1) and Gubel (1990, p. 36 with fig. 9: a–I). I fully agree with Finkielstein (1998, pp. 110 and 114) that Arwad, if not rather its continental satellite, Amrit, is the most likely candidate for the production of the ultimate type of basket handle amphorae. Not only was Simyra (Tell Kazel) reduced to a provincial backwater in the Perée d’Arados, but the Amrit workshops continued their activity in Roman times. As for the Lebanese part of the Aakar plains, ‘Arqa or rather Orthosia, the town rapidly developing next to its former harbour (where part of the population of Simyra was reinstalled) are also to be reckoned with (Gubel 2018, p. 115). 45  Gubel 1990, p. 36, fig. 9: a–j; Sader 1990, pp. 94–97, figs. 49: a–50; Finkielstein 1998, pp. 85, 110–111, fig. 2. For other Phoenician stamped handles from Tell Kazel rarely referred to, see Bordreuil et al. (1996a, pp. 38–44). Certain characters of the inscriptions point to a local production for the vessels, presumably of the last phase of basket handle type surviving only in the Aakar. Gubel 1990, p. 36, fig. 9:a–j; Sader 1990, pp. 94–97, fig. 49:a–50; Finkielstein 1998, pp. 85, 110–111, fig. 2.

NEW EVIDENCE ON PHOENICIAN AMPHORA TYPES

91

III.8. Late Phoenician Fine ware amphorae The handle of a baggy plain ware hole-mouth amphora of Phoenician semi-fine fabric found at Anafa46 bears a rectangular stamp of the name of Germilqart (Fig. 11: b).47 Current at Akko,48 but also attested (besides Anafa)49 at Tel Dor50 and Shiqmona,51 new data on the distribution of this amphoric type come from Lebanon, more precisely from the Beirut Downtown excavations which yielded several new stamped jar handles. One example is of particular interest, for the upper part of the early to mid-second century BCE amphora was conserved, leaving no doubt as to its Tyrian origin suggested by the clay and corroborated by the inscription dated by the Tyrian era.52 Several other samples of the same Tyrian amphora type, characterised by a more pronounced carination than the few Akko examples I know of, were uncovered during our recent excavation campaigns at Tyre, in the shadow of the Persian-Age source sanctuary.53 They date the construction of the Hellenistic temenos wall, laid out over the Persian remains, to the second century BCE.54 Type

Origin

Approx. date

Inscription type

Imitation of WP IV krater

Tambourit (6 km SE of Sidon)

9th c. BCE

Painted (black) on shoulder

(2 samples)

Rachidieh, Tomb IV (=T.)

CG III/CA I

Remarks

Bibliography

‘qm (toponym: Saidah 1977, ‘Aqmata, 15 km pp. 141, 145 no. 10; from Tambourit) Bordreuil 1977a

8 c. BCE

Incised (T. IV, 22) Painted (T. IV, 48)

BT LB’ BT HBR (“House “of…)

Bordreuil 2004, pp. 80–82

Rachidieh No context

775–725 BCE

Painted on the shoulder

L ŠW’T (“dignity”)

Bordreuil 2004, pp. 82–83

CA I

Rachidieh No context

750–675 BCE

Incised below the neck

YD’MLK (“Milk knows”)

Bordreuil 2004, pp. 84–85

CA I

Rachidieh No context

750–700 BCE

Incised on the shoulder

‘[G]NRMT (“she is elevated”)

Bordreuil 2004, pp. 86–87

White Painted IV

Rachidieh

750–700 BCE

Painted on shoulder

L MLHT (“replenished”?) or title?

Bordreuil 1985, pp. 171–173

Phoenician imitation

Tyre

740–700 BCE

Uninscribed

Bikai 1978, pl. VII: 8

Tyre

8th c. BCE

SLM Theonym

Heltzer 1989, pp. 78–79, figs. 4–6

46

th

1. Painted (black) on shoulder

 Berlin 1997; Anafa, pl. 57: PW 480.  Naveh 1987; cf. Virolleaud 1924, p. 119 for a similar one from Ayios Georgios see Sznycer (1984) and from Sarepta, Pritchard (1975, pp. 99–100). 48  Regev 2002, p. 344, fig. 5. 49  Berlin 1997, 28 no. PW 483, c. 125 BCE. 50  Stern 1995, pp. 311–312, fig. 6: 35–6: 3. 51  Elgavish excavations, data inaccessible. 52  Sader 2006, fig. 2, early or mid-second century BCE. 53  Sader 2006, p. 5567, fig. 2, pl.; Sader 2007. 54  Preliminary reports including a few more inscribed stamped handles will be forthcoming in the Bulletin de l’Archéologie et de l’Architecture Libanaise series. 47

E. GUBEL

92 Type

Origin

Approx. date

Inscription type

Remarks

Bibliography

Tyre

8th c. BCE

Incised below the neck

‘KHRT “mixed substance”?

Heltzer 1989, p. 79, figs. 7–9

“Sidon” (more probably Tyre)

800–750 BCE

Painted before firing on the neck (twice)

L ‘LŠMŠ (“Shamash is my god”)

Puech 1994, pp. 47–48

QLB (“krater”) GRTMLK Painted on KHT ‘ŠTRT shoulder /HR ‘SMM ‘Š Incised after firing YRHKN ‘TB’L /Y’NW

Puech 1994, pp. 48–65, pls. VI–XI

“Sidon” (more probably Tyre)

CA I

Tyre?

8th c. BCE 740 BCE

th

Late 8 c. BCE?

Tyre

Bichrome III

Painted (black) on shoulder

L NQMHLB (“to Naqam, milk/Naqam, milk vendor”)

Abousamra 2014, pp. 34–35, fig. 4

HLB LMLK (“milk for the king/Milk”)

Abousamra 2014, p. 35, n. 32

Tyre

8th c. BCE

Khaldeh

8th c. BCE

Uninscribed

Doumet 2008, p. 48, fig. 80

Tyre al-Bass

8th c. BCE

Uninscribed

Seeden 1991

Tyre al-Bass

8th c. BCE

Uninscribed

Aubet and Núñez 2008

Akhziv (ez-Zib)

8th c. BCE

Uninscribed

Prausnitz 1966

Uninscribed

Prausnitz 1967

Akhziv (ez-Zib)

th

8 c. BCE

Unpublished

th

Phoenician (Type K1)

Akhziv (ez-Zib/ Buqbaq) Tomb Z III

8 c. BCE or later (mid 7th – early 6th c. BCE?)

Uninscribed

Dayagi-Mendels 2002, pp. 13–14, figs. 3.4: 1 and 3.4: 3 for a K1 urn

Bichrome III (Type K2)

Akhziv (er-Ras, Tomb ZR XLVI

8th c. BCE

Uninscribed

Dayagi-Mendels 2002, p. 107, fig. 4.31: 2

8th–6th c. BCE

Uninscribed

Mazar 2013, pp. 207–209, figs. 116–117

Uninscribed

Bikai 1987, pp. 129–132, 369–430

Uninscribed

Fourrier 2015, p. 132, no. 1–180, n. 129, fig. 18 C–C MS

WP IV, K1 + Akhziv Tophet derivates site

WP IV

Kition Bamboula

WP III–IV

Idalion

8th c. BCE

Uninscribed

Carthage

8th c. BCE

Uninscribed

Fig. 12. Preliminary bibliographical gazetteer of Iron Age II dipinti on amphorae from the Phoenician coastal strip, Cyprus, and Carthage (excluding Persian-Age examples such as Clermont-Ganneau 1898, pp. 524–526).

NEW EVIDENCE ON PHOENICIAN AMPHORA TYPES

93

Stamp type

Site

Origin

Date

Stamp particularities

Bibliography

Oval

Ras Ibn Hani

?

Hellenistic

2 line inscription

Elayi 2003, p. 30, no. 26

Rectangular

Tell Kazel

Amrit ?

Hellenistic

2 line inscription ‘PLYN (Apellioon)

Bordeuil et al. 1996, pp. 39–41; Elayi 2003, p. 30, no. 30

Rectangular

Tell Kazel

Amrit ?

5th– 4 c. BCE

Nar–eshmun

Bordeuil et al. 1996, p. 39; Elayi 2003, p. 29, no. 25

Rectangular

Tell Kazel

Amrit ?

c. 125– 100 BCE

Late Basket Handle Jar. Yarimmilk or monogram + Rammilk

Elayi 2003, p. 29, no. 24

Rectangular

Byblos

Tyre (?)

Grmlqrt (“Client of Milqart”), no dating formula

Virolleaud 1925, p. 199, pl. XXXII: 3; Sader 2007, p. 63

Rectangular

Beirut

2 line West Semitic inscription

Elayi 2003, p. 31, no. 35

Rectangular

Beirut

Circular

Beirut

Sidon (sandy clay)

4th c. BCE

Yod (like) stamp left of handle (non diagnostic fragment)

Sader 2006, p. 566, fig. 1, pl. 1 A

Oval

Beirut

Tyre

312 or 274 BCE

3 line inscription, “Tyrian” + name (for GRY) + date

Sader 2006, pp. 567–568, fig. 2, pl. 1 B

Tyre

207 or 159 BCE

2 line inscription, date + name or toponym (š?/m)

Sader 2006, pp. 569–570, fig. 3, pl. 1 c

Oval

Beirut

th

L. Badre, unpublished

Oval

Beirut

Tyre

155/4 BCE

3 line inscription, Tyrian + name (gr…) + date

Sader 2007, pp. 58–59, fig. 1a–b

Oval

Beirut

Tyre

Hellenistic

3 line inscription + betyl (?) motif

Sader 2007, pp. 60–61, fig. 2a–b

Oval

Beirut

Tyre

Hellenistic

3 line inscription, “Tyrian” + name

Sader 2007, pp. 61–62, fig. 3a–b

Oval

Beirut

Byblos

Hellenistic

2 line inscription, anthroponym + date

Sader 2007, pp. 62–63, fig. 4a–b

Oval

Sarepta

3 line inscription, illegible

Elayi 2003, p. 31, no. 36

Oval

Sarepta

Tyre

257– 201 BCE

4 line inscription: date, name(s)

Elayi 2003, pp. 9–27, 30, no. 29

Oval

el-AouatinTyre

Tyre

Hellenistic

Oval?

Tell el-Ma’choûq (Tyre)

Tyre

Hellenistic

Oval (160/4 samples)

Tyre (Jal el-Bahr)

Tyre

Hellenistic

Oval

Umm el-‘Amed

Tyre

Elayi 2003, p. 31, no. 33 2 line inscription

Elayi 2003, p. 28, no. 55 Kaoukabani 2005, pp. 3–79

Weathered Phoenician characters

Elayi 2003, p. 31, no. 34

E. GUBEL

94 Stamp type

Site

Origin

Date

Stamp particularities

Bibliography

Oval

Tyre Sector 7

Tyre

Hellenistic

Illegible Phoenician characters

Unpublished (AUB campaign 2013)

Rectangular

Tel Anafa

c. 125 BCE

GRMLQRT (“client of Milqart”)

Elayi 2003, p. 30, no. 28

Oval

Tel Kabri

Tyre

Hellenistic

4 line inscription

Elayi 2003, p. 28, no. 2

Oval

Akko

Tyre

Hellenistic

4 line inscription

Elayi 2003, p. 28, no. 1

Oval

Akko

Tyre

Hellenistic

2 to 3 line inscription + club of Milqart

Elayi 2003, pp. 28–29, no. (missing number)

Oval

Akko

Local?

Hellenistic

Inscription: A

Rahmani 1969, p. 83

Oval

Akko

Tyrian or local?

Hellenistic

Inscription: three weathered characters

Ariel 2005, p. 185, no. 16

Oval (26 ex.)

Sichem

Local?

Hellenistic

T + numerals

Elayi 2003, p. 29, no. 8–26

Oval

Kition-Bamboula

Local?

Hellenistic

Inscription: MK

Calvet 1982, pp. 47–48, no. 129

Oval

Nile Delta

Tyre

Hellenistic

Inscription LŠT + X

Elayi 2003, p. 31, no. 31

Fig. 13. Preliminary bibliographical gazetteer of stamped jar handles with Phoenician names from the Levantine coast, Cyprus, and Egypt.

BIBLIOGRAPHY ABOUSAMRA, G. 2009 “Un nouveau cratère avec une inscription phénicienne,” Kleine Untersuchungen zur Sprache des Alten Testaments 10: 173–197. 2014 “Trois nouvelles jarres phéniciennes inscrites,” in Phéniciens d’Orient et d’Occident. Mélanges Josette Elayi (Cahiers de l’Institut du Proche Orient Ancien 2), edited by A. Lemaire, pp. 31–41. Paris: Maisonneuve éditeur. ACQUARO, E. 2015 “I rasoi votivi punici in bronzo”, in Phoenician Bronzes in Mediterranean (Bibliotheca Archaeologica Hispania 45), edited by J. Jiménez Ávila, pp. 231–238. Madrid: Real Academia de la Historia. ARIEL, D. T. 2005 “Stamped amphora handles and unstamped amphora fragments from Acre (‘Akko),” ‘Atiqot 50: 181–193. ASTON, D. A. 1989 “Qantir/Piramesse-Nord – pottery report 1988,” Göttinger Miszellen 113: 7–32. 1996 Egyptian Pottery of the Late New Kingdom and the Third Intermediate Period (Twelfth– Seventh Centuries BC). Tentative Footsteps in a Forbidding Terrain (Studien zur Archäologie un Geschichte Altägyptens 13). Heidelberg: Heidelberger Orientverlag. 1999 Elephantine XIX. Pottery from the Late New Kingdom to the Early Ptolemaic Period (Archäologische Veröffentlichungen 95). Mainz am Rhein: Philipp von Zabern.

NEW EVIDENCE ON PHOENICIAN AMPHORA TYPES

2007

95

“Amphorae, Storage jars and Kegs from Elephantine from the 8th–7th centuries BC to the 7th–8th centuries AD,” cahiers de la céramique égyptienne, 8/II: 418–445. 2009 Burial Assemblages of Dynasty 21–25. Chronology – Typology – Development (Contribution to the Chronology of the Eastern Mediterranean XXI). Vienna: Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften. ASTON, D. A. and ASTON, B. G. 2010 Late Period Pottery from the New Kingdom Necropolis at Saqqâra (Egypt Exploration Society Excavation Memoir 92). London: Egypt Exploration Society. ASTON-GREENE, B. 2005 “The pottery,” in The Tomb of Pay and Raia at Saqqara, edited by M. J. Raven, pp. 94–128. Leiden: National Museum of Antiquities – London: Egypt Exploration Society. AUBET, M. E. 1971 Los marfiles orientalizantes de Praeneste. Barcelona: Instituto de Arqueología y Prehistoria. AUBET, M. E. and NÚÑEZ, F. J. 2008 “Cypriote imports from the Phoenician cemetery of Tyre, Al-Bass,” in Networking Patterns of the Bronze and Iron Age Levant. The Lebanon and Its Mediterranean Connections, edited by C. Doumet-Serhal, A. Rabate and A. Reserk, pp. 71–104. London: Lebanese British Friends of the National Museum. BADRE, L., BOILEAU, M.-C., JUNG, R., MOMMSENIV, H. and KERSCHNER, M. 2005 “The provenance of Aegean and Syrian-type pottery found at Tell Kazel (Syria),” Ägypten und Levante 15: 15–47. BADRE, L. 2006 “Tell Kazel-Simyra: A contribution to a relative chronological history in the eastern Mediterranean during the Late Bronze Age,” Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 343: 65–95. BARNETT, R. D. 1974 A Catalogue of the Nimrud Ivories with other Examples of Ancient Near Eastern Ivories in the British Museum. London: British Museum. BARNETT, R. D. and MENDELSON, C. 1987 Catalogue of Material in the British Museum from Phoenician and other Tombs at Tharros, Sardinia. London: British Museum. BENNET, W. J. Jr. and BLAKEY, J. A. 1989 Tell el-Hesi. The Persian Period (Stratum V). Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns. BERLIN, A. 1997 “The plain wares,” in Tel Anafa II. Vol. 1. The Hellenistic and Roman Pottery (Journal of Roman Archaeology, Supplementary Series 10), edited by S. C. Herbert. Michigan: Journal of Roman Archaeology. BETTLES, E. A. 2003 Phoenician Amphora Production and Distribution in the Southern Levant (British Archaeological Reports International Series 1183). Oxford: Archaeopress. BIKAI, P. M. 1978 The Pottery of Tyre. Warminster: Aris and Philipps. 1987 The Phoenician Pottery of Cyprus. Nicosia: A. G. Leventis Foundation. BIETAK, M. 2001 “Ausgrabungen in dem Palastbezirk von Avaris. Vorbericht Tell el-Dab‘a/Ezbet Helmi 1993–2000,” Ägypten und Levante XI: 27–105. BORDREUIL, P. 1977a “Épigraphes d’amphore phénicienne du 9e siècle,” Berytus 25: 159–161. 1977b “Une inscription phénicienne sur jarre provenant des fouilles de tell ‘Arqa,” Syria 54: 25–30. 1982 “Épigraphes phéniciennes sur bronze, sur pierre et sur céramique,” in Archéologie au Levant. Recueil à le mémoire de Roger Saida, pp. 181–192. Lyon: Maison de l’Orient.

E. GUBEL

96

“À propos des jarres inscrites de Tell Rachidieh,” in Decade. A Decade of Archaeology in the Lebanon, edited by C. Doumet-Serhal, A. Rabate and A. Resek, pp. 80–87. London: Lebanese British Friends of the National Museum. BORDREUIL, P., BRIQUEL-CHATONNET, F. and GUBEL, E. 1996 “Inédits épigraphiques des fouilles anciennes et récentes à Tell Kazel,” Semitica 45: 37–47. BRIEND, J. and HUMBERT, J. M. 1980 Tell Keisan (1971–1976): une cité phénicienne en Galilée (Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis Series Archaeologica 1). Fribourg: Éditions universitaires. CAUBET, A and PIERRAT, G. 2005 Faïences de l’Antiquité de l’Égypte à l’Iran. Paris: Museé du Louvre Éditions. CALVET, Y. 1982 Les timbres amphoriques: Kition Bamboula I. Paris: Éditions Recherche sur les civilisations. CLERMONT-GANNEAU, C. 1898 “Amphores à épigraphes grecques et jarre à épigraphie sémitique provenant d’un sépulcre phénicien,” Comptes rendus des séances de l’Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres 42/4: 521–526. COLLON, D. 2011 “The Metsamor seal,” in Correlates of Complexity. Essays in Archaeology and Assyriology Dedicated to Diederik J. W. Meijer in Honour of his 65th Birthday (Publications de l’Institut Historique-Archéologique Néerlandais de Stambul CXVI), edited by B. S. Düring, A. Wossink and P. M. M. G. Akkermans, pp. 27–38. Leiden: Nederlands Instituut voor het Nabije Oosten. CUNCHILLOS, J.-L. 1992 “Las inscriptiones fenicias del tell de Doña Blanca (IV),” Sefarad LII/1: 75–83. DANERI DE RODRIGO, A. 1998 “On the origin of the basket handle jars from Mendes,” in Proceedings of the Seventh International Congress of Egyptologists (Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 82), edited by C. J. Eyre, pp. 965–974. Leuven: Peeters. DAYAGI-MENDELS, M. 2002 The Akhziv Cemeteries. The Ben-Dor Excavations, 1941–1944 (Israel Archaeology Authority Reports 15). Jerusalem: Israel Antiquities Authority. DEFERNEZ, C. 2007 “Le matériel amphorique provenant d’un édifice monumental sur le site de tell el-Herr (Nord-Sinaï),” Cahiers de la céramique égyptienne 8: 547–620. DELAVAULT, B. and LEMAIRE, A. 1979 “Les inscriptions phéniciennes de Palestine,” Rivista di Studi Fenici VII: 1–35. DE MOUREIL, J. (ed.) 1968 Carthage, sa naissance, sa grandeur. Les collections puniques des Musées du Bardo, de Carthage et Utique (Archéologie Vivante 1/2). Paris: ISTRA. DOCTER, R. 2013 “Bichrome ware amphorae from Al Mina, Kition, and Carthage,” in Ritual, Religion and Reason. Studies in Honour of Paolo Xella (Alter Orient und Altes Testament 404), edited by O. Loretz, S. Ribichini, W. G. E. Watson and J. A. Zamora, pp. 89–102. Münster: Ugarit-Verlag. DOUMET-SERHAL, C. 2003 “Jars from the Ist Millennium BC at Tell Rachidieh (South of Tyre),” Archaeology and History in Lebanon 17: 42–51. 2004 “Jars from the first millennium BC at Tell Rachidieh: Phoenician cinerary urns and grave goods,” in Decade. A Decade of Archaeology in the Lebanon, edited by C. DoumetSerhal, A. Rabate and A. Resek, pp. 70–79. London: Lebanese British Friends of the National Museum. DOUMET-SERHAL, C., KARAGEORGHIS, V., LOFFET, H. and COLDSTREAM, N. 2008 “The kingdom of Sidon and its Mediterranean connections,” in Networking Patterns of the Bronze and Iron Age Levant. The Lebanon and Its Mediterranean Connections, 2004

NEW EVIDENCE ON PHOENICIAN AMPHORA TYPES

97

edited by C. Doumet-Serhal, A. Rabate and A. Resek, pp. 1–70. London: Lebanese British Friends of the National Museum. DUŠEK, J. and MYNAROVA, J. 2011 “Phoenician and Aramaic inscriptions on a Phoenician storage jar,” in The Shaft Tomb of Menekhibnekau I: Archaeology (Abusir XXV), edited by L. Bareš and K. Smoláriková, pp. 179–181. Prague: Czech Institute of Egyptology. ELAYI, J. 2003 “Un nouveau timbre de jarre de Sarepta et la question du timbrage en phénicien au Proche-Orient,” Transeuphratène 26: 9–32. FAVARD-MEEKS, C. 1999 “Tell Suelin,” in Studies on Ancient Egypt in Honour of H. S. Smith, edited by A. Leahy and J. Tait, pp. 83–96. London: Egypt Exploration Society. FINKIELSTEIN, G. 1998 “Timbres amphoriques du Levant d’époque hellénistique,” Transeuphratène 15: 83–121. FOURRIER, S. 2015 “La céramique chypriote et levantine d’époque géométrique et archaïque,” in KitionBamboula VI. Le sanctuaire sous la colline, edited by A. Caubet, S. Fourrier and M. Yon, pp. 111–172. Lyon: Maison de l’Orient et de la Méditerranée. GUBEL, E. 1987 Phoenician Furniture (Studia Phoenicia VII). Leuven: Peeters. 1990 “Area I,” in Tell Kazel, Syria. Excavations of the AUB Museum, 1985–1987. Preliminary Reports (Berytus 38), edited by L. Badre, E. Gubel, M. al-Maqdissi and H. Sader, pp. 9–124. Beirut: American University of Beirut. 1996a “Inscription sur un bol mégarien,” in Inédits épigraphiques des fouilles anciennes et récentes à Tell Kazel (Semitica XLV), edited by P. Bordreuil, F. Briquel-Chatonnet and E. Gubel, pp. 37–47. Paris: Librairie d’Amérique et d’Orient. 1996b “The influence of Egypt on Western Asiatic furniture, and evidence from Phoenicia,” in The Furniture of Western Asia Ancient and Traditional, edited by G. Herrmann, pp. 139–152. Mainz am Rhein: Philipp von Zabern. 1999 “Amphore phénicienne inscrite découverte dans une tombe thébaine,” Syria 76: 240– 241. 2000 “Das libyerzeitliche Ägypten und die Anfänge der phönizischen Ikonographie,” in Ägypten und der östliche Mittelmeerraum im 1. Jahrtausend v. Chr. (Ägypten und Altes Testament 44), edited by M. Görg and G. Hölbl, pp. 69–100. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag. 2018 “D’Orthosia à Ard Arṭousi. Notes de toponymie historique akkariote – IV,” in Topography and Toponymy in the Ancient Near East (Publications de l’Institut Orientaliste de Louvain 71, Greater Mesopotamia Studies I), edited by J. Tavernier, E. Gorris, K. Abraham and V. Boschloos, pp. 113–128. Leuven: Peeters. forthcoming  A Mound of Many Names. Notes on the Historical Toponomy of the Akkar -V. GUIRGUIS, M. 2014 “Una brochetta eburnea dalla necropoli di Douïmès: artigianato fenicio tra Nimrud e Cartagine,” Vicino Oriente XXII: 121–140. HADJISAVVAS, S. 2012 The Phoenician Period Necropolis of Kition I. Nicosia: Department of Antiquities. 2014 The Phoenician Period Necropolis of Kition II. Nicosia: Department of Antiquities. HELTZER, M. 1998 “Phoenician epigraphic miscellanea,” Aula Orientalis XVI/1: 77–84. HERRMANN, G., LAIDLAW, S. and COFFEY, H. 2009 Ivories from the North West Palace (1845–1992) (Ivories from Nimrud VI). London: British Institute for the Study of Iraq. HOMSY, G. 2004 “Des céramiques de l’Âge du Fer provenant de Byblos-Jbeil,” Bulletin de l’Archéologie et de l’Architecture Libanaise 7: 245–279.

98

E. GUBEL

HUSSEIN, M. M., ALTAWEEL, M. and GIBSON, M. 2016 Nimrud: The Queens’ Tombs. Chicago: The Oriental Institute. KAOUKABANI, I. 2005 “Les estampilles phéniciennes de Tyr”, Archaeology & History in Lebanon 21: 3-79. KARAGEORGHIS, V. and DES GAGNIERS, J. 1974 La céramique chypriote de style figuré. Roma: Edizioni dell’Ateneo. LEHMAN, G. 1996 Untersuchungen zur späten Eisenzeit in Syrien und Libanon: Stratigraphie und Keramikformen zwischen ca. 720 bis 300 v. Chr. (Altertumskunde des Vorderen Orients 5). Münster: Ugarit-Verlag. LEMAIRE, A. 2008 “Nouveau sceau fiscal phénicien et la Galilée au IVe s. av. J.-C.,” in In the Hill-Country, and in the Shephelah, and in the Arabah (Joshua 12,8). Studies and Researches Presented to Adam Zertal in the Thirtieth Anniversary of the Manasseh Hill-Country Survey, edited by S. Bar, pp. 188–194. Jerusalem: Ariel Publishing House. LILYQUIST, C. 2012 “Treasures from Tell Basta: Goddesses, officials, and artists in an international age,” Metropolitan Museum Journal 47: 9–72. MALLOWAN, M. E. L. 1966 Nimrud and its Remains. London: Collins on behalf of The British School of Archaeology in Iraq. MASSON, O. and SZNYCER, M. 1982 Recherches sur les Phéniciens à Chypre. Genève-Paris: Librairie Droz. MAZAR, E. 2013 The Northern Cemetery of Achziv (10th–6th Centuries BCE). The Tophet Site (Cuadernos de Arqueología Mediterránea 19–20). Barcelona: Bellaterra. NAVEH, J. 1987 “Unpublished Phoenician inscriptions from Palestine,” Israel Exploration Journal 37: 25–30. 1997 “Excavations of the Courthouse site at ‘Akko: Phoenician seal impressions,” ’Atiqot 31: 115–119. NÚÑEZ, F. J. 2008 “Phoenicia,” in Beyond the Homeland: Markers in Phoenician Chronology (Ancient Near Eastern Studies Supplement 28), edited by C. Sagona, pp. 19–95. Leuven-ParisDudley MA: Peeters. OGGIANO, I. 2010 “Nuovi dati sul ruolo degli artigiani fenici nella produzione delle anfore in pietra tra Egitto e Levante,” Quaderni di Vicino Oriente IV: 181–205. ORSINGHER, A. 2018 “The Chapelle Cintas revisited and the Tophet of Carthage between ancestors and new identities,” Babesch 93: 49–74. PADRÓ, J. and RAMON, J. 2004 “Les amphores phéniciennes en Égypte et le commerce du vin,” in La dépendance rurale dans l’Antiquité égyptienne et proche-orientale. Colloque Aidea, Banyuls-sur-Mer 2001 (Bibliothèque d’étude 140), edited by B. Menu, pp. 77–90. Le Caire: Institut Français d’Archéologie Orientale. PETRIE, W. M. F. 1906 Hyksos and Israelite Cities (British School of Archaeology in Egypt 12). London: Bernard Quaritch. PRAUSNITZ, M. 1966 “A Phoenician krater from Akhziv,” Oriens Antiquus V: 177–188. 1967 “A krater from Akhziv – The Canaanite Sefel,” Eretz Israel 8: 95–98. PRITCHARD, J. B. 1975 Sarepta: A Preliminary Report on the Iron Age. Philadelphia: University Museum.

NEW EVIDENCE ON PHOENICIAN AMPHORA TYPES

PUECH, E. 1994 RAHMANI, L. 1969 REGEV, D. 2004

99

“Un cratère phénicien inscrit: rites et croyances,” Transeuphratène 8: 47–73. I. “Some acquisitions,” ‘Atiqot 5: 81–83. “The Phoenician transport amphora,” in Transport Amphorae and Trade in the Eastern Mediterranean. Acts of the International Colloquium held at the Danish Institute at Athens, 26–29 September 2002 (Monographs of the Danish Institute at Athens), edited by J. Eiring and J. Lund, pp. 337–352. Aarhus: Aarhus University Press.

SADER, H. 1990 “An epigraphic note on a Phoenician inscription from Tell Kazel,” Berytus 38: 94–98. 2006 “Phoenician stamp impressions from Beirut,” Baghdader Mitteilungen 37: 565–571. 2007 “New Phoenician seal impressions from Beirut,” Orientalia Nova Serie 76: 57–63. SAGONA, A. G. 1982 “Levantine Storage jars of the 13th to 4th century B.C.,” Opuscula Atheniensis XIV/7: 73–110. SAIDAH, R. 1977 “Une tombe de l’Âge du Fer à Tambourit (Région de Sidon),” Berytus XXV: 135–146. SCHMITT, A. 2019 “The ceramic material from the Phoenician settlement at Tell el-Burak – New data for a pottery sequence from the second half of the 8th until the first half of the 4th century from the Phoenician homeland,” Carthage Studies 11: 9–26. SEEDEN, H. 1991 “A Phoenician Tophet in Tyre,” Berytus 39: 39–87. STERN, E. 1982 Material Culture of the Land of the Bible in the Persian Period 538–332 BC. Warminster: Aris and Phillips. 1995 Excavations at Dor, Final Report. Vol. I B. Areas A and C, The Finds (Qedem Reports 2). Jerusalem: Institute of Archaeology. STUCKY, R. 1983 Ras Shamra Leukos Limen. Die nach-ugaritische Besiedlung von Ras Shamra (Bibliothèque Archéologique et Historique 110). Paris: Librairie Orientaliste P. Geuthner. SZNYCER, M. 1984 “Inscriptions sur jarre de la nécropole d’Ayios Georghios,” Report of the Department of Antiquities, pp. 117–121. Nicosia: Department of Antiquities. TARHAENY 2010 “The spirit of clay: “Edomite pottery” and social awareness in the Late Iron Age,” Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 359: 35–56. THALMANN, J.-P. 1990 “Tell ‘Arqa, de la conquête assyrienne à l’époque perse,” Transeuphratène 2: 51–57. VIROLLEAUD, C. 1925 “Les travaux archéologiques en Syrie en 1922–1923. Second article,” Syria V: 44–52 and 113–122. VONHOFF, C. 2016 “Phoenician bronzes from Cyprus reconsidered: intercultural exchange in ancient Cyprus from a pan-Mediterranean perspective,” in Ancient Cyprus Today. Museum Collections and New Research (Studies in Mediterranean Archaeology and Literature. Pocket Book 184), edited by G. Bourogiannis & C. Mühlenbock, pp. 273–284. Uppsala: Astrom Editions. WEBB, V. 1978 Archaic Greek Faience. Warminster: Aris and Phillips. WICKE, D. 2008 Vorderasiatische Pyxiden der Spätbronzezeit und der Früheisenzeit (Alter Orient und Altes Testament 45). Neukirchen-Vluyn: Ugarit-Verlag.

100

E. GUBEL

WICKE, D., BUSCH, A. and FISCHER, E. 2010 “Die Goldschale der Iabâ – Eine levantinische Antiquität,” Zeitschrift für Assyriologie und vorderasiatische Archäologie 100: 109–141. WODZÍNSKA, A. 2010 A Manual of Egyptian Pottery. Vol. 3. Second Intermediate Period – Late Period. BostonWarsaw: Ancient Egypt Reasearch Association. YAHALOM-MACK, N., PANITZ-COHEN, N. and MULLINS, R. 2018 “From a fortified Canaanite city-state to a ‘city and mother’ in Israel. Five seasons of excavations at Tel Abel Beth Maacah,” Near Eastern Archaeology 81/2: 145–156. YASUR-LANDAU, A. 2005 “Old wine in new vessels: Intercultural contact, innovation and Aegean, Canaanite and Philistine foodways,” Journal of the Institute of Archaeology of Tel Aviv University 32: 168–191. YON, M. 2008 “Le lion de Rashap,” in D’Ougarit à Jérusalem. Recueil d’études épigraphiques et archéologiques offert à Pierre Bordreuil (Orient et Méditerranée 2), edited by C. Roche, pp. 107–118. Paris: De Boccard. ZEMER, A. 1977 Storage Jars in Ancient Sea Trade. Haïfa: National Maritime Museum.

Eric GUBEL Antiquity Department Royal Museums of Arts and History Vrije Universiteit Brussel Belgium

ONE-HANDLED ‘AMPHORAE’ FROM BETH SHAN (JORDAN VALLEY, ISRAEL) Samuel WOLFF ABSTRACT Excavation of a Persian period cemetery (fifth century BCE) at el-Muntar el-Abyad in Beth Shan (Jordan Valley, Israel) yielded five examples of torpedo-shaped, one-handled vessels. This is a rare type with parallels coming mainly from the southern Levant and Cyprus. Petrographic analysis indicates that the vessels from Beth Shan were manufactured both in the Jordan Valley and also in central Israel. Functionally, they contained a product destined to accompany the interred person into the netherworld. Morphologically, they could be defined as amphorae, storage jars or maritime transport containers.

In July–November 2003, a rescue excavation was conducted at the site of el-Muntar elAbyad in Beth Shan (Jordan Valley, Israel; Permit n. A-3958) prior to road construction.1 The excavation, undertaken on behalf of the Israel Antiquities Authority, was directed by Walid Atrash and Amir Golani. The main stratum exposed during the excavation dated to the Middle Bronze Age IIB.2 After an extended period of abandonment, in the fifth century BCE,3 during the Persian period, the area was used as a cemetery. Nineteen burials were identified, all in the central portion of the excavated area. These were primary burials of a single individual. The majority were oriented east-west while two (T15, T18) were oriented northsouth. The burials were dug into the ground at a depth of 0.5–1.0 m. In most cases, a roughly built row of fieldstones was laid upon the interment or slightly to its north. This may have been the result of the stones being laid within the trench in which the body was interred. Some of the tombs included burial offerings such as ceramic 'torpedo' type jars, jugs and juglets that were placed at the foot, the head or alongside the deceased (Figs. 1–2).4 Some of the vessels were not recovered adjacent to the tomb itself and may have been displaced or are evidence of another tomb that was not positively identified. Other burial offerings included a copper alloy armlet found with remnants of adhering cloth. Five torpedo-shaped ceramic vessels, each with a single handle, were found in these tombs; three were complete (T7, T12, T14) and two lack rims only (T17, T22; Fig. 1–2). They are similar in form and fabric, differing only in height and somewhat in shape. Heights fall into two groups; short: 47–48 cm (T7, T14), and tall: 56.8 cm (T12) and approximately 1

 I wish to express my appreciation to the editors for allowing me to include this contribution in this volume. I am also grateful to Amir Golani and Walid Atrash for permission to publish these finds here. 2  Atrash and Golani 2020, pp. 5–36. 3  Atrash and Golani 2020, pp. 37–47. 4  Wolff 2020.

102

S. WOLFF

Fig. 1. Short torpedo vessels from Beth Shan (courtesy A. Golani). T7 (above) and T14 (below).

ONE-HANDLED ‘AMPHORAE’ FROM BETH SHAN

Fig. 2. Tall torpedo vessels from Beth Shan (courtesy A. Golani). T12 (upper left), T17 (below) and T22 (upper right).

103

104

S. WOLFF

60 cm reconstructed (T17, T22). Three vessels (T14, T17, T22) have a carination at the point of the upper handle attachment, while two vessels (T7, T12) have no carination. The bases of all vessels are pointed. The upper handle attachment is below the shoulder, at the point of carination, and never above the shoulder itself, like some variants of this type (e.g., examples from Hazor, Shechem and Horvat Tittora).5 Two detailed typological analyses of this type of vessel have been previously published.6 The first was by A. Sagona,7 who divided the one-handled torpedo-shaped jars, his Type 12, into several subtypes, and listed all of the parallels known at the time. The vessels described here fall into both his subtype A, with high shoulders, and subtype B, with rounded shoulders. The second analysis was conducted by G. Lehmann.8 He divided this main type of jar (his No. 418) into six subtypes. Our vessels with rounded shoulders belong to his Type 418/1 while those with a noticeable carination near the upper handle attachment are closer to Types 418/4–6. The closest parallels to the vessels from Beth Shan are from Tel Dor9 and ’Atlit.10 Similar vessels have been found in Cyprus and in Syria,11 although it appears that the handles on the vessels from Cyprus are smaller than those presented here, perhaps an indication that these vessels were manufactured both in the Levant and in Cyprus. Petrographic analysis has determined two sources for the Beth Shan jars, one in the region of Wadi Far‘ah (south of Beth Shan) (T7, T17, T22), the other undetermined but probably in central Israel, definitely not Cypriot or coastal (T12, T14).12 The question of nomenclature must be addressed regarding these vessels. Should they be referred to as amphorae or as storage jars?13 Morphologically, the shape of these vessels falls into the category of amphorae; their shape, for example, is not so different than a typical Punic vessel (Ramon 7/Mañá C), which most scholars agree are amphorae.14 The main difference, however, is that the Punic amphorae have two handles whereas the Beth Shan vessels have only one. This should not be the deciding factor, however. If one surmises that the most comfortable way to carry such vessels from point A to point B was not by holding both handles with two hands but rather by holding one handle with one hand and the base with the other hand,15 then the idea of a one-handled vessel, rare as it is in the repertoire of Mediterranean transport amphorae, does not seem farfetched. 5  Hazor: Bonfil and Greenberg 1997, p. 158, fig. II.60: 14, Photo II: 64; Shechem: Stern 1980, p. 95, fig. 6: 9; Horvat Tittora, A-2299/1995 unpublished. Vessels from Horvat Tittora have one handle on their shoulders, chronologically unrelated but morphologically similar to Peacock and Williams Class 45 (Peacock and Williams 1986, p. 188). 6  It should be mentioned that two-handled torpedo vessels are attested but are morphologically different than the one-handled variety (cf. Raban 1980, pl. G: 44–46). 7  Sagona 1982. 8  Lehmann 1996. 9  Stern 1995, fig. 2.9: 1. 10  Johns 1933, p. 50, fig. 3: e. 11  Gjerstad 1948, fig. LXII: 4; LXVII: 4; Sagona 1982, fig. 3: 1–3; Lehmann 1996, p. 443. 12  I am grateful to Anastasia Shapiro of the Israel Antiquities Authority for this information. Shapiro and Yiftah Shalev are currently preparing a comprehensive publication of vessels of this type, including petrographic analysis. 13  Alternatively these vessels could also be known as maritime transport containers, see Knapp and Demesticha (2016). 14  For exceptions, see Wolff (2019). 15  Grace 1979, pp. 1–2.

ONE-HANDLED ‘AMPHORAE’ FROM BETH SHAN

105

Then there is the question of context. Amphorae are associated with ships and shipping whereas storage jars are to be found mainly in domestic or storage facilities. I am not aware of any one-handled vessels having been discovered in shipwrecks, but the fact that vessels of this type were found both in the Levant and in Cyprus implies that they were shipped by sea, presumably from the former to the latter.16 In the cemetery they clearly functioned as a container for a commodity that was meant to accompany the deceased into the afterlife. It was a Persian period funerary custom to bury a storage jar, presumably filled with a product that has not survived, in or near a tomb, whether that storage jar be torpedo-shaped, as here or at Hazor,17 Shechem,18 Horvat Tittora,19 ‘Atlit20 and elsewhere, or straight-shouldered as, for example, at Ashqelon21 and Palmahim.22 Morphologically, then, these vessels could be termed amphorae; functionally, they served as storage jars. Perhaps these vessels should be referred to as maritime transport containers,23 although such a term seems incongruous for vessels found in the Jordan Valley.

BIBLIOGRAPHY ATRASH, W. and GOLANI, A. 2020 “El-Muntar el-Abyad: A Middle Bronze Age IIB Village and a Persian- and RomanPeriod Cemetery near Bet She’an,” ‘Atiqot 102: 1–112. BIRMAN, G. and GOLDIN, E. 1997 “Horbat Tittora,” Excavations and Surveys in Israel 19: 54–55. BONFIL, R. and GREENBERG, R. 1997 “Area A,” in Hazor V: An Account of the Fifth Season of Excavation, 1968, edited by A. Ben-Tor and R. Bonfil, pp. 15–176. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society. FOURRIER, S. 2014 “The ceramic repertoire of the Classical Period necropolis of Kition,” in The Phoenician Period Necropolis of Kition II, edited by S. Hadjisavvas, pp. 135–181. Nicosia: Department of Antiquities. GJERSTAD, E. 1948 Swedish Cyprus Expedition 4/2: The Cypro-Geometric, Cypro-Archaic and Cypro-Classical Period. Stockholm: Swedish Cyprus Expedition. GOLANI, A. 1996 “A Persian Period cist tomb on the Ashqelon Coast,” ‘Atiqot 30: 115–119. GRACE, V. 1979 Amphoras and the Ancient Wine Trade (Excavations of the Athenian Agora Picture Book 6). Princeton, NJ: American School of Classical Studies. JOHNS, C. N. 1933 “Excavations at ‘Atlit (1930–1: The south-eastern cemetery),” Quarterly of the Department of Antiquities in Palestine 2: 41–104.

16

 Cf. Fourrier 2014, p. 135.  Bonfil and Greenberg 1997, p. 158, fig. II.60: 14; Photo II: 64. 18  Stern 1980, p. 95, fig. 6: 9. 19  Pottery unpublished but see Birman and Goldin (1997). 20  Johns 1933, p. 50. 21  Golani 1996, fig. 4: 1. 22  Singer-Avitz and Levy 1994, p. 5*, figs. 4: 6, 7. 23  Knapp and Demesticha 2017. 17

106

S. WOLFF

KNAPP, A. B. and DEMESTICHA, S. 2016 Mediterranean Connections: Martitime Transport Containers and Seaborne Trade in the Bronze and Iron Ages. London-New York: Routledge. LEHMANN, G. 1996 Untersuchungen zur späten Eisenzeit in Syrien und Libanon: Stratigraphie und Keramikformen zwischen ca. 720 bis 300 v. Chr. (Altertumskunde des vorderen Orients 5). Münster: Ugarit-Verlag. PEACOCK, D. P. S. and WILLIAMS, D. F. 1986 Amphorae and the Roman economy: an introductory guide. London-New York: Longman. RABAN, A. 1980 The Commercial Jar in the Ancient Near East: Its Evidence for Interconnections Amongst the Biblical Lands. Unpublished PhD diss., Hebrew University. SAGONA, A. G. 1982 “Levantine storage jars of the 13th to 4th century B.C.,” Opuscula Atheniensia 14: 73–110. SINGER-AVITZ, L. and LEVY, Y. 1994 “Two Late Iron Age–Early Persian Period tombs at Palmahim,” ‘Atiqot 25: 1*–9*. STERN, E. 1980 “Achaemenid tombs from Shechem,” Levant 12: 90–111. 1995 “Local pottery of the Persian Period,” in E. Stern, Excavations at Dor, Final Report. Vol. I B. Areas A and C, The Finds (Qedem Reports 2), pp. 51–92. Jerusalem: Hebrew University of Jerusalem. WOLFF, S. R. 2019 “Maña C/Ramón 7 amphoras as shipping containers: A response to S. Rotroff and A. M. McCann,” in La vie, la mort et la religion dans l’univers phénicien et punique. Actes du VIIème congrès international des études phéniciennes et puniques. Hammamet, 9–14 novembre 2009. Vol. II. Production et relations commerciales, edited by A. Ferjaoui and T. Redissi, pp. 727–730. Tunis: Institut National du Patrimoine. 2020 “Stratum II: The Persian Period [Pottery],” in W. Atrash and E. Golani, “El-Muntar el-Abyad: A Middle Bronze Age IIB Village and a Persian- and Roman-Period Cemetery near Bet She’an,” ‘Atiqot 102: 79–84.

Samuel WOLFF W. F. Albright Institute of Archaeological Research Jerusalem Israel

LEVANTINE-TYPE TRANSPORT AMPHORAE IN CYPRUS DURING THE BRONZE AND IRON AGES: ISSUES AND PERSPECTIVES1 Adriano ORSINGHER ABSTRACT This paper offers a diachronic and updated overview on the Levantine-type transport amphorae currently attested in Cyprus. The survey begins with a brief review of the evidence from the Middle Cypriot III, Late Cypriot and Cypro-Geometric periods. The amphorae of the ninth to third centuries BCE are organised into a new classification, which may represent a useful tool and a starting point for further consideration. The typological variants, spatial distribution, find-contexts, chronologies and main parallels in the Levant and the western Mediterranean are analysed for each of the 12 identified types.

INTRODUCTION Cyprus, as an island rich in natural resources (e.g. metals and timber) and blessed by its strategic position at a crossroad between Egypt, the Near East and the Aegean, has played a vital role in the trade networks of the ancient Mediterranean. Transport containers represent an essential tool for tracing these networks and evaluating exchange patterns, especially when results of petrographic and chemical analyses are available. However, the conventional use of labels such as ‘Canaanite jars’ for Middle/Late Bronze Age transport/storage containers and ‘Phoenician amphorae’ for Iron Age ones has long overshadowed the original scenario, which must have involved various regions in the production and shipping of these amphorae and their contents.

I. THE LEVANTINE-TYPE AMPHORAE FROM MIDDLE/LATE BRONZE AGE CYPRUS: AN OVERVIEW

The arrival of Levantine-type transport containers in Cyprus started as early as the Middle Cypriot (henceforth MC) III (c. 1750–1650 BCE). These amphorae fall within the group labelled by V. R. Grace, given their alleged provenance, as ‘Canaanite jars.’2 Although such definition has been rightfully considered a misnomer,3 many scholars still employed it with 1

 I would like to thank the Department of Antiquities of Cyprus and, in particular, the Director, Dr Marina Solomidou-Ieronymidou, for granting me permission to reproduce the photos in fig. 5. I extend my gratitude to Dr Eloisa Casadei, who has digitised the drawings, and to Andrea Perugini, for his kind help. 2  Grace 1956, pp. 80–90. 3  E.g. Åström 1991, p. 67; Georgiou 2014, p. 175.

108

A. ORSINGHER

reference to its typological and chronological implications. This group includes storage/ transport containers with a conical or ovoid shape tapering to a narrow base, with two or, more rarely, four handles. As long recognised by scholars,4 there are two common types of Levantine-type amphorae during the Bronze Age: 1) piriform-shaped containers with rounded shoulders and two or four handles attached to the widest part of the body and 2) containers with carinated shoulders and two handles. Although a much wider variety of shapes is attested and T. Pedrazzi has thoroughly examined and classified them,5 a clear-cut typological development still cannot be established.6 These amphorae, initially manufactured in the Levant, were also produced in some neighbouring areas, as archaeometric analyses have proven.7 In particular, the Canaanite Amphorae Project has distinguished and located six different production areas:8 1) the Jezreel valley, 2) the Carmel region, 3) the Akkar Plain, 4) the northwestern coast of Syria, 5) the Lebanese coastal plain and 6) the southern coast of Cyprus. This research group has also provided information on their content by combining data from hieroglyphic inscriptions and organic residue analysis.9 A large number and variety of Levantine-type amphorae is currently known from Bronze Age sites in Cyprus.10 An amphora from Arpera-Mosphilos tomb 1A (Fig. 1: 1), dating back to MC III,11 represents the earliest example known to date, while a container12 from Galinoporni tomb 1, a sherd from strata B1–B2 of trench 913 and other fragments14 from Kalopsidha should be dated to the MC III to Late Cypriot (henceforth LC) IA. About 10,000 fragments of these amphorae are recorded from Åström’s excavations at Hala Sultan Tekke,15 the earliest of which date back to at least the LC IA.16 Various LC I assemblages (c. 1650–1550 BCE), such as Maroni-Vournes, Maroni-Tsaroukkas tomb 15, Korovia-Nitovikla and Kalavasos tomb 51 (Fig. 1: 2), contained Levantine-type amphorae.17 Even at Enkomi these amphorae occurred from LC I.18 About 20 amphorae19 were found in the ‘Sanctuary of the Ingot God’ (LC III) and three examples come from the cemetery: one from tomb 10 (LC IIC: c. 1300–1200/1190 BCE) of the French excavations,20 a complete amphora from tomb 7 and one fragment from tomb 11 of the Swedish expedition.21 4

 Grace 1956; Amiran 1970, pp. 138–144, pls. 43–44; Killebrew 2007, pp. 169–173.  Pedrazzi 2016, p. 60, with references. 6  Aston 2004; Killebrew 2007, p. 167. 7  E.g. Raban 1980, pp. 5–6; Jones and Vaughan 1988; Ownby 2012; Renson et al. 2014. 8  Bavay 2015, pp. 127–130. 9  Stern et al. 2003. 10  Knapp and Demesticha 2017, pp. 46–66. 11  Åström 1964, p. 120, figs. 3–4; Merrillees 1974, p. 47, n. 5, figs. 29: 5, 35. 12  Crewe 2012, p. 230, fig. 2: 5. 13  Gjerstad 1948, p. 286, n. 5; Åström 1964, p. 120; Åström 1966, p. 9. 14  Crewe 2012, p. 232. 15  Åström 1986, p. 65, pl. IV: 4–5; Åström 1991, pp. 67–68; Fischer 1991. However, further examples were also found during the New Swedish Cyprus Expedition at the site from 2010 to 2017, see Bürge and Fischer (2018, p. 224, figs. 3: 16, 3: 26/3, 3: 36/1–3, 3: 69/1–4, 3: 129/2, 3: 130/2–8, 10, 3: 131/8–9, 3: 132/2). 16  Crewe 2012, p. 232. 17  Pearlman 1985, fig. 2: 1, pl. XXII: 1; Crewe 2012, pp. 230–232. 18  Crewe 2012, pp. 230–233, fig. 3. 19  Karageorghis 1964, p. 355; Karageorghis 1967, p. 315; Courtois 1971, p. 249, figs. 89, 91 and 96. 20  Schaeffer 1936, p. 140, n. 8, fig. 29, pl. XXX: 3; Sjöqvist 1942, pp. 24 and 185; Åström 1964, p. 120. 21  Anderson 1980, p. 27, n. 355d, pl. 4. 5

LEVANTINE-TYPE TRANSPORT AMPHORAE IN CYPRUS

109

1 2

3

4

0

10 cm

5

Fig. 1. Cyprus, Levantine-type amphorae: 1) Arpera-Mosphilos tomb 1A; Middle Cypriot III, c. 1750–1650 BCE (redrawn after Merrillees 1974, fig. 29: 5); 2) Kalavasos tomb 51; Late Cypriot I, c. 1650–1550 BCE (redrawn after Pearlman 1985, fig. 2: 1); 3–5) Pyla-Kokkinokremos; end of the Late Cypriot IIC–early Late Cypriot IIIA, c. late thirteenth to early twelfth centuries BCE (redrawn after Karageorghis and Kanta 2014, pls. IX: 106, X: 136, XI: 138).

110

A. ORSINGHER

P. Dikaios found many other amphorae in Areas I and III:22 they are attested from level IB (LC IB) and their number increased during LC IIIA (Levels IIIA–IIIB). Several fragments come from Myrthou-Pighades,23 where they were found in strata III (LC II: c. 1400 BCE), VI (LC II–III: c. thirteenth to twelfth century BCE) and VII (LC III: c. 1175 BCE). An unspecified number of examples is reported from the LC IIC site of AlassaPano Mandilares.24 Numerous amphorae (Fig. 1: 3–5) are attested at both Maa-Paleokastro25 and PylaKokkinokremos26 during a limited timespan (c. late thirteenth to early twelfth centuries BCE). These sites, which have been thoroughly studied, cataloguing all the sherds and distinguishing their fabrics, provide primary evidence. At Kition, a large corpus of amphorae27 have been recovered in both Area I (Floor IV: c. 1300/1275–1190 BCE) and II (Floors IV–II: c. 1300/1275–1050 BCE), where a residential quarter and a temple area were respectively located. Five varieties of amphorae have been recognised among LC IIIA assemblages (c. 1200/ 1190–1125/1100 BCE) of Kouklia-Palaepaphos28 and one example from Kouklia-Kaminia tomb VII.29 Some further finds are of unspecified chronology: several (unpublished) examples from a LC tomb at Pyla-Verghi,30 an indeterminate number from Sinda31 and Pendaya-Exomilia.32 A. Westholm mentioned two additional amphorae, but their provenance (Ayia Irini or Idalion) remains uncertain.33 Variations of these amphorae in White Painted IV and V occurred sometime after the arrival of the earliest imports during MC III,34 whereas a local production, starting from LC II,35 has been identified by macroscopic and petrographic analyses of the assemblages from Hala Sultan Tekke,36 Maa-Paleokastro37 and Pyla-Kokkinokremos.38 Among the local amphorae, at least three or four different fabrics have been distinguished:39 one of them has

22

 Catling 1957, p. 55; Dikaios 1969, pp. 28–29, 36, 97, 109, 115–116, 139, 157, 193–194, 199, 201, 245 and 329, pls. 65: 10, 77: 22–23, 120: 11–12 and 125: 4. 23  Catling 1957, pp. 53–55, n. 318–320, fig. 23. 24  Hadjisavvas 1986, p. 67. 25  Hadjicosti 1988. 26  Georgiou 2014; Bretschneider et al. 2015, pp. 10, 31 and 35, fig. 4; Bretschneider et al. 2017, pp. 45, 47, 50–51, 54, 69, 78, 87 and 95, figs. 10, 13, 26. 27  Karageorghis and Demas 1985a, p. 7, pls. IX: 671/2, 65, 67, 114, 137, pls. CVII: 5362, 5362A, CX: 3328C, CXIV: 2631, CXXIX: 5471, CXLVII: 5482, CLXXXV: 3681B, CLXXXVIII: 5362, 5362A, CXCIII: 2631, CCI: 5471, CCXIV: 5482, CCXXXVIII: 3681B. 28  Maier 1986, p. 88. On those from the two well shafts TE III and TE VIII at Palaepaphos-Evreti, see Jacobs (2016, pp. 44–45, 66–68, n. 109–141). 29  Knapp and Demesticha 2017, tab. 1. 30  Grace 1956, p. 92, n. 2; Catling 1957, p. 55. 31  Åström 1964, p. 120; Åström 1972b, p. 261. 32  Åström 1972b, p. 261. 33  Westholm 1943, pp. 95–96; Åström 1972b, p. 261. 34  Åström 1964, p. 120; Åström 1972a, p. 76, fig. XVIII: 10; Crewe 2012, p. 235. 35  Crewe 2012, p. 235. 36  Åström 1986, p. 65; Renson et al. 2014. 37  Jones and Vaughan 1988. 38  Georgiou 2014, pp. 184–185. 39  Renson et al. 2014, p. 275; Georgiou 2014, p. 176.

LEVANTINE-TYPE TRANSPORT AMPHORAE IN CYPRUS

111

been compared to the clay used in the plain wares of Pyla-Kokkinokremos,40 while another fabric probably corresponds with a source near Hala Sultan Tekke.41 Notwithstanding the high number of non-local fabrics, a secure provenance has only been established in some cases: a sherd from Enkomi may have originated from Ashdod,42 a fragmentary handle stamped with the cartouche of Seti I (c. 1301–1290 BCE) and other Egyptian containers43 have been recognised among the amphorae from Hala Sultan Tekke, which also include two fabrics from the northern Levant and one from the southern Levant/ northern Egypt.44 A connection with the northern Levant during the final stages of the Late Cypriot period has also been suggested on typological grounds.45 Painted and engraved marks applied after firing on some amphorae may suggest the involvement of Cypriot middlemen, at some level, in the shipping of these containers.46

II. CONTINUITY

AND CHANGE DURING THE

LATE BRONZE

TO IRON

AGE

TRANSITION

Despite the destruction and abandonment of many cities at the end of the Bronze Age, Levantine-type amphorae continued to arrive in Cyprus. Conversely, any gap between the Late Bronze and the Early Iron Age only exists at Kiton.47 Evidence of their occurrence can be recognised in a clay figurine from a Cypro-Geometric (henceforth CG) II tomb (c. 950– 900 BCE) at Amathus, which represents a man transporting a Levantine-type amphora.48 The corpus of Levantine-type amphorae (Fig. 2) known from CG I and II assemblages (c. 1050–900 BCE), which, aside from the Kition-Kathari sacred area, were mostly tombs,49 shows typological continuity with earlier Late Bronze Age traditions. In addition, the custom of Levantine-type amphorae used for child burials, previously attested at Enkomi50 and Kition,51 occurred at CG I Salamis,52 while a local production has been recognised in Kition-Kathari Floors I–II and I.53 Likewise, the practise of marked handles continued during these phases. In addition to transport amphorae, other Levantine containers were imported during CG I–II, such as kraters, dippers and strainer-spouted jugs. Since their trade cannot be linked to the sale of a product, they may have formed a multi-component pouring set, which could support the hypothesis that a beverage (wine/beer) was contained in some of the Levantine-type 40

 Georgiou 2014, p. 176.  Renson et al. 2014, p. 275. 42  Gunneweg et al. 1987; Mazar 1988, p. 225. 43  Åström 1964, p. 115, figs. 1–2; Eriksson 1995. 44  Renson et al. 2014, p. 275. 45  Pedrazzi 2007, p. 349. 46  Rutter 2014, p. 65. 47  Karageorghis and Demas 1985a, p. 22; Karageorghis and Demas 1985b, p. 85, pls. XXX: 839, XXXIII: 565, 1056, 1064, LI: 839, LV: 565, 1056, 1064, LXII: 230/1, 231, CLXXX: 4637, CCXXVIII: 4637. 48  Karageorghis 2006, p. 100, n. 75. 49  Bikai 1987, p. 50. 50  Dikaios 1969, pp. 115 and 157. 51  Yon 1985, p. 29, fig. 19: a, p. 32, n. 115, figs. 24: 115, 26: 115. For the revised and higher chronology of their find-context, see Georgiadou (2012, p. 325). 52  Calvet 1980, pp. 116–121, figs. 1, 3–5. 53  Karageorghis and Demas 1985b, pp. 64, n. 7 and 75. 41

A. ORSINGHER

112

LC IIIB

Kition-Bamboula L-N13

CG1

Kition-Bamboula L-N13

Kition-Bamboula L-N13

Palaepaphos-Skales T.49/80 Salamis-Campanopetra Sounding - jar burial 6191

Palaepaphos-Skales T.44/134

Palaepaphos-Skales T.49/79

Palaepaphos-Skales T.58/2

CG II

Palaepaphos-Skales T.80/1

Palaepaphos-Skales T.80/16

Palaepaphos-Skales T.74/20

Palaepaphos-Skales T.80/46

CG III Kition-Kathari Floor 3 Salamis T.1/136

CA I Kition-Ayios Georgios Kontos T.39/1

Kition-Kathari Floor 3

Kition-Kathari Floor 3 0

10 cm

Fig. 2. Cyprus, Levantine-type amphorae: Schematic diagram of the typological development between Late Cypriot IIIB and early Cypro-Archaic (henceforth CA) I (c. 1125/1100–700 BCE).

LEVANTINE-TYPE TRANSPORT AMPHORAE IN CYPRUS

113

amphorae. Although recent petrographic analysis of four jars from Palaepaphos-Skales has not provided good results,54 a trend in the progressive shift from small containers produced in the Carmel region to those fabricated further north (i.e. Akko and Tyre-Sidon) has been identified.55

III. RENEWING

AMPHORAE BETWEEN THE NINTH AND THIRD CENTURIES

BCE

From the CG III (c. 900–750 BCE) onwards, a renewal of the storage/transport amphorae occurred in the Levant and, consequently, in the examples attested on the island (Fig. 2). The factors behind these changes in the shape and size of the containers remain to be clarified. Between CG III and the Hellenistic period, 12 major types of Levantine-type amphorae can be identified in Cyprus. Type 1 [= Pedrazzi’s subtype 14–3–2] The finest type is a high-necked amphora (Fig. 3: 1), which usually has thin walls and a black, red or bichrome geometric decoration.56 These features make it more suitable for use as storage container, while its find-contexts suggest that it may have been a prestige item. Multiple examples are only known at Kition: two from the sacred area of Kathari,57 one from the sanctuary of Bamboula58 and one from Tomb MLA 1742.59 Apart from its forerunners found at Ḥorbat Rosh Zayit,60 in the Levant there are parallels from the open-air sanctuary of Tell eṣ-Ṣārem/Tel Rehov stratum IV and Tell Arqa level 10,61 while the amphora from the lowest level of the Tophet at Carthage62 represents the westernmost example. Overall, this shape, which was also locally imitated,63 can be dated to between the mid to late ninth and the late eighth centuries BCE. Type 2 [= Lehmann’s type 379; Docter’s SuBClass ‘Karthago 3A’] A carinated-shoulder amphora with short rim, piriform body and large rounded base (Fig. 3: 2–3) is typical of the ceramic repertoire of the eighth to seventh centuries BCE at Kition, where all the examples currently known in Cyprus were found64 and were, at least in part, locally produced. This type usually has painted black, red or bichrome decoration with 54

 Gilboa and Goren 2015, p. 86.  Gilboa and Goren 2015, p. 87, tab. 1. 56  Pedrazzi 2007, pp. 125–126. 57  Bikai 1987, p. 44, pl. XXI: 574 and 576. 58  Fourrier et al. 2015, p. 54, fig. 68: K87–1802. 59  Hadjisavvas 2014, p. 20, n. 11, fig. 24: a–b. 60  Gal and Alexandre 2000, pp. 52–53, fig. III.74: 21. 61  Orsingher 2015, p. 574, n. 51; Orsingher (2018), with references. Most recently, the western room of the casemate wall at Tel Abel Beth Maacah has yielded another example of this shape (Yahalom-Mack et al. 2018, p. 151, fig. 16). 62  Docter 2013, pp. 92, 96 and 102, cat. 7, tab. 3: A, fig. 7. 63  Christou 1995, fig. 8. 64  Hadjisavvas 2012, p. 232, n. 2, fig. 136: 2; Docter 2013, tab. 2. 55

A. ORSINGHER

114

2

3

1

4

6

5 0

10 cm

Fig. 3. Cyprus, Levantine-type amphorae: 1) Type 1: Kition, bichrome amphora from tomb M.LA 1742, c. mid-eighth century BCE (redrawn after Orsingher 2018, fig. 12: 3); 2) Type 2: Kition, bichrome amphora from Tourapi tomb 41, c. late eighth to seventh century BCE (redrawn after Bikai 1987, pl. XXI: 584); 3) Type 2: Kition, plain ware amphora from Ayios Georgios-Ploutonos Street tomb 35, c. late eighth to seventh century BCE (redrawn after Karageorghis 1967, fig. 42); 4) Type 3–1: Salamis, plain ware amphora from tomb 1, c. 775–750 BCE (redrawn after Bikai 1987, pl. XXIII: 612); 5) Type 3–2: Kition, plain ware amphora from Kathari Floor 2, c. 550–350 BCE (redrawn after Karageorghis 1999, pl. CLXX: 2095); 6) Type 4: Kition, plain ware amphora from Kathari Floor 3, c. 800–725 BCE (redrawn after Bikai 1987, pl. XXIII: 588).

LEVANTINE-TYPE TRANSPORT AMPHORAE IN CYPRUS

115

alternating lines and bands or more complex patterns.65 Occasional plain ware examples are also attested.66 These amphorae, sometimes accompanied by lids and/or stands, were probably intended for short/medium term conservation of foodstuffs. In the Levant, the closest parallels67 are attested at Hazor stratum V (c. eighth century BCE), Tyre stratum II (c. late eighth to seventh centuries BCE) and al-Mina level 8? (c. 750–640 BCE), although earlier examples are known.68 However, this shape continued in the western Mediterranean, especially at Carthage and Motya,69 where it developed with a flat or ring base and in a reduced size. Type 3 [= Zemer’s type 8; Lehmann’s type 382] This type (Fig. 3: 4) is characterised by a rounded, slightly sloping shoulder and an evident carination. It has also a plain rim, short neck and an elongated and slightly bag-shaped body.70 In the Levant, it occurred particularly during the late ninth and eighth centuries BCE at sites such as Ḥorbat Rosh Zayit, Megiddo, Tell Keisan, Hazor, Beth Shean, Tell Rehov and Tyre. In Cyprus, these amphorae are attested in Salamis tomb 1,71 Kition-Kathari Floor 3,72 Kition-Bamboula phase III,73 Marion tomb 574 and Ktima-Iskender tomb 3.75 A later development of this shape (Fig. 3: 5), with slightly concave walls and a pointed base, occurred, during CA IB/II (c. 650–480 BCE), at Pyla-Koutsopetri tomb 1,76 Kition Ayios Georgios tombs 12, 16 and 53,77 Kition-Kathari Floor 278 and Marion tomb 5.79 The earliest subtype may be attested as far west as Utica,80 while the later one is known at Carthage.81 Type 4 [= Zemer’s types 9–10; Bikai’s types J5–6; Sagona’s types 2–3; Lehmann’s types 383, 385–386] The type IV amphorae are characterised by a short neck, carinated shoulder, elongated cylindrical or slightly concave body and a pointed base.82  E.g. the palm-tree motif (Fig. 2); see Doumet-Serhal (2004).  Nicolaou 1976, p. 256, no. 6, pl. XXX: 6; Karageorghis 1967, p. 293, fig. 42; Bikai 1987, p. 44, n. 571 and 581. 67  Bikai 1978, pl. VII: 1; Ben-Ami et al. 2012, pp. 463–466, type SJ VII, fig. 6.20: 3; Docter 2013, p. 91, n. 1, fig. 1. 68  Lehmann 1996, pp. 430–431, pl. 69; Docter 2013, tab. 1. 69  Docter 2013, tab. 3; Orsingher 2013, pp. 179–181, with references. 70  Zemer 1978, p. 14, n. 8, pl. IV: 4; Lehmann 1996, pp. 433–435, type 382, pl. 71. 71  Bikai 1987, p. 46, n. 611–612 and 616–617, pl. XXIII. 72  Karageorghis 1999, pl. CXXXV: 4799; Bikai 2003, p. 246, pl. 6: 4. 73  Fourrier 2015, p. 130, fig. 17: 1–161. 74  Bikai 1987, p. 46, n. 605. 75  Bikai 1987, p. 46, n. 603, pl. XXIII. 76  Hadjisavvas 1999, p. 605, fig. 19. 77  Hadjisavvas 2012, p. 23, n. 6, p. 25, n. 1, p. 40, n. 34, p. 51, n. 1–2, p. 178, n. 31, p. 260, n. 15, figs. 11: 6, 12: 1, 18: 34, 26: 1–2, 102: 31 and 151: 15. 78  Karageorghis 1999, pl. CLXX: 2095. 79  Gjerstad et al. 1935, p. 194, n. 1, pl. XXXVI: 3. 80  López Castro et al. 2016, fig. 6: 2. 81  Chelbi 1991, p. 719, fig. 3b. 82  Zemer 1978, p. 14, n. 9–10, pl. IV: 4; Sagona 1982, pp. 75–78, fig. 1: 2–5; Lehmann 1996, pp. 433– 435, pls. 71–72; Zarzeeki-Peleg et al. 2005, p. 306, type SJ IBB1, fig. II.32: 2. 65 66

116

A. ORSINGHER

The distribution of this type (Fig. 3: 6) in Cyprus (c. end ninth to seventh centuries BCE) is currently limited to Kition and Ayia Irini. Given the connections between these two settlements,83 it seems possible that the single example (in secondary position?) from period 5 of the sanctuary at Ayia Irini84 arrived via Kition, where this shape is known in the cemeteries85 and the Kathari sanctuary.86 Variations in the upper part of these amphorae appear not to depend on chronological factors. Indeed, two subtypes are usually distinguished: one with rounded rim and a ridge below and the other with an almost square rim and without the ridge. However, they both occurred in the cargo of the shipwrecks off the coast of the Gaza Strip.87 Based on its limited distribution and petrographic features, the production of this type was probably located in some Phoenician coastal centre.88 In this regard, noteworthy is its occurrence at Carthage,89 from where a small version of this amphora probably arrived at Pithecusae.90 Type 5 [= Zemer’s type 17; Lehmann’s type 393; Barako’s type 13] The so-called ‘fat-bellied’ amphorae were the most common type in Philistia during the late Iron Age II.91 They have a simple, vertical rim, a short carinated-shoulder, two vertical handles on the carination, a bag-shaped body and a pointed base (Fig. 4: 1). According to the Levantine parallels (e.g. Ashkelon, Ashdod, Tell Miqne-Ekron, ‘Atlit), it appeared by the last quarter of the eighth century BCE and became the dominant type in the southern Levant by the seventh century BCE. Local productions have been identified at Ashkelon and Ekron.92 It occasionally occurred in Cyprus, where four examples have been identified. The earliest of them93 comes from Kition-Kathari Floor 3 (c. 800–725 BCE). Later examples (Fig. 4: 2), where the maximum diameter of the body decreases,94 are known from Salamis tomb 9 (CA II: c. 600–480 BCE) and from tombs 72 (CA IIA: c. 600–550 BCE) and 81A (CA IIB: c. 550–480 BCE) of Polis Chrysochous (ancient Marion and Arsinoe). This type is also attested at Carthage,95 while the alleged example from southern Spain96 is actually an amphora type Ramon 10.1.2.1, which has been considered a western development of this type.97 83

 Orsingher 2016.  Gjerstad 1960, fig. 6: 1. 85  Bikai 1987, p. 47, n. 631 and 633; Hadjisavvas 2012, p. 232, n. 1, fig. 136: 1. 86  Bikai 2003, pp. 231 and 246–247, pl. 6: 18–25. 87  Ballard et al. 2002, pp. 158–160, figs. 7: 4–5 and 9: 5–6. 88  Ballard et al. 2002, p. 160. 89  Clermont-Ganneau 1898, p. 525, n. A; Vegas 1999, pp. 200–201, form 72, fig. 110. 90  Ramon 1995, p. 267, n. 859, figs. 225 and 295; Bechtold and Docter 2010, fig. 5: 9. 91  Zemer 1978, pp. 21–24, n. 17, pl. VI: 6; Lehmann 1996, p. 437, type 393, pl. 74; Barako 2008, p. 443; Stern 2011b, pp. 88–89. 92  Stager et al. 2011, p. 88. 93  Bikai 1987, p. 45, n. 590, pl. XXIII; Karageorghis 1999, pl. CXXX: 3071. 94  Karageorghis 1970, p. 13, n. 9, pl. CCV: 9/7; Gjerstad et al. 1935, p. 395, n. 1, p. 418, n. 2, pls. LXXVI: 1, LXXX: 2. 95  Chelbi 1991, p. 727, fig. 7a–b; Ramon 1995, p. 273, n. 881–882, figs. 226 and 295; Docter and Bechtold 2011, pp. 91–95, figs. 2–3. 96  Barako 2008, p. 443. 97  Stager et al. 2011, p. 88. 84

LEVANTINE-TYPE TRANSPORT AMPHORAE IN CYPRUS

1

2

3

6

117

5

4

0

10 cm

7

Fig. 4. Cyprus, Levantine-type amphorae: 1) Type 5–1: Kition, plain ware amphora from Kathari Floor 3, c. 800–725 BCE (redrawn after Bikai 1987, pl. XXIII: 590); 2) Type 5–2: Salamis, plain ware amphora from tomb 9, c. 600–480 BCE (redrawn after Karageorghis 1970, pl. CCV: 9/7); 3) Type 6: Kition, plain ware amphora from Kathari Floor 2A, c. 725–550 BCE (redrawn after Karageorghis 1999, pl. CXLVIII: 3857); 4) Type 6: Kition, plain ware amphora from Kathari Floor 2A, c. 725–550 BCE (redrawn after Karageorghis 1999, pl. CXLVIII: 3277); 5) Type 6: Kition, plain ware amphora from Kathari Floor 3, c. 800–725 BCE (redrawn after Karageorghis 1999, pl. CXXX: 3035); 6) Type 7: Kition, plain ware amphora from Kathari Floor 2A, c. 725–550 BCE (redrawn after Bikai 1987, pl. XXIII: 589); 7) Type 7: Salamis, plain ware amphora from tomb 79, c. late eighth to seventh century BCE (redrawn after Karageorghis 1974, pl. CCXXV: 593).

118

A. ORSINGHER

Type 6 [= Zemer’s types 12–14; Sagona’s type 7; Lehmann’s types 392/2–3; Barako’s type 17] This amphora type (Fig. 4: 3–5), which is characterised by simple vertical rim, and a cylindrical body tapering toward a pointed base, is attested throughout much of the eastern Mediterranean from the final decades of the eighth century BCE onwards. It is especially common in seventh century BCE contexts.98 Neutron activation analysis on samples from Tel Batash99 and petrographic study of pottery from Ashkelon100 have shown that it was produced on the Phoenician coast. This is the most numerous and widely distributed Levantine-type amphora in Cyprus.101 Some examples have also been found further west, at Carthage,102 Motya103 and in the Iberian Peninsula, at Trayamar, Puente de Noy, Villaricos and Morro de Mezquitilla.104 Type 7 [= Zemer’s type 29; Sagona’s type 5; Lehmann’s type 384; Barako’s type 14] This amphora has a flat, folded, collar rim, angular shoulder and a bag-shaped body with concave sides and pointed base (Fig. 4: 6–7). Its distribution was centred on the Phoenician coast during the seventh to sixth centuries BCE.105 The rim of these amphorae seem to become shorter and flatter during the seventh century BCE.106 It has been suggested that it was produced in a centre on the coast of southern Phoenicia.107 In Cyprus, it is attested in Kition-Kathari Floor 2A,108 as well as in Marion tomb 84,109 Nicosia tomb 35110 and Salamis tomb 79.111 Amphorae of this type even reached Nimrud112 and Carthage.113 Type 8 [= Zemer’s types 25–26; Stern’s type F2; Lehmann’s type 409/1] A single amphora with a thickened rim, short concave neck, carinated-shoulder, two vertical handles on the body below carination and a bag-shaped body (Fig. 5: 5) is attested 98

 Zemer 1978, pp. 18–20, n. 12–14, pl. V: 5; Sagona 1982, pp. 83–85, fig. 2: 5 and 7–8; Lehmann 1996, p. 436, type 392, pl. 74; Barako 2008, p. 447; Stager et al. 201, p. 101. 99  Mazar and Panitz-Cohen 2001, p. 103. 100  Stager et al. 2011, p. 101. 101  Sagona 1982, pp. 102–103, n. 91–141; Masson 1993; Flourentzos 1986, p. 152, n. 23, pl. XXVII; Papageorghiou 1990, p. 946, fig. 21; Karageorghis 1999, pls. CXXX: 3018–3021 and 3035, CXXXIV: 2933; Georgiou 2005, p. 120, n. 29, pl. III. 102  Clermont-Ganneau 1898, p. 525, n. B; Chelbi 1991, pp. 727, 729, fig. 8; Ramon 1995, p. 270, n. 866– 871, 874–875 and 878, figs. 225–226 and 295; Schmitz and Freed 2012. 103  Ciasca 1978, p. 237, n. 38, pl. LXIV: 3; Cintas and Jully 1980, p. 35, fig. 3. 104  Ramon 1995, p. 270, n. 872–873 and 876, figs. 225 and 295; Bechtold and Docter 2010, fig. 5: 11. 105  Zemer 1978, pp. 31–36, n. 29, pl. IX: 9; Sagona 1982, p. 80, fig. 1: 10; Lehmann 1996, p. 434, type 384, pl. 72; Barako 2008, p. 444; Stager et al. 2011, p. 100. 106  Stager et al. 2011, p. 100. 107  Stager et al. 2011, pp. 58–59. 108  Bikai 2003, p. 247, pl. 6: 30. 109  Gjerstad et al. 1935, p. 430, n. 32, pl. LXXX: 3. 110  Hadjicosti 1993, p. 188, n. 34, pl. LII. 111  Karageorghis 1974, pl. CCXXV: 593 and 806–807. 112  Lehmann 1996, p. 434. 113  Chelbi 1991, pp. 727, 729, fig. 8; Ramon 1995, pp. 269–270, n. 861–865 and 880, figs. 226 and 295; Bechtold and Docter 2010, fig. 5: 10.

LEVANTINE-TYPE TRANSPORT AMPHORAE IN CYPRUS

1

6

119

2 3

7

8

Fig. 5. Cyprus, Levantine-type amphorae: 1) Type 9–1: Kition, plain ware amphora from Ayios Georgios tomb M.LA 1153, c. 480–310 BCE (redrawn after Yon and Callot 1987, fig. 11: 2); 2) Type 9–2: Amathus, plain ware amphora from tomb 130, c. fifth century BCE (redrawn after Bikai 1987, pl. XXIII: 585); 3) Type 12: Amathus, eastern necropolis, plain ware amphora from tomb 423, c. fourth century BCE (redrawn after Nicolaou 1985, fig. 6: 16); 4) Type 11: Amathus, plain ware amphora from tomb 494, c. fourth century BCE (reproduced by permission of the Director of the Department of Antiquities, Cyprus from Karageorghis 1987, fig. 146); 5) Type 8: Kition, plain ware amphora from Ayios Georgios tomb 30, c. late seventh to mid-sixth century BCE (reproduced by permission of the Director of the Department of Antiquities, Cyprus from Hadjisavvas 2012, fig. 53: 1); 6). Type 10: Vouni, plain ware amphora from tomb 1, c. 400–310 BCE (redrawn after Gjerstad 1948, fig. LXVII: 26); 7) Type 10: Kition, plain ware amphora from Ayios Georgios tomb 14, c. 480–310 BCE (redrawn after Fourrier 2014, fig. 1); 8) Type 10: Kition, plain ware amphora from Ayios Georgios tomb 18, c. 400 BCE-end fourth/ early third centuries BCE (redrawn after Fourrier 2014, fig. 2).

120

A. ORSINGHER

in Ayios Georgios tomb 30 at Kition,114 which can be dated between the late seventh and the mid-sixth centuries BCE. It cannot be referred to any of the other groups, although, due its fragmentary status, the typological definition of this container remains uncertain. Among the parallels,115 the closest seems to be an amphora from Tel Goren stratum V (c. 630–582 BCE), which also matches the chronology of the Kition tomb. Type 9 [= Zemer’s types 18–22; Stern’s type H6; Sagona’s type 6; Lehmann’s types 394– 396; Barako’s type 19] This type, which is characterised by an elongated biconical body, has been defined as ‘the Phoenician amphora par excellence during the Persian period’.116 It is widely attested throughout the eastern Mediterranean during the sixth to fourth centuries BCE,117 but it also occurred in Rhodes,118 Carthage and Kerkouane.119 Neutron activation analysis of samples from Tell el-Ḥesi has suggested a production centre in Lebanon.120 Two subtypes (sometimes considered as independent types) can be distinguished within this group: one (Fig. 5: 1), which occurred particularly in the burials of Kition, its hinterland and at Nicosia, has a narrower shoulder and a more pronounced carinated body, the other (Fig. 5: 2), which has a wider distribution, reaching Kition, Salamis, Amathus and Marion, has a smoother profile and a wider, lower body. Type 10 [= Sagona’s type 12; Lehmann’s types 414 and 418] This amphora is widely attested in the eastern Mediterranean during the late fifth and fourth centuries BCE (Fig. 5: 6–8): it has a variety of profiles, sizes and may have one or two handles.121 This shape represents a hallmark of the Cypro-Classical periods I–II (c. 480– 310 BCE). New evidence from Kition can now be added to the numerous examples listed by Sagona from Vouni, Marion, Aphendrika, Tsambres, Ayia Irini and Kaloriziki. Few amphorae come from Floors 2A–2 and 2 of the Kathari sacred area,122 others were discovered in the cemeteries at Ayios Georgios and Ayios Prodromos.123 A Cypriot production has been suggested for this shape.124

114

 Hadjisavvas 2012, p. 92, n. 1, fig. 53: 1.  Zemer 1978, pp. 29–32, n. 25–26, pl. VIII: 8; Stern 1982, p. 105, n. 2, fig. 143; Lehmann 1996, p. 441, pl. 76. 116  Barako 2008, p. 449. 117  Zemer 1978, pp. 24–27, n. 18–22, pls. VI–VII, 6–7; Stern 1982, pp. 109–110, n. 6, fig. 152; Sagona 1982, pp. 80–82, fig. 2: 1–4; Bettles 2003; Barako 2008, p. 449. 118  Jacopi 1929, pl. III: CLXXIV. 119  Ramon 1995, pp. 273–274, n. 884–891, figs. 226 and 295. 120  Blakely and Bennett 1989, p. 221. 121  Gjerstad 1948, pp. 89–90, types 4a–b, figs. LXII: 4–5, LXVII: 26–27; Sagona 1982, pp. 86–88 and 105, fig. 3; Lehmann 1996, pp. 442–443, pls. 77–78. 122  Karageorghis 1999, pls. XLVII: 3174, LXXVI: 1529, CLXXIV: 3136 and 1529. 123  Hadjisavvas 2012, figs. 22: 2, 33: 4, 73: 1, 127: 1, 132: 3, 142: 2/1, 4/4, 144: 9/1,148: 2; Fourrier 2014, p. 135, figs. 1–2. 124  Georgiadou 2016, p. 7. 115

LEVANTINE-TYPE TRANSPORT AMPHORAE IN CYPRUS

121

Type 11 [= Stern’s type H2; Lehmann’s type 398] Another type of amphora125 has been found in Amathus tomb 494.126 It has an externally rounded-rim, very short neck, sharply carinated shoulder, narrow-waist, straight-sided body and a rounded base (Fig. 5: 4). This grave also contained an Attic black glazed bowl and a red figure aryballic lekythos, which is dated to the first quarter of the fourth century BCE.127 Although this currently seems the only example from Cyprus, parallels are attested in Hazor stratum II,128 ‘Atlit tomb L16129 and allegedly around Gaza,130 supporting a 4th century BCE chronology. Type 12 [= Zemer’s type 27; Stern’s type H8; Ramon’s types 13.1.1.3, 13.1.2.1; Lehmann’s type 404/2; Barako’s type 23] This shape (Fig. 5: 3) has an out-turned rim, carinated-shoulder, two (slightly twisted) handles below the carination, a wheel-ridged zone on the shoulder, a bag-shaped body and a pointed base.131 Amphorae of this type were found in coastal sites of the southern Levant such as in Tell Keisan stratum 2,132 in Shiqmona strata B and H133 and off the coast of Ashdod,134 although further unpublished examples were reportedly discovered at Tell Yoqne‘am, Akhziv and Beth ha-‘Emeq.135 In Cyprus, examples are known from the fourth century funerary contexts at Amathus,136 Kition137 and Salamis.138 Westwards, this shape is well attested in the area of Carthage, where it was locally produced, and in western Sicily during the fourth to third centuries BCE.139

IV. LOOKING

FORWARD: FINAL CONSIDERATIONS

Unlike the Bronze Age containers, the Iron Age amphorae from Cyprus have attracted little attention from scholars, which explains the current fragmented picture and various shortcomings. Funerary assemblages, which represent the most frequent find-contexts of 125

 Stern 1982, pp. 107–109, n. 2, fig. 148; Lehmann 1996, p. 438, pl. 75: 398/1.  Karageorghis 1987, p. 711, fig. 146. 127  Karageorghis 1987, p. 711, fig. 137. 128  Yadin et al. 1961, p. 49, pls. CXCI: 17, CCCLXIV: 11. 129  Johns 1933, p. 60, fig. 16: n; pl. XIX: 387. 130  Naveh 1987, pp. 26–27, n. 4, pl. 2: A–B. 131  Zemer 1978, p. 32, n. 27, pl. IX: 9; Stern 1982, p. 110, n. 8, fig. 154; Lehmann 1996, p. 440, pl. 75: 404/2; Barako 2008, p. 453. 132  Briend 1980, p. 106, pl. 7: 8. 133  Elgavish 1968, pls. III, IX: 140; Elgavish 1974, pls. VI, X: 211, XIV, XVII: 235, XIX. 134  Zemer 1978, p. 32, n. 27, pls. IX: 9. 135  Stern 1982, p. 110. 136  Nicolaou 1985, p. 265, n. 105, fig. 6: 16, pl. XLIX: 16. 137  Hadjisavvas 2012, p. 119, no. 1, fig. 68: 1, 241, n. 1, fig. 142: 6/1. 138  Karageorghis 1974, pl. CCLXXXVI: 82. 139  Cintas 1950, p. 147, n. 310, pls. XXV: 310, XCIV: 310; Ramon 1995, pp. 241–242, types 13.1.1.3, 13.1.2.1, figs. 213–214, 290: map 125, 291: map 127; Bechtold and Docter 2010, p. 97, fig. 9: 26. 126

122

A. ORSINGHER

Levantine-type amphorae in Iron Age Cyprus, are usually unsuitable for refining the chronology of these containers. Most of them are only known from photographs, which do not help in outlining a more detailed chrono-typological development of the amphorae, while the typological attribution is even more complicated in the case of fragments. Various fabrics have sometimes been macroscopically identified among Iron Age assemblages. 140 In the absence of petrographic and chemical data from Iron Age Cyprus, production centres and/ or workshops and the contents associated with these amphorae cannot be determined, although the results of archaeometric studies are now available for some Levantine sites. However, it is for these reasons that the study of Levantine-type amphorae from Iron Age Cyprus represents a very promising field of research, to the extent that an integrated petrographic and chemical approach and organic residue analysis will be used in order to determine the ceramic provenances and to obtain chemical evidence for their original contents. The aim is to contribute to a better understanding of the nature of contact and trade relations between the island and other Mediterranean regions during the Iron Age. Trade mechanisms can also be investigated by exploring capacity and volumetric categories,141 as highly standardised containers may imply a centralised production and economy. Notwithstanding, some observations can be made. Along with the changes in the form repertoire, painted or engraved Phoenician inscriptions appeared on Levantine-type amphorae from the Iron Age II. They are usually formed by a small group of letters indicating the name of the owner(s), the content of the amphora or the units of measure.142 It is worth noting that few Cypriot syllabic inscriptions are also attested on Levantine-type amphorae.143 The greater number of oriental imports, as well as Levantine-type amphorae, coming from the cemeteries of Palaepaphos may support a major role of this site in trading with the Levant during CG I–II. From the late ninth century BCE onwards, other harbour cities – Kition, Amathus and Salamis – seem to have played a more significant role in Mediterranean networks. Kition, particularly, provides the most varied and numerous corpus of amphorae. Transport amphorae are a typical feature of the funerary assemblages of Kition, where they occurred, paired with a (painted) storage amphora, from about the second quarter of the eight century BCE until the Hellenistic period. The occasional presence of unbaked clay stoppers144 may suggest the original presence of (liquid?) offerings for the deceased.145 Their distribution inland and to other sites increased during the sixth to fourth centuries BCE, although current data on the distribution and quantity of Levantine-type amphorae are conditioned by the high number of unpublished funerary assemblages. Most of the amphora types attested in Cyprus during the eighth to fourth centuries BCE also occurred at Carthage, which may indicate that the North African metropolis was also part of the eastern Mediterranean trade network.

140

 Fourrier 2009, pp. 51–52.  E.g. Knapp and Demesticha 2017, pp. 172–184. 142  E.g. Masson and Sznycer 1972, pls. IX: 2, XIII–XIV: 3–4, XV: 2–3; Amadasi Guzzo and Karageorghis 1977, n. D3–4, D7, D14, D32. 143  E.g. Egetmeyer 2010, p. 15. 144  E.g. Flourentzos 2004, p. 1646, fig. 24; Hadjisavvas 2012, fig. 16: 27b. 145  Orsingher 2017. 141

LEVANTINE-TYPE TRANSPORT AMPHORAE IN CYPRUS

123

BIBLIOGRAPHY AMADASI GUZZO, M. G. and KARAGEORGHIS, V. 1977 Fouilles de Kition III. Inscriptions phéniciennes. Nicosia: Department of Antiquities of the Republic of Cyprus. AMIRAN, R. 1970 Ancient Pottery of the Holy Land from Its Beginnings in the Neolithic Period to the End of the Iron Age. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press. ANDERSON, K. 1980 “Supplementary material from Enkomi tombs 3, 7, 11 and 18 s.c.,” Medelhavsmuseet Bulletin 15: 25–40. ASTON, D. A. 2004 “Amphorae in New Kingdom Egypt,” Egypt and the Levant 14: 175–213. ÅSTRÖM, P. 1964 “A handle stamped with the cartouche of Seti I from Hala Sultan Tekke in Cyprus,” Opuscula Atheniensia 5: 115–121. 1966 Excavations at Kalopsidha and Ayios Iakovos in Cyprus (Studies in Mediterranean Archaeology 2). Göteborg: Paul Åströms Förlag. 1972a The Swedish Cyprus Expedition. Vol. IV Part 1B. The Late Cypriot Bronze Age. Stockholm: Swedish Cyprus Expedition. 1972b The Swedish Cyprus Expedition. Vol. IV Part 1C. The Late Cypriot Bronze Age. Architecture and Pottery. Stockholm: Swedish Cyprus Expedition. 1986 “Hala Sultan Tekke and its foreign relations,” in Cyprus between the Orient and the Occident (Acts of the International Archaeological Symposium, Nicosia, 1985), edited by V. Karageorghis, pp. 63–68. Nicosia: Republic of Cyprus. 1991 “Problems of definition of local and imported fabrics of Late Cypriot ‘Canaanite’ ware,” in Cypriot Ceramics: Reading the Prehistoric Period (University Museum Monograph 74), edited by J. A. Barlow, D. L. Bolger and B. Kling, pp. 67–72. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania. BALLARD, R. D., STAGER, L. E., MASTER, D., YOERGER, D., MINDELL, D., WHITCOMB, L. L., SINGH, H. and PIECHOTA, D. 2002 “Iron Age shipwrecks in deep water off Ashkelon, Israel,” American Journal of Archaeology 106: 151–168. BARAKO, T. 2008 “Amphoras through the ages,” in Ashkelon I: Introduction and Overview (1985–2006) (Final reports of the Leon Levy Expedition to Ashkelon 1), edited by L. E. Stager, J. D. Schloen and D. M. Master, pp. 429–461. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns. BAVAY, L. 2015 “Canaanite jars and jar seals from Deir el-Medina: Scattered evidence of Egypt’s economic relations with the Levant during the New Kingdom,” in Policies of Exchange, Political Systems and Modes of Interaction in the Aegean and the Near East in the 2nd Millennium B.C.E. Proceedings of the International Symposium at the University of Freiburg Institute for Archaeological Studies, 2012 (Oriental and European Archaeology 2), edited by B. Eder and R. Pruzsinszky, pp. 129–140. Vienna: Austrian Academy of Sciences. BECHTOLD, B. and DOCTER, R. 2010 “Transport amphorae from Punic Carthage: An overview,” in Motya and the Phoenician Ceramic Repertoire between the Levant and the West, 9th–6th Century BC. Proceedings of the International Conference held in Rome, 26th February 2010 (Quaderni di Archeologia Fenicio-Punica 5), edited by L. Nigro, pp. 85–116. Roma: Missione Archeologica a Mozia. BEN-AMI, D., SANDHAUS, D. and BEN-TOR, A. 2012 “The pottery of Strata VIII–IV,” in Hazor VI. The 1990–2009 excavations. The Iron Age, edited by D. Ben-Ami, D. Sandhaus and A. Ben-Tor, pp. 436–473. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society.

124

A. ORSINGHER

BENNETT, W. J. Jr. and BLAKELY, J. A. 1989 Tell el-Hesi. The Persian Period (Stratum V). Winona Lake: Eisenbraus. BETTLES, E. A. 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) (British Arachaeological Reports International Series 1183). Oxford: Archaeopress. BIKAI, P. M. 1978 The Pottery of Tyre. Warminster: Aris and Phillips. 1987 The Phoenician Pottery of Cyprus. Nicosia: A. G. Leventis Foundation. 2003 “Appendix I. Statistical observations on the Phoenician pottery of Kition,” in Excavations at Kition. Vol. VI, Part II. The Phoenician and Later Levels, edited by V. Karageorghis, pp. 207–257. Nicosia: Department of Antiquities of the Republic of Cyprus. BRETSCHNEIDER, J., KANTA, A. and DRIESSEN, J. 2015 “Pyla-Kokkinokremos. Preliminary report on the 2014 excavations,” Ugarit-Forschungen 46: 1–37. 2017 “Pyla-Kokkinokremos (Cyprus). Preliminary report on the 2015–2016 campaigns,” Ugarit-Forschungen 48: 35–120. BRIEND, J. 1980 “Vestiges hellénistiques,” in Tell Keisan (1971–1976): Une cité phénicienne en Galilée (Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis Series Archaeologica 1), edited by J. Briend and J. B. Humbert, pp. 101–116. Freiburg: Éditions universitaires. CALVET, Y. 1980 “Sur certains rites funéraires à Salamine de Chypre,” in Salamine de Chypre, histoire et archéologie: état des recherches (Colloques internationaux du Centre national de la recherche scientifique 578), edited by M. Yon, pp. 115–121. Paris: Éditions du Centre national de la recherche scientifique. CATLING, H. W. 1957 “The Bronze Age pottery,” in Myrtou Pigadhes. A Late Bronze Age Sanctuary in Cyprus, edited by J. du Plat Taylor, pp. 26–59. Oxford: Ashmolean Museum. CHELBI, F. 1991 “À propos des amphores archaïques de Carthage,” in Atti del II Congreso internazionale di studi fenici e punici, Roma, 9-14 Novembre 1987 (Collezione di studi fenici 30), edited by E. Acquaro, P. Bartoloni, M. T. Francisi, L. I. Manfredi, F. Mazza, G. Montalto, G. Petruccioli, S. Ribichini, G. Scandone and P. Xella, pp. 715–732. Roma: Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche. CHRISTOU, D. 1995 “Chronique des fouilles et découvertes archéologiques à Chypre en 1994,” Bulletin de Correspondance Hellénique 119: 799–838. CIASCA, A. 1978 “Mozia 1977. Scavi alle mura (Campagna 1977),” Rivista di Studi Fenici VI: 227–244. CINTAS, P. 1950 Céramique punique. Paris: C. Klincksieck. CINTAS, P. and JULLY, J. J. 1980 “Onze sépultures de la nécropole archaïque de Motyé,” Cuadernos de Trabajos de la Escuela Española de Historia y Arqueología en Roma 14: 31–52. CLERMONT-GANNEAU, C. 1898 “Amphores à épigraphes grecques et jarre à épigraphe sémitique provenant d’un sépulcre phénicien,” Comptes rendus des séances de l’Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres: 521– 526. COURTOIS, J.-C. 1971 “Le sanctuaire du dieu au lingot d’Enkomi-Alasia,” in Alasia I, edited by C. F.-A. Schaeffer, pp. 151–362. Paris: Mission archéologique d’Alasia. CREWE, L. 2012 “Beyond copper: Commodities and values in Middle Bronze Cypro-Levantine exchanges,” Oxford Journal of Archaeology 31: 225–243.

LEVANTINE-TYPE TRANSPORT AMPHORAE IN CYPRUS

DIKAIOS, P. 1969

125

Enkomi. Excavation 1948–1958. Vol. 1. The Architectural Remains: The Tombs. Mainz am Rhein: Philipp von Zabern.

DOCTER, R. F. 2013 “Bichrome ware amphorae from Al Mina, Kition, and Carthage,” in Ritual, Religion, and Reason. Studies in the Ancient World in Honour of Paolo Xella (Alter Orient und Altes Testament 404), edited by O. Loretz, S. Ribichini, W. G. E. Watson and J. A. Zamora, pp. 89–102. Münster: Ugarit-Verlag. DOCTER, R. F. and BECHTOLD, B. 2011 “Two Forgotten Amphorae from the Hamburg Excavations at Carthage (Cyprus and the Iberian Peninsula) and their Contexts,” Carthage Studies 5: 91–128. DOUMET-SERHAL, C. 2004 “The palm tree motif in the Late Bronze and Early Iron Age: Evidence from Sidon and Tell Rachidieh,” Archaeology and History in Lebanon 19: 34–43. EGETMEYER, M. 2010 Le dialecte grec ancien de Chypre. Berlin: De Gruyter. ELGAVISH, J. 1968 Archaeological Excavations at Shikmona, Field Report No. 1. The Levels of the Persian Period. Seasons 1963–1965. Haifa: City Museum of Ancient Art. 1974 Archaeological Excavations at Shikmona. Field Report No. 2. The Level of the Hellenistic Period – Stratum H. Seasons 1963–1970. Haifa: City Museum of Ancient Art. ERIKSSON, K. O. 1995 “Egyptian amphorae from Late Cypriot contexts in Cyprus,” in Trade, Contact, and the Movement of Peoples in the Eastern Mediterranean: Studies in Honour of J. Basil Hennessy (Mediterranean Archaeology Supplement 3), edited by S. Bourke and J. P. Descoeudres, pp. 199–205. Sydney: MEDITARCH. FISCHER, P. M. 1991 “Canaanite pottery from Hala Sultan Tekke: Traditional classification and micro color analysis (MCA),” in Cypriot Ceramics: Reading the Prehistoric Period (University Museum Monograph 74), edited by J. A. Barlow, D. L. Bolger, and B. Kling, pp. 73– 80. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania. FISCHER, P. M. and BÜRGE, T. 2018 Two Late Cypriot City Quarters at Hala Sultan Tekke: The Söderberg Expedition 2010– 2017 (Studies in Mediterranean Archaeology 147). Uppsala: Paul Åströms Förlag. FLOURENTZOS, P. 1986 “Tomb groups from the necropolis in Ay. Omologites, Nicosia,” Report of the Department of Antiquities, Cyprus: 150–163. 2004 “Chronique des fouilles et découvertes archéologiques à Chypre en 2003 et 2004,” Bulletin de Correspondance Hellénique 128–129: 1635–1708. FOURRIER, S. 2009 “Le dépôt archaïque du rempart Nord d’Amathonte VII. Autres productions chypriotes et importations levantines,” Bulletin de Correspondance Hellénique 133: 1–98. 2014 “Appendix II. The ceramic repertoire of the Classical Period necropolis of Kition,” in The Phoenician Period Necropolis of Kition II, edited by S. Hadjisavvas, pp. 135–181. Nicosia: Department of Antiquities of the Republic of Cyprus. 2015 “La céramique chypriote et levantine d’époque géométrique et archaïque,” in KitionBamboula VI. Le sanctuaire sous la colline (Travaux de la Maison de l’Orient et de la Méditerranée 67; Corpus des Antiquités Phéniciennes et Puniques France 2), edited by A. Caubet, S. Fourrier and M. Yon, pp. 111–172. Lyon: Maison de l’Orient et de la Méditerranée. FOURRIER, S., CAUBET, A. and CALLOT, O. 2015 “Les phases d’occupation,” in Kition-Bamboula VI. Le sanctuaire sous la colline (Travaux de la Maison de l’Orient et de la Méditerranée 67; Corpus des Antiquités Phéniciennes et Puniques France 2), edited by A. Caubet, S. Fourrier and M. Yon, pp. 35–96. Lyon: Maison de l’Orient et de la Méditerranée.

126

A. ORSINGHER

GEORGIADOU, A. P. 2016 “Pottery of Geometric, Archaic and Classical periods in Cyprus,” in Kyprios Character. History, Archaeology and Numismatics of Ancient Cyprus, kyprioscharacter.eie.gr/en/t/A0 (5 February 2021). GEORGIOU, A. 2005 “Η άγνωστη Δένεια. Ένα ταφικό σύνολο των Ιστορικών χρόνων,” in Report of the Department of Antiquities, Cyprus: 117–147. 2012 “La production céramique de Kition au Chypro-Géométrique I,” in Cyprus and the Aegean in the Early Iron Age: The Legacy of Nicolas Coldstream, edited by M. Iacovou, pp. 321–344. Nicosia: Bank of Cyprus Cultural Foundation. 2014 “Appendix 3. The Canaanite jars from Pyla-Kokkinokremos,” in Pyla-Kokkinokremos. A Late 13th Century BCE Fortified Settlement in Cyprus. Excavations 2010–2011 (Studies in Mediterranean Archaeology 141), edited by V. Karageorghis and A. Kanta, pp. 175– 187. Uppsala: Paul Åströms Förlag. 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: 73–110. GJERSTAD, E. 1948 The Swedish Cyprus Expedition, The Cypro-Geometric, Cypro-Archaic and Cypro-Classical Periods IV/2. Stockholm: The Swedish Cyprus Expedition. 1960 “Pottery types: Cypro-Geometric to Cypro-Classical,” Opuscula Atheniensa 3: 105–122. GJERSTAD, E., LINDROS, J., SJØQVIST, E. and WESTHOLM, A. 1935 The Swedish Cyprus Expedition. Vol. II. Finds and Results of the Excavations in Cyprus 1927–1931. Stockholm: The Swedish Cyprus Expedition. GRACE, V. R. 1956 “The Canaanite jar,” in The Aegean and the Near East: Studies Presented to Hetty Goldman, edited by S. S. Weinberg, pp. 80–109. New York: J. J. Augustin. GUNNEWEG, J. P., PERLMAN, I. and ASARO, F. 1987 “A Canaanite jar from Enkomi,” Israel Exploration Journal 37: 168–172. HADJICOSTI, M. 1988 “Appendix IV. Part 1. Canaanite jars from Maa Paleokastro,” in Excavations at Maa Paleokastro, 1979–1986, 3 vols., edited by V. Karageorghis and M. Demas, pp. 340–385. Nicosia: Department of Antiquities. 1993 “The Late Archaic and Classical cemetery of Agioi Omologites, Nicosia in the light of new evidence,” Report of the Department of Antiquities, Cyprus: 173–193. HADJISAVVAS, S. 1986 “Alassa, a new Late Cypriote site,” in Report of the Department of Antiquities, Cyprus: 62–67. 1999 “Chronique des fouilles et découvertes archéologiques à Chypre en 1998,” Bulletin de Correspondance Hellénique 123: 599–633. 2012 The Phoenician Period Necropolis of Kition I. Nicosia: Department of Antiquities. JACOBS, A. 2016 “The plain and Canaanite wares,” in Feasting, Craft and Depositional Practice in Late Bronze Age Palaepaphos. The Well Fillings of Evreti (Bochumer Forschungen zur Ur- und Frühgeschichtlichen Archäologie 8), edited by C. von Rüden, A. Georgiou, A. Jacobs, P. Halstead, pp. 39–70. Rahden/Westf.: Leidorf. JACOPI, G. 1929 Clara Rhodos III. Scavi nella necropoli di Jalisso, 1924–1928. Bergamo: Istituto Storico Archeologico. JOHNS, C. N. 1933 “Excavations at ‘Atlīt (1930–31). The south-eastern cemetery,” The Quarterly of the Department of Antiquities in Palestine 2: 41–104. JONES, R. E. and VAUGHAN, S. J. 1988 “Appendix IV. Part 2,” in Excavations at Maa Paleokastro, 1979–1986, 3 vols., edited by V. Karageorghis and M. Demas, pp. 386–398. Nicosia: Department of Antiquities.

LEVANTINE-TYPE TRANSPORT AMPHORAE IN CYPRUS

127

KARAGEORGHIS, V. 1964 “Chronique des fouilles et découvertes archéologiques à Chypre en 1963,” Bulletin de Correspondance Hellénique 88: 289–379. 1967 “Chronique des fouilles et découvertes archéologiques à Chypre en 1966,” Bulletin de Correspondance Hellénique 91: 275–370. 1970 Excavations in the Necropolis of Salamis II. Plates (Salamis 4). Nicosia: Department of Antiquities. 1974 Excavations in the Necropolis of Salamis III. Plates (Salamis 5). Nicosia: Department of Antiquities. 1987 “Chronique des fouilles et découvertes archéologiques à Chypre en 1986,” Bulletin de Correspondance Hellénique 111: 663–733. 1999 Excavations at Kition VI. The Phoenician and Later Levels. Plates. Nicosia: Department of Antiquities. 2006 Aspects of Everyday Life in Ancient Cyprus: Iconographic Representations. Nicosia: A. G. Leventis Foundation. KARAGEORGHIS, V. and DEMAS, M. 1985a Excavations at Kition V: The Pre-Phoenician Levels. Areas I and II. Part I. Nicosia: Department of Antiquities. 1985b Excavations at Kition V: The Pre-Phoenician Levels. Areas I and II. Part II. Nicosia: Department of Antiquities. KARAGEORGHIS, V. and KANTA, A. 2014 Pyla-Kokkinokremos. A late 13th century BC fortified settlement in Cyprus. Excavations 2010–2011 (Studies in Mediterranean Archaeology 141). Uppsala: Paul Åströms Förlag. KILLEBREW, A. E. 2007 “The Canaanite storage jar revisited. Up to the gates of Ekron,” in Essays on the Archaeology and History of the Eastern Mediterranean in Honor of Seymour Gitin, edited by A. Ben-Tor, J. P. Dessel, W. G. Dever, A. Mazar and J. Aviram, pp. 166–188. Jerusalem: W. F. Albright Institute of Archaeological Research. KNAPP, A. B. and DEMESTICHA, S. 2017 Mediterranean Connections: Maritime Transport Containers and Seaborne Trade in the Bronze and Iron Ages. New York-Abingdon: Routledge. LEHMANN, G. 1996 Untersuchungen zur späten Eisenzeit in Syrien und Libanon: Stratigraphie und Keramikformen zwischen ca. 720 bis 300 v. Chr. (Altertumskunde des Vorderen Orients 5). Münster: Ugarit-Verlag. LÓPEZ CASTRO, J. L., FERJAOUI, A., MEDEROS MARTÍN, A., MARTÍNEZ HAHNMÜLLER, V. and BEN JERBANIA, I. 2016 “La colonización fenicia inicial en el Mediterráneo Central: nuevas excavaciones arqueológicas en Utica (Túñez),” Trabajos de Prehistoria 73: 68–89. MAIER, F. G. 1986 “Discussion,” in Acts of the International Archaeological Symposium “Cyprus Between the Orient and the Occident”, Nicosia, 8–14 September 1985, edited by V. Karageorghis, pp. 88–90. Nicosia: Department of Antiquities. MASSON, O. 1993 “Encore sur l’urne phénicienne A. P. Cesnola de Kition,” Semitica 41–42: 101–105. MASSON, O. and SZNYCER, M. 1972 Recherches sur les Phéniciens à Chypre (Centre de recherches d’histoire et de philologie de la IVe section de l’École pratique des hautes études II, Hautes études orientales 3). Paris: Droz. MAZAR, A. 1988 “A note on Canaanite jars from Enkomi,” Israel Exploration Journal 38: 224–226. MAZAR, A. and PANITZ-COHEN, N. 2011 Timnah (Tel Batash) II: The Finds from the First Millennium BCE (Qedem 42). Jerusalem: Hebrew University of Jerusalem.

128

A. ORSINGHER

MERRILLEES, R. S. 1974 Trade and Transcendence in the Bronze Age Levant (Studies in Mediterranean Archaeology 39). Göteborg: Paul Åströms Förlag. NAVEH, J. 1987 “Unpublished Phoenician inscriptions from Palestine,” Israel Exploration Journal 37: 25–30. NICOLAOU, I. 1985 “Excavations in the eastern necropolis of Amathous in 1984, tombs 423–427,” in Report of the Department of Antiquities, Cyprus: 257–285. NICOLAOU, K. 1976 The Historical Topography of Kition (Studies in Mediterranean Archaeology 43). Göteborg: Paul Åströms Förlag. ORSINGHER, A. 2013 La ceramica dagli scavi di Antonia Ciasca al Tofet di Mozia (1964–1973). Unpublished PhD diss., Sapienza University of Rome. 2015 “Vessels in Tophet sanctuaries: the Archaic evidence and the Levantine connection,” in Cult and Ritual on the Levantine Coast and its impact on the Eastern Mediterranean Realm. Proceedings of the International Symposium, Beirut, 2012 (BAAL Hors-Série X), edited by A.-M. Maila Afeiche, pp. 561–590. Beirut: Ministère de la Culture. 2016 “Reconsidering the necropolis of Ayia Irini: a glimpse of the Iron Age evidence,” in Ancient Cyprus Today. Museum Collections and New Research (Studies in Mediterranean Archaeology and Literature PB 184), edited by G. Bourogiannis and C. Mühlenbock, pp. 313–324. Uppsala: Paul Åströms Förlag. 2017 “Kition, tombs and Phoenician narratives. Review article,” Sardinia, Corsica et Baleares Antiquae 15: 89–98. 2018 “The Chapelle Cintas revisited and the Tophet of Carthage between ancestors and new identities,” Babesch 93: 49–74. OWNBY, M. F. 2012 “The importance of imports: Petrographic analysis of Levantine pottery jars in Egypt,” Journal of Ancient Egyptian Interconnections 4: 23–29. PAPAGEORGHIOU, A. 1990 “Chronique des fouilles et découvertes archéologiques à Chypre en 1989,” Bulletin de Correspondance Hellénique 114: 941–985. PEARLMAN, D. 1985 “Kalavasos Village, Tomb 51: Tomb of an unknown soldier,” in Report of the Department of Antiquities, Cyprus: 164–179. PEDRAZZI, T. 2007 Le giare da conservazione e trasporto del Levante. Uno studio archeologico dell’economia fra Bronzo Tardo II e Ferro I (ca. 1400–900 a.C.). Pisa: Edizioni ETS. 2016 “Canaanite jars and the maritime trade network in the northern Levant during the transition from the Late Bronze to the Early Iron Age,” in Maritime Transport Containers in the Bronze-Iron Age Aegean and Eastern Mediterranean (Studies in Mediterranean Archaeology and Literature PB 183), edited by S. Demesticha and A. B. Knapp, pp. 57–77. Uppsala: Paul Åströms Förlag. RABAN, A. 1980 The Commercial Jar in the Ancient Near East: Its Evidence of Interconnections Amongst the Biblical Lands. Unpublished PhD diss., Hebrew University of Jerusalem. RAMON, J. 1995 Las ánforas fenicio-púnicas del Mediterráneo central y occidental (Col·lecció Instrumenta 2). Barcelona: Universitat de Barcelona. RENSON, V., BEN-SHLOMO, D., COENAERTS, J., CHARBIT-NATAF, K., SAMAES, M., MATTIELLI, N., NYS, K. and CLAEYS, P. 2014 “Coupling lead isotope analysis and petrography to characterize fabrics of storage and trade containers from Hala Sultan Tekke (Cyprus),” Archaeometry 56: 261–278.

LEVANTINE-TYPE TRANSPORT AMPHORAE IN CYPRUS

129

RUTTER, J. 2014

“The Canaanite transport amphora within the LBA Aegean: A 2013 perspective on a frequently changing picture,” in KE–RA–ME–JA: Studies Presented to Cynthia W. Shelmerdine (Prehistory Monographs 46), edited by D. Nakassis, J. Gulizio and S. James, pp. 53–69. Philadelphia: INSTAP Academic Press. SCHAEFFER, C. F.-A. 1936 Missions en Chypre: 1932–1935 (Mission archéologique d’Alasia 1). Paris: Librairie orientaliste P. Geuthner. SCHMITZ, P. C. and FREED, J. 2012 “A Phoenician amphora from Carthage with a dipinto inscription,” in The Phoenician Diaspora: Epigraphic and Historical Studies, edited by P. C. Schmitz, pp. 54–68. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns. SJOQVIST, E. 1942 Problems of the Late Cypriot Bronze Age. Stockholm: The Swedish Cyprus Expedition. STAGER, L. E., MASTER, D. M. and SCHLOEN, J. D. (eds.) 2011 Ashkelon 3: The Seventh Century B.C. (Final reports of the Leon Levy Expedition to Ashkelon 3). Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns. STERN, B., HERON, C., CORR, L., SERPICO, M. and BOURRIAU, J. 2003 “Compositional variation in aged and heated pistacia resin found in Late Bronze Age Canaanite amphorae and bowls from Amarna, Egypt,” Archaeometry 45: 457–469. STERN, E. 1982 Material Culture of the Land of the Bible in the Persian Period 538–332 B.C. Warminster: Aris and Phillips. VEGAS, M. 1999 “Phöniko-punische Keramik aus Karthago,” in Karthago III. Die Deutschen Ausgrabungen in Karthago, edited by F. Rakob, pp. 93–219. Mainz am Rhein: Phillipp von Zabern. YADIN, Y., AHARONI, Y., AMIRAN, R., DOTHAN, T., DOTHAN, M., DUNAYEVSKY, I. and PERROT, J. 1961 Hazor III–IV: An Account of the Third and Fourth Seasons of Excavations, 1957–1958. Jerusalem: Hebrew University of Jerusalem. YAHALOM-MACK, N., PANITZ-COHEN, N. and MULLINS, R. 2018 “From a Fortified Canaanite City-State to ‘a City and a Mother’ in Israel. Five Seasons of Excavation at Tel Abel Beth,” Near Eastern Archaeology 81: 145–156. YON, M. 1985 “Établissement du Chypro-Geometric I,” in Le sondage L–N 13 (Bronze Récente et Géométrique I) (Kition-Bamboula III), edited by M. Yon and A. Caubet, pp. 27–40. Paris: Recherche sur les civilisations. YON, M. and CALLOT, O. 1987 “Nouvelles découvertes dans la nécropole ouest de Kition (Aghios Giorghios, époque classique),” in Report of the Department of Antiquities, Cyprus: 149–170. ZARZECKI-PELEG, A., COHEN-ANIDJAR, S. and BEN-TOR, A. 2005 “Pottery analysis,” in Yoqneam II. The Iron Age and the Persian Period. Final Report of the Archaeological Excavations (1977–1988) (Qedem Reports 6), pp. 233–344. Jerusalem: Hebrew University of Jerusalem. ZEMER, A. 1978 Storage Jars in Ancient Sea Trade. Haifa: National Maritime Museum.

Adriano ORSINGHER Biblisch Archäologisches Institut Eberhard-Karls-Universität Tübingen Germany

A NEW PHOENICIAN-PUNIC AMPHORIC TRADITION OF PTOLEMAIC EGYPT: IMPORTS OR EGYPTIAN IMITATION?1 Sylvie MARCHAND and Max LUACES ABSTRACT This contribution aims to present a new group of containers, referred to as the PhoenicianPunic tradition, identified in Egypt, from a technical and historical point of view. This new family of containers seems to have been produced at the beginning of the Ptolemaic era. However, many uncertainties persist surrounding this group of amphorae, as their origin and contents are still questioned.

INTRODUCTION The early third century BCE in Egypt marked the end of some of the ancient Aegean, Cypriot and Syrian-Palestinian commercial circuits which were linked to categories of containers and specific fine ceramics. These circuits were attested in Egypt from the Third Intermediate period (around the seventh century BCE), and were very active during the Late period (between the fifth and the fourth centuries BCE).2 The Syrian-Palestinian trade networks, for example, have been identified in Egypt due to the containers commonly named as ‘torpedoes,’ which were produced on the Lebanese coast.3 These amphorae still remain symbolic of the end of the Dynastic era (fourth century BCE) and of the beginning of the Ptolemaic period (first quarter of the third century BCE). The abrupt stop of the distribution of these torpedoes in Egypt is dated in the first half of the third century BCE. Shortly after begins the commercial expansion of the Aegean trade network and the hegemony of the Greek amphorae. However, another discreet commercial network, one which is more difficult to characterise, is represented by amphorae that we previously refer to as the ‘PhoenicianPunic amphoric tradition,’ which also emerged in Egypt between the second half of the third century and the beginning of the second century BCE. This network is illustrated at several Egyptian sites by the presence of a series of homogeneous containers with a high capacity, which referred to here as containers of Phoenician-Punic tradition. This amphoric group is the object of this contribution (Fig. 1).

1

 We would like to thank Paul de Paepe and Éric Goemaere for their study of the thin sections, during May 2009 and December 2017 at the Institut français d’archéologie orientale (IFAO), which we discuss in this paper. 2  The mentioned information regarding the Aegean, Cypriot and Syria-Palestinian amphorae that were imported into Egypt during the first millennium BCE have been largely discussed elsewhere: Defernez and Marchand 2006; Defernez and Marchand 2016; Marangou and Marchand 2007; Defernez 2017, pp. 146–153; Defernez 2002; Marchand 2016; Marchand 2019. 3  Bettles 2003; Defernez 2017, pp. 146–153.

132

S. MARCHAND

– M.

LUACES

Fig. 1. Map showing the distribution of Phoenician-Punic amphorae among various contexts of Ptolemaic Egypt.

A NEW PHOENICIAN-PUNIC AMPHORIC TRADITION

133

The term suggested by the ‘discoverers’ of these amphorae is, doubtless, unsatisfactory. It expresses our incapacity to specify the origin of these containers and thereby name them correctly, as it is still unclear as to whether they were imported or represent an Egyptian production. Since our initial study, the absence of similar specimens in the literature, related to the amphoric production of the western and eastern Mediterranean world, did not allow a precise characterisation of this production. It was, however, necessary to connect these amphorae with some known tradition. For lack of a better classification, we choose to maintain the term ‘Phoenician-Punic amphoric tradition,’ which was proposed in the first publication of these amphorae from the site of Tebtynis in the Fayoum area.4 The first paragraph of this contribution will describe the forms and the main fabrics of these amphorae, as formally identified at three Egyptian sites. We will then return to the question of the origins of these amphorae of Phoenician-Punic tradition which is still largely unknown in Egypt and beyond. This contribution aims to be factual and descriptive. All plausible hypotheses will be presented without exclusions or assumptions.

I. A NEW

GROUP OF AMPHORAE OF

PHOENICIAN-PUNIC

TRADITION IN

EGYPT?

The containers discussed belong to an amphoric group found in Egypt, but their origin has remained a subject of controversy since their discovery. Distinguishing morphological features of these containers include a rim with an ‘internal beak’ and an almost cylindical form (Figs. 2–3). Their general aspect is reminiscent of certain amphorae of Punic tradition which were produced in the western Mediterranean, especially in Tunisia and Spain, during the fourth century and third century BCE.5 Other morphological traits, like their handles, belong to the Phoenician amphorae of the eastern area, like the famous torpedo jars (Fig. 5: c). A morphological examination of these ‘newly discovered’ artifacts, and their comparison with existing typologies, demonstrates that the amphorae of the Phoenician-Punic tradition have never been classified until now. Nonetheless, the mix of influences associated with their morphological features, which are as much from the Levantine area as from the western part of the ancient world, prevents us the identification of their origin. The amphorae are homogeneous in their shape, size and fabric. Their fabric demonstrates a similar and sandy break of a pinkish-fawn colour. The surface has a soft texture and a pinkish hue with the same colour as the break (Fig. 3: a–c and Fig. 3: f). Most of the examples observed present thick tracks of pitch inside and wide streaks of it on the external surface (Fig. 3: d–e). In Tebtynis, an ancient village of the Fayoum area, where these containers were formally identified and published for the first time,6 the amphorae are both quantitatively important (Fig. 4) and very common in the strata of the site dated to the mid-third century BCE. However, these amphorae disappeared from their archaeological context at the beginning of the second century BCE. All the examples discovered belong to a homogeneous group of 4

 Marangou and Marchand 2007, pp. 251–252.  Containers with a morphology close to some amphoric forms were identified in the Syslat catalogue as A–PUN D1a–b, cf. Py et al. 2001, pp. 249–250. 6  Marangou and Marchand 2007, pp. 251–252; Ballet and Poludnikiewicz 2012. 5

134

S. MARCHAND

– M.

LUACES

Fig. 2. Containers with ‘internal beak’ or spout related to the Phoenician-Punic tradition (a–i), with examples discovered at Tebtynis (Fayoum, Egypt: a–h) and other discovered at El-Sheikh Fadl (Middle Egypt: i). The amphorae presented have been found in various contexts dated to the Ptolemaic era, more precisely between the second half of the third century BCE and the beginning of the second century BCE; after Ballet and Poludnikiewicz 2012, p. 313, fig. 685 (a); Marangou and Marchand 2007, fig. 56–63 (b–h); Köhler and Boulet 2017, fig. 10n (i).

A NEW PHOENICIAN-PUNIC AMPHORIC TRADITION

135

Fig. 3. Detailed pictures of the surface of various examples of the ‘new’ containers of Phoenician-Punic tradition (a–f). The sherds are from Tebtynis and El-Sheikh Fadl, with contexts dated of the Ptolemaic era, more precisely between the second half of the third century BCE and the beginning of the second century BCE; a) sample no. 144, IFAO 857 (cf. drawing Fig. 2: d); b–c) sample no. 145, IFAO 859 (cf. drawing Fig. 2: h); d–f) El-Sheikh Fadl, fig. 3 (cf. drawing Fig. 2: i). Tebtynis: photos courtesy of G. Pollin (IFAO). El-Sheikh Fadl: photos from St. Boulet, courtesy from Chr. Kölher, University of Vienna, Middle Egypt Project.

136

S. MARCHAND

– M.

LUACES

containers. They possess the same sandy clay with a pink colour and demonstrate little morphological variability (Fig. 2: a–h). Thus, we can consider that it was an amphoric production which was manufactured in a unique area. Although their origin could not be determined, it should be noted that the amphorae display a sandy, pink fabric similar to those from the Carthaginian area.7 This amphoric group has rarely been attested elsewhere in Egypt outside of Tebtynis (Fig. 1). However, it is difficult to imagine that this big village, as this site was in the Fayoum area, may have been the sole place where it was imported. Nonetheless, it is the only published site to present a significant number of amphorae belonging to this PhoenicianPunic tradition (Fig. 4). Two other Egyptian sites have published amphorae with a similar shape but with variety in the fabrics. The site of Tell el-Herr in northern Sinai offers a number of examples with the same morphology as the examples from Tebtynis. All the amphorae from Tell el-Herr were identified as being Egyptian productions with an unrefined, calcareous clay, with an alluvial fabric, organic grease and a surface covered by a thick, white engobe.8 Such imitations are well-known and represent a phenomenon that affected a large number of Egyptian ceramic productions, mainly the transport containers, throughout all the history of ancient Egypt.9 Containers of the Phoenician-Punic tradition were also observed during the archaeological excavations in 2016 at the el-Sheikh Fadl’s necropolis,10 where two sherds were discovered (Fig. 1, Fig. 2: i and Fig. 3: d–f). These fragments share the same shape and fabric as the first examples discovered in Tebtynis. This new occurrence widens the distribution of this new amphoric group to Middle Egypt. It is advisable to move forward carefully by reexamining the former and recent archaeological literature in order to determine the precise distribution of this group of amphorae, which, without a doubt, may have been more widely disseminated than what the current state of the archaeological documentation shows (Fig. 1). To close the presentation on this new group of amphorae of the Phoenician-Punic tradition, we return the results of the first analysis conducted on several thin sections from samples discovered at Tebtynis. The objective of these analyses was to demonstrate whether they represented a homogeneous ceramic group. The initial study of the thin sections was conducted in 2009 by Paul de Paepe (Laboratory of Mineralogy, Petrology and Micropedology of the Ghent University, Belgium) at the laboratory of the IFAO in Cairo. This first analysis aimed at identifying and characterising the ceramic fabric of these unknown amphorae in order to determine their petrologic, mineralogical and granulated properties. A second examination was undertaken at the IFAO by Éric Goemaere (Institut Royal des Sciences Naturelles de Belgique) in 2017. The two geologists concluded that the fabric of 7

 Py et al. 2001, p. 242.  We would like to thank Dr. Delphine Dixneuf for showing us the material from this site, a few years ago, prior to the publication of the amphorae discovered in the Hellenistic contexts of Tell el-Herr. This type of container is associated with bag-shaped containers of Egyptian origin, and with torpedoes with an alluvial and calcareous fabric. The chronology of this assemblage is situated within the first half of the third century BCE, see Dixneuf (2007). 9  For the imitation and assimilation of foreign forms of containers by the Egyptian potters during the third and the first millennium BCE, see Marchand (2019). 10  Köhler and Boulet 2017, p. 47, fig. 10: n. 8

A NEW PHOENICIAN-PUNIC AMPHORIC TRADITION

137

Fig. 4. Statistical table showing the proportion of the imported Phoenician-Punic containers with internal spout discovered at Tebtynis. The containers were discovered during excavations between 1994 and 2001 among strata dating to the Ptolemaic era. The data of 74 Stratigraphic Units, dating from the mid-fourth to second century BCE, have been complied representing a total of 814 ceramic items (all categories of containers together), from Marangou and Marchand 2007, 241.

these amphorae was homogeneous, with a marl that is not ‘exotic’ for an Egyptian pottery production. These results lead us to consider a possible Egyptian origin for this new amphoric group of the Phoenician-Punic tradition. However, it was not possible to connect this fabric to any known centre of production in Egypt. Consequently, a non-Egyptian origin is still possible, if less probable, in the current state of the research. We are still confronted with a major issue due to the absence of samples that could allow us to determine the origin of these amphorae. Thin section no. IFAO 856 (cf. Fig. 2: g): “This ceramic was made with a marly sediment. The mineral composition consists of grains of quartz, plagioclase, potassium feldspar, opaque grains, red-brown ferriferous inclusions, hornblende, epidote, muscovite, biotite, calcite and augite. The most represented minerals are the quartz, various types of feldspar and the redbrown inclusions. The maximal size of the mineral grains is 0.5 mm. The grain ordering of all these ingredients is coarse and the form of grains go from angular to rounded, with all the intermediate stages. Lithic grains are rare and consist only of shards of lava flows with a high proportion of plagioclase. We do not observe vegetable and/or animal organic inclusions in the analysed fragment.” Thin section no. IFAO 858: “The microscopic examination shows that the ceramic, made from a marly sediment, is particularly poor in temper elements. The mineral inclusions are not numerous and consist only of quartz, plagioclase, potassic feldspars and opaque and

138

S. MARCHAND

– M.

LUACES

ferruginous grains. The most unrefined inclusions are approximately 0.5 mm in diameter. The only lithic inclusions that we observe in the thin section are formed by microcrystalline carbonates (limestone).”

II. ECONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS TO QUESTIONS REGARDING THE ORIGIN OF THEIR FORM: SOME INFORMATION CONCERNING THESE NEW AMPHORAE OF THE PHOENICIAN-PUNIC TRADITION

Before considering in detail this new group of Phoenician-Punic containers, we must acknowledge that there are still gaps in our knowledge. In this situation, our observations and proposals must be considered with caution. More than hypotheses, they should rather be considered as initial comments that aim to take into account the various information that have been attested in the case of these amphorae. Indeed, the precarious state of the research prompts us to consider all possible avenues, and to exclude none, by presenting the most well-documented data before continuing with the more problematic points. Several well-attested data yet to be discussed… The first point of discussion regarding this new group of containers of the PhoenicianPunic tradition concerns its chronology and distribution in Egypt. Whether they are importation or Egyptian production, these amphorae have only been attested in contexts dated between the mid-third century BCE and the first half of the second century BCE, until now. This chronology leads us to associate their manufacture with the Hellenistic period and the first stages of the Lagids domination. As previously mentioned, this new group of containers seems to have replaced the eastern Phoenician torpedoes, which were as much imported as of Egyptian origin, as it is suggested by the identification of Egyptian imitations. These torpedoes are associated with the amphoric groups A, B and C of the typology of E. Bettles.11 Their distribution during the Achaemenid era took place in the continuation of the former networks of exchange which united the Nile valley and Lebanese coast.12 The torpedo amphorae were replaced by the Phoenician-Punic amphorae at the beginning of Ptolemaic period. Currently, it is impossible to know whether both phenomena are related. The distribution of the containers of the Phoenician-Punic tradition reflects the reoccupation of a neglected ‘market,’13 as well as the consequence of the commercial expansion of a new production area. In both cases, we could envisage that these new amphorae of the Phoenician-Punic tradition would have transported the same product as the Phoenician containers of Achaemenid time. The second point to be discussed concerns the area of the distribution of these containers which is currently confined to a limited area situated in the northern Sinai, Fayoum and 11

 Bettles 2003, pp. 104–122.  Chirpanlieva 2014. 13  The use of the notion of ‘market’ for the Hellenistic trade is discussed less today than it was a few years ago. Howerver, this term has created serious epistemological difficulties for the researcher attached to the study of the Ancient economy. For an updated study of these problems, see Roman and Dalaison (2008). 12

A NEW PHOENICIAN-PUNIC AMPHORIC TRADITION

139

Middle Egypt. We cannot determine if their absence in Upper Egypt is the result of a bias within the research or as the consequence of specificities of the economic situation. Nevertheless, we know that the Lower Egypt was the object of important economic transformations at the beginning of the Ptolemaic period, that is to say concurrent with the appearance of the Phoenician-Punic amphorae, and such a perspective should not be neglected.14 The link between this new group of containers and a potential ancient market prompts us to identify their contents. However, such a theme is already particularly difficult to consider in the general case of the amphoric material. It is all the more complex to assert when studying a new type of amphora. The presence of pitch on all the sherds recently studied is the only indication at our disposal. The link between pitched amphorae and their contents is a controversial subject. However, various data seem to highlight a preferential use of the resin for the transport of wine and fish products. But we do not discount the data allowing us to eliminate either of these contents in the case of these amphorae. A major issue with the question of the origin It would be easier to approach these questions if we knew the origin of the PhoenicianPunic amphoric tradition. However, it is the main uncertainty regarding these artifacts. Most of their morphological features are clearly associated with the general characteristics of the Phoenician and Punic productions, as it is illustrated by the position of the handles and the shape of the body. The form of their handles is reminiscent of some Levantine productions, such as groups A and C of E. Bettles (Fig. 5: c).15 Nevertheless, no similar general profile was isolated in the existing typologies regarding these eastern containers. Furthermore, the fabric of those found in Tebtynis and el-Sheikh Fadl also differed from those which were identified among the Levantine productions (Fig. 3). Despite the evidence contradicting a Levantine origin for this new Phoenician-Punic type, we were led to consider, as a working hypothesis, whether this specific fabric group was related to other production areas. The existence of morphological similarities with certain Punic types from the western Mediterranean highlighted the value of this consideration. In this particular case, rims with a pronounced ‘internal beak’ and an ovoid body are features which can be found in types T–4.2.2.3 and T–4.2.1.1 (Fig. 5: a–b).16 But the general shape and some specific features of these amphorae are completely different from that of the new Phoenician-Punic group. If links are possible, it does not seem to be the same production. In light of these ambiguities, we tried to use a non-conventional approach, by crossanalysing information associated with different Phoenician productions, both in the western and eastern Mediterranean. umerous production sites of amphorae in the western region have been brought to light during the last decade.17 We know the main lines of amphoric production during the third century BCE for most of the areas related to the PhoenicianPunic productions, like the Strait of Gibraltar, Tunisia and the central Mediterranean 14

 Manning 2003, pp. 112–125; von Reden 2006, pp. 167–170.  Bettles 2003, pp. 104–105. 16  Ramon Torres 1995, pp. 187, 193 and 525. 17  Ben Jerbania 2013; Sáez Romero 2008; Sáez Romero et al. 2016. 15

140

S. MARCHAND

– M.

LUACES

Fig. 5. Drawings of various amphorae demonstrating morphological traits of the ‘new’ containers of Phoenician-Punic tradition; from Ramon Torres 1995 and Bettles 2003. These examples are dated to approximately the fourth and third centuries BCE, just before the appearance of the containers presented in this contribution, a) T–4.2.1.1; b) T–4.2.2.3; c) type C1 of Bettles.

areas.18 Nevertheless, no example of this new type was identified among the ceramic repertoires of these regions. As the ceramic production of western Sicily, an area which became Roman during the mid-third century BCE, is one of the previously ‘Punic’ areas where some uncertainties persist,19 we have suggested a Sicilian origin for the new Phoenician-Punic amphorae. However, this suggestion was pushed aside as several scholars working in Sicily have indicated that they had never observed these Phoenician-Punic productions before. Uncertainties also persist with regard to the Levantine production during the same period. The fact that the Levantine coast and Ptolemaic Egypt were in the same economic sphere at the time of the distribution of these containers,20 may have been an argument in favour of their eastern origin. But the fabric of these ‘new’ amphorae is clearly not Levantine and do not correspond to anything known for now of this area. The petrographic study that we conducted on these amphorae have not been decisive. However, the difference between their fabric and the ones of the various Phoenician-Punic areas leads us to reconsider the hypothesis regarding the manufacture of these first containers in Egypt. 18

 Ramon Torres 1995, pp. 495–502.  Botte 2012. 20  Sawaya 2012, p. 245; Baslez and Briquel Chatonnet 2003, pp. 203–204. 19

A NEW PHOENICIAN-PUNIC AMPHORIC TRADITION

141

The data concerning the origin of these amphorae is contradictory regarding their typomorphological and historical features in addition to their petrographic characteristics. The link between their fabric with an unusual Egyptian marled clay, used only for these specific containers, leads us to suggest that they were an Egyptian production. Such hypothesis seems to be the most pertinent for the moment, in the absence of a clear correspondence with known mineralogical references for imported fabrics. But the lack of objective information concerning the origin of these amphorae, whether they are epigraphic or contextual, reduces our capacity to confirm such hypothesis. As a matter of fact, it is not possible to clearly isolate the origin of these containers for now. Nevertheless, this report does not decrease their interest. The significant proportions observed for these amphorae rather invite us to pursue their study, with the objective of revealing exchange networks of the Ptolemaic era that have gone completely unnoticed until today.

CONCLUSION We have presented a new type of amphora related to the Phoenician-Punic tradition. In spite of the interest of our first observations regarding their chronology, distribution and possible contents, the essential question of the origin of these artifacts remains without clear answers: are they imported containers or an Egyptian production? Conflicting typological, petrographic and historical data did not allow us to propose a decisive answer to this question. However, their possible Egyptian origin is a quite interesting hypothesis. The fact that workshops in Egypt may have chosen to affiliate their production with the Phoenician-Punic tradition opens new perspectives, as much for the economic relevance of the Phoenician productions as for their cultural influence in Egypt. We hope that future archaeological discoveries, with the contribution of new occurrences in Egypt and a better recognition of the ceramic fabric, will grant us the opportunity to improve our knowledge regarding these ‘new’ amphorae.

BIBLIOGRAPHY BALLET, P. and POLUDNIKIEWICZ, A. 2012 Tebtynis V. La céramique des époques hellénistique et impériale. Campagnes 1988–1993 (Fouilles de l’Institut Français d’Archéologie Orientale du Caire 68). Cairo: Institut Français d’archéologie orientale. BASLEZ, M.-F. and BRIQUEL CHATONNET, F. 2003 “Les Phéniciens dans les royaumes hellénistiques d’Orient (323–55),” in L’Orient méditerranéen de la mort d’Alexandre au Ier siècle avant notre ère, edited by M.-T. Le Dinahet, pp. 197–212. Nantes: Éditions du Temps. BEN JERBANIA, I. 2013 “Observations sur les amphores de tradition puniques d’après une nouvelle découverte près de Tunis,” Antiquités Africaines 49: 179–192. BETTLES, E. A. 2003 Phoenician Amphora Production and Distribution in the Southern Levant. A MultiDisciplinary Investigation into Carinated-Shoulder Amphorae of the Persian Period

142

BOTTE, E. 2012

S. MARCHAND

– M.

LUACES

(539–332 BCE) (British Archaeological Reports International Series 1183). Oxford: Archaeopress.

“L’exportation du thon sicilien à l’époque tardo-républicaine,” Mélanges de l’École Française de Rome 124/2: 577–612. CHIRPANLIEVA, I. 2014 “Les réseaux d’échanges phéniciens et l’Égypte, entre le IXe et le VIIe s. av. J.-C.,” Égypte, Afrique et Orient 75: 29–36. DEFERNEZ, C. 2002 “Le poids de l’orientalisation et de l’hellénisation au travers des échanges et des productions céramiques dans l’angle nord-est du Delta égyptien,” in Céramiques hellénistiques et romaines, productions et diffusion en Méditerranée orientale (Chypre, Égypte et côte syro–palestinienne) (Travaux de la Maison de l’Orient 35), edited by F. Blondé, P. Ballet and J.-F. Salles, pp. 235–245. Lyon: Maison de l’Orient MéditerranéenJean Pouilloux. 2017 “VII. La céramique,” in Un palais oriental à Migdol. Tell el-Herr, les niveaux de la fin du Ve et du IVe siècle av. J.-C., edited by C. Defernez, G. Nogara and D. Valbelle, I, pp. 106–207. Paris: Université Paris-Sorbonne. DEFERNEZ, C. and MARCHAND, S. 2006 “Imitations égyptiennes de conteneurs d’origine égéenne et levantine (VIe s.–IIe s. av. J.-C.),” in L’apport de l’Égypte à l’histoire des techniques. Méthodes, chronologie et comparaisons (Bibliothèque d’Étude 142), edited by B. Mathieu, D. Meeks and M. Wissa, pp. 63–99. Cairo: Institut français d’archéologie orientale. 2016 “État actuel de la recherche sur l’industrie amphorique égyptienne des IVe–IIIe siècles av. n.è.,” in Vienna 2: Ancient Egyptian Ceramics in the 21st Century. Proceedings of the International Conference held at the University of Vienna, 2012 (Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 245), edited by B. Bader, Chr. Knoblauch and E. Chr. Köhler, pp. 127–154. Leuven: Peeters. DIXNEUF, D. 2007 “La céramique hellénistique de la cave,” in Tell el-Herr, les niveaux hellénistiques et du Haut-Empire, edited by D. Valbelle, pp. 48–79. Paris: Errance. KÖHLER, C. and BOULET, S. 2017 “Preliminary observations from the ceramological studies at el-Sheikh Fadl – Middle Egypt,” Bulletin de Liaison de la Céramique Égyptienne 27: 33–50. MANNING, J. G. 2003 Land and Power in Ptolemaic Egypt: The Structure of Land Tenure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. MARANGOU, A. and MARCHAND, S. 2007 “Conteneurs importés et égyptiens de Tebtynis (Fayoum). De la deuxième moitié du IVe siècle av. J.-C. au Xe siècle apr. J.-C. (1994–2002),” Cahiers de la céramique égyptienne 8: 239–296. MARCHAND, S. 2002 “Le maintien de la tradition pharaonique pour les productions des céramiques datées de l’époque ptolémaïque en Égypte,” in Céramiques hellénistiques et romaines. Productions et diffusion en Méditerranée orientale (Chypre, Égypte et côte syro-palestinienne) (Travaux de la Maison de l’Orient 35), edited by F. Blondé, P. Ballet and J.-Fr. Salles, pp. 247–261. Lyon: Maison de l’Orient Méditerranéen-Jean Pouilloux. 2013 “Céramiques d’Égypte de la fin du IVe siècle av. J.-C. au IIIe siècle av. J.-C.: entre tradition et innovation,” in Networks in the Hellenistic World. According to the Pottery in the Eastern Mediterranean and Beyond (British Archaeological Reports International Series 2539), edited by N. Fenn and C. Römer-Strehl, pp. 239–253. Oxford: Archaeopress. 2019 “Conteneurs de transport égyptiens dans l’Égypte ancienne. Imitations, assimilations et transposition de modèles étrangers,” in Les Phéniciens, les Puniques et les autres.

A NEW PHOENICIAN-PUNIC AMPHORIC TRADITION

143

Échanges et identités entre le monde phénico-punique et les différents peuples de l’Orient ancien et du pourtour méditerranéen, Paris, 2016 (Orient et Méditerranée 31), edited by L. Bonadies, I. Chirpanlieva and E. Guillon, pp. 73–102. Paris: Éditions de Boccard. PY, M., ADROHER AUROUX, A. M. and SANCHEZ, C. 2001 Corpus des céramiques de l’Âge du Fer de Lattes (fouilles 1963–1999) (Lattara 14/1). Lattes: Association pour le Développement de l’Archéologie en Languedoc-Roussillon. RAMON TORRES, J. 1995 Las ánforas fenicio-púnicas del mediterráneo central y occidental (Col·lecció Instrumenta 2). Barcelona: Universitat de Barcelona. VON REDEN, S. 2006 “The ancient economy and Ptolemaic Egypt,” in Ancient Economies, Modern Methodologies. Archaeology, Comparative History, Models and Institutions, edited by P. F. Bang, M. Ikeguchi and H. G. Ziche, pp. 161–178. Bari: Edipuglia. ROMAN, Y. and DALAISON, J. (eds.) 2008 L’économie antique, une économie de marché ? (Actes des deux tables rondes de Lyon, 2004). Paris: De Boccard. SÁEZ ROMERO, A. M. 2008 La producción cerámica en Gadir en época tardopúnica (siglos -III/-I) (British Archaeological Reports International Series 1812). Oxford: Archaeopress. SÁEZ ROMERO, A. M., LUACES, M. and MORENO PULIDO, E. 2016 “Late Punic or Early Roman? A 2nd century BCE deposit from Gadir/Gades (Cadiz Bay, Spain),” HEROM 5/1: 25–75. SAWAYA, Z. 2012 “Production et circulation monétaire en Phénicie de l’époque perse à l’époque byzantine (Ve siècle av. J.-C. – VIIe siècle ap. J.-C.),” in Fascination du Liban: soixante siècles d’histoire de religions, d’art et d’archéologie, edited by M. Martiniani-Reber, pp. 245– 247. Geneva: Musée d’art et d’histoire de Genève.

Sylvie MARCHAND Institut Français d’Archéologie Orientale Egypt

Max LUACES Department of History, Geography and Philosophy University of Cádiz Spain

THE ANALYSIS OF AMPHORAE FROM CARTHAGINIAN SETTLEMENT ASSEMBLAGES Roald F. DOCTER ABSTRACT This paper discusses the development of amphora studies in Carthage within the frame of general Phoenician-Punic amphora studies. Building upon an approach applied by Babette Bechtold and the present author, the amphora material within a stratigraphical sequence in the Hamburg excavations, below the Decumanus Maximus in Carthage, is analysed. It is suggested that the rise of local amphorae started already within the first quarter of the seventh century BCE, earlier than previously thought. Also, the importance of contextual analysis of amphora finds, and the inclusion of amphora wall sherds in such analyses, is advocated.

INTRODUCTION Since 1974, the Punic settlement of Carthage has been investigated by various teams of archaeologists.1 These excavations have yielded unbelievable masses of finds, mainly pottery, which for the main part have remained unpublished. Fragments of transport amphorae figure prominently among the finds, as an excavator of any given Mediterranean site can imagine. It is this class of pottery that has received more than usual attention in the excavations of Hamburg University, Amsterdam University, Ghent University and the Institut National du Patrimoine (INP), mainly because of the personal research interests of the pottery specialists involved. Over the years, a large database has been formed, and a sound knowledge of shapes, fabrics and chronological ranges has been established, enabling us now to give a detailed picture of the amphora repertoire of Punic Carthage.2 But this has not always been the case.

STATUS

QUAESTIONIS

In 1986, when I suggested to my Amsterdam supervisor and Corinthian pottery specialist, Cornelis W. (Kees) Neeft, that I would like to write a Master thesis on Phoenician archaeology under his guidance, he only accepted after having consulted with his colleague and friend 1

 For a thorough overview of the excavation history of Carthage, see Fumadó Ortega (2009). To this, one may now add Docter et al. (2006) and Maraoui Telmini (2012). 2  Annis et al. 1995; Bechtold 2007, 2008, 2010, 2012, 2013a–b, 2015a–e; Bechtold and Docter 2010; Docter 1995, 1997, 1998, 1999a–b, 2000a–b, 2007b, 2018; Docter et al. 1997; Docter and Bechtold 2011; Maraoui Telmini in Docter et al. 2006, 50–62, fig. 25: a–d; Maraoui Telmini 2012, 114–119, 125–126, 151–154, 159–160, 163, 185–187, figs. 108, 110–111, 113–114, 124–125, 158–160, 167, 170, 202–204, 2015; Schmidt 2015a–e.

146

R. DOCTER

Hans Georg Niemeyer from Hamburg. Niemeyer suggested Punic transport amphorae as a suitable subject, although he acknowledged that there were a few other scholars working on it as well. The persons he mentioned in his letter to Neeft were Juan Ramon, Piero Bartoloni, Fethi Chelbi and an unnamed young Italian dottore, who I later learned was Massimo Botto. After finishing my Masters on the capacities of Phoenician amphorae, later published in the Hamburger Beiträge,3 I started a PhD thesis on the transport amphorae from the German excavations in the settlements of Carthage and Toscanos. Although my main interest was in the economic-historical aspects of transport amphorae, I could not escape problems of typology and chronology. Surprisingly, a sound typology of Punic amphorae, that covered both the central and western Mediterranean, proved to be still lacking. Separate, regional typologies, however, did already exist for Sardinia,4 the Iberian Peninsula5 and Ibiza.6 An embryonic typology for Carthage, was also presented in 1991 by Fethi Chelbi on the third International Congress of Phoenician and Punic Studies in Tunis, but never published.7 It would take another few years before Juan Ramon filled the typological gap with his important monograph spanning the whole Mediterranean.8 But neither this, nor any of the previous regional typologies proved very helpful in dealing with my fragmentary material from Toscanos and Carthage. Full profiles were lacking in the datasets from these settlement contexts, except in a few rare instances.9 Consequently, in my PhD thesis of 1997, of which the Carthaginian section was later reworked into the final publication of the Hamburg excavations,10 I had to find other ways to classify the diagnostic fragments to suit my economic-historical questions. Classification started from fabrics studied macroscopically with the help of a handheld lens and supported by a petrographical and a pottery technological study.11 The classification by fabric and typo-chronology enabled me to see important shifts in the amphora assemblages through the different phases of the two settlements. For Carthage, they can be condensed into two main periods for the Early Punic period EP I, 760–675 BCE, and EP II, 675–530 BCE.12 An Early Punic/Middle Punic period marks the transition to the following phase (EP/MP, 530–480 BCE). Typological details of the earliest versions of Carthaginian amphorae, such as small high rims and dove-tailed or fan-shaped handle attachments, seem to be confined to the first phase (EP I), and may be compared to the earliest (earlier?) Nuraghic transport 3

 Docter 1988–1990.  Bartoloni 1988. 5  Mañá 1951. 6  Ramon 1991. 7  Chelbi 1991; see also Cintas 1950. 8  Ramon 1995. 9  Docter 2007b, p. 622, fig. 339, cat. 5300, pl. 45, pp. 624–625, fig. 340, cat. 5313–5314, pl. 45, p. 631, fig. 343, cat. 5352, p. 648, fig. 352, cat. 5434, pl. 45, pp. 657–658, fig. 358, cat. 5474, pl. 46, pp. 661–662, fig. 361, cat. 5499; Bechtold 2007, pp. 667–668, fig. 366, cat. 5504, pp. 684-686, fig. 377, cat. 5559-5560; Docter and Bechtold 2011, pp. 103-119, figs. 6, 10: b; all with full references. 10  Docter 1997, 2007b. 11  Annis et al. 1995; Docter 1997; Docter et al. 1997. 12  Docter 2007a, p. 40; Bechtold and Docter 2010, pp. 87, 91–94, tab. 1. Radiocarbon dates of animal bones from the earliest levels on the Bir Messaouda site have yielded much earlier dates, in fact corroborating the historically transmitted foundation date of Carthage in 814/813 BCE; Docter et al. 2005; 2006, p. 39; 2008. For the present discussion, however, the conventional chronology is still preferred. 4

AMPHORAE FROM CARTHAGINIAN SETTLEMENT ASSEMBLAGES

147

amphorae.13 Rim shapes that may have belonged to two different general amphora shapes from the Círculo del Estrecho (CdE 1A or 1B) are encountered next to clearly assignable thin rim forms of the earliest CdE 1A versions.14 The Early Punic II period shows a larger variety of Carthaginian amphorae, but only one class from the Círculo del Estrecho.15 When looking at provenances, it became clear that Carthage seems to have depended largely on imports from overseas during the Early Punic I period.16 Based upon the data from the Hamburg excavations below the Decumanus Maximus, it could be shown that, during the Early Punic II period, Carthage provided already for half of its amphora-borne commodities in its own hinterland.17 In 2010, in a contribution together with Babette Bechtold, for the important conference organised by Lorenzo Nigro in Rome, the combined results of 25 years of Carthaginian amphora studies were condensed.18 We focused on four major topics: – – – –

proportions of amphorae within the total finds of the settlement; relation between the locally/regionally produced and imported amphorae; provenances of the imported amphorae; contents of the amphorae in relation to the food consumption and supply of the city.

Based upon the sherd count, the proportion of amphorae within the total assemblage seemed to vary considerably over the different periods, from 27 to 61 per cent. Regarding the second topic, it became clear that the increase in local or regional amphorae from the Early Punic I to the Early Punic II period was much steeper than the Hamburg data had suggested, from 28 to 84 per cent!19 Unfortunately, the period covered by the label ‘Early Punic II’ is rather long, almost one and a half centuries, from about 675 to 530 BCE. In 2010, awaiting a comprehensive study of the contexts pertaining to this long period, we had not yet been able to establish the precise ‘moment’ of the steep increase, or follow the more likely gradual increase in the local production of amphorae viz. agricultural production.20 Still, this is one of the main questions to be addressed for Early Punic Carthage. Archaeology, and more particularly the study of fragments of transport amphorae, may help in providing preliminary answers to this question.

A STRATIGRAPHICAL SEQUENCE

IN THE

HAMBURG

EXCAVATIONS

In the frame of the Ghent Amphora Congress, I therefore return to one particular stratigraphical sequence from the Hamburg excavations below the Decumanus Maximus 13

 Docter 2007b, pp. 620–629; Docter et al. 2008, pp. 397, 400, fig. 3, 12, 14; cf. Oggiano 2000, pp. 240–

242. 14

 Docter 2007b, pp. 646–650.  Docter 2007b, pp. 623–632, 648–650. 16  Docter 2007b, pp. 618–619, figs. 335–336; Bechtold and Docter 2010, p. 91. 17  Docter 2007b, pp. 618–620, figs. 336–338; Bechtold and Docter 2010, p. 91. 18  Bechtold and Docter 2010. 19  Bechtold and Docter 2010, p. 91, n. 22. 20  Bechtold and Docter 2010, p. 91. 15

148

R. DOCTER

to see whether we may establish the precise ‘moment’ of the increase in the local production of amphorae, or, as suggested, follow the gradual increase in local production of amphorae. But before doing so, the collection strategy employed in the Hamburg excavations below the Decumanus Maximus should be explained. All sherds from individual contexts were bagged in the field without prior selection21 and subsequently entered into the finds laboratory, where they were washed and inventoried before discarding most wall fragments. Standardised registry forms were employed. In the 1993 campaign, and since I was absent for most of the time, an additional amphora registration form was used by the finds laboratory staff, based upon the experiences obtained during my PhD project. All amphora fragments (including undiagnostic ones) were kept for me to study later (in May 1995). I could then check, and if necessary, correct the forms filled in by the finds laboratory team as well as make observations to substantiate my analysis of the 1986–1991 material. The amphora data from these 1993 contexts were only selectively integrated into my PhD thesis of 1997 and, hence, in the 2007 final publication. This is definitely regrettable, since there are several good contexts and stratigraphical sequences that would have deserved a separate presentation. Another issue regarding the excavated contexts in the Hamburg excavations, which has influenced the contextual and stratigraphical analysis of the finds, is that it was decided, in 1990, to divide all catalogued finds into different classes to be studied and published by the large number of individual specialists which, consequently, stored them in different boxes.22 The 2007 publication of the Hamburg excavations below the Decumanus Maximus, hence, follows this typological and functional classification of the finds, rather than a contextual one. Fortunately, a young Tunisian archaeologist, Kaouther Jendoubi, is currently re-studying the Early Punic finds from the Hamburg excavations as part of her PhD project at the University of Tunis and is pursuing this study in a contextual way.23 One of the sequences, which she is studying, was excavated in 1993 below Room U in House 8. Unfortunately, no full section of the stratigraphy could be drawn given the limited size of the deep sounding. Only a sequence of superimposed walls over a levelling layer in the north was documented graphically.24 We have, however the record of levels belonging to at least two phases in the Hamburg stratigraphical system, III and IV, above a torba floor that had not been given a separate context number, but had tentatively been assigned to stratum IIb2. These layers correspond to the Early Punic I and Early Punic II periods, respectively. The sequence below the torba floor remained unexcavated.

21  Only once pre-selection in the field took place: the fill of a Punic cistern, reused by the first Roman settlers and dating probably still within the Early Roman period, but containing mainly huge amounts of Late Punic destruction material, Docter et al. (2007a, pp. 140–141, figs. 49–50: a–b; 2007b, p. 239). It concerns the context number KA88/145. 22  See especially on this decision, Docter et al. 2005, pp. 559–560. 23  Title: La présence phénicienne en Tunisie: analyse de la céramique des contextes les plus anciens de Carthage et Utique (Tunis, July 2021). She particularly discusses the phase III sequence of this stratigraphy, contexts 550, 551, 552, 553 and 555. A joint article on the whole sequence is foreseen. 24  Docter et al. 2007a, pp. 91–92, 106, 111, fig. 27.

AMPHORAE FROM CARTHAGINIAN SETTLEMENT ASSEMBLAGES

Context

Layer

Description

Publication

149 Height

EARLY PUNIC II (c. 675–530 BCE) KA93/540

IVb1

Layer with many limestone fragments Docter et al. 2007a, p. 111.

4.08–4.40

KA93/541

IVa2

Torba floor

Docter et al. 2007a, pp. 92, 106, fig. 27: 6.

4.40–4.58

KA93/543

IVa1

Fill with mudbrick fragments

Docter et al. 2007a, p. 106.

4.58–5.04

KA93/544

IVa1

Soil sample within KA93/543

4.70

KA93/545

IVa1

Soil sample within KA93/543

4.80–4.85

KA93/546

IVa1

Fill with mudbrick fragments

KA93/547

IVa1

Bronze fragment within KA93/546

KA93/548

IVa1

Fill with mudbrick fragments

Docter et al. 2007a, p. 106.

5.04–5.18 5.13

Docter et al. 2007a, p. 106.

5.18–5.55

EARLY PUNIC I + EARLY PUNIC II (c. 760–530 BCE) KA93/554

IVa1

Cleaning of section (layer IIIa1 included)

4.65–6.30

EARLY PUNIC I (c. 760–675 BCE) No number IIIa2

Torba floor

Docter et al. 2007a, p. 92, fig. 27: 4.

KA93/549

IIIa2

Foundation deposit (?) - juglet

Niemeyer et al. 1996, p. 57, 5.55 cat. 48; Mansel 2003, pp. 131, 142, fig. 4: 3; Bechtold 2007b, pp. 343–344, fig. 161, cat. 2049, pl. 38.

KA93/550

IIIa1

Dark brown loam fill with sandy inclusions, mudbrick fragments and charcoal

Docter et al. 2007a, p. 92, fig. 27: 3.

5.55–6.00

KA93/551

IIIa1

As KA93/550

Docter et al. 2007a, p. 92, fig. 27: 3.

6.00–6.15

KA93/552

IIIa1

As KA93/550

Docter et al. 2007a, p. 92, fig. 27: 3.

5.34–6.15

KA93/553

IIIa1

Layer of sand with charcoal

Docter et al. 2007a, p. 92, fig. 27: 1.

6.30–6.35

KA93/555

IIIa1

As KA93/553

Docter et al. 2007a, p. 92, fig. 27: 1.

6.30–6.36

KA93/556

IIb2

Deposit of c. 65 snail shells of the species Cernuella cf variegata, half of which perforated, lying on top of torba floor

Docter et al. 2007a, p. 92, fig. 27: 1; van WijngaardenBakker and Van Neer 2007, p. 844.

6.36

Within Phase IV, contexts of levels IVa and IVb were discerned, potentially allowing to trace possible shifts in the amphora composition within Phase IV and, consequently, within the Early Punic II period. Hitherto, only two amphora fragments from the sequence have made it into the publication, a Nuraghic amphora with a flat base and a local amphora with graffito.25 25

 Both sherds from KA93/551 (IIIa1): Docter 1997, figs. 373, 384; Docter et al. 1997, pp. 18–22, fig. 2: d; Docter 2007b, pp. 629, 637–638, fig. 346, cat. 5348, 5365; Röllig 2007, pp. 744–745, fig. 413, cat. 6005.

150

R. DOCTER

Fig. 1. Percentages of 1263 amphora fragments within the total of 4041 ceramic finds, based upon the study of ten contexts from Room U, House 8: N = 22 (555), 29 (552), 34 (551), 76 (550), 16 (554), 142 (548), 70 (546), 690 (543), 167 (541), 17 (540).

Fig. 2. Percentages of 87 diagnostic amphora fragments within the total of 642 diagnostic ceramic finds, based upon the study of ten contexts from Room U, House 8: N = 0 (555), 0 (552), 0 (551), 13 (550), 2 (554), 8 (548), 0 (546), 45 (543), 18 (541), 0 (540).

Fig. 3. Percentages of local amphora fragments within the total of amphora fragments (as %) Room U House 8: N = 19 (555), 27 (552), 11 (551), 53 (550), 13 (554), 115 (548), 60 (546), 596 (543), 126 (541), 13 (540).

AMPHORAE FROM CARTHAGINIAN SETTLEMENT ASSEMBLAGES

151

Fig. 4. Percentages of diagnostic local amphora fragments within the total of diagnostic amphora fragments (as %) Room U House 8: N = 0 (555), 0 (552), 0 (551), 9 (550), 2 (554), 7 (548), 0 (546), 34 (543), 15 (541), 0 (540).

The proportion of amphorae in the contexts ranges from 27 to 40 per cent (1263 amphora fragments in total), which is comparable to the previously established data (Fig. 1). If we only considered the diagnostic sherds (87 amphora fragments in total), results would be available for just half of the contexts (Fig. 2). This observation is not irrelevant, since published contexts in Carthage that may be used as a comparison, such as the ones I listed in Carthage Studies 1,26 normally only yield information on diagnostic material, or even an unspecified selection thereof. When looking at the proportions of locally or regionally produced amphorae (Fig. 3), it is clear that they range between 70 and 93 per cent for the two Early Punic periods, which would be in line with the results established earlier by Babette Bechtold and me for the Early Punic II period. Only context 551, with just 32 per cent local or regional amphorae, would comply with the tendency for low percentages of the Early Punic I period. Again, if we were to consider only the diagnostic sherds, the results would be available for just half of the contexts (Fig. 4). I have tentatively tried to establish a MNI (Minimal Number of Individuals) on the basis of rims after mending, but that only generated a statistically irrelevant graph, which I prefer to leave out. When looking at the provenances of the amphorae in these contexts and their proportions (Fig. 5), context 551 would fit an Early Punic I assemblage, with higher percentages of amphorae from Nuraghic Sardinia and from the Círculo del Estrecho. Although the absolute numbers of contexts 555, 552 and 551 are not strong, we may perhaps conclude that the rise in locally produced amphorae occurred already during the Phase III period, within the first quarter of the seventh century BCE. Context 551, although stratigraphically higher in the sequence than 555, and on the same level as the lower part of 552, may have contained a considerable number of residuals. This result is different than what I set out to look for in this sequence, but is perhaps even more interesting. It would imply that the specific 26

 Docter 2007a.

R. DOCTER

152

Fig. 5. Percentages of different amphora productions: Fragments (as %), Room U House 8: N Total = 22 (555), 29 (552), 34 (551), 76 (550), 16 (554), 142 (548), 70 (546), 690 (543), 167 (541), 17 (540). Local: light purple; Nuraghic: red; Círculo del Estrecho: light green; Levantine: dark purple; Phoenician: turquoise blue; Greek: orange.

historical moment when the Punic metropolis managed to control and exploit its chora took place earlier than previously thought.27 I hope to have shown that the major topics Babette Bechtold and I brought up in 2010, as a basis for answering economic-historical questions relating to Carthage, remain valid. I also hope to have shown that in analysing amphorae from settlement contexts, wall sherds can significantly contribute to our understanding of the archaeological record. These topics and approaches will guide us through the evaluation and publication of many more contexts in the coming years.

BIBLIOGRAPHY ANNIS, M. B., JACOBS, L. and DOCTER, R. F. 1995 “Archaic commercial amphorae from Carthage: A technological analysis,” Newsletter Department of Pottery Technology 13 [1996]: 53–79. BARTOLONI, P. 1988 Le anfore fenicie e puniche di Sardegna (Studia Punica 4). Roma: Università degli studi di Roma. BECHTOLD, B. 2007 “Transportamphoren des 5.–2. Jhs.,” in Karthago. Die Ergebnisse der Hamburger Grabung unter dem Decumanus Maximus (Hamburger Forschungen zur Archaeologie 2), edited by H. G. Niemeyer, R. F. Docter, K. Schmidt and B. Bechtold, pp. 662–698. Mainz: Philipp von Zabern. 2008 “Observations on the amphora repertoire of Middle Punic Carthage,” Carthage Studies 2: 1–146. 2010 “The pottery repertoire from late 6th – mid 2nd century BC Carthage: Observations based on the Bir Messaouda Excavations,” Carthage Studies 4: 1–82. 27

 Fentress and Docter 2008, pp. 107–110; Docter 2009, pp. 186–187; Bechtold and Docter 2010, p. 91.

AMPHORAE FROM CARTHAGINIAN SETTLEMENT ASSEMBLAGES

153

“The pottery production of Punic Carthage,” in FACEM (version 06/06/2012) http://facem.at/img/pdf/Pottery_Production_Carthage_2012_06_06.pdf (27 November 2020). “Distribution patterns of Western Greek and Punic Sardinian amphorae in the Car2013a thaginian sphere of influence (6th–3rd century BCE),” Carthage Studies 7: 43–119. 2013b “Western Greek and Sardinian amphorae from Punic sites in the Southern Mediterranean (6th–3rd century B.C.E.): New evidence from fabric analysis for economic interaction in the Carthaginian sphere of influence,” in FACEM (version 12/06/2013) http://facem.at/img/pdf/2013_12_06_bechtold.pdf (27 November 2020). 2015a “Cartagine e le città punico-siciliane fra il IV e la metà del III sec. a.C.: continuità e rotture nella produzione anforica siciliana,” Babesch 90: 63–78. 2015b “Amphorae and coarse ware fabrics of Panormos: Evidences for local production and export,” in FACEM (version 12/06/2015) http://facem.at/img/pdf/Fabrics_ Panormos_Bechtold_Schmidt_17.6.2015.pdf (27 November 2020). 2015c “Amphorae fabrics of Solus: Evidences for local production and export,” in FACEM (version 17/06/2015) http://facem.at/img/pdf/Fabrics_Solus_Bechtold_ Schmidt_17.6.2015.pdf (27 November 2020). 2015d “Amphorae and coarse ware fabrics of Motya: Evidences for local production and export,” in FACEM (version 17/06/2015) http://facem.at/img/pdf/Fabrics_ Motya_Bechtold_Schmidt_18062015.pdf (27 November 2020). 2015e “Amphorae and coarse ware fabrics of Lilybaion: Evidences for local production and export,” in FACEM (version 06/06/2015) http://facem.at/img/pdf/Fabrics_ Lilybaion_Bechtold_Schmidt_20150530.pdf (27 November 2020). BECHTOLD, B. and DOCTER, R. F. 2010 “Transport amphorae from Carthage: An overview,” in The Phoenician Ceramic Repertoire between the Levant and the West 9th–6th Century BC. Proceedings of the International Conference held in Rome, 26th February 2010 (Quaderni di Archeologia Fenici-Punica), edited by L. Nigro, pp. 85–116. Roma: Missione archeologica a Mozia. BECHTOLD, B., GASSNER, V. and TRAPICHLER, M. 2011 “The fabrics of the area of Carthage (CAR-REG),” in FACEM (version 06/06/ 2011) http://facem.at/img/pdf/Fabrics_of_the_Area_of_Carthage_06_ 06_2011.pdf (27 November 2020). CHELBI, F. 1991 “La céramique phénicienne punique: typologie et chronologie,” oral presentation at the IIIe Congrès International des Études Phéniciennes et Puniques, Tunis, 12 November 1991. CINTAS, P. 1950 Céramique Punique (Publications de l’Institut des Hautes Études de Tunis III). Paris: Librairie C. Klincksieck. DOCTER, R. F. 1988–1990 “Amphora capacities and archaic Levantine trade,” Hamburger Beiträge zur Archäologie 15–17: 143–188. “Des amphores carthaginoises archaïques au site de Toscanos,” in Actes du IIIe Con1995 grès International des Études Phéniciennes et Puniques. Tunis, 11-16 novembre 1991, edited by M. H. Fantar and M. Ghaki, pp. 369–378. Tunis: Institut National du Patrimoine. 1997 Archaische Amphoren aus Karthago und Toscanos. Fundspektrum und Formentwicklung. Ein Beitrag zur phönizischen Wirtschaftsgeschichte (with contributions by M. B. Annis, L. Jacobs and G. H. J. M. Blessing). Amsterdam: University of Amsterdam. 1998 “Die sogenannten ZitA-Amphoren: nuraghisch und zentralitalisch (19.9.1997),” in Archäologische Studien in Kontaktzonen der antiken Welt (Veröffentlichung der 2012

154

R. DOCTER

Joachim Jungius-Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften Hamburg 87), edited by R. Rolle, K. Schmidt and R. F. Docter, pp. 359–373. Göttingen: Ruprecht. 1999a “The typology of Phoenician and Punic transport amphorae in the Central and West Mediterranean,” Journal of Roman Archaeology 12: 485–492. 1999b “Transport amphorae from Carthage and Toscanos: An economic-historical approach to Phoenician expansion,” in La cerámica fenicia en Occidente: centros de producción y áreas de comercio. Actas del I Seminario Internacional sobre Temas Fenicios, Guardamar del Segura, 21–24 de noviembre de 1997, edited by A. González Prats, pp. 89–109. Alicante: Direcció General d’Ensenyaments Universitaris i Investigació, Instituto de Cultura “Juan Gil-Albert”. 2000a “East Greek fine wares and transport amphorae of the 8th–5th century B.C. from Carthage and Toscanos,” in Ceràmiques jonies d’època arcaica: Centres de producció i comercialització al Mediterrani occidental. Actes de la Taula Rodona celebrada a Empúries, els dies 26 al 28 de maig de 1999, edited by P. Cabrera Bonet and M. Santos Retolaza, pp. 63–88. Barcelona: Empúries Museu d’Arqueologia de Catalunya, Generalitat de Catalunya. 2000b “Carthage and the Tyrrhenian in the 8th and 7th centuries B.C. Central Italian transport amphorae and fine wares found under the Decumanus Maximus,” in Actas del IV Congreso Internacional de Estudios Fenicios y Púnicos, Cádiz, 2 al 6 de Octubre de 1995, Vol. I, edited by M. E. Aubet and M. Barthélemy, pp. 329– 338. Cádiz: Servicio de Publicaciones Universidad de Cádiz. 2007a “Published settlement contexts of Punic Carthage,” Carthage Studies 1: 37–76. 2007b “Archaische Transportamphoren,” in Karthago. Die Ergebnisse der Hamburger Grabung unter dem Decumanus Maximus (Hamburger Forschugen zur Archaeologie 2), edited by H. G. Niemeyer, R. F. Docter, K. Schmidt and B. Bechtold, pp. 616–662. Mainz: Philipp von Zabern. 2009 “Carthage and its hinterland,” in Phönizisches und punisches Städtewesen (Iberia Archaeologica 13), edited by S. Helas and D. Marzoli, pp. 179–189. Mainz: Philipp von Zabern. 2018 “Carthaginian domestic amphorae, lids and stands: A view beyond the Tophet,” Eretz-Israel. Archaeological, Historical and Geographical Studies 33 (Lawrence E. Stager Volume): 59–75. DOCTER, R. F. and BECHTOLD, B. 2011 “Two forgotten amphorae from the Hamburg excavations at Carthage (Cyprus and Iberian Peninsula) and their contexts,” Carthage Studies 5 [2013]: 81–114. DOCTER, R. F., ANNIS, M. B., JACOBS, L. and BLESSING, G. H. J. M. 1997 “Early Central Italian Amphorae from Carthage: Preliminary results,” Rivista di Studi Fenici XXV/1: 15–58. DOCTER, R. F., CHELBI, F., MARAOUI TELMINI, B., BECHTOLD, B., BEN ROMDHANE, H., DECLERCQ, V., DE SCHACHT, T., DEWEIRDT, E., DE WULF, A., FERSI, L., FREY-KUPPER, S., GARSALLAH, S., JOOSTEN, I., KOENS, H., MABROUK, J., REDISSI, T., ROUDESLI CHEBBI, S., RYCKBOSCH, K., SCHMIDT, K., TAVERNIERS, B., VAN KERCKHOVE, J. and VERDONCK, L. 2006 “Carthage Bir Massouda: Second preliminary report on the bilateral excavations of Ghent University and the Institut National du Patrimoine (2003–2004),” Babesch 81: 37–89. DOCTER, R. F., CHELBI, F., MARAOUI TELMINI, B., NIJBOER, A. J., VAN DER PLICHT, J., VAN NEER, W., MANSEL, K. and GARSALLA, S. 2008 “New radiocarbon dates from Carthage: Bridging the gap between history and archaeology?,” in Beyond the Homeland: Markers in Phoenician Chronology (Ancient Near Eastern Studies Supplement 28), edited by C. Sagona, pp. 379– 422. Leuven-Paris-Dudley, MA: Peeters. DOCTER, R. F., NIEMEYER, H. G., NIJBOER, A. J. and VAN DER PLICHT, J. 2005 “Radiocarbon dates of animal bones in the earliest levels of Carthage,” in Oriente e Occidente: metodi e discipline a confronto. Rifflessioni sulla cronologia dell’età del

AMPHORAE FROM CARTHAGINIAN SETTLEMENT ASSEMBLAGES

155

ferro italiana (Mediterranea. Quaderni Annuali dell’Istituto di Studi sulle Civilta Italiche e del Mediterraneo Antico del Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche I [2004]), edited by G. Bartoloni, F. Delpino, R. De Marinis and P. Gastaldi, pp. 557–577. Pisa-Roma: Istituti editoriale e poligrafici internazionali. DOCTER, R. F., NIEMEYER, H. G. and SCHMIDT, K. 2007a “Grabungs- und Baubefund. Stratigraphie und Chronologie,” in Karthago. Die Ergebnisse der Hamburger Grabung unter dem Decumanus Maximus (Hamburger Forschungen zur Archaeologie 2), edited by H. G. Niemeyer, R. F. Docter, K. Schmidt and B. Bechtold, pp. 45–174. Mainz: Philipp von Zabern. 2007b “Römische und spätantike Baubefunde in der Kreuzung von Decumanus Maximus und Kardo X,” in Karthago. Die Ergebnisse der Hamburger Grabung unter dem Decumanus Maximus (Hamburger Forschungen zur Archaeologie 2), edited by H. G. Niemeyer, R. F. Docter, K. Schmidt and B. Bechtold, pp. 238–244. Mainz: Philipp von Zabern. FENTRESS, E. and DOCTER, R. F. 2008 “North Africa: Rural settlement and agricultural production,” in Rural Landscapes of the Punic World (Monographs in Mediterranean Archaeology), edited by P. Van Dommelen and C. Gómez Bellard, pp. 101–128. London-Oakville: Equinox Publishing Ltd. FUMADÓ ORTEGA, I. 2009 Cartago. Historia de la investigación. Madrid: Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas/Escuela Española de Historia y Arqueología en Roma. MAÑÁ, J. M. 1951 “Sobre tipología de ánforas púnicas,” in Crónica del VI Congreso Arqueológico del Sudeste, Alcoy, 1950, pp. 203–209. Cartagena. MANSEL, K. 2003 “Zeremonielle und rituelle Handlungen bei Baumaßnahmen. Zu phönizischpunischen Bauopfern,” in Rituale in der Vorgeschichte, Antike und Gegenwart. Studien zur Vorderasiatischen, Prähistorischen und Klassischen Archäologie, Ägyptologie, Alten Geschichte, Theologie und Religionswissenschaft. Interdisziplinäre Tagung vom 1.–2. Februar 2002 an der Freien Universität Berlin, edited by C. Metzner-Nebelsick, O. Dally, A. Hausleiter, E. Kaiser, H. Peter-Röcher, I. Prohl, J. F. Quack and F. Rumscheid, pp. 129–148. Rahden/Westf.: Marie Leidorf. MARAOUI TELMINI, B. 2012 “Vestiges d’un habitat de l’époque punique moyenne à Bir Massouda (Carthage). Bilan des fouilles dans le sondage 7 et analyse de la céramique (avec une annexe de Karin Mansel,” Carthage Studies 6: 1–202. 2015 “Des amphores puniques Maña D de la région d’Utique (Utica): la production de Besbassia,” in FACEM (version 17/06/2015) http://facem.at/img/pdf/Fabrics_ Utica_MaraouiTelmini_Schmidt_17.6.2015.pdf (27 November 2020). NIEMEYER, H. G., DOCTER, R. F., SCHMIDT, K. and BECHTOLD, B. (eds.) Karthago. Die Ergebnisse der Hamburger Grabung unter dem Decumanus 2007 Maximus (Hamburger Forschungen zur Archäologie 2). Mainz: Philipp von Zabern. NIEMEYER, H. G., RINDELAUB, A. and SCHMIDT, K. 1996 Karthago. Die alte Handelsmetropole am Mittelmeer. Eine archäologische Grabung. Hamburg: Hamburger Museum für Archäologie und die Geschichte. OGGIANO, I. 2000 “La ceramica fenicia di Sant’Imbenia (Alghero – SS),” in La Ceramica fenicia di Sardegna. Dati, problematiche, confronti. Atti del Primo Congresso Internazionale Sulcitano Sant’Antioco, 19-21 Settembre 1997 (Collezione di Studi Fenici 40), edited by P. Bartoloni and L. Campanella, pp. 235–258. Roma: Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche.

156

R. DOCTER

RAMON TORRES, J. 1991 Las ánforas púnicas de Ibiza (Trabajos del Museo Arqueológico de Ibiza 23). Eivissa: Conselleria de Cultura, Educació i Esports Govern Balear. 1995 Las ánforas fenicio-púnicas del Mediterráneo central y occidental (Col·lecció Instrumenta 2). Barcelona: Universitat de Barcelona. RÖLLIG, W. 2007 “Graffiti und Dipinti,” in Karthago. Die Ergebnisse der Hamburger Grabung unter dem Decumanus Maximus (Hamburger Forschungen zur Archaeologie 2), edited by H. G. Niemeyer, R. F. Docter, K. Schmidt and B. Bechtold, pp. 743–746. Mainz: Philipp von Zabern. SCHMIDT, K. 2015a “Amphorae fabrics of Utica (Ityke),” in FACEM (version 17/06/2015) http:// facem.at/img/pdf/Fabrics_Utica_MaraouiTelmini_Schmidt_17.6.2015.pdf (27 November 2020). 2015b “Amphorae and coarse ware fabrics of Panormos,” in FACEM (version 17/06/ 2015) http://facem.at/img/pdf/Fabrics_Panormos_Bechtold_Schmidt_17.6. 2015.pdf (27 November 2020). 2015c “Amphorae fabrics of Solus,” in FACEM (version 17/06/2015) http://facem.at/ img/pdf/Fabrics_Solus_Bechtold_Schmidt_17.6.2015.pdf (27 November 2020). 2015d “Amphorae and coarse ware fabrics of Motya,” in FACEM (version 17/06/2015) http://facem.at/img/pdf/Fabrics_Motya_Bechtold_Schmidt_18062015.pdf (27 November 2020). 2015e “Amphorae and coarse ware fabrics of Lilybaion: Evidences local production and export,” in FACEM (version 06/06/2015) http://facem.at/img/pdf/Fabrics_ Lilybaion_Bechtold_Schmidt_20150530.pdf (27 November 2020).

Roald F. DOCTER Department of Archaeology Ghent University Belgium

LES AMPHORES DE L’HORIZON PHÉNICIEN À UTIQUE Imed BEN JERBANIA ABSTRACT New excavations carried out in the northern part of the ancient promontory of Utica have allowed the definition of stratigraphic sequences dated by ceramics of varied production : Phoenician, Greek, Sardinian and local. In this paper, we present a quantitative and typochronological analysis of the amphorae attested in these different sequences, emphasising the technical and morphological changes. This new amphora panorama shows that Utica constituted, from the end of the ninth century BCE, a place of experimentation and represents an intersection of different traditions and influences thanks to the intensity of trade networks from the east and west.

INTRODUCTION La place qu’occupent les amphores dans le discours sur le commerce et les produits échangés dans l’Antiquité demeure prépondérante. L’amphore est par excellence le vase qui apporte un éclairage sur l’histoire économique. Sa présence dans les contextes archéologiques constitue pour les archéologues une source d’information sur des questions importantes : la nature des produits commercialisés, les relations entres les diverses aires de production et les routes commerciales que ces vases ont empruntées. Ce premier colloque dédié aux amphores phéniciennes et puniques contribue au développement de la recherche sur cette catégorie d’objet. Il permet de dresser un tableau sur l’état de la question en mettant en évidence la variabilité de nos connaissances sur la situation entre Orient et Occident, mais aussi entre les différentes aires de la Méditerranée centrale et occidentale. En effet, il ressort des dernières études une meilleure compréhension des conteneurs phéniciens et puniques d’Occident du point de vue caractéristiques morphologiques, évolution typo-chronologique et aires de distribution géographique.1 Toutefois, pour l’aire qui nous concerne dans cette étude, en l’occurrence la Tunisie, ce postulat ne peut être valable pour le moment que pour Carthage, le site majeur fondé par Tyr, qui a dû l’assister au début en lui fournissant des denrées véhiculées dans des amphores orientales, mais également le site qui dispose d’une importante situation géographique et d’une longévité. Qu’en est-t-il d’autres sites phéniciens et puniques de Tunisie ? 1

 D’importantes études ont constitué une étape fondamentale dans la définition des répertoires amphoriques de différentes aires de la Méditerranée centrale et occidentale. Je pense notamment à la somme de Joan Ramon sur les amphores phéniciennes et puniques : Ramon (1995), et au livre de Roald Docter sur les conteneurs de Carthage et de Toscanos : Docter (1997). Pour la métropole punique, il est lieu de citer les études qui offrent une analyse diachronique du faciès amphorique : Bechtold et Docter (2010) et aussi Bechtold (2008). D’autres recherches ont contribué à une meilleure connaissance des amphores de la Méditerranée centrale ; il s’agit entre autres de Bartoloni (1988) et plus récemment de Bechtold (2015).

158

I. BEN JERBANIA

Fig. 1. Utique. Situation des sondages.

Que savons-nous des productions et des importations amphoriques de Kerkouane, d’Hadrumète ou d’Utique ? Nous concentrons notre propos ici sur Utique, que les sources littéraires considèrent comme l’un des plus anciens établissements phéniciens d’Occident.2 Les nouvelles fouilles effectuées sur le site, et particulièrement dans la partie nord du promontoire, nous apportent des données intéressantes relatives à la datation de la première phase d’installation phénicienne et au faciès céramique qui la caractérise.3 Notre objectif donc à travers cet article est de présenter le panorama amphorique de cet établissement durant la période archaïque et ses enseignements relatifs à la production et au commerce. Nous aborderons ces nouvelles données d’Utique à travers les résultats des sondages effectués dans la zone nord du promontoire.

LES CONTEXTES

DE L’HORIZON PHÉNICIEN À

UTIQUE

ET LEURS DONNÉES QUANTITATIVES

Toutes les amphores de la phase archaïque qui font l’objet de cette étude proviennent des secteurs du nord d’Utique (Fig. 1). En effet, les fouilles réalisées que ce soit sur le terrain relativement plat non loin de la ligne théorique du rivage antique ou sur le sommet de la colline avoisinante dominant l’ancien promontoire, ont révélé des niveaux phéniciens avec une céramique de production variée : libyque, phénicienne et punique, sarde, grecque et italienne du premier Âge du Fer. Sur un ensemble de 1795 fragments interprétables appartenant essentiellement à des bords, les amphores occupent un pourcentage de 20 pour cent, alors que la céramique phénicienne et punique, puis la poterie libyque faite à la main, dominent avec des pourcentages de 33 pour cent et 32 pour cent respectivement (Fig. 2).  Cf. Velleius Paterculus I.2.3 ; Pseudo Aristote De mirabilibus auscultationibus 134 ; Pline, Histoire Naturelle, XVI, 216. 3  Cf. en dernier lieu Ben Jerbania et Redissi (2014) ; López Castro et al. 2016 et Ben Jerbania 2020. 2

AMPHORES DE L’HORIZON PHÉNICIEN À UTIQUE

159

Fig. 2. Quantification du matériel céramique des secteurs fouillés dans la partie nord d’Utique (pourcentages exprimés par rapport au nombre de fragments interprétables: 1795).

Sur la base de la stratigraphie documentée dans chaque secteur, il est possible d’établir une périodisation susceptible de mettre en évidence l’évolution et les changements que ce faciès amphorique a connus. Cette stratigraphie s’avère plus claire dans le secteur I et II, alors qu’elle est perturbée dans le secteur III par les intrusions modernes. Les données du secteur I Ce secteur occupe le sommet de la colline du promontoire dont l’altitude maximale atteint 13 m. Par sa situation en face de la ligne du rivage antique, cette colline constitue un endroit idéal et bien défendu topographiquement pour abriter les premières installations phéniciennes. En outre, l’examen du matériel céramique issu des sondages anciens effectués dans cette zone confirme l’ancienneté de l’occupation. Quant aux nouvelles fouilles entreprises en 2012, d’abord par une équipe tuniso-française, puis uniquement par nous même à partir de 2014, elles ont révélé une stratigraphie qui témoigne d’une occupation sur toute la période archaïque (800–575 av. J.-C.), mais aussi d’un aménagement de l’espace à l’époque romaine.4 Le faciès céramique de l’horizon phénicien (800–575 av. J.-C.) montre une prédominance de la vaisselle fine phénicienne et punique avec un pourcentage de 47 pour cent sur un total de 1158 fragments interprétables. Les amphores ne constituent que 18 pour cent de cet ensemble (Fig. 3). Soulignons par contre l’absence in situ des niveaux relatifs à la période punique moyen et récent (du Ve siècle au IIe siècle av. J.-C.) ; ces derniers semblent avoir 4  Les deux premières campagnes de fouilles (2012 et 2013) ont été menées dans le cadre d’un projet tunisofrançais dirigé par J. Y. Monchambert et moi-même. J’adresse un remerciement particulier à Héloïse BricchiDuhem (Paris IV), Aïda Sehli (Université de Tunis), Lara Romagnolo, Charles Piver (Paris IV) et Kaouther Jendoubi (Universtié de Tunis), qui ont participé à cette fouille. Pour les caractéristiques architecturales et leur évolution durant les différentes phases que ce secteur a connues, ainsi que pour la stratigraphie et le matériel céramique : voir pour plus de détail Ben Jerbania 2017 et 2020.

160

I. BEN JERBANIA

Fig. 3. Quantification de la céramique du secteur I.

été arasés à l’époque romaine afin d’égaliser la colline en vue d’édifier des maisons souvent grandes et luxueuses. – La phase I (800–760) : elle correspond à la phase d’installation initiale, dont les vestiges sont pour le moins réduits. L’observation stratigraphique permet de voir deux niveaux d’occupation représentés par des lambeaux (US. 1125 et 1127, Fig. 4). Le premier en torba et le second en argile sont respectivement dotés par des niveaux de préparation. Ces sols ne sont associés à aucune structure. Cependant, le répertoire des céramiques importées (skyphoi à demi-cercles pendants du Sub-Protogéométrique III, des plats tyriens de types 9, 8 et 7 Tyr) assure une datation de la fin du IXe siècle et du premier tiers du VIIIe siècle av. J.-C.5 Au cours de cette phase, la poterie modelée est largement majoritaire avec 60 pour cent de l’ensemble du matériel céramique. Quant à la proportion des amphores, elle se situe autour de 19 pour cent (Fig. 6). Au sein de cette dernière catégorie, il est patent que le nombre des conteneurs sardes de cette première phase est bien supérieur à celui des amphores d’origine phénicienne et de l’Extrême Occident (Fig. 6). – La phase II (760–720) : elle est représentée ici par la construction d’un mur en adobe (USC 1069) orienté est-ouest et constitué d’un solin en pierres de différentes tailles liées par un mortier de terre et d’argile. À ce mur est associé un niveau d’occupation formé de fines pellicules de marne verdâtre et de chaux (US 1095–US 1096) (Figs. 4–5). Il surmonte une couche de remblai argileux. Les caractéristiques constructives partiellement reconnues dans ce sondage permettent de rattacher ces vestiges à un éventuel habitat phénicien. Pour ce qui concerne les différentes productions céramiques représentées dans cette phase, bien que moins nombreuse par rapport à la phase précédente, la poterie modelée demeure pour autant majoritaire. À côté, les conteneurs de transport constituent près de 12 pour cent du nombre de fragments interprétables et reconnus correspondant essentiellement à des bords (Fig. 6). C’est encore principalement les amphores sardes qui arrivent en premier lieu et précèdent du point de vue nombre celles de production locale ou régionale (Fig. 7). 5

 Ben Jerbania 2020.

AMPHORES DE L’HORIZON PHÉNICIEN À UTIQUE

Fig. 4. Coupe stratigraphique nord du sondage de la colline.

Fig. 5. Coupe stratigraphique ouest du sondage de la colline.

161

I. BEN JERBANIA

162

Fig. 6. Quantification des productions céramiques par phase (pourcentages exprimés par rapport au nombre de fragments interprétables).

– La phase III (720/700–650) : cette phase est marquée par des changements importants dans l’organisation de l’espace, avec essentiellement l’édification au début du VIIe siècle av. J.-C. des murs en moellons pourvus d’une orientation légèrement décalée par rapport aux murs en adobe de la phase II.6 On assiste également à un remblaiement qui scelle le niveau de chantier (US 1051, US 1081) associé au mur en pierres (USC 1028). Ce remblai épais (US 1101, 1102, 1070, 1064, Figs. 4–5), qui comporte des inclusions d’argile appartenant probablement aux briques crues des murs anciens, est surmonté par des sols d’occupation parfois séparés par des couches de préparation de terre sablonneuse (US 1050, 1058, 1046, 1048, Figs. 4–5). La répartition entre les différentes catégories du matériel recueilli permet de noter que la vaisselle fine est la mieux représentée avec un pourcentage de 58 pour cent sur un total de 254 fragments interprétables. Quant aux amphores, leur présence n’est pas négligeable (19 pour cent) et elles se manifestent essentiellement à travers les formes de production punique (Figs. 6–7). – Phase IV (650–575) : lors de cette phase, un second remblai épais (US 1042, 1039, 1031, Figs. 4–5) vient recouvrir cette sédimentation des sols de la phase précédente et prépare une nouvelle surface d’occupation horizontale marquée aussi par une reprise dans les murs en moellons. Le matériel recueilli relatif à cette période montre une nette chute de la céramique faite à la main (Fig. 6). C’est la céramique fine notamment à engobe rouge qui prédomine avec un pourcentage de 63 pour cent, ce qui favorise le caractère domestique de 6

 Ben Jerbania 2020.

AMPHORES DE L’HORIZON PHÉNICIEN À UTIQUE

163

Fig. 7. Comptage des amphores selon les phases.

cet espace ; alors que les amphores constituent 14 pour cent sur un ensemble de 650 fragments interprétables (Fig. 6). Les récipients de transport sardes continuent leur recul et se voient nettement devancer par les amphores puniques (Fig. 7). Les données du secteur II Ce secteur correspond au terrain relativement plat situé au nord de la basilique et du forum romain (Fig. 1). Il est délimité à l’est par la colline du promontoire, alors qu’à son ouest se trouve un monument surélevé qu’A. Lézine identifie comme édifice à colonne.7 Les sondages effectués dans cet espace ont permis de mettre au jour les niveaux phéniciens et de reconnaitre sommairement leur stratigraphie et leurs caractéristiques architecturales. Afin d’éviter les redites inutiles, la description des structures et des techniques de construction ont déjà fait l’objet d’une analyse,8 on trouvera ici les données relatives à la première phase phénicienne reconnue dans cette zone. Un nouveau sondage récemment effectué dans le même espace confirme l’ancienneté de l’occupation dans ce secteur nord et montre l’importance de l’activité métallurgique à travers la quantité considérable de tuyères et des scories trouvées.9 Quant au faciès céramique, il autorise de situer les structures en brique crue et en pierre au cours de la première moitié du VIIIe siècle av. J.-C. Ces niveaux phéniciens se trouvent en surface vu l’arasement que cet espace a connu aux époques romaine et moderne. Ainsi, à l’état actuel de la fouille, nous parlons uniquement d’une seule phase phénicienne. – Phase I (800–760/750) : cette phase est marquée par la présence des murs en adobe posés directement sur des couches de remblai surmontant le substrat naturel. Ces murs sont 7

 Lézine 1970, pp. 18–19, fig. 6.  Ben Jerbania 2020. 9  Il s’agit d’un nouveau sondage de 20 m × 8 m qui constitue en effet une extension de l’ancien sondage fouillé par mon collègue Taoufik Redissi : Ben Jerbania et Redissi 2014 et Ben Jerbania 2020. 8

I. BEN JERBANIA

164

Figs. 8 et 9. Comptage des productions céramiques et des catégories amphoriques du secteur II.

associés à des sols de circulation et appartiennent semble-t-il à des chambres.10 Dans le nouveau sondage d’extension, nous enregistrons l’apparition du même schéma, mais cette fois en association avec des restes d’un éventuel four métallurgique, dont les traces sont matérialisées par un nombre considérable de tuyères et scories.11 Dans les deux sondages, la céramique appartenant à cette phase est dominée par la production faite à la main qui présente un pourcentage de 57 pour cent sur un ensemble de 468 tessons interprétables (Fig. 8). Les amphores viennent en deuxième position et constituent 23 pour cent de cet ensemble. Dans cette catégorie, les conteneurs sardes sont les mieux représentés suivis par les amphores phéniciennes (Fig. 9). Le secteur III Ce secteur occupe l’extrémité ouest du promontoire à quelques mètres de la rupture de pente qui marque la limite entre la proéminence nord et le marais (Fig. 1). Le niveau géologique se trouve à une faible profondeur et accuse une légère pente vers le nord. L’absence des traces de vestiges d’époque romaine laisse entendre que cet endroit a été arasé à l’époque moderne ; les seuls vestiges de constructions retrouvés dans la partie nord du sondage semblent en rapport avec des gourbis modernes.12 Cependant, le fait le plus intéressant est que le remblai qui comble les différentes fosses creusées dans le sol géologique parfois à une profondeur de 1.45 m a livré, outre le matériel moderne, une quantité importante de céramique ancienne que l’on situe sur la base des formes à la fin du IXe siècle av. J.-C. et au début du siècle suivant. Dans ce contexte secondaire, la céramique faite à la main domine avec un pourcentage de 47 pour cent sur un lot de 224 fragments interprétables. Les amphores représentent 29 pour cent et sont dominées par les importations sardes (Fig. 10). 10

 Ben Jerbania 2020, pp. 32–35.  Les résultats de cette nouvelle fouille sont en cours d’étude. D’autre part, une analyse des données liées à l’activité métallurgique repérée in situ fera l’objet d’une prochaine publication. 12  De Jonghe et Tekki 2013, pp. 25–30. 11

AMPHORES DE L’HORIZON PHÉNICIEN À UTIQUE

165

Fig. 10. Comptage des amphores du secteur III.

CATÉGORIES

DES AMPHORES REPRÉSENTÉES

Les amphores phéniciennes Les amphores phéniciennes sont plutôt minoritaires parmi les catégories amphoriques identifiées à Utique, sauf durant la première phase où elles se sont mieux manifestées derrière les amphores sardes qui gardent le monopole. En ce qui concerne les formes représentées, elles sont également très limitées. Certains bords reconnus sont de type 9 Tyr ; d’autres exemplaires pourraient être insérés dans le type 2 Sagona. Les trois premiers bords (Fig. 11 : 1–3) sont verticaux, pleins et présentent la même épaisseur que celle de la paroi. L’épaule est légèrement convexe et sa jonction avec le corps est marquée, notamment sur l’exemplaire (Fig. 11 : 2), par une carène douce. Ces amphores sont classées à Tyr dans le type SJ–9 qui constitue un groupe hétérogène renfermant des formes à bord variable, mais toujours vertical et plein, dont la hauteur se situe entre 2 et 3 cm, alors que l’épaisseur est de 1 cm.13 L’épaule présente souvent une carène peu accentuée. Elles sont attestées à partir du stratum XIV et commencent à connaitre un recul dès le stratum V.14 Le premier bord issu du secteur II, phase I, (Fig. 11 : 1) présente une hauteur de 1,5 cm et trouve un parallèle à Hazor dans le stratum VIII.15 Néanmoins, il faut noter que Y. Aharoni a mis en doute l’attribution de ce modèle à cette strate et considère que la fréquence de ces amphores à Hazor est plutôt évidente dans les strates VI–V, alors que leur apparition semble située dans le stratum VII de la fin du IXe siècle av. J.-C.16 Si l’on suit encore une fois les données de la stratigraphie de Hazor, on remarque que ce type de bord caractérise aussi une amphore complète issue du stratum X, et continue à apparaitre sur les exemplaires du 13

 Bikai 1978, pp. 45–46.  Bikai 1978, p. 45. 15  Yadin et al. 1960, pl. LX : 9. 16  Yadin et al. 1960, pp. 13–14. 14

166

I. BEN JERBANIA

stratum IX.17 En termes de chronologie absolue, selon I. Finkelstein et sa Low chronology, ces deux dernières strates sont respectivement datées du début du IXe siècle av. J.-C. et de la première moitié de ce siècle jusque 835 av. J.-C.18 D’autres attestations des conteneurs dotés du même bord, mais avec une épaule plutôt rectiligne que convexe, apparaissent à Tell Keisan dans les niveaux 6–7 du IXe siècle av. J.-C.19 Les deux autres fragments remontent à la première phase et proviennent du secteur I, pour le premier (Fig. 11 : 2), et de la zone II pour le second (Fig. 11 : 3). Le bord semble ici plus haut que sur l’exemplaire précédent, quant à l’épaule, elle est peu convexe, allongée et à jonction peu accentuée avec le corps. Les amphores avec un bord vertical, proches de l’exemplaire (Fig. 11 : 2), apparaissent à Tell Keisan dans les niveaux 7 et 6 à travers des modèles à épaule convexe, parfois allongée, mais toujours associée à la panse par une carène douce.20 À Hazor, nous rencontrons des formes proches dans les strates VII, de la fin du IXe siècle av. J.-C., et VA du milieu VIIIe siècle av. J.-C.21 Les données de Sarepta montrent que dans le stratum D1, dont la limite chronologique basse est le dernier quart du IXe siècle av. J.-C., figure ce modèle à bord vertical et haut.22 D’autres exemplaires de même type proviennent de Tell Sukas ;23 leurs parallèles à Tyr sont classés par P. Bikai dans le type 9, fréquent dans les strates XIV–IV.24 Toutefois, il est lieu de préciser que cet exemplaire se distingue par la présence de deux sillons sur la partie supérieure de l’épaule ; il s’agit d’un trait morphologique qui caractérise les amphores orientales trouvées à Kommos en Crète et à Huelva en Extrême Occident.25 Dans le premier site, la similarité de ces modèles pourvus de ce détail favorise, selon P. Bikai, l’idée qu’il s’agisse des produits acheminés dans la même cargaison.26 Quant à Huelva, les jarres insérées dans ce modèle, issues d’un contexte secondaire que l’on situe entre 900 et 770 av. J.-C., sont rangées dans le type 9 de Tyr. En effet, à l’instar des amphores de la métropole phénicienne, celles de Huelva constituent également un groupe hétérogène qui offre une diversité de bord et ne permet pas de tracer, compte tenu du caractère secondaire du dépôt, une évolution typo-chronologique. En tout état de cause, l’apparition de ces amphores de Kommos à Huelva pourrait constituer un fossile directeur pour la première expansion phénicienne vers l’Ouest. Quant à l’autre fragment de bord vertical (Fig. 11 : 3), il semble qu’il dispose de parallèle dans le stratum D1 de Sarepta, situé entre 950–850/825 av. J.-C.27 À Kommos, une amphore à bord semblable est rangée par P. Bikai dans le type 9 de Tyr.28 17  Yadin et al. 1961, p. 38, pl. CLXXII : 14. Il est également possible de considérer qu’un autre élément constitutif du tesson uticéen, à savoir l’épaule convexe, caractérise cette amphore de Hazor. 18  Finkelstein 1999, p. 65. 19  Briend et Humbert 1980, pl. 48 : 2a. 20  Briend et Humbert 1980, pl. 48 : 4 et pl. 50 : 1 et 50 : 7. L’amphore du niveau 5, daté de 720–650, possède un bord plus haut que celui des exemplaires d’Utique : Briend et Humbert 1980, pl. 47 : 7. 21  Cf. Yadin et al. 1961, pl. CLXXX : 23 stratum VII et Yadin et al. 1960, pl. XCI : 1 stratum Va. 22  Anderson 1988, pl. 33 : 2. Cf. pour la datation proposée pour le stratum D : Anderson 1988, p. 407. 23  Buhl 1983, p. 12–13, fig. III–IV : 34–39. 24  Bikai 1978, tab. 10A. 25  Cf. pour Kommos, Shaw 2000, fig. 8 : 2, 6 et 8. Pour Huelva, cf. González de Canales et al. 2004, pp. 68–69, pl. XIII. 26  Bikai 2004, p. 310 : l’auteur considère que ces exemplaires pourraient être classés dans le type 9 de Tyr. 27  Anderson 1988, type SJ. 12B, pl. 33 : 2 ; cf. également Bikai (2004, p. 310). 28  Bikai 2004, p. 310, fig. 4 : 63/14.

AMPHORES DE L’HORIZON PHÉNICIEN À UTIQUE

167

Fig. 11. 1–6 Amphores phéniciennes

Deux autres exemplaires d’Utique, provenant du secteur II, ont le bord épaissi ou en amande. Sur le premier (Fig. 11 : 4), le bord est plutôt court et séparé de l’épaule par un sillon assez profond. Dans son contexte de provenance correspondant précisément à l’abandon de la première phase de cette aire, nous rencontrons pour la première fois, des formes locales à engobe rouge, telles que les plats à bord étroit de type I.1 Vegas, que l’on peut situer autour du deuxième quart ou du milieu du VIIIe siècle av. J.-C. Néanmoins, du point de vue morphologique, cette amphore uticéenne s’insère dans les types signalés à Kommos, distingués par la présence de sillons sous le bord. Cela témoigne encore une fois du rôle que ce site de la Crète a assumé dans la transmission des modèles orientaux vers les établissements de la Méditerranée centrale, comme Utique, et occidentale, commme Huelva. En Occident, parmi le matériel céramique du début du VIIIe siècle av. J.-C. provenant de la fouille de Teatro Comico à Gadès, nous rencontrons un fragment de bord épaissi et peu rentrant d’une amphore orientale.29 Quant au deuxième bord (Fig. 11 : 5), il trouve des parallèles précis parmi les amphores de Huelva, considérées de type 9 Tyr.30 Le dernier bord uticéen (Fig. 11 : 6) provient du niveau d’abandon de la première phase du secteur II. Sa présence à côté des plats engobés à bord étroit et des premières amphores locales ou régionales de type 3.1.1.1 autorise à le situer vers le milieu du VIIIe siècle av. J.-C. Ce bord appartient aux amphores de type Sagona 2 produites en Palestine du Nord et au Liban.31 Il s’agit d’un type commun à Hazor dans les strates VI–V du VIIIe siècle av. J.-C., et à Tyr dans le stratum II du dernier tiers du même siècle.32 La variante bord mouluré, à laquelle appartient notre exemplaire, est fréquente dans ces sites durant la période entre 760

29

 Torres Ortiz et al. 2014, p. 53, fig. 2 : g.  González de Canales et al. 2004, pl. XIII : surtout 15 et 20. 31  Sagona 1982, fig. 1 : 3. 32  Cf. Yadin et al. 1960, pl. LXXII–LXXIII et XC : 1–3. Pour Tyr, cf. Bikai (1978, pl. II). 30

168

I. BEN JERBANIA

et 732 av. J.-C.33 Elle figure aussi dans le stratum C de Sarepta que l’on situe essentiellement dans le VIIIe siècle av. J.-C.34 En revanche, son apparition à Megiddo a été signalée dans la strate IVA de la fin du IXe siècle et du VIIIe siècle av. J.-C.35 Pour ce qui concerne leur diffusion en Occident, ces amphores ont été considérées jusqu’à un temps récent comme les premiers conteneurs orientaux arrivés, surtout au cours de la seconde moitié du VIIIe siècle av. J.-C. à Carthage ou à d’autres sites phéniciens de la Méditerranée centrale et occidentale.36 Dans la métropole punique, ces formes sont présentes à la fois dans les tombes et dans les niveaux d’habitat, où elles figurent par exemple parmi le matériel issu des fouilles allemandes sous le Decumanus Maximus, qui apportent des nouvelles datations.37 En péninsule Ibérique, cette variante à bord mouluré est attestée à Morro de Mezquitilla dans les niveaux du VIIIe siècle av. J.-C.38 À Calle Cánovas del Castillo à Gadès, deux bords de même type figurent parmi le matériel céramique du début du VIIIe siècle.39 Enfin, à Castillo de Doña Blanca, parmi le nombre important d’amphores trouvées dans les niveaux qui remontent au VIIIe siècle seulement deux bords avec moulure externe ont fait l’objet d’une publication.40 Les amphores sardes Dans les publications récentes destinées à l’étude du matériel céramique issu des premiers niveaux phéniciens identifiés dans plusieurs sites de la Méditerranée centrale et occidentale, cette catégorie amphorique a suscité un intérêt particulier, d’abord, par son caractère ‘hybride’, du point de vue forme et décor, qui reflète une identité composite à la fois phénicienne et sarde, ensuite parce qu’elle renferme des types qui pourraient constituer un modèle pour les premiers conteneurs occidentaux.41 En effet, depuis leur identification comme amphores de type « Sant’Imbenia » par I. Oggiano,42 puis comme nuragische Transportamphoren par R. Docter,43 en relation avec les attestations carthaginoises, l’accent a été mis sur la filiation orientale de ces conteneurs et leur appartenance à certains modèles levantins de forme ovoïde.44 Mais certains éléments morphologiques comme le col distingué ou la forme des anses, dotées parfois d’un décor de points, sont considérés de tradition nuragique.45 33

 Sagona 1982, p. 76.  Anderson 1988, pl. 36 : 4 et 7 et pl. 37 : 12. Pour la chronologie de cette strate située au VIIIe siècle av. J.-C. avec une possible extension sur le IXe siècle pour la strate C2 et sur le début du VIIe siècle av. J.-C. pour la strate C1, cf. Anderson (1988, p. 419). 35  Finkelstein 1999, p. 63, fig. 3 : 7. 36  Ramon 1995, p. 267 ; Pedrazzi 2005, pp. 463–465. 37  Une analyse du matériel amphorique oriental présent à Carthage, dans les tombes et dans l’habitat, a été déjà faite par J. Ramon : cf. Ramon (1995, pp. 267–276) et (2000). Quant aux amphores des fouilles allemandes, celles de type Sagona 2 ont été rangées par R. Docter dans la classe Levantinisch 1 : cf. Docter 1997, figs. 13–25. 38  Maass-Lindemann 1995, fig. 1 : 4. 39  Córdoba Alonso et Ruiz Mata 2005, pp. 1297–1296, fig. 2 : 1 et 2 :13. 40  Ruiz Mata 1986, p. 248, fig. 3 : 1–2. 41  Cf. en dernier lieu Oggiano et Pedrazzi 2019. 42  Oggiano 2000, pp. 237–243. 43  Docter 2007, pp. 635–640. 44  Ce modèle est attesté par exemple à Hazor (strates VII–V) durant la phase initiale du Fer II : cf. Pedrazzi (2005, pp. 466–467). 45  Oggiano et Pedrazzi 2019, p. 240. 34

AMPHORES DE L’HORIZON PHÉNICIEN À UTIQUE

169

Ce caractère mixte de ces amphores se manifeste également à travers leur technique de fabrication, puisque aux exemplaires complètement tournés ou modelés s’ajoutent ceux de technique mixte avec le corps fait à la main et le bord au tour, ou vice versa.46 L’usage du tour – tout comme l’engobe rouge qui couvre l’extérieur ou partiellement l’intérieur de certaines amphores – renvoie à une tradition orientale.47 Tous ces aspects qui reflètent cette identité composite de ce type amphorique produit dans un milieu de rencontre entre les éléments locaux et les « Phoinikes », autorisent à qualifier ces conteneurs de ‘phénico-sardes’.48 Sur la base des données quantitatives analysées supra, les amphores de la Sardaigne paraissent majoritaires pendant la première phase (800–760 av. J.-C.) identifiée dans les différents secteurs fouillés. Leur régression commence à être marquante à partir du premier quart du VIIe siècle av. J.-C., et annonce par conséquent leur disparition au cours de la seconde moitié de ce siècle. Ce schéma rappelle la situation carthaginoise livrée par les fouilles allemandes sous le Decumanus Maximus, où la part relative de ces amphores passe de 38 pour cent durant les phases I–III (760–675) à 10.4 pour cent pendant la phase IV (675–550).49 S’il est possible d’admettre ce rapprochement entre les deux métropoles phéniciennes de Tunisie, le plus significatif pour nous repose sur le fait que l’abondance de ces conteneurs, à côté d’une vaisselle sarde, dans les premiers niveaux uticéens de la fin du IXe siècle av. J.-C., et peut-être même avant la fondation de Carthage, est aujourd’hui assurée.50 Cela ne peut être que synonyme d’une insertion précoce d’Utique dans le trafic tyrrhénien à travers un rapport direct avec la Sardaigne, ce qui a apparemment permis aux Phéniciens d’Utique d’assister la métropole punique au moment de sa naissance en lui fournissant les produits véhiculés dans ces conteneurs. Sur le plan morphologique, la variabilité que présentent le bord et le col autorise à classer les amphores d’Utique dans les catégories suivantes : – Amphore sans col (Fig. 12 : 7–10) : les conteneurs rangés dans ce groupe rappellent les exemplaires de la famiglia 1 de Sant’Imbenia.51 Ils proviennent tous de la phase I du secteur I. Le bord ici est directement associé à la panse. L’épaule est parfois tombante et donne un aspect ovoïde au corps ; sur d’autres exemplaires, elle est sensiblement horizontale, ce qui permet de situer le diamètre maximum sur la partie supérieure de la panse. En revanche, le bord présente une variabilité morphologique qui permet de définir des types différents.52 Dans ce sens, on peut reconnaitre le type avec un bord épaissi pourvu de la même épaisseur que la paroi (Fig. 12 : 7–8). D’autres types se caractérisent par le bord arrondi ou à sommet plat (Fig. 12 : 9–10). Sur le plan décoratif, la présence d’un engobe rouge sur l’extérieur et 46

 Botto 2015, pp. 178-179 ; Ben Jerbania 2017, p. 192.  Oggiano et Pedrazzi 2019, p. 240. 48  Ben Jerbania 2017, p. 192. 49  Docter 2007, p. 618, figs. 335–336. 50  Dans le puits 20017 d’Utique qui constitue un contexte fermé du dernier quart du IXe s. av. J.-C., les amphores sardes sont majoritaires : cf. López Castro et al. 2016, p. 77. Cf. également Ben Jerbania (2013, pp. 47–48) et (2020). 51  De Rosa et al. 2018, p. 51, fig. 3. 52  I. Oggiano et T. Pedrazzi ont rapporté cette variation des bords d’amphores de type « Sant’Imbenia » au caractère expérimental de la première production de ces conteneurs par les ateliers locaux. Ces bords variaient donc en fonction des préférences et des choix exprimés par les artisans : cf. Oggiano et Pedrazzi 2019, p. 240. 47

170

I. BEN JERBANIA

Fig. 12. 7–31 Amphores ‘phénico-sardes’.

AMPHORES DE L’HORIZON PHÉNICIEN À UTIQUE

171

partiellement sur la surface interne de certains exemplaires, traduit parfaitement l’aspect ‘hybride’ de cette production. À Carthage, les parallèles à ces types étaient d’abord classés par R. Docter dans la Subklasse ZitA 1.53 En péninsule Ibérique, les amphores sans col de type « Sant’Imbenia » provenant de Calle Cánovas del Castillo, sont groupées surtout dans le type L3f.54 D’un autre côté, les études récentes sur le matériel de Sant’Imbenia ont mis en évidence une affinité typologique entre les types amphoriques dépourvus du col (familiga 1), proches de nos exemplaires uticéens, et ceux de Carthage classés dans les types 3.1.1.1 et 3.1.1.2 Ramon, dont leur arrivée à cet emporion sarde est située vers le milieu du VIIIe siècle av. J.-C. Ce phénomène de relation étroite entre ces deux productions, sarde d’une part et nord africaine de l’autre, se trouve aussi à Utique et témoigne de l’intense flux d’échange culturel et commercial que ce dernier site a maintenu avec la Sardaigne, au moins dès le début du VIIIe siècle av. J.-C. À cette première catégorie, il est possible d’insérer un autre type caractérisé par le bord en amande relativement haut, droit ou peu rentrant (Fig. 12 : 11–17). Les exemplaires trouvés à Utique appartenant à ce type sont au nombre de sept et présentent tous une pâte de couleur marron. Deux proviennent du contexte secondaire du secteur III (Fig. 12 : 11–12), quatre de la phase III du secteur I (Fig. 12 :13–16), alors que le dernier bord est issu de la phase IV du secteur I (Fig. 12 : 17). Il s’agit d’une forme produite à Sulcis, en partie contemporaine ou un peu successive aux amphores de type « Sant’Imbenia », puis diffusée dans les sites de la Méditerranée centrale à partir de 770 av. J.-C. jusqu’au milieu du VIIe siècle av. J.-C.55 Par la forme de son bord, elle est analogue à l’amphore utilisée comme urne cinéraire dans la nécropole de San Giorgio (Portoscuso).56 Certaines études récentes ont mis l’accent sur ce type particulier dont l’apparition représente un moment important dans la production des premiers modèles d’amphores coloniales de l’Occident méditerranéen.57 Cette œuvre sulcitaine traduit à travers sa diffusion le rôle des colonies de la Sardaigne sud-occidentale dans la transmission des premiers modèles amphoriques occidentaux et dans la commercialisation des produits de l’île, probablement le vin.58 – Amphore avec col peu développé et sensiblement séparé du bord (Fig. 12 : 18–21) : les conteneurs de cette deuxième catégorie d’amphores sardes issus tous de la phase I du secteur I présentent une forme dont le schéma global est le même, si ce n’est que le col qui devient peu développé et à peine séparé du bord. Ce dernier peut être épaissi avec une lèvre arrondie (Fig. 12 : 18–19) ou retroussée (Fig. 12 : 20), comme il peut présenter la même épaisseur que la paroi (Fig. 12 : 21). Les exemplaires ayant les mêmes caractéristiques morphologiques sont attestés à Carthage et appartiennent à la Subklasse ZitA 1 ou Nuragisch 1.59 Alors que 53

 Docter 1997, figs. 393 et 395.  Cf. Córdoba Alonso et Ruiz Mata 2005, p. 1297, fig. 14. 55  Ramon 2000, pp. 284–285 : il s’agit d’une forme proche du type 3.1.1.1 ; Pompianu 2010, p. 33, fig. 6 : 25–27 ; Guirguis 2010, pp. 178–179. 56  Bernardini 2000, fig. 3 : 2. 57  Botto 2007, p. 88. 58  Pour cette “création” sulcitaine de ce type amphorique destiné au transport des produits de consommation, dont le vin demeure le produit le plus privilégié : cf. Guirguis 2010, pp. 179–180. 59  Cf. en dernier lieu Docter (2007, p. 637). 54

172

I. BEN JERBANIA

pour Calle Cánovas del Castillo, I. Córdoba Alonso et D. Ruiz Mata ont classé ces formes dans le type L3a.60 – Amphore avec col droit ou à tendance concave et nettement séparé du bord (Fig. 12 : 22–27) : sur les amphores d’Utique appartenant à ce groupe on distingue nettement un col cylindrique ou un peu concave surmonté par un bord de différents profils : à section triangulaire (Fig. 12 : 22–23), comme sur plusieurs exemplaires carthaginois à surface micacée rangés dans la Subklasse ZitA 3 ou Nuragisch 3 ainsi que sur les conteneurs de type L3c de Calle Cánovas del Castillo ;61 ou épaissi et pourvu d’une lèvre à sommet arrondi (Fig. 12 : 24–25), tel est le cas sur les formes de type L3b de ce dernier site ibérique. Ces dernières formes uticéennes ont été attestées dans la phase I des secteurs I et II. Sur d’autres exemplaires issus du secteur III, le bord est plutôt simple, non distinct et présente la même épaisseur que le col (Fig. 12 : 26–27). Des parallèles proches à cette dernière variante se trouvent à Calle Cánovas del Castillo (type L3d) et à Carthage (Suklasse ZitA 3 ou Nuragisch 3). Quant aux leurs caractéristiques physiques, ces conteneurs sont parfois dotés d’un engobe rouge à l’extérieur et partiellement sur la surface interne. D’autres ont une surface très micacée comme sur les exemplaires de Carthage. Toutefois, il est lieu de remarquer que l’examen de différents échantillons par une loupe binoculaire a permis de constater une variabilité des pâtes qui plaide en faveur de l’appartenance de ces amphores sardes d’Utique à plusieurs centres de production de la Sardaigne. Le centre de Saint’Imbenia est bien représenté ici à travers une pâte locale utilisée par les habitants de ce site nuragique depuis la fin de l’Âge du bronze. Cette pâte est surtout en sandwich avec un cœur noir et une surface allant du brun-clair (5YR 5/6 rouge jaunâtre) et rouge (2.5YR 5/6 rouge) ; elle renferme souvent des inclusions de quartz angulaire, de calcite, des oxydes métalliques et aussi des particules noires volcaniques.62 En outre, plusieurs exemplaires récemment regroupés dans la famiglia 2 des amphores pourvues de col issues de Sant’Imbenia présentent des similarités typologiques et techniques avec les formes d’Utique.63 Pour ce qui concerne les anses de ces amphores sardes, elles sont souvent caractérisées par leurs attaches quadrangulaires sur lesquelles figure parfois un décor de croix incisée (Fig. 12 : 28–30). D’autres anses à section arrondie présentent un décor de points incisés et reposent sur la partie supérieure de la panse (Fig. 12 : 31). Les amphores de la Méditerranée centrale À partir des données chiffrées des fouilles récentes, il apparaît clairement que les amphores de la Méditerranée centrale sont absentes dans les niveaux de la première phase des secteurs I et III, où dominent en revanche les conteneurs sardes suivis par les amphores phéniciennes. C’est seulement dans le secteur II, plus précisément dans un contexte daté autour du second 60

 Córdoba Alonso et Ruiz Mata 2005, p. 1297, fig. 13.  Cf. respectivement Docter (2007, p. 639) et Córdoba Alonso et Ruiz Mata (2005, p. 1297, fig. 14). 62  Ces observations sont le résultat d’un examen préliminaire fait par Béatrice De Rosa sur certains échantillons à l’aide d’un stéréo microscope (20 et 50X), d’un microscope minéralogique sur des coupes minces et d’analyse minéralogique XRD. Voir pour les caractéristiques des pâtes des amphores Saint’Imbenia : De Rosa 2017. 63  De Rosa et al. 2018, figs. 55–56. 61

AMPHORES DE L’HORIZON PHÉNICIEN À UTIQUE

173

Fig. 13. 32–41 Amphores puniques; 42–45: amphores de l’Extrême Occident.

quart ou du milieu du VIIIe siècle av. J.-C., que ces amphores de type 3.1.1.1 ont fait leur apparition à côté des plats engobés à bord étroit typiques de la Méditerranée centrale et occidentale (Fig. 13 : 32–34). Les données livrées par le puits 20017 d’Utique confirment ce constat, puisque dans ce contexte du dernier quart du IXe siècle av. J.-C. aucun bord de ces premières amphores puniques n’est apparu.64 Cette situation uticéenne nous incite à nous interroger sur la naissance de ces nouvelles amphores à corps ovoïde ou sphérique dans les différentes colonies phéniciennes d’Occident (Carthage, Motyé, Sulcis) ainsi que sur leur modèle d’inspiration. Afin de parvenir à des éléments de réponse, il faut au préalable replacer cette production au sein de son contexte tyrrhénien et plus largement de la Méditerranée centrale. En effet, les études récentes ont montré que dans ce milieu ont circulé les amphores d’Orient et d’inspiration orientale produites dans des établissements occidentaux. À Utique, la documentation disponible montre 64

 López Castro et al. 2016.

174

I. BEN JERBANIA

pour le moment l’arrivée très tôt des modèles amphoriques à épaule carénée et profil pansu ou à tendance ovoïde connus à Hazor ou à Tell Keisan, et qui pourraient constituer une source d’inspiration pour les jarres ovoïdes de type 3.1.1.1.65 Dans ce sens, les recherches menées sur les amphores de Carthage, Motyé et la Sardaigne ont insisté sur le rôle joué par les éléments phéniciens d’Occident dans la transmission et l’adoption des modèles orientaux. J. Ramon par exemple considère que les formes de types 3.1.1.1 rappellent une série de conteneurs localisés dans les strates VII à V de Hazor, alors que celles de types 3.1.1.2 présentent une certaine analogie avec le type 9 Tyr.66 En outre, dans une analyse récente sur les types amphoriques orientaux susceptibles d’avoir servi de modèle pour les premières productions occidentales, T. Pedrazzi a mis l’accent sur la documentation livrée par des sites comme Hazor et Tell Keisan.67 Toutefois, il est lieu d’insister sur le fait que ces amphores orientales sont accompagnées à Utique par un nombre non négligeable d’amphores de type « Sant’Imbenia ». D’où il semblerait possible de considérer que la Sardaigne soit le milieu favorable, comme en témoigne l’exemple de Sant’Imbenia, pour la production dès la fin du IXe siècle av. J.-C. des premiers conteneurs occidentaux, et que ces conteneurs à corps ovoïde et fond bombé, dérivés eux aussi d’un modèle oriental, soient le prototype des productions plus tardives, à l’instar du type 3.1.1.1.68 Ce phénomène d’adoption et de transmission constitue à notre sens le fruit du caractère ‘hybride’ de la composition ethnique et culturelle des premiers établissements occidentaux. L’emporion de Sant’Imbenia est reconnu aujourd’hui comme l’endroit où la rencontre entre Nuraghes et commerçants et artisans orientaux a constitué le vecteur de l’introduction de ces nouveaux conteneurs, ainsi que d’une nouvelle idiologie liée à la consommation du vin.69 En tout état de cause, les contextes d’Utique confirment la quasi dominance des conteneurs sardes à partir de la fin du IXe siècle et pendant la première moitié du siècle suivant, et permettent pour le moment de situer la présence des premières productions de la méditerranée centrale de type 3.1.1.1 au milieu du VIIIe siècle av. J.-C. ou un peu avant, en même temps que leur apparition à Carthage. Il demeure néanmoins nécessaire de distinguer dans le futur, par le biais des analyses archéométriques, la production uticéenne de celle de la métropole punique. Mais il est d’ores et déjà possible de suggérer qu’Utique a constitué dès la fin du IXe siècle av. J.-C. un milieu d’expérimentation grâce à la rencontre entre différentes influences et traditions techniques qui convergent pour donner lieu à de nouveaux modèles de conteneurs locaux. Ainsi la poursuite des fouilles et l’élaboration fine des séquences stratigraphiques permettront de mieux définir les changements et de voir s’il est possible de considérer Utique comme le lieu favorable pour ce phénomène de passage au cours de la 65

 Pour cette idée : cf. également Pedrazzi (2005, p. 468).  Ramon 1995, p. 275. 67  Pedrazzi 2005, p. 468. 68  J. Ramon, suivi par T. Pedrazzi, suggère que les premières amphores de la Méditerranée centrale de type 3.1.1.1 ont comme prototype le modèle autochtone « nuragique ou tyrrhénien » qui dérive lui aussi d’un modèle oriental : Ramon (2000, pp. 285–286) et Pedrazzi (2005, p. 466). 69  Sur cette question, voir l’étude des données matérielles qui ont autorisé I. Oggiano à suggérer une présence des artisans phéniciens à Sant’Imbenia : Oggiano 2000. Cette idée, et ses implications sur le plan culturel et idéologique, a été admise puis développée à maintes reprises par M. Botto et P. Bernardini : voir Botto 2007 et en dernier lieu Bernardini 2014 ; 2016. 66

AMPHORES DE L’HORIZON PHÉNICIEN À UTIQUE

175

première moitié du VIIIe siècle av. J.-C. du prototype sarde vers ce modèle amphorique de la Méditerranée centrale (T.3.1.1.1 Ramon). Sur la base des données quantitatives, nous observons que les amphores puniques commencent à devenir majoritaires dans la troisième et la quatrième phase du secteur I, qui occupent tout le VIIe et le premier quart du VIe siècle av. J.-C. Au courant de cette période, sont attestés les types 3.1.1.1/3.1.1.2, 2.1.1.1 et 2.1.1.2 de la classification de J. Ramon,70 qui correspondent aux Subklasse Karthago I A1, I A2 et I A3 de R. Docter,71 ainsi qu’à la forme B de P. Bartoloni.72 Le modèle 2.1.1.1 remonte surtout à la première moitié du VIIe siècle av. J.-C. (Fig. 13 : 35–37) tandis que celui 2.1.1.2 continue à être produit jusqu’à la fin du VIIe voir le premier quart du VIe siècle. av. J.-C. (Fig. 13 : 38–40).73 Ces deux modèles marquent l’amorce des modifications morphologiques avec le déplacement du diamètre maximum vers le centre et le tiers inférieur de l’amphore. Si les éléments constitutifs du premier modèle 2.1.1.1 sont pour l’essentiel les mêmes qui définissent les premières formes surtout de type 3.1.1.2, en revanche le second modèle 2.1.1.2 se distingue par une variabilité du bord qui pourrait être à section arrondie ou triangulaire et parfois séparé du corps par une incision (Fig. 13 : 39).74 En effet, il s’agit ici des amphores qui ont servi de prototype pour la production des formes suivantes caractéristiques surtout du VIe siècle av. J.-C., à l’instar du type 1.4.2.1 dont certains exemplaires apparaissent à Utique dans les contextes de la quatrième phase du secteur I (Fig. 13 : 41). Les amphores de l’Extrême Occident Bien qu’elles soient présentes à Utique dès la première phase, les amphores de type Ramon 10.1.1.1/10.1.2.1 sont pour le moins minoritaires et leur accroissement relatif n’est apercevable qu’au cours de la seconde et la troisième phase du secteur I. Malheureusement, aucun élément de forme n’est disponible pour la première période, et il faut attendre les phases suivantes pour disposer de certaines indications relatives à la typologie. En effet, dans les niveaux de la première moitié du VIIe siècle av. J.-C. on assiste à une coexistence des types 10.1.1.1 et 10.1.2.1 de la classification de J. Ramon/Formes A1, A2 et A3 de P. Bartoloni. À la première série se rattachent les exemplaires à bord haut parfois séparé de l’épaule haute et hémisphérique par un sillon (Fig. 13 : 42–44). Quant au corps, il est de profil ovoïdal avec un diamètre maximum dans la partie inférieure. Les conteneurs de la deuxième série, 10.1.2.1/Formes A2–A3 Bartoloni, apparaissent durant cette phase et continuent jusqu’à la fin du VIIe siècle av. J.-C. et le début du siècle suivant (Fig. 13 : 45). Une ample diffusion de ces amphores a été soulignée à Carthage, où plusieurs exemplaires issus des niveaux urbains du VIIIe et du VIIe siècle av. J.-C., dont l’aire de production est essentiellement l’aire de Malaga, sont rangés par R. Docter dans les Subklasse CdE A, B et C.75 70

 Ramon 1995.  Docter 1997, pp. 173–181 ; Docter 2007, pp. 621–625. 72  Bartoloni 1988, pp. 31–39, figs. 4–7. 73  Ramon 1995, pp. 177–178. 74  Finocchi 2009, p. 382. 75  Docter 2007, pp. 647–650. 71

I. BEN JERBANIA

176 QUELQUES

REMARQUES FINALES

Au terme de cette analyse du panorama amphorique livré par les contextes de l’horizon phénicien à Utique, il est possible de tirer les enseignements suivants : – Il faut insister sur l’ancienneté des contextes uticéens, que le matériel céramique, auquel s’ajoutent parfois les résultats des analyses 14C,76 leur confère une datation située au dernier quart du IXe siècle et au VIIIe siècle av. J.-C. Ainsi, les conteneurs y attestés, que ce soit d’origine phénicienne ou sarde, et les produits qu’ils ont véhiculés, s’inscrivent dès l’origine dans ce premier trafic actif en Méditerranée centrale. Au sein de ce trafic arrivent les premières amphores orientales à épaule carénée ou plus ou moins arrondie et corps à tendance ovoïdale ou peu allongé, attestées dans la Phénicie ou en Palestine septentrionale, comme à Tell Keisan et Hazor. De la sorte, il convient, au-delà de la définition exacte des centres de production, de souligner que par leurs critères typologiques, les jarres d’Utique s’insèrent parfaitement dans ces modèles orientaux. Elles doivent être considérées parmi les premiers types diffusés en Occident. En effet, les nouvelles données des fouilles récentes effectuées dans maintes colonies phéniciennes révèlent l’apparition des amphores datées du IXe siècle et du VIIIe siècle av. J.-C. Celles classées dans le type 9 Tyr, en dépit de la variabilité de leurs bords, constituent le groupe majoritaire présent à Huelva,77 à Sulky78 et à Motyé.79 – Le phénomène de la diffusion des amphores sardes dans les premiers niveaux des établissements de la Méditerranée centrale et occidentale est bien illustré à Utique à travers la présence d’un lot considérable de ces jarres à corps ovoïde. Il faut placer à notre sens ce phénomène dans le contexte de trafic actif et de contact entre Phéniciens et Autochtones à la fin du IXe siècle av. J.-C. et au début du siècle suivant. Cela permet de mettre en perspective le rôle commercial actif d’un site comme Sant’Imbenia et plus précisément le caractère précoce de la diffusion du vin sarde dans ces conteneurs dérivés d’un modèle oriental.80 En effet la vocation vinaire de ces objets semble être appuyée par les indices indirects relatifs à une production viticole précoce en Sardaigne confirmée par la nouvelle découverte à Sa Osa Cabras–Oristano en rapport avec une culture de Vitis vinifera, située selon les analyses 14 C entre 1286–1115 cal BC 2σ.81 Toutefois, la prudence impose de ne pas considérer comme principe absolu que ces amphores sardes n’ont pu transporter que du vin. En effet, les nouvelles recherches insistent sur le caractère non spécialisé de ces conteneurs et sur les problèmes que posent leurs possibles utilisations secondaires. Dans ce sens, M. Botto a bien 76

 Pour ces analyses 14C d’Utique : cf. López Castro et al. 2016.  González de Canales et al. 2004, pp. 68–69, pl. XIII. 78  Botto 2004–2005, pp. 9–11, fig. 2 : selon cet auteur, les parallèles à cette amphore sont classés à Tyr dans le type 9. D’autres exemplaires similaires, du point de vue forme et pâte, proviennent des strates X–IX de Hazor et strate V de Megiddo. 79  Parmi la céramique de la période IVA (800–750 av. J.-C.) de Motyé, figurent deux amphores levantines de transport. La première Torpedo jar est de type 9 Tyr, alors que la seconde présente une forme ovoïde : cf. Spagnoli (2017, pp. 31–32, figs. 21 et 24). 80  Dans un travail récent I. Oggiano et T. Pedrazzi ont lié la naissance de ces amphores de type « Sant’Imbenia » à un besoin local « de stocker un type de produit destiné à être commercialisé et pour lequel, il n’y avait pas dans la tradition de la céramique locale, un récipient approprié ». Il s’agit du vin de la Nurra produit par la communauté locale : cf. Oggiano et Pedrazzi 2019, p. 243. 81  Ucchesu et al. 2015. 77

AMPHORES DE L’HORIZON PHÉNICIEN À UTIQUE

177

démontré que les amphores dotées d’une surface traitée semblent destinées à contenir des produits liquides, tandis que celles pourvues d’une surface non imperméable sont susceptibles de transporter d’autres produits, tels que le métal.82 Par ailleurs, l’arrivée de ces amphores à Utique en nombre considérable et en association à une vaisselle nuragique traduit la relation directe que ce site a pu entretenir avec la Sardaigne au sein de ce trafic dynamique dans le bassin tyrrhénien auquel ont participé d’autres éléments eubéens et autochtones. Les principaux animateurs de ce trafic sont les Orientaux installés dans les divers établissements de la Méditerranée centrale et occidentale et auprès des locaux. Quant à l’attestation des amphores produites à Sulcis, elle reflète d’abord la rapidité de la transmission de ce modèle de conteneurs ovoïdes d’une communauté à une autre et contribue à mettre en perspective l’expérimentation de ces premières amphores des colonies phéniciennes d’Occident. D’autre part, elle témoigne du rôle que Sulcis a pu jouer dans la diffusion des produits de l’aire sud-occidentale de l’île.

BIBLIOGRAPHIE ANDERSON, W. P. 1988 BARTOLONI, P. 1988 BECHTOLD, B. 2008

Sarepta I. The Late Bronze and Iron Age Strata of Area II, Y (Publications de l’Université libanaise section des ètudes archéologiques 2). Beyrouth : Département des publications de l’Université libanaise. Le anfore fenicie e puniche di Sardegna (Studia Punica 4). Rome : Università degli studi di Roma.

“Observations on the amphora repertoire of Middle Punic Carthage,” Carthage Studies 2 : 1–145. 2015 “Le produzioni di anfore puniche della Sicilia occidentale (VII–III/II sec. a.C.),” Carthage Studies 9 : 1–117. BECHTOLD, B. et DOCTER, R. F. 2010 “Transport amphorae from Punic Carthage : An overview,” dans Motya and the Phoenician Ceramic Repertoire between the Levant and the West, 9th-6th Century BC. Proceedings of the International Conference held in Rome, 26th February 2010 (Quaderni di Archeologia Fenicio-Punica 5), édité par L. Nigro, pp. 85– 116. Rome : Missione Archeologica a Mozia. BEN JERBANIA, I. 2013 “Observations préliminaires sur la céramique archaïque d’Utique,” dans Rapport préliminaire sur les deux premières campagnes de fouilles de la mission franco-tunisienne, 2011 et 2012. Chronique des activités archéologiques de l’École française de Rome (en ligne), édité par J. Y. Monchambert et I. Ben Jerbania, pp. 45–50, http://cefr.revues.org/996 (24 juillet 2013). 2017 “La céramique sarde trouvée à Utique : quelle signification,” Rivista di Studi Fenici XLV : 177–198. 2020 “L’horizon phénicien à Utique,” dans Fenicios entre Útica y Gadir : navigación, colonización y comercio en el Mediterráneo occidental a comienzos del I milenio AC (IXe Colloquio del Centro de Estudios Fenicos y Púnicos, Almería, 2015), édité par J. L. López Castro, pp. 31–54. Granada : Editorial Comares. 82

 Botto 2015, p. 180.

178

I. BEN JERBANIA

BEN JERBANIA, I. et REDISSI, T. 2014 “Utique et la Méditerranée centrale à la fin du IXe et au VIIIe s. av. J.-C. : les enseignements de la céramique grecque géométrique,” Rivista di Studi Fenici XLII/2 : 177–203. BERNARDINI, P. 2000 “I Fenici nel Sulcis. La necropoli di San Giorgio di Portoscuso e l’insediamento del Cronicario di Sant’Antioco,” dans La ceramica fenicia di Sardegna. Dati, problematiche e confronti. Atti del Primo Congresso Internazionale Sulcitano (Collezione di Studi Fenici 40), édité par P. Bartoloni et L. Campanella, pp. 29–62. Rome : Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche. 2014 “Tra Nuragici e Fenici. Incontro di culture nei primi secoli dell’età del Ferro,” dans La Sardegna nuragica. Storia e materiali, édité par A. Moravetti, E. Alba et L. Foddai, pp. 167–178. Sassari : Carlo Delfino. 2016 “I Fenici sulle rotte dell’Occidente nel IX sec. a.C. Cronologie, incontri, strategie,” Cartagine. Studi e Ricerche 1 : 1–40. BIKAI, P. M. 1978 The Pottery of Tyre. Warminster : Aris and Phillips. 2004 “Phoenician ceramics from the Greek sanctuary,” dans Kommos IV. The Greek Sanctuary, Vol. I, édité par J. W. Shaw et M. Shaw, pp. 302–312. Princeton : Princeton University Press. BOTTO, M. 2004–2005 “Da Sulky a Huelva : considerazioni sui commerci fenici nel Mediterraneo antico,” Annali Istituto Orientale di Napoli 11–12 : 9–27. 2007 “I rapporti fra la Sardegna e le coste medio-tirreniche della penisola italiana : la prima metà del I millennio a.C.,” dans Etruschi, Greci, Fenici e Cartaginesi nel Mediterraneo centrale (Atti del XIV Convegno Internazionale di Studi sulla Storia e l’Archeologia dell’Etruria, Orvieto 2007), édité par G. M. Della Fina, pp. 75–136. Orvieto : Fondazione per il Museo Claudio Faina. 2015 “Ripensando i contatti fra Sardegna e Penisola Iberica all’alba del I millennio a.C. Vecchie e nuove evidenze,” Onoba 3 : 171–204. BRIEND, J. et HUMBERT, J. B. 1980 Tell Keisan (1971–1976). Une cité phénicienne de Gallilée (Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis Series Archaeologica 1). Fribourg : Éditions universitaires. BUHL, M. L. 1983 Sukas VII. The Near Eastern Pottery and Objects of Others Materials from the Upper Strata (Publications of the Carlsberg Expeditions to Phoenicia 9). Copenhagen : Det Kongelige Danske Videnskabernes Selskab. CÓRDOBA ALONSO, I. et RUIZ MATA, D. 2005 “El asentamiento fenicio arcaico de la calle Cánovas del Castillo (Cádiz). Un análisis preliminar,” dans El Período Orientalizante. Actas del III Simposio Internacional de Arqueología de Mérida : Protohistoria del Mediterráneo Occidental (Anejos de Archivo Español de Arqueología 35), édité par S. Celestino et J. Jiménez Ávila, pp. 1269–1322. Mérida : Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas et Consorcio de Mérida. DE JONGHE, M. et TEKKI, A. 2013 “Le sondage I–3,” dans Rapport préliminaire sur les deux premières campagnes de fouilles de la mission franco-tunisienne, 2011 et 2012. Chronique des activités archéologiques de l’École française de Rome (en ligne), édité par J. Y. Monchambert et I. Ben Jerbania, pp. 25–30, http ://cefr.revues.org/996 (24 juillet 2013). DE ROSA, B. 2017 Percorsi ceramic. Analisi archeometriche e technologiche sulle ceramiche di Sant’Imbenia (Officina Etruscologia 14). Rome : Officina Edizioni. DE ROSA, B., GARAU, E. et RENDELI, M. 2018 “Interaction by design : Relation between Carthage and North Western Sardinia,” dans Cartagine fuori da Cartagine : Mobilità nord Africana nel Mediterraneo

AMPHORES DE L’HORIZON PHÉNICIEN À UTIQUE

DOCTER, R. F. 1997 2007

FINKELSTEIN, I. 1999 FINOCCHI, S. 2009

179

centro-occidentale fra VIII e II sec. a.C. Atti del Congresso Internazionale, Ravenna, 30 Novembre – 1 Dicembre 2017 (Byrsa. Scritti sull’Antico Oriente Mediterraneo 33–34), édité par A. Ch. Fariselli et R. Secci, pp. 49–78. Lugano : Agora and Co. Archaische Amphoren aus Karthago und Toscanos. Fundspektrum und Formentwicklung. Ein Beitrag zur phönizischen Wirtschaftsgeschichte. Amsterdam : Universiteit van Amsterdam. “Archaische Transportamphoren,” dans Karthago. Die Ergebnisse der Hamburger Grabung unter dem Decumanus Maximus (Hamburger Forschungen zur Archaeologie 2), édité par H. G. Niemeyer, R. F. Docter et K. Schmidt, pp. 616–662. Mayence : P. von Zabern. “Hazor and the North in the Iron Age : A low chronology perspective,” Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 314 : 55–70.

“Le anfore fenicie e puniche,” dans Scavi di Nora I. Nora, il foro romano. Storia di un’area urbana dell’età fenicia alla tarda antichità 1997–2006, Vol. II.I, I Materiali preromani, édité par J. Bonetto, G. Falezza et A. F. Ghiotto, pp. 373– 467. Padoue : Università degli Studi di Padova. GONZÁLEZ DE CANALES, F., SERRANO PICHARDO, L. et LLOMPART GÓMEZ, J. 2004 El emporio fenicio precolonial de Huelva (ca. 900–770 a.C.). Madrid : Biblioteca Nueva. GUIRGUIS, M. “Il repertorio ceramico fenicio della Sardegna : Differenziazioni regionali e spe2010 cificità evolutive,” dans Motya and the Phoenician Ceramic Repertoire between the Levant and the West, 9th-6th Century BC. Proceedings of the International Conference held in Rome, 26th February 2010 (Quaderni di Archeologia FenicioPunica 5), édité par L. Nigro, pp. 173–210. Rome : Missione Archeologica a Mozia. LEZINE, A. 1970 Utique. Tunis : Société Tunisienne de Diffusion. LÓPEZ CASTRO, J. L., FERJAOUI, A., MARTINEZ HAHNMÜLLER, V., MEDEROS MARTÍN, A. et BEN JERBANIA, I. “Los Inicios de la colonización fenicia en el Mediterráneo central. Nuevas 2016 excavaciones arqueológicas en Utica (Túnez),” Trabajos de Prehistoria 73 : 68–89. MAASS-LINDEMANN, G. 1995 “Zur Gründungsphase der Phönikischen Niederlassung auf dem Morro de Mezquitilla,” Madrider Mitteilungen 36 : 241–245. OGGIANO, I. 2000 “La ceramica fenicia di S. Imbenia (Alghero–SS),” dans La ceramica fenicia di Sardegna. Dati, problematiche e confronti. Atti del Primo Congresso Internazionale Sulcitano (Collezione di Studi Fenici, 40), édité par P. Bartoloni et L. Campanella, pp. 235–258. Rome : Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche. OGGIANO, I. et PEDRAZZI, T. 2019 “Contacts et interactions entre « Phéniciens » et Sardes au début du Ier millénaire av. J.-C.  : le cas des amphores vinaires,” dans Les Phéniciens, les Puniques et les Autres. Échanges et identités en Méditerranée ancienne, édité par L. Bonadies, I. Chirpanlieva et E. Guillon, pp. 223–257. Paris : Éditions de Boccard. PEDRAZZI, T. 2005 “Modelli orientali delle anfore fenicie arcaiche d’Occidente,” dans Atti del V Congresso internazionale di studi fenici e punici, Marsala–Palermo, 2000, édité par A. Spanò Giammellaro, pp. 463–471. Palerme : Università degli Studi di Palermo.

180 POMPIANU, E. 2010

I. BEN JERBANIA

“I Fenici a Sulky : nuovi dati dal vano iie dell’area del Cronicario,” Sardinia, Corsica et Baleares Antiqvae 8 : 27–36.

RAMON TORRES, J. 1995 Las ánforas fenicio-púnicas del Mediterráneo central y occidental (Col·lecció Instrumenta 2). Barcelone : Universitat de Barcelona. 2000 “Ánforas fenicias en el Mediterráneo central : nuevos datos, nuevos perspectivas,” dans La ceramica fenicia di Sardegna. Dati, problematiche, confronto (Atti del Primo Congresso Internazionale Sulcitano, Sant’Antioco, 1997), édite par P. Bartoloni et L. Campanella, pp. 277–292. Rome : Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche. RUIZ MATA, D. 1986 “Las cerámicas fenicias del Castillo de Doña Blanca (Puerto de Santa Maria, Cádiz),” dans Los Fenicios en la Peninsula Iberica I–II, édité par G. Del Olmo Lete et M. E. Aubet, pp. 241–263. Sabadell : Ausa. SAGONA, A. G. 1982 “Levantine storage jars of the 13th to the 4th century B.C.,” Opuscula Atheniensia 14 : 73–110. SHAW, J. W. 2000 “The Phoenician shrine, ca. 800 B.C., at Kommos in Crete,” dans Actas del IV Congreso internacional de Estudios Fenicios y Púnicos, Cádiz, 1995, édité par M. Barthélemy et M. E. Aubet, vol. III, pp. 1107–1119. Cádiz : Universidad de Cádiz. SPAGNOLI, F. 2017 “The pottery repertoire of Motya IVA (800–750 B.C.),” dans Landing on Motya. The Earliest Phoenician Settlement of the 8th Century B.C. and the Creation of a West Phoenician Cultural Identity in the Excavations of Sapienza University of Rome 2012–2016 (Quaderni di archeologia fenicio-punica CM 04), édité par L. Nigro et F. Spagnoli, pp. 24–43. Rome : Università di Roma « La Sapienza ». TORRES ORTIZ, M., LÓPEZ ROSENDO, E., GENER BASALLOTE, J. M., NAVARRO GARCÍA, M. A. et PAJUELO SÁEZ, J. M. 2014 “El material cerámico de los contextos fenicios del “Teatro Cómico” de Cádiz : un análisis preliminar,” dans Los fenicios en la Bahía de Cádiz. Nuevas investigaciones (Collezione di Studi Fenici 46), édite par M. Botto, pp. 51–82. Rome : Fabrizio Serra editore. UCCHESU, M., ORRU, M., GRILLO, O., VENORA, G., USAI, A., SERRELI, P. F. et BACCHETTA, G. 2015 “Earliest evidence of a primitive cultivar of Vitis vinifera L. during the Bronze Age in Sardinia (Italy),” Vegetation History and Archaeobotany 24/5 : 587–600. YADIN, Y., AHARONI, Y., AMIRAN, R., BEN-TOR, A., DOTHAN, T., DUNAYEVSKY, I., GEVA, S. et STERN, E. 1961 Hazor III–IV. The Third and Fourth Season 1957–1958. Jerusalem : Hebrew University. YADIN, Y., AHARONI, Y., AMIRAN, R., DOTHAN, T., DUNAYEVSKY, I. et PERROT, J. 1960 Hazor II. The Second Season 1956. Jerusalem : The Magnes Press.

Imed BEN JERBANIA Institut National du Patrimoine Tunis

FROM POTTER’S KILN TO SEAFARING: UNDERWATER PUNIC AMPHORAE FROM WESTERN SICILY Francesca OLIVERI and M. Pamela TOTI ABSTRACT Described by the sources as great sailors crafty pirates, and prime actors of maritime and commercial expeditions around the Mediterranean basin and the ocean routes, Phoenicians linked their fate to the sea. In addition to the ‘endless shoddy goods’ mentioned by the swineherd Eumaeus,1 the undisputed protagonist of their ships was the amphora: a common transport container of perishable food products, now a tool for archeology to trace the established network of Mediterranean connections identified in this remote area of Sicily. Though, at present underwater discoveries of Punic amphorae are not very numerous, this work will examine published and unpublished artefacts including both occasional finds and the results of systematic research. Special attention is given to those coming from the submerged causeway of Motya, from the wreck of Porto Palo di Menfi and the area of the Battle of the Egadi Islands. Types are related to forms, dating from the fourth century BCE onwards, of which a good number of materials could be attributed to African productions. Notwithstanding the obvious limitations concerning the availability of information, we will endeavour to relate the amphora materials of marine origin to those, similar in type, of terrestrial origin.

Phoenicians, described by ancient sources as great sailors, crafty pirates and leading actors of maritime and commercial expeditions around the Mediterranean basin and the ocean routes, linked their fate to the sea. In addition to the commerce of ‘endless shoddy goods’, referred to in the Odyssey by the swineherd Eumaeus,2 on Phoenician ships, like on any other vessel of the time, amphorae had a starring role. This common transport container for food products is the tool allowing us to reconstruct the commercial communication network between the shores of Mediterranean. From the excavations of the city of Mozia, for example, we know that amphorae were used in a funerary function for infant burial.3 It is well established that in the household they were used as containers for small objects, often loom weights.4 Finally, amphorae were also identified in productive areas, where they were used both to make water supply ducts,5 and as containers for raw materials.6

 Homer, Odyssey 15.415–484.  Homer, Odyssey 15.415–484. 3  Whitaker 1921, p. 252, fig. 34; Ciasca 1979, p. 247, fig. 10; Tusa 1978, pp. 58, 59 and 61. In the nearby Birgi necropolis, in addition to near complete containers, the use of large body fragments of amphorae is also attested among infant burials. 4  Rossoni 2002, p. 318. Also, Joseph Whitaker, during excavations he carried out in the town centre, found at least one amphora containing loom weights. 5  In the so-called ‘Luogo di Arsione’, Tusa 1978, p. 76. 6  Zona K, with raw clay inside to be used for the nearby atéliers productions. Falsone 1988, p. 15, fig. 1: 4. 1 2

182

F. OLIVERI

– M. P.

TOTI

Fig. 1. Map showing sites where Punic amphorae have been discovered.

It is, however, permissible that underwater amphora finds are indicative of the container’s primary function, that being the transportation of solid or liquid foodstuffs. It is also logical to suppose that those marine finds were part of homogeneous ship loads, perhaps, not because of the contents, but certainly for chronology. At present, underwater discoveries of Punic amphora types are not very numerous; in most cases these are chance finds, useful to increase awareness on the circulation of amphora types, but providing very little information on the composition of ship loads. The amphorae of this contribution come from the northwestern coasts of Sicily (Fig. 1), an area affected by Phoenician colonisation, and are almost always result of sporadic finds, mostly occurring in the second half of the last century. Materials, already known, published and preserved in local museums will be reviewed.7 In particular, three sites, which were recently systematically excavated, will be examined including the site of the Battle of the Egadi (First Punic War), the ‘underwater causeway’ of Mozia and the shipwreck of Porto Palo di Menfi found in the province of Agrigento. On the northern coast of Sicily, the objects found in the waters of the Island of Ustica, only 30 mi away from the Phoenician colony of Sys, present day Palermo, illustrate the history of navigation from the archaic age to present day. Very frequently, however, as it happens in most underwater sites, the objects were indiscriminately removed from the seabed and only a small number were delivered to museums. However, it was possible to identify, among others, two wrecks with Punic amphorae dating to the second century BCE.8 These 7

 Ramon Torres 1995.  Purpura 1986, p. 145; Sarà 1999, p. 87.

8

FROM POTTER’S KILN TO SEAFARING

183

containers (Fig. 5: 27) belong to productions so far identified only in the North African area,9 and especially those recovered from the wreck of Secca della Colombaia10 were almost certainly manufactured in the Tunisian Sahel (Fig. 4: 23 and Fig. 5: 28–29). In the same area, although related to a production from a century earlier, Punic amphorae (Fig. 2: 14) were recovered from a ship wrecked along the coast of Terrasini.11 A large number of amphorae come from the waters facing the ‘coast of Trapani,’ a fairly extensive area, but without more specific information it is not possible to know whether the materials were found along the coast or were recovered offshore. In this section of the sea, the oldest Phoenician-Punic amphora of marine origin has been found (Fig. 2: 1),12 dating to the second quarter of the sixth century BCE, and is now preserved in the Salinas Museum in Palermo. The main place of production of this type has been identified in the Balearic Islands, which may be the amphora’s place of origin on the basis of clay description. However, in the Phoenician colony of Motya local productions have also been identified.13 Regarding other specimens (Fig. 2: 4–5), all well documented types14 in the Punic villages of Sicily, dating between the fifth and the third centuries BCE, almost certainly come from Sicilian workshops. In particular, type 7.1.2.1 (Fig. 2: 8) has been identified as a production of Solunto’s workshops, and other amphorae of this type and origin may be identified among the finds of the excavations carried out in Motya.15 Almost certainly a production of Lilybeum’s workshops is an amphora (Fig. 4: 17) on display in the Torre di Ligny exhibition in Trapani. This amphora is comparable to containers found in the funerary space of Lilybeum in contexts dating to the end of the fourth century BCE.16 The same origin is conceivable for the specimen preserved among the Whitaker Collection in Motya.17 These materials, except for the oldest Phoenician amphora known in the area, appear to have been manufactured in Sicily which suggests that these finds belonged to ships moving from the Trapani coast to other markets. It is a plausible supposition, but it is destined to remain only a working hypothesis as the provenance of these finds is generally referred to as the ‘sea of Trapani’ with no indication as to whether the materials were found along the coast or recovered in the open sea. From the waters off the island of Levanzo (Egadi Islands), where in 241 BCE the Battle of the Egadi took place at the end of the First Punic War, come the most interesting finds of the northwestern Sicilian coast. Thanks to modern technology, and the contribution of 9

 Ramon Torres 1995, T–7.5.3.1.  Purpura 1975; Purpura 1986, p. 145; Ramon Torres 1995, T–7.5.1.1, T–7.5.2.2, T–7.5.2.1. 11  Ramon Torres 1995, p. 123, T–7.1.1.1. 12  Ramon Torres 1995, T–1.3.2.1; Sarà 1999, p. 87. 13  Toti 2002b, p. 278, type 4. 14  In chronological order: Ramon Torres 1995, T–4.1.1.2, preserved in the Antiquarium of Ustica. In the Cordici Museum of Erice: Ramon Torres 1995, T–4.2.1.6 and T–4.1.1.2, both are dated between the second half of the fifth and the first half of the fourth century BCE; Ramon Torres 1995, T–7.1.2.1, second half of the fourth century BCE and T–9.2.1.2, third century BCE. Burdua 2004, pp. 31–32. 15  Toti 2002b, p. 295, type 20. 16  Bechtold 1999, p. 162, AC 7. 17  Toti 2011, p. 38, n. 35. 10

F. OLIVERI

184





– M. P.

TOTI



 









Fig. 2. 1) T–1.3.2.1: Second–last third of the sixth century BCE; 2) T–2.2.1.1: Fifth century BCE; 3) T–2.2.1.2: End of the fifth–fourth century BCE; 4) T–4.1.1.2: End of the fifth–fourth century BCE; 5) T–4.2.1.6: End of the fifth–fourth century BCE; 6) T–4.2.2.6: End of the fifth–fourth century BCE; 7) Toti 18: End of the fifth–fourth century BCE; 8) T–7.1.2.1 First quarter–second quarter of fourth century BCE; 9) T–6.1.1.2: Mid-fourth–late third centuries BCE.

FROM POTTER’S KILN TO SEAFARING

185

the RPM Nautical Foundation, it has been possible to recover from deep waters, not only the famous bronze rostra, helmets and weapons, but also ceramic materials related to life on board. Out of a total of 308 amphorae detected by ROV on the seabed and mapped following the 2014 survey, 278 are Greco-Italics of the MGS V–VI type and only 33 are attributable to Punic typologies,18 Ramon T–3.2.1.2 (Fig. 3: 13). There are different opinions about the place of production of this amphora type19 which is present throughout the Mediterranean and also attested through the finds of the city of Lilybaeum.20 The Egadi amphorae distribution is scattered over an area of at least 1 km and relates to an event whereby amphorae were spilled out of moving vessels at/or near the surface. It is yet to be determined the exact extent of this amphorae distribution. The mix of amphorae with other artifacts in the distribution, particularly the warship rams, further supports that warships were carrying supplies during this operation and were likely Carthaginian vessels. There were likely more ateliers and almost certainly some amphorae found in the Lilybaeum excavations, based on the clay, are of Maltese production. Currently lacking an analysis on the composition of the clay of the containers found in the sea, their origin cannot be established with certainty. It would suggest that this could be a real Maltese production possibly linked to the presence of Maltese people on the Carthaginian ships or using products from those islands. Probably, however, the amphorae found in Levanzo were made on the North African coast which represents the place best suited to artifacts related to the equipment on board of the Carthaginian ships. Regarding the Greco-Italic amphorae, noteworthy is the presence of a stamp with the grapheme bet on the handle of one of them and a graffiti with two letters of the Punic alphabet scratched on the shoulder of another (perhaps the case of reused containers? Or the evidence of the usage of this type of amphora also among the Punic population?).21 Remaining in the province of Trapani, in the first decade of this century the Soprintendenza del Mare of Sicily carried out the first scientific surveys on the so-called ‘Submerged Causeway’ of Mozia.22 The dam/pier/road artery was built in the sixth century BCE by the inhabitants of the island to offer a further point of mooring and to facilitate the connection with the mainland in order to transport building material and foodstuffs to the island-city. Both products came from the coastal area in front of the island where a settlement interpreted as a ‘continental extension of Mozia’s habitat’ regulated the transit of goods, men and materials to the island.23 18

 Oliveri 2017.  Ciasca 1985. 20  Bisi 1971, pp. 689–690; Di Stefano (1993, p. 46), objects from the necropolis. The Whitaker Collection includes other specimens most likely from Lilybaeum. Toti 2011, n. 18–22 and 36. 21  Oliveri 2016b, pp. 213–214; samples of these series of amphorae have been analised by Prof. Capelli of the University of Genoa. Thin sections have revealed that the amphorae samples are Italic productions and come from different ateliers. Except for one of uncertain origin (Northeast Sicily), all the others have volcanic inclusions and can clearly be attributed to the areas between southern Tuscany and Campania. 22  Oliveri and Toti 2018. 23  Ciasca 1990, p. 9. 19

F. OLIVERI

186

– M. P.

TOTI





 







Fig. 3. 10) Toti 19: End of the fifth–fourth century BCE; 11) T–4.2.1.5: Mid-fourth–end of the third century BCE; 12) T–5.2.3.1: Mid-fourth–end of the third century BCE; 13) T–3.2.1.2: Third century BCE; 14) T–7.1.1.1: Third century BCE; 15) T–5.2.3.2: Third–second century BCE; 16) T–9.2.1.2: Third–second century BCE.

FROM POTTER’S KILN TO SEAFARING

187

This site is a structure located a little below the water surface and only partially covered by a thin layer of sediment. It was still used for the transit of carts until the 1970s. Consequently, only a few, very worn out ceramic fragments were discovered. However, they are useful to document the use of this transit way during the last years of Mozia’s existence, but also after its destruction in 397 BCE. Most of these fragments have been recognised as amphora types dating from the late fifth to early fourth century BCE. Toti 18 (Fig. 2: 7) and Toti 19 (Fig. 3: 10)24 amphora types were well documented in the excavations of Mozia. They were produced on the island in the kilns found along the fortifications which were concentrated in the northeastern part of the settlement.25 They were likely used to trade food products which were destined for an external market. The town of Mozia was destroyed in 397 BCE by the Syracusan troops. Although after a year, the territory returned to Carthaginian hands, the island town was not reconstructed. Probably only a few areas were resettled, both for housing and for productive purposes, and all the residential, production and command activities were transfered to Lilybeum. For this reason, the number of dwellings on the island declines and the evidence of containers from the third and second centuries BCE,26 recovered during the surveys on the road, are less relevant (Fig. 3: 11–12 and Fig. 4: 21–22). However, they are linked to the finds of similar types in nearby Lilybaeum27 and to two amphorae of the Whitaker Collection,28 both coming from Stagnone Lagoon. Surveys carried out in the waters around Cape Boeo, at one of Lilybaeum’s harbours, identified a possible shipwreck with Punic amphorae (Fig. 4: 19 and Fig. 4: 21) of probable African production, T–7.3.1.1 and T–7.4.2.1.29 The same typology is attributable to another two amphorae,30 found in the same waters, for which the relevance to a ship load was not specified, but of which the content was reported. One of them contained dried fruit, while the inner sides of the other were covered by a thick layer of lime. This suggests that the original content was wine which was produced in Carthage which was, undrinkable, according to Pliny,31 because of the use of lime to soften the taste. Although not in context, mention should be made of the amphorae retained in the Regional Archaeological Museum ‘Lilibeo-Baglio Anselmi’ of Marsala, which come from the Strait of Sicily, a large stretch of sea that has always been crossed by commercial ships and fishing vessels. And into the nets of the latter, shipowners of Mazara del Vallo end up with the most diverse finds: from the famous Satyr bronze statue to the more ‘common’ ceramic containers, among which are also Punic productions. The most interesting are the older typologies, 24

 Toti 2002b, pp. 290–295.  Falsone 1981; Toti 2002a. 26  Ramon Torres 1995, T–4.2.1.5/5.2.3.1, T–7.4.2.1/7.4.3.1 types, plus only one fragment of T–7.3.2.1. 27  Musella 2009, p. 43, fig. 9; Palazzo and Vecchio 2013, p. 142. 28  Toti 2011, p. 37. 29  Frost 1976, pp. 161–164; Ramon Torres 1995, p. 129. 30  Falsone and Bound 1986, p. 169. 31 Naturalis Historia 36.166. 25

F. OLIVERI

188

– M. P.

TOTI





 







Fig. 4. 17) AC7: Third–second century BCE; 18) T–7.2.1.1: End of the third–second century BCE; 19) T–7.3.1.1: End of the third–second century BCE; 20) T–7.3.2.1: First half of the second century BCE; 21) T–7.4.2.1: First half of the second century BCE; 22) T–7.4.3.1: First half of the second century BCE; 23) T–7.5.2.1: First half of the second century BCE; 24) T–7.6.1.1: First half of the second century BCE.

FROM POTTER’S KILN TO SEAFARING

189

among which are two containers (Fig. 2: 3 and Fig. 2: 6) that were likely produced in Solunto. An additional specimen of T–2.2.1.1 (Fig. 2: 2) was also discovered and dated between the fifth and the fourth centuries BCE (T–2.2.1.2 and T–4.2.2.6) based on clay observation.32 It would have been very interesting to know whether it was possible to associate this amphora with the other materials. However, most of the finds are framed within the series 7.0.0.0 which highlights the presence, among the different containers produced in the North African area, of one possible Sicilian production (T–7.1.2.1) (Fig. 2: 8) and two amphorae manufactured in the Strait of Gibraltar (T–7.4.3.3) (Fig. 5: 26). Also of note, the type Bechtold AC8 (Fig. 5: 30)33 also documented among the finds of the Lilibeo and Segesta excavations, was rightly assumed to represent a Lilybaeum production, possibly linked to olive oil, partly due to its limited distribution.34 There are several recoveries of Punic amphorae from the waters around the island of Pantelleria, a key hub for trade between Africa and Sicily. Two locations on the eastern coast have been included in the present contribution as they have been subject to extensive investigations, enabling us to reconstruct the loads of the various wrecks which are similar in composition and dating. In Cala Gadir it was possible to identify three shipwrecks, dating from the middle of the third to the first century BCE, where Punic amphorae35 are associated with Greco-Italic or Dressel amphorae. The amphorae from the first two wrecks (Fig. 3: 11–12, Fig. 4: 18–22 and Fig. 5: 25) are likely to be North African productions, while the containers coming from the third and later wreckage (Fig. 4: 23–24 and Fig. 5: 27) were almost certainly produced in the Strait of Gibraltar area and probably contained fish sauce. The two wrecks so far identified in Cala Tramontana are dated between the middle of the third and the middle of the second century BCE (Fig. 3:11–13, Fig. 3:15, Fig. 4: 18, Fig. 4: 21, Fig. 4: 23 and Fig. 5: 31). Their load, in addition to Punic amphorae of North African production, was composed of Greco-Italic and Dressel amphorae.36 From the coastal area between Selinunte and Sciacca come several amphorae relevant to Punic typologies. They are likely to be of North African production (Fig. 1: 9, Fig. 3: 12, Fig. 5: 25 and Fig. 5: 29) dating from the middle of the fourth to the end of the second century BCE, but, so far, it has not been possible to connect them to the loads of any known wreck.37 32

 Amphorae of similar type and clay have been noted among those from Mozia. Toti 2002b, pp. 285 and 297.  Bechtold 1999, p. 162. Similar containers have also been identified in the Whitaker Collection: Toti 2011, p. 38, n. 28–34. Amphorae of the same typology come from a shipwreck found off Porticello, Palermo, close to the Formica Rock, Purpura 1986, p. 143. Furthermore, amphorae similar to the same type have been found in the Apollonia (Monte San Fratello) excavations in the province of Messina, Bonanno 2008, p. 47, tab. 9: f–g. 34  Bechtold 2008, p. 567. 35  Ramon Torres 1995, T–4.2.1.5, T–5.2.3.1, T–7.2.1.1 (Gadir I); Ramon Torres 1995, T–7.3.1.1, T–7.4.1.1, T–7.4.2.1/3.1 (Gadir II); Ramon Torres 1995, T–7.5.2.1/2.2, T–7.6.1.1 (Gadir III); Baldassari and Fontana 2006. 36  Baldassari 2012; Ramon Torres 1995, T–7.2.1.1, T–6.1.1.3, T–4.2.1.5, T–3.2.1.2, T–5.2.3.1/3.2 (Tramontana A); Ramon Torres 1995, T–5.2.3.1/3.2, T–7.4.2.1/3.1, T–7.2.1.1, T–7.5.2.1 (Tramontana B). 37  From the sea off Selinunte comes a T–6.1.1.2, Ramon Torres 1995, p. 130. Still unpublished are the T–5.2.3.1, T–7.4.4.1 and T–7.5.2.2 amphorae, preserved in the Town Hall Palace of Sciacca (Ag). 33

F. OLIVERI

190

– M. P.

TOTI











 

Fig. 5. 25) T–7.4.4.1: End of the second–first century BCE; 26) T–7.4.3.3: End of the second–first century BCE; 27) T–7.5.3.1: End of the second–first century BCE; 28) T–7.5.1.1: End of the second–first century BCE; 28) T–7.5.1.1: End of the second–first century BCE; 29) T–7.5.2.2: End of the second–first century BCE; 30) AC8: End of the second–first century BCE; 31) T–6.1.1.3: End of the second–first century BCE; 32) T–7.5.2.3: First century BCE.



FROM POTTER’S KILN TO SEAFARING

191

In conclusion, Punic amphorae were found in a wreck that was identified and excavated off the harbour area of Porto Palo di Menfi about ten years ago.38 Together with the Punic part of the load, represented by the T–7.5.1.1 and T–7.5.2.2 amphorae (Fig. 5: 28–29) which were dated to the end of the second and the beginning of the first century BCE, Dressel 1 amphorae were recovered. It is conceivable that the small Punic amphorae were stored in the empty spaces between the Roman containers. It was possible to recover the contents of the Punic amphorae which consisted of crushed murex shells and fish bones. The first, in addition to the well-known use for purple dye production, were used for the preparation of plaster, while the vertebrae of tunafish are evidence of the allex trade, a poor quality product derived from filtering the much more expensive garum. It can be assumed that the ship that sank in Porto Palo was sailing between Sicily and North Africa, during the late second to the beginning of the first century BCE, operating small trade along the coasts of Roman Sicily or between Sicily and Africa with an intermediate stop. We can assume a starting port in Africa and a stop in Lampedusa and/or Pantelleria before a probable continuation toward Sicily. With regard to the circumstances surrounding the sinking of the ship, it is likely that the cause of the disaster was a fire as the ceramics were often found in groups and covered with an ashy sediment. Probably a traumatic event upset the normal loading, resulting in the destruction of the ship. From this quick review, it is clear how most of the amphorae are chronologically framed between the third and the first centuries BCE. The amphorae were produced in the area of Carthage and were probably intended to contain wine or olives for the Sicilian/Italian markets. These amphorae succeeded to reach the markets of destination, as evidenced by the finds of the the oldest strata of Lilybaeum and the discoveries made in different locations of Pantelleria.39 It is a pity that the finds from the Trapani coast, which are the oldest and which appear to be of Sicilian production, almost contemporary with those of the Sicilian Phoenician colonies, do not provide useful data to identify the dynamics of maritime trade in the most active commercial period of Mozia and Solunto (for example did the exchanges between the two cities take place by sea instead of by land?). The amphorae found in the waters of Levanzo certainly were part of the standard equipment on board of a Carthaginian warship. The presence of Punic symbols on the Greco-Italic types suggests the possibility of a mixed presence of amphorae, though we lack information about the contents of these containers. As for the Punic amphorae, samples have been analised by Professor Caponetti and his team at the University of Palermo through gas chromatography/mass spectrometry (GC/MS) in the analysis of organic residues and the use of biomarkers to identify the original source materials which formed those residues. GC/MS analysis allowed for the identification, among other compounds, of fatty acids, mostly oleic acid and resin sealants. The most abundant 38  Oliveri 2016a. Some of the Punic amphorae bear stamps, but only one bears a caduceus between two letters: Oliveri 2016b, p. 214. 39  Baldassari 2006.

F. OLIVERI

192

– M. P.

TOTI

compound was oleic acid, which is one of the main constituents of olive oil, so the amphorae examined were carrying oil.40 The amphorae found on the ‘submerged causeway’ of Mozia, especially those produced locally, probably ended up in the water, falling from the carts that transported them from the island to the mainland. Perhaps they were empty, ready to be filled with products from the countryside, or were lost while loading the boats that carried them to other markets. Later amphorae, of African production, testify to the fact that still after 397 BCE, albeit sporadically, Mozia was inhabited. The amphorae also suggest that for certain foodstuffs, including wine, imported products were preferred to local ones. Obviously, we can not exclude a reuse of the containers, so that they could actually contain any kind of foodstuff. Finally, in the case of the Porto Palo wreck, the contents may also reveal the social class of the users. It is, in fact, a ‘by-product,’ surely for a non-elite market. We currently have no data to suggest a local production of these products, although the presence among the finds of bituminous stones from the Agrigento area could suggest that the ship sank while it was sailing to Africa, fully loaded. So, in this case, the amphorae of African production would be reused for Sicilian products, demonstrating, once again, the long life of the amphora, similar to the ‘plastic bag’ ante litteram.

BIBLIOGRAPHY BALDASSARI, R. 2006 “Ricerche archeologiche al santuario del Lago di Venere. Le anfore e la ceramica comune da mensa,” in Pantelleria Punica. Saggi critici sui dati archeologici e riflessioni storiche per una nuova generazione di ricerca, edited by E. Acquaro and B. Cerasetti, pp. 150–155. Bologna: Antequem. 2012 “Le anfore da trasporto e la ceramica,” in Archeologia subacquea a Pantelleria « … de Cossurensibus et Poenis navalem egit…», edited by L. Abelli, pp. 191–212. Bologna: Antequem. BALDASSARI, R. and FONTANA, S. 2006 “Le anfore di Pantelleria tra l’età punica e la prima età romana,” in Pantelleria Punica. Saggi critici sui dati archeologici e riflessioni storiche per una nuova generazione di ricerca, edited by E. Acquaro and B. Cerasetti, pp. 41–62. Bologna: Antequem. BECHTOLD, B. 1999 La necropoli di Lilybeum. Palermo: Regione Siciliana Assessorato dei Beni Culturali e Ambientali e della Pubblica Istruzione. 2008 “Anfore puniche,” in Segesta III. Il sistema difensivo di Porta di Valle (scavi 1990–1993), edited by R. Camerata Scovazzo, pp. 539–580. Mantova: Insegna del Giglio. BISI, A. M. 1971 “Lilibeo (Marsala). Nuovi scavi nella necropoli punica (1969–1970),” Notizie degli Scavi di Antichità XXV/2: 689–690. BONANNO, C. 2008 Apollonia. Indagini archeologiche sul Monte di San Fratello – Messina 2003–2005. Roma: «L’Erma» di Bretschneider. BURDUA, A. 2004 Il Museo Antonio Cordici di Erice. Paceco: Abate. 40

 Pitonzo et al. 2017, pp. 67–70.

FROM POTTER’S KILN TO SEAFARING

CIASCA, A. 1979 1985

193

“Scavi alle mura (campagna 1979),” Rivista di Studi Fenici VIII/2: 237–252. “Note sulla distribuzione di alcune ceramiche maltesi,” Bulletin Archéologique du Comité des travaux historiques et scientifiques 19–B (Actes du IIe colloque international sur l’histoire et l’archéologie de l’Afrique du Nord, Grenoble 5–9 avril 1983): 17–24. 1990 “Sulle necropoli di Mozia,” Sicilia Archeologica XXIII/72: 8–11. DI STEFANO, C. A. 1993 Lilibeo punica. Marsala: Centro Socio-Culturale Luigi Sturzo. FALSONE, G. 1981 Struttura e origine orientale dei forni da vasaio di Mozia. Palermo: Fondazione Whitaker. 1988 “La scoperta, lo scavo, il contesto archeologico,” in La statua marmorea di Mozia e la scultura di stile severo in Sicilia. Atti della giornata di studio, Marsala 1 giugno 1986, edited by N. Bonacasa and A. Buttitta, pp. 9–28. Roma: «L’Erma» di Bretschneider. FALSONE, G. and BOUND, M. 1986 “Archeologia subacquea a Marsala,” in Archeologia Subacquea 3 (Bollettino d’Arte Supplemento 37–38), edited by P. A. Gianfrotta, pp. 161–175. Roma: Istituto Poligrafico dello Stato. FROST, H. 1976 Lilybeum. The Punic Ship. Final Excavation Report (Notizie Scavi di Antichità Supplemento 30). Roma: Istituto Poligrafico dello Stato. MUSELLA, V. 2009 “La ceramica,” in Città di Marsala. Area archeologica dell’ex chiesa di San Girolamo, edited by P. di Maria and M. C. Cusenza, pp. 40–43. Marsala: Comune di Marsala. OLIVERI, F. 2016a “Il relitto di Porto Palo di Menfi,” in Mirabilia Maris. Tesori dai mari di Sicilia, edited by S. Tusa and F. Agneto, pp. 155–159. Palermo: Regione Siciliana, Assessorato dei Beni Culturali e dell’Identità Siciliana, Dipartimento dei Beni Culturali e dell’Identità Siciliana. 2016b “Testimonianze epigrafiche dai mari di Sicilia,” in Le iscrizioni con funzione didascalicoesplicativa. Committente, destinatario, contenuto e descrizione dell’oggetto nell’Instrumentum Inscriptum, Atti del VI Incontro Instrumenta Inscripta, Aquileia 26–28 marzo 2015, edited by M. Buora and S. Magnai, pp. 205–226. Trieste: Editreg. 2018 “I reperti punici della battaglia delle Egadi,” in From the Mediterranean to the Atlantic: People, Goods and Ideas between East and West. 8th International Congress of Phoenician and Punic Studies, Sant’Antioco, 2013 (Folia Phoenicia 2), edited by M. Guiguis, pp. 85–90. Pisa-Roma: Fabrizio Serra. OLIVERI, F. and TOTI, M. P. 2018 “Materiali architettonici e ceramici dalla strada sommersa di Mozia,” in From the Mediterranean to the Atlantic: People, Goods and Ideas between East and West. 8th International Congress of Phoenician and Punic Studies, Sant’Antioco, 2013 (Folia Phoenicia 2), edited by M. Guiguis, pp. 42–48. Pisa-Roma: Fabrizio Serra. PALAZZO, P. and VECCHIO, P. 2013 “Il decumano massimo di Lilibeo: ipotesi di periodizzazione di un settore urbano della città antica,” in Epigrafia e territorio. Politica e società. Temi di antichità romane IX (Document e Studi 54), edited by M. Chellotti and M. Silvestrini, pp. 135–170. Bari: Edipuglia. PITONZO, R., ARMETTA, F., SALADINO, M. L., CAPONETTI, E., OLIVERI, F. and TUSA, S. 2017 “Application of gas chromatography coupled with mass spectroscopy (GC/MS) to the investigation of ceramic amphorae belonging to the Carthaginian fleet that was defeated in the Egadi Battle (241 BCE),” ACTA IMEKO 6/3: 67–70. PURPURA, G. 1975 “Alcuni rinvenimenti sottomarini lungo le coste della Sicilia Nord-Occidentale,” Sicilia Archeologica 28–29: 57–84.

F. OLIVERI

194

– M. P.

TOTI

“Rinvenimenti sottomarini nella Sicilia Occidentale,” in Archeologia Subacquea 3 (Supplemento Bollettino d’Arte 37–38), edited by P. A. Gianfrotta, pp. 139–160. Roma: Istituto Poligrafico dello Stato. RAMON TORRES, J. 1995 Las anforas fenicio-punicas del Mediterraneo central y occidental (Col·lecció Instrumenta 2). Barcelona: Universitat de Barcelona. ROSSONI, G. 2002 “Pesi da telaio,” in Mozia. Gli scavi nella Zona A dell’abitato, edited by M. L. Famà, pp. 315–320. Bari: Edipuglia. SARÀ, G. 1999 “Osservazioni su due ceppi di ancora e su alcune anfore puniche della collezione subacquea del Museo Archeologico A. Salinas,” Quaderni del Museo Archeologico Regionale ‘Antonino Salinas’ 5: 85–90. TOTI, M. P. 2002a “Produzione vascolare di officine dell’isola di Mozia,” in Da Pyrgi a Mozia. Studi sull’Archeologia del Mediterraneo in memoria di Antonia Ciasca, edited by M. G. Amadasi Guzzo, P. Liverani and P. Matthiae, pp. 555–565. Roma: Università degli Studi di Roma “La Sapienza”, Dipartimento di Scienze Storiche Archeologiche e Antropologiche dell’Antichità, Sezione Vicino Oriente. 2002b “Anfore fenicie e puniche,” in Mozia. Gli scavi nella “Zona A” dell’abitato, edited by M. L. Famà, pp. 275–305. Bari: Edipuglia. 2011 “Anfore,” in La Collezione Whitaker. Vol. II, edited by L. Nigro, pp. 31–85. Palermo: Fondazione Whitaker. TUSA, V. 1978 “La necropoli arcaica e adiacenze. Relazione preliminare degli scavi eseguiti a Mozia negli anni 1972, 1973, 1974,” in Mozia IX. Rapporto preliminare della Missione congiunta con la Soprintendenza alle Antichità della Sicilia Occidentale, edited by A. Ciasca, pp. 7–98. Roma: CNR. WHITAKER, J. I. S. 1921 Motya. A Phoenician Colony in Sicily. London: G. Bell and Sons. 1986

Francesca OLIVERI Soprintendenza del Mare Regione Sicilia Italy

M. Pamela TOTI Fondazione Whitaker Museo G. Whitaker Italy

TRANSPORT AMPHORAE AND THE HISTORICAL SPACE: CITY – CHORA – HINTERLAND Rebecca KLUG ABSTRACT A large number of amphorae, from different origins, were found in the Greek colonies in Sicily and South Italy. Most of them were found in funerary contexts, like in Himera. However, there are also some finds in the cities themselves, as we can see in Selinus and Cuma. Greek transport amphorae are found, not only inside the towns and the necropolis, but also in the Hinterland, like in the chora of Gela. Furthermore, they were found in non-Greek contexts, like indigenous and Punic sites. The amphorae provide extensive information, not only about the ancient economy, but also about intercultural contexts. However, what about the non-Greek amphorae? This paper deals with the distribution of the Punic amphorae to build a starting point for comparative study of Punic and Greek transport amphorae.

INTRODUCTION Transport amphorae are the pottery group most directly connected to ancient trade and the entire ancient economy. Though they are no articles of trade themselves, they serve as containers for these. By researching the distribution of different amphora types, it is possible to understand trade connections, trading routes and the increase of local productions. One result of the Greek Colonisation was an increase in trade between Greece and the western Mediterranean region. Hence, a research project had to deal with the distribution of different Greek amphora types in Sicily and south Italy first. Sicily and south Italy serve as examples because the Greek Colonisation directly influenced both areas. The Greek settlements enforced exchange and contacts between diverse cultures which can be seen in changes in their respective material culture. Therefore, I focussed on Greek amphorae, found in Greek and non-Greek contexts, and information that they provide on the type of exchange within the Greek world on the one hand, and between the Greeks and non-Greeks on the other hand. In addition to trading aspects, intercultural questions have to be discussed, too. These matters pose two basic questions: Firstly, which amphora types arrived in the Greek settlement? Secondly, was there a strong connection with the mother city? Then, a comparison between the cities and the chora, the hinterland used for agricultural purposes, and the non-Greek areas had to be taken into consideration.

I. DISTRIBUTION

OF AMPHORA TYPES IN

GREEK SETTLEMENTS

To answer these questions, amphora finds from 250 sites were analysed. The distribution of the different types, the proportions at the different sites and the changes in the sixth

R. KLUG

196

century BCE show that the relation between mother city and apoikia is less important for the exchange system.1 Instead, Corinthian A amphorae are most widely distributed in Sicily as well as in south Italy in general. Corinthian A amphorae can be found on more than 90 per cent of the researched Greek sites. This is only comparable with the distribution of the western Greek amphora type. However, other Greek types are common, too. Attic amphorae were found at roughly 84 per cent of the sites in Sicily and 75 per cent in south Italy, whereas other types of mainland Greece are rather scarce. Comparable with the distribution of the Attic amphorae is the distribution of eastern Greek types.2 The similar composition of the finds at most of the sites shows, in combination with the heterogeneous cargo in the ships, that the most significant aspect of ancient trade are the so-called tramp shipping routes. Therefore, the goods and the traders do not necessarily have the same origin.

II. DISTRIBUTION

OF AMPHORA TYPES IN NON-GREEK SETTLEMENTS

The analysis of the amphora finds on non-Greek sites gives us another picture. In general, the composition of the finds is more heterogeneous. The western Greek amphora type seems to be the most important. Seventy five per cent of the researched sites in south Italy do have amphorae of this type, but only 52 per cent of the sites in Sicily. Comparable with the distribution of the western Greek amphorae in Sicily is the distribution of Corinthian A amphorae in Sicily with almost 50 per cent. On the contrary, in south Italy this type was detected only at 30 per cent of the sites. All other types are less common. Instead, the third important group are the Punic amphorae. Almost one third of the non-Greek sites in Sicily had Punic amphorae, in south Italy there are lesser sites with Punic amphorae. In conclusion, it seems that western Greek amphorae are the most common type in the non-Greek areas in Sicily as well as in south Italy.3 The western Greek amphorae serve as evidence of a mainly regional trade. The amphora types belonging to the Greek mainland and eastern Greece are, in general, scarce; the evidence for long distance trade is therefore scarce as well. The non-Greek settlements seemed to focus on regional trade and to participate less than the Greek settlements in long distance trade.

III. BEGINNING OF THE

WESTERN

GREEK

AMPHORA PRODUCTION

Agriculture is another important part of the ancient economy, and amphora production is an important indicator of agricultural activity. This time, the original western Greek amphorae come to the fore. The beginning of their production dates back to the first half of the sixth century BCE.4 Already in the second half of the same century these amphorae are present in nearly all Greek and non-Greek settlements. 1

 Klug 2012, pp. 115–122.  Klug 2012, p. 100. 3  Klug 2012, pp. 101–102. 4  Sourisseau 2009, pp. 185 and 189. 2

TRANSPORT AMPHORAE AND THE HISTORICAL SPACE

197

The ancient necropolis of Naxos is a very good example of the influence of the western Greek amphora production from its beginning. The northern necropolis dates from the eighth to the sixth century BCE. There are very few tombs, a total of 11, datable to the eighth century BCE. Sixty belong to the seventh century BCE and another 83 to the sixth century.5 Not all of these tombs were enchytrismoi burials, but more than 50 amphorae were usable for the research question. Analysing the necropolis as a whole, about 30 per cent of the amphorae are imports from the Greek mainland and 16 per cent from the eastern Greek area, mainly the islands. Most of the amphorae, nearly 50 per cent belong to the western Greek production. Nevertheless, it is possible to divide the seventh and the sixth century BCE and to compare them.6 In the seventh century BCE, almost 60 per cent of the amphorae originate from the Greek mainland, 14 per cent are of eastern Greek production and almost 30 per cent are Etruscan.7 As the production of the western Greek amphorae began in the sixth century BCE, there are none of these in the seventh century BCE. In contrast, in the sixth century BCE, more than 60 per cent of the amphorae are of western Greek production.8 The percentage of the eastern Greek amphorae is almost the same, but the Greek mainland types, specially Corinthian A amphorae, have only a share of 21 per cent. However, the number of Greek mainland amphorae is consistent. Therefore, the western Greek amphorae do not replace other amphora types, which means that long distance trade did not decrease in the sixth century BCE. To verify that this result is also transferable to south Italy, one has to analyse the finds from Cumae. Two contexts, datable to the Archaic period, were analysed and compared. The first context is datable to the second half of the seventh century until the first half of the sixth century BCE, but there were only 21 amphorae detected. The second context, with 160 amphorae, belongs mainly to the second half of the sixth century BCE.9 In the first context, almost 50 per cent of the amphorae are of Greek mainland origin, mainly Corinthian A. Other types are rather scarce. There are no western Greek amphorae. In the second context, Greek mainland amphorae and western Greek amphorae can be found equally.10 The beginning of the western Greek amphora production in the sixth century BCE, and the wide distribution of Greek amphorae in nearly all contexts from the beginning of production, provides evidence for an increase in agricultural production and, therefore for surplus production. However, not only the amount of agricultural production increased during this time, but the quality increased as well. Otherwise, there would be no interest in the goods of the neighbouring cities. However, a third group seems to be very important in Cumae, in contrast to the results of Naxos. Around 20 per cent of the amphorae are of Punic origin.11 Therefore, their distribution within the Greek cities is also of interest. 5

 Lentini 1986.  Klug 2012, p. 61. 7  Lentini 1986, pp. 420–421; Klug 2012, p. 61. 8  Lentini 1986, p. 423; Klug 2012, p. 62. 9  Savelli 2006. 10  Klug 2012, pp. 81–82. 11  Klug 2012, p. 82. 6

R. KLUG

198

Fig. 1. Sicily: Investigated sites with Punic amphorae.

IV. DISTRIBUTION

OF

PUNIC

AMPHORAE IN

SICILY

Starting again with Sicily, Punic amphorae were found on 33 sites, Greek sites as well as non-Greek sites (Fig. 1). One hundred and eighty sites were analysed in Sicily. One hundred and thirty one of these are small sites in the hinterland of the Greek cities. At 13 Greek sites, Punic amphorae were found: Agrigento,12 Contrada Gargi di Cenere 2,13 Casa di q 483 (Contrada Monaci),14 Forra del S. Leonardo (Contrada Pergola),15 Contrada Sannita,16 Gela,17 Hercleia Minoa,18 Himera,19 Camarina,20 Lipari,21 Messina,22 Milazzo23 and Selinus.24 Only a few Greek cities do not have Punic amphorae at all. In contrast, in the hinterland, especially 12

 De Miro 1989, p. 29; Cali 2003, p. 153; Lima 1995, pp. 337–389.  Cuocco 2002, pp. 327–328. 14  Lauro 2009, pp. 101–102. 15  Lauro 2009, pp. 71–73. 16  Lauro 2009, pp. 75–77. 17  Panvini 1998. 18  Calì and Sturicale 2000. 19  Vassallo 1993–1994; Daniele 2008; Amico 2008; Badagliacca 2008; Esposito 2008. 20  Pelagatti 2006; Sourisseau 2006. 21  Cavalier 1985. 22  Bacci 1977; Spagnolo 2002. 23  Sabbione 1986. 24  Dehl-von Kaenel 2003. 13

TRANSPORT AMPHORAE AND THE HISTORICAL SPACE

199

in the farmsteads, the Punic types seem to be limited to the western part of the island. On non-Greek sites the distribution seems wider. Punic amphorae were found at 19 sites: il Pozzo (Ciminna),25 Colle Madore,26 Contrada Ciampanella 78,27 Contrada Ciampanella 82,28 Contrada Ciampanella 84,29 Vallone Favara (Contrada Favara),30 Vallone Piscina (Contrada S. Rosalia),31 Cozzo Sanita,32 Entella,33 Makella,34 Monte Maranfusa,35 Monte Saraceno,36 Mozia,37 Palermo,38 Ramacca,39 Segesta,40 Serra di Puccia,41 Solunto42 and Vassallaggi.43 Punic amphorae were also part of the cargo of the shipwreck found at Punta Braccetto.44 Greek settlements: Selinus and Himera For the Greek cities, Selinus is used as a case study. The amphora finds of two contexts are usable for this analysis (Fig. 2). First the ‘Ladenzeile’ which produced 37 amphorae from the first half to the middle of the sixth century BCE.45 The majority of the amphorae are coming from the Greek mainland. Almost 40 per cent are of the Corinthian A type, only 3 per cent are Attic. Nearly one quarter of the finds are of east Greek origin and 30 per cent belong to the western Greek production. In the ‘Ladenzeile,’ there are no Punic amphorae.46 The second context dates into the fifth century BCE.47 Ninety one amphorae were found there: Greek mainland types, eastern Greek types, western Greek types and Punic types. The last two groups both have a share of about 34 per cent. Amphorae connected to the Greek mainland in this context have only a share of approximately 14 per cent, east Greek production only 11 per cent.48 A comparison between these two contexts shows that the import had changed completely in the course of 100 years. The formerly most important group, the Greek mainland types, play only a minor role in the fifth century. However, this fact cannot be related to a reduced import of Greek mainland amphorae. Indeed, the number of

25

 Lauro 2009, pp. 180–182.  Polizzi 1999. 27  Burgio 1998, pp. 125–126. 28  Burgio 1998, pp. 127–129. 29  Burgio 1998, pp. 130–132. 30  Lauro 2009, pp. 134–135. 31  Lauro 2009, pp. 112–114. 32  Lauro 1997. 33  Corretti and Capelli 2003. 34  Termini 1997. 35  Fresina 2003. 36  Denti 1985. 37  Toti 1997; Fama and Toti 2000. 38  Tamburello 1969. 39  Albanese Procelli 2003. 40  Bechtold 2008. 41  Burgio 2002. 42  Greco 1997; Alaimo et al. 2003. 43  Pizzo 1998–1999. 44  Di Stefano 1993–1994. 45  Dehl-von Kaenel 2003, p. 238. 46  Dehl-von Kaenel 2003; Klug 2012, p. 63. 47  Dehl-von Kaenel 2003, p. 442. 48  Dehl-von Kaenel 2003, p. 442; Klug 2012, p. 63. 26

R. KLUG

200 45

40.5 40

37.8

39.6 34.1

35.2

35

30.7

Percentage

30 25.6

25

34.1

29.7

24.3

24.1

23.3

20 15.3

14.3

15

13.9

14.0

11 10

8.3

5

2.7

5.8

0.7 0 Corinthian

Attic

Greek mainland

eastern Greek

western Greek

Punic

Amphora Selinus

Selinus "Ladenzeile"

Selinus "Raubgrube"

Siciliy

Fig. 2. Amphora types in Selinus.

amphorae from this area, as well as of the eastern Greek areas, does not change. Therefore, the changes in the percentages are not a sign of declining contact with the Greek mainland, but a sign of increasing local production on the one hand and other trading contacts on the other hand. The new trading contacts maybe enforced by the Punic settlements in western Sicily or more directly by Carthage itself. Himera is the second case study. It is possible to compare the city with the necropolis and the Hinterland, even if the statistical data of the necropolis is not yet complete. Therefore, the statistical research focuses on the city itself and the hinterland. Almost 190 amphorae of the ancient city are published.49 One third are of Greek mainland production, mostly from Athens. One quarter are of western Greek production and another 20 per cent of east Greek origin. In contrast to the other Greek sites in Sicily, there are very few Corinthian A amphorae in the city.50 However, there are hundreds of these in the two necropolises. In total, the largest of the Greek mainland groups are, therefore, like in nearly all cases, the Corinthian A amphorae. Beside them, there are also other types, such as Etruscan and Punic amphorae.51 Several small sites in the hinterland of ancient Himera have produced amphora finds, too. The date and interpretation of these sites is not always clear, but some of them are interpretable as farmsteads. In general, the number of amphora finds from these sites is rather small and often there is only one type, sometimes two. Twenty nine sites in the hinterland

49

 Vassallo 1993–1994; Daniele 2008; Amico 2008; Badagliacca 2008; Esposito 2008.  Klug 2012, pp. 53–55. 51  Vassallo 1999. 50

TRANSPORT AMPHORAE AND THE HISTORICAL SPACE

201

of Himera were included into this research.52 The western Greek amphora type is most common, they were found on 23 sites, followed by Punic amphorae at eight sites. Other types are rather scarce. Indeed, in the hinterland of the Greek cities, the amphora finds are less heterogeneous. More often, there are only one or two types, mainly Corinthian A and western Greek amphorae. Only a small part of the amphorae which arrived at the ports of the Greek cities reached the inland. The smalller amount of Corinthian A amphorae in the city of Himera and in the hinterland, too, can be contrasted with the situation in Camarina. A huge amount of Corinthian A amphorae from Camarina were found in the necropolis, however, there are almost no finds from the city. Moreover, even in the hinterland, traces of Corinthian A amphorae are scarce. Maybe the situation is the result of the reuse of the amphorae, especially the Corinthian amphorae, for enchytrismoi tombs. Non-Greek settlements: Colle Madore, Entella and Solunto Turning to the non-Greek sites in Sicily, the indigenous settlement at Colle Madore should be analysed first because of its location next to Himera and the excellent trading possibilities. Inside a sanctuary, datable to the sixth century BCE, 40 amphorae of different origins were found.53 Each of the eight researched amphorae groups were detected here (Fig. 3). Differences to the other non-Greek sites are striking. Only in Ramacca do we have the same result. The largest group in Colle Madore are the western Greek amphorae (16), followed by Greek mainland types (10), including Corinthian A, à la brosse and Laconian. Instead, SOS amphorae are missing for chronological reasons. Furthermore, there are eastern Greek amphorae, North Aegean amphorae, as well as Punic and Etruscan types, all in lesser amounts.54 Another example is the site of Entella. More than 100 amphorae were found inside the settlement.55 Eighty five of these are part of this research. The rest were excluded because of chronological reasons. The western Greek amphorae are dominant, more than 70 per cent belong to this type, followed by the Punic amphora types at 22 per cent. Corinthian amphorae are the only Greek mainland type and were rather scarce, with less than five per cent.56 The importance of the Punic amphorae is not surprising because of the proximity to the Punic settlements. In the hinterland of Entella, at least in the third century BCE, the Punic amphorae are also common.57 A third case study is Solunto, a Punic settlement. One hundred and four amphorae were found in the necropolis, all are datable between the fifth and the third century BCE.58 Most, about 60 per cent are of Punic origin. In some areas of the site, the production of amphorae

52

 Klug 2012, pp. 55–56.  Polizzi 1999. 54  Klug 2012, pp. 65–67. 55  Corretti and Capelli 2003. 56  Klug 2012, p. 67. 57  Klug 2012, p. 68. 58  Greco 1997; Alaimo et al. 2003. 53

R. KLUG

Percentage

202 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0

40 39.6

35.2 25 23.3 10

10

7.5

8.3

12.5

14.0

7.5

5

5.8

4.1

1.3

Corinthian

Attic

mainland Greece

eastern Greek

north Aegean

western Greek

Punic

Etruscan

Amphora Colle Madore

Sicily

Fig. 3.  Amphora types in Colle Madore.

took place at Solunt itself. Among the group of the Greek amphorae, the western Greek type is the most common.59

V. COMPARISON

BETWEEN

GREEK

AND NON-GREEK SETTLEMENTS IN

SICILY

As a result, at least for Sicily, it seems clear, that inside the Greek settlements, the Greek amphorae, especially the Corinthian, the Attic and western Greek types, are the most important, even if there are also non-Greek types. There seems to be no difference as to whether the researched context is a settlement or a necropolis, despite the proportion of Corinthian and Attic amphorae. In the chora of the Greek settlements, the number of amphorae is smaller as well as the range of types. However, there are differences between the researched areas. In the hinterland of Gela, there are the same types as in the city of Gela. However, to a lesser extent, in the hinterland of Himera, there are mostly western Greek and Graeco-Italic amphorae. Others, like the Corinthian, normally common, are rare. This may provide a clue regarding of the use of the hinterland in Archaic times. In the non-Greek settlements, the picture is comparable to the Greek hinterland. There are less amphorae, and less diverse types. Nevertheless, there are exceptions, like Colle Madore. Most common are the Corinthian and western Greek amphorae. Punic amphorae were found across the whole Sicily, and not only in the Punic areas. However, there are more Punic amphorae in western Sicily. 59

 Klug 2012, pp. 69–70.

TRANSPORT AMPHORAE AND THE HISTORICAL SPACE

203

Fig. 4. Campania: Investigated sites with Punic amphorae.

VI. DISTRIBUTION

OF THE

PUNIC

AMPHORAE IN

CAMPANIA

In Campania, 21 sites where researched for this project. Three Greek sites revealed Punic amphora remains: Cuma,60 Elea61 and Pithekoussai (Fig. 4).62 Only at one non-Greek site, Roccagloriosa, were Punic amphorae detected.63 There are also less sites with Punic amphorae in Campania than in Sicily, but there are less sites researched for this project. A fifth of the researched sites have Punic amphorae. This is comparable to the situation in Sicily. Greek settlements: Cuma, Pithekoussai and Elea Due to the fact that only three Greek sites have Punic amphorae, all of them should be mentioned shortly. The results for Cuma were mentioned above. Whereas in the first context, datable to the second half of the seventh and first half of the sixth century BCE, there 60

 Savelli 2006.  Gassner 2003, p. 132. 62  Di Sandro 1996. 63  Arthur 1990. 61

R. KLUG

204 60 47.6

50

39.6

Percentage

40 33.3 31.5

35.2

30

28.8 21.9

20

27.5

24.7

23.3

20.2

20 14.3 7.9

10

14.0 8.8

8.3

1.1

0

Attic

5.8

9.4 4.8

6.9 Corinthian

21.9

mainland Greece

eastern Greek

1.3 1.3

north Aegean

4.8 western Greek

Punic

2.3

4.8 4.1 1.9

Etruscan

Amphora

Cuma

Cuma Feature 1

Cuma Feature 2

Sicily

Fig. 5. Amphora types in Cuma.

is only one Punic amphora. In the second context, datable to the second half of the sixth century, there are at least 36.64 One fifth of the material of the second context are, therefore, Punic amphorae (Fig. 5). Three hundred and twenty three amphorae found in Pithekoussai were used for this research project.65 One quarter of the amphorae are Greek mainland types (12.7 per cent Attic, 10.2 per cent Corinthian, 1.6 per cent other types), and another quarter is of western Greek production. Eastern Greek types (13 per cent) follow these. Punic amphorae only represent 5.6 per cent. The composition of the finds is comparable to the Sicilian average.66 For Elea, absolute numbers of the amphora finds are missing, but the composition of the material is published.67 More than half of the amphorae are of western Greek production. Beside the examples of the Elean production, there are amphorae of Poseidonia, Rhegion and of the Ionic–Adriatic coast. Most of the western Greek amphorae were produced in Poseidonia (27 per cent) and in the territory of Poseidonia (39 per cent), whereas only five per cent were produced in Elea.68 Amphorae from the Greek mainland are surprisingly rare. Only three per cent can be identified as Corinthian imports, and none as Attic. More important seems to be the connection to the east Greek island, 23 per cent are of east Greek production (13 per cent Chian, ten per cent Samian). Punic amphorae are scarce with only three per cent. 64

 Savelli 2006, pp. 121–122 and 124–126.  Di Sandro 1986. 66  Klug 2012, pp. 82–84. 67  Gassner 2003, p. 132, fig. 61. 68  Gassner 2003, p. 133, fig. 62. 65

TRANSPORT AMPHORAE AND THE HISTORICAL SPACE

205

ϰϱ ϰϬ

ϯϵ͘ϲ

ϯϱ͘Ϯ

ϯϱ

Ϯϴ͘ϲ

Percentage

ϯϬ Ϯϱ

Ϯϳ͘ϲ

Ϯϯ͘ϯ

ϮϬ ϭϱ

ϭϬ

ϭϰ͘Ϭ ϲ͘ϳ

ϲ͘ϳ ϱ͘ϴ

Ϯ͘ϵ

ϱ Ϭ ŽƌŝŶƚŚŝĂŶ

ŵĂŝŶůĂŶĚ'ƌĞĞĐĞ

ĞĂƐƚĞƌŶ'ƌĞĞŬ

ǁĞƐƚĞƌŶ'ƌĞĞŬ

WƵŶŝĐ

Amphora ZŽĐĐĂŐůŽƌŝŽƐĂ

^ŝĐŝůLJ

Fig. 6. Amphora types in Roccagloriosa.

A non-Greek settlement: Roccagloriosa Roccagloriosa is one of the Lucanian settlements which was fortified in the fourth century BCE. The settlement had its period of prosperity between the end of the fourth and the beginning of the third century BCE.69 The studied amphorae, 120 in total, belong to different contexts including the oppidum, the necropolis and the hinterland.70 There seems to be no significant difference between the composition of the material inside the settlement and inside the necropolis, with one exception: there are no Punic amphorae inside the necropolis.71 In contrast, Punic amphorae represent almost 28 per cent of the entire assemblage. Only slightly higher is the proportion of western Greek amphorae at almost 29 per cent.72 Other types are scarce. Only 6.7 per cent are Corinthian, and 2.9 per cent east Greek (Fig. 6).

VII. COMPARISON

BETWEEN

GREEK AND NON-GREEK

SETTLEMENTS IN

CAMPANIA

A comparison between the Greek and the non-Greek settlements in Campania is more difficult than for Sicily. Three of the four Greek sites do have Punic amphorae, and only one of the 17 non-Greek sites. Therefore, it is clear, that the Punic amphorae in Campania 69

 Gualtieri 1996.  Arthur 1990, p. 278. 71  Klug 2012, p. 86. 72  Klug 2012, p. 87, fig. 7: 30. 70

R. KLUG

206

are not as important as in Sicily. The percentage of Punic amphorae varies between the different sites. In Pithekoussai (5.6 per cent) and Elea (3 per cent), there are only few Punic amphorae, whereas in Cuma (20 per cent) and in Roccagloriosa (28 per cent), their share is higher. It is difficult to get a general idea of the distribution of the Punic amphorae in Campania. The data is not enough for a valid interpretation.

VIII. DISTRIBUTION

OF

PUNIC

AMPHORAE IN

BASILICATA AND CALABRIA

The number of researched sites in these two regions is rather small. Only 13 sites in the Basilicata and 14 in Calabria were analysed for this research. Therefore, the number of sites with Punic amphorae is small. Consequently, it is only possible to give a brief overview of which sites had Punic amphorae and which other types were found at these sites. In the Basilicata, Punic amphorae were only detected on non-Greek sites: Marsico Nuovo,73 Oppido Lucano,74 Pomarico Vecchio75 and Torre di Satriano.76 Oppido Lucanois remarkable as only Punic amphorae were found. The other sites have at least western Greek amphorae. Pomarico Vecchio as well as Torre di Satriano also yielded Greek mainland types. Only three sites in Calabria had Punic Amphorae, including two Greek sites, Kaulonia77 and Metauros,78 and one non-Greek site, Hipponion.79 At Kaulonia, a variety of types were detected. Next to the Punic amphorae are Corinthian A and Attic SOS in addition to Attic à la brosse. From the eastern Greek area, Chian amphorae are attested and from the northern Aegean, examples come from Thasos and Mende. Metauros demonstrated less diverse types than Kaulonia, but the material was still heterogenous. Corinthian A, SOS, Chian, western Greek and Punic amphorae are attested. It is not possible to speak about the numbers of amphorae or the percentage of the diverse types, because the numbers are lacking in the publications. Hipponion is not comparable to both Greek settlements. Here, only Punic amphorae are known.80

OUTLOOK Because the research project was limited to Greek transport amphorae in intercultural trade, the Punic amphorae were not studied in detail, but rather sampled. It is, therefore, not possible to give a conclusion about their distribution. It is necessary to analyse the data of the researched sites again, this time with a focus on the Punic types in order to understand their distribution across several areas and periods. 73

 Vandermersch 1994, p. 236, n. 41.  Lissi Caronna 1983; Lissi Caronna 1985. 75  Barra Bagnasco 1997, pp. 201–208. 76  Klug 2012, p. 137. 77  Vandermersch 1989, pp. 90–109; Tomasello 1972. 78  Sabbione 1981. 79  Iannelli 1989. 80  Iannelli 1989, pp. 5–10. 74

TRANSPORT AMPHORAE AND THE HISTORICAL SPACE

207

At this stage, it is only possible to make some general remarks. In Sicily, Punic amphorae are widely distributed, more widely than in the other south Italian regions. This is not surprising if one takes the Punic settlements in Sicily into account. Therefore, it seems not unusual that the smaller sites in the hinterland of Entella have more Punic amphorae than western Greek amphorae or Greek mainland types. Indeed, more surprising is the high proportion of Punic amphorae in some Greek settlements, in Sicily as well as in south Italy, especially Selinus and Cuma.

BIBLIOGRAPHY ALAIMO, R., MONTANA, G. and ILIOPOULOS, I. 2003 “Le anfore puniche di Solunto: discriminazione tra produzioni locali ed importazioni mediante analisi al microscopio polarizzatore,” in Quarte Giornate Internazionali di studi sull’area elima: Erice, 1–4 dicembre 2000. Atti 1, edited by A. Corretti, pp. 1–9. Pisa: Scuola Normale Superiore di Pisa. ALBANESE PROCELLI, R. M. 2003 “Anfore commerciali dal centro indigeno della Montagna di Ramacca (Catania),” in Archeologia del Mediterraneo. Studi in onore di Ernesto de Miro, edited by G. Fiorentini, M. Caltabiano and A. Calderone, pp. 37–50. Rome: L’«Erma» di Bretschneider. AMICO, A. 2008 “Il Blocco 2,” in Himera V. L’abitato, edited by N. Allegro, pp. 75–130. Palermo: Università di Palermo. ARTHUR, P. 1990 “Amphorae,” in Roccagloriosa I. L’abitato: scavo e ricognizione topografica (1976– 1986), edited by M. Gualtieri and H. Fracchia, pp. 278–289. Naples: Centre Jean Bérard. BACCI, G. 1977 “Ceramica dell’VIII e VII secolo a. C. a Messina,” Cronache di archeologia e di storia dell’arte 17: 100–103. BADAGLIACCA, F. 2008 “Il Blocco 3,” in Himera V. L’abitato, edited by N. Allegro, pp. 131–170. Palermo: Università di Palermo. BARRA BAGNASCO, M. 1997 Pomarico Vecchio I. Abitato, mura, necropoli, materiali. Galatina: Congedo. BECHTOLD, B. 2008 “Anfore puniche,” in Segesta III. Il sistema Difensivo di Porta di Valle (Scavi 1990– 1993), edited by R. Camerata Scovazzo, pp. 539–580. Mantova: Società archeologica padovana. BECHTOLD, B. and VASSALLO, S. Le anfore puniche dalle necropoli di Himera. Seconda metà del VII - fine del V sec. a.C. 2018 (Babesch Supplement 34). Leuven: Peeters. BURGIO, A. 1998 Resuttano (Forma Italiae, Serie I, Vol. 42). Firenze: Arbor Sapientiae. 2002 “La Media e l’alta valle dell’Imera,” in Himera III. Vol. 2. Prospezione archeologica nel territorio, edited by O. Belvedere, A. Bertini, G. Boschian, A. Burgio, A. Contino, R. M. Cucco and D. Lauro, pp. 212–222. Rome: L’«Erma» di Bretschneider. CALÌ, V. 2003 “Anfore di trasporto,” in Agrigento. Vol. II. I Santuari extraurbani. L’Asklepieion, edited by E. De Miro, pp. 153–158. Soveria Mannelli: Rubbettino.

208

R. KLUG

CALÌ, V. and STURICALE, S. C. 2000 “Eraclea Minoa. Saggi Archeologici,” Quaderni di Archeologia a cura dell’Università degli studi di Messina 1/2: 41–64. CAVALIER, M. 1985 Les amphores du VIe au IVe siècle dans les fouilles de Lipari. Naples: Centre Jean Bérard. CORRETTI, A. and CAPELLI, C. 2003 “Entella. Il Granaio ellenistico (SAS 3). Le anfore,” in Quarte Giornate Internazionale di studi sull’area elima: Erice, 1–4 dicembre 2000. Atti 1, edited by A. Corretti, pp. 287–351. Pisa: Scuola Normale Superiore. CUOCCO, R. M. 2002 “Il territorio tra il fiume Imera e il Torrente Roccella,” in Himera III. Vol. 2. Prospezione Archeologica nel Territorio, edited by O. Belvedere, A. Bertini, G. Boschian, A. Burgio, A. Contino, R. M. Cucco and D. Lauro, pp. 231–375. Rome: L’«Erma» di Bretschneider. DANIELE, L. 2008 “Il Blocco 1,” in Himera V. L’abitato, edited by N. Allegro, pp. 17–74. Palermo: Università di Palermo. DEHL-VON KAENEL, C. 2003 “Transportamphoren aus der Ladenzeile,” Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts, Römische Abteilung 110: 438–445. DENTI, A. 1985 “La Necropoli,” in Greci e Indigeni nella Valle dell’Himera. Scavi a Monte Saraceno di Ravanusa. Università di Messina – Aula Magna 14 Aprile – 9 Maggio 1985. Palermo: Regione Siciliana. D’ESPOSITO, L. 2008 “Il Blocco 4,” in Himera V. L’abitato, edited by N. Allegro, pp. 171–207. Palermo: Università di Palermo. DE MIRO, E. 1989 Agrigento. La necropolis greca di Pezzino. Messina: Sicania. DI SANDRO, N. 1996 Le anfore arcaiche dallo scarico Gosetti, Pithecusa. Naples: Centre Jean Bérard. DI STEFANO, G. 1993–1994 “Il relitto di Punta Braccetto (Camarina), gli emporia e i relitti di età arcaica lunga la costa meridionale della Sicilia,” Kokalos 39–40/I–1: 111–133. FAMA, M. L. and TOTI, M. P. 2000 “Materiali dalla Zona E dell’abitato di Mozia. Prime Considerazione,” in Terze Giornate internazionali di studi sull’area elima: Gibellina-Erice-Contessa Entellina, 1997, pp. 451–478. Pisa: Scuola Normale Superiore. FRESINA, A. 2003 “Le anfore da trasporto,” in Monte Maranfusa. Un insedimento nella media Valle del Belice. L’abitato indigeno, edited by F. Spatafora, pp. 275–279. Palermo: Regione Siciliana. GASSNER, V. 2003 Materielle Kultur und kulturelle Identität in Elea in spätarchaisch-frühklassischer Zeit. Wien: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften. GRECO, C. 1997 “Materiali dalla necropoli punica di Solunto: studi preliminari. Anfore puniche,” in Archeologia e Territorio, edited by G. B. Palumbo, pp. 57–69. Palermo: Palumbo. GUALTIERI, M. 1996 “Residenze gentilizie di IV secolo a. C. a Roccagloriosa,” in Ricerche sulla casa in Magna Grecia e in Sicilia. Atti del Colloquio, Lecce, 1992, edited by F. D’Andria and K. Mannino, pp. 301–320. Galatina: Congedo.

TRANSPORT AMPHORAE AND THE HISTORICAL SPACE

IANNELLI, M. T. 1989 KLUG, R. 2012 LAURO, D. 1997 2009 LENTINI, M. C. 1986

LIMA, M. A. 1995

209

“Hipponion – Vibo Valentia: La topografia (Carta Archeologica),” Annali della Scuola Normale Superiore di Pisa 19: 625–681. Griechische Transportamphoren im regionalen und überregionalen Handel. Untersuchungen zu griechischen und nicht-griechischen Kontexten in Unteritalien und Sizilien vom 8. bis zum 5. Jh. v. Chr. Rahden/Westf: Marie Leidorf. “Cozzo Sanita: Un insediamento indigena e punico-ellenistica lungo il corso del fiume San Leonardo,” in Archeologia e Territorio, edited by G. B. Palumbo, pp. 349–360. Palermo: Palumbo. Sambuchi (Forma Italiae, Serie I, Vol. 45). Firenze: Olschki. “Naxos nel quadro dei rapporti delle esplorazioni recenti,” in Lo stretto, crocevia di culture. Atti del XXVI convegno di studi sulla Magna Grecia, Taranto-Reggio Calabria, 1986, edited by A. Stazio and S. Ceccoli, pp. 415–432. Taranto: Istituto per la Storia e l’Archeologia della Magna Grecia. “Le anfore,” in Agrigento. La Necropoli paleocristiana sub divo, edited by R. M. Bonacasa Carra, pp. 337–389. Rome: L’«Erma» di Bretschneider.

LISSI CARONNA, E. 1983 “Basilicata-Oppido Lucano (Potenza). Rapporto preliminare sulla terza campagna di scavo (1969),” Notizie degli Scavi di antichità 37: 215–352. LISSI CARONNA, E., ARMIGNACCO ALIDORI, V. and PANCIERA, S. 1985 “Oppido Lucano (Potenza). Rapporto preliminare sulla quarta campagna di scavo (1970). Materiale archeologico rinvenuto nel territorio del Comune,” Notizie degli Scavi di antichità 1/2: 185–488. PANVINI, R. 1998 Gela. Il Museo Archeologico. Catalogo. Gela: Regione Siciliana. PELAGATTI, P. 2006 “Camarina città e necropoli: Studi e ricerche recenti,” in Camarina. 2600 anni dopo la fondazione. Nuovi studi sulla città e sul territorio. Atti del Convegno Internazionale, Ragusa, 2002/2003, edited by P. Pelagatti, G. Di Stefano and L. de Lachenal, pp. 60–64. Rome: Istituto poligrafico e Zecca dello Stato. PIZZO, M. 1998–1999 “Vassallaggi (S. Cataldo. Caltanissetta). La necropoli meridionale, scavi 1956,” Notizie degli Scavi di antichità 9/10: 207–395. POLIZZI, C. 1999 “Anfore da trasporto,” in Colle Madore. Un caso di ellenizzazione in terra sicana, edited by S. Vassallo, pp. 221–232. Palermo: Regione Siciliana. SABBIONE, C. 1981 “Reggio e Metauros nell’VIII e VII sec. a. C.,” Annuario della Scuola Archeologica di Atene e delle missioni italiane in Oriente 59: 275–289. 1986 “La colonizzazione greca. Matauros e Mylai,” in Lo stretto, crocevia di culture. Atti del XXVI convegno di studi sulla Magna Grecia, Taranto-Reggio Calabria, 1986, edited by A. Stazio and S. Ceccoli, pp. 221–236. Taranto: Istituto per la Storia e l’Archeologia della Magna Grecia. SAVELLI, S. “Le anfore da trasporto,” in Cuma. Le Fortificazioni. Vol. 2. I Materiali dai terra2006 pieni arcaica, edited by M. Cuozzo, B. D’Agostino and L. Del Verme, pp. 103– 126. Naples: Università degli Studi di Napoli L’Orientale. SOURISSEAU, J. C. “Les amphores commerciales de la nécropole de Rifriscolaro à Camarine. Remarques 2006 préliminaires sur la production corinthienne de Type A,” in Camarina. 2600 anni

R. KLUG

210

2011

SPAGNOLO, G. 2002

TAMBURELLO, I. 1969 TERMINI, A. 1997 TOMASELLO, E. 1972 TOTI, M. P. 1997

dopo la fondazione. Nuovi studi sulla città e sul territorio. Atti del Convegno Internazionale, Ragusa, 2002/2003, edited by P. Pelagatti, G. Di Stefano and L. de Lachenal, pp. 129–147. Rome: Istituto poligrafico e Zecca dello Stato. “La Diffusion des vins grecs d’Occident du VIIIe au IVe s. av. J.-C., sources écrites et documents archéoogiques,” in La vigna di Dionisio: vite, vino e culti in Magna Grecia. Atti del XLIX convegno di studi sulla Magna Grecia, Taranto, 2009, edited by M. Lombardo, A. Siciliano and A. Arcangelo, pp. 143–252. Taranto: Istituto per la Storia e l’Archeologia della Magna Grecia. “Le anfore da trasporto arcaiche e classiche nell’occidente Greco. Nuove acquizione da recenti rinvenimenti a Messina,” in Da Zancle a Messina. Un percorso archeologico attraverso gli scavi, Vol. II/2, edited by G. M. Bacci and G. Tigano, pp. 31–46. Messina: Sicania. “Palermo Necropoli: scavi 1967,” Notizie degli Scavi di antichità 23: 305–315. “La Montagnola di Marineo. Le anfore,” in Archeologia e Territorio, edited by G. B. Palumbo, pp. 157–169. Palermo: Palumbo. “Monasterace Marina (Reggio Calabria). Scavi presso il tempio dorico di Punta Stilo,” Notizie degli Scavi di antichità 26: 561–643. “Anfore commerciali puniche di Mozia attestazioni di una variante di anfora Mana C dall’abitato Moziese,” in Seconde Giornate internazionali di studi sull’area Elima (Gibellina, 22-26 ottobre 1994), pp. 1297–1304. Pisa-Gibellina: Scuola Normale Superiore.

VANDERMERSCH, C. 1989 “Le matériel amphorique,” in Kaulonia I. Sondages sur la fortification nord (1982–1985), edited by H. Tréziny, pp. 90–109. Naples: Centre Jean Bérard. VASSALLO, S. 1993–1994 “Ricerche nella necropoli orientale di Himera in località Pestavecchia (1990– 1993),” Kokalos 39–40/II–2: 1243–1255. 1999 “Himera, Necropoli di Pestavecchia un primo bilancio sulle anfore da trasporto,” Kokalos 45: 329–379.

Rebecca KLUG Archäologisches Institut Department of Archaeology Georg-August-Universität Göttingen Germany

SOME REMARKS ON AMPHORA CIRCULATION AT PALERMO (SIXTH–SECOND CENTURY BCE) Babette BECHTOLD ABSTRACT The present contribution aims to provide an overview of the amphora circulation at Palermo mainly during the earlier Hellenistic period. It is based on an analysis of the finds yielded by recent rescue excavations by the Soprintendenza BB.CC.AA. di Palermo undertaken in both the necropolis and the urban area. The research begins with the study of approximately 350 diagnostic fragments, according to the methods of the FACEM database, and is concluded with roughly 35 petrographic analyses. The new amphora data allow for interesting observations, namely regarding Panormos’ amphora repertoire of the period between the last quarter of the fourth century BCE and the Roman conquest of the city in 254 BCE. This latest phase of Carthage’s Sicilian epikrateia is characterised by the consistent association of Punic vessels from the production area of Solunto and Palermo and amphorae from Campania and Lucania, which testify to stable commercial interactions between these two regions. Punic North African amphorae appear to be more frequent no earlier than the mid-third century BCE, and their presence has been related to the upkeep of the Carthaginian forces within the wider framework of the First Punic War (264–241 BCE).

Until now, Palermo’s Punic amphora repertoire has never been analysed in detail.1 Within the framework of an exhibition, organised during the 1990s at the Museo Archeologico Antonino Salinas, two assemblages of Punic2 and Greek3 amphorae from earlier excavations in the necropolis were presented. Apart from these amphorae in the museum, there are some more published examples from the Caserma Tuköry area (Fig. 1: 1).4 The amphora panorama documented for the urban area has received even less scholarly attention. Nonetheless, we are informed about small groups of Punic and Graeco-Italic amphorae found below Palazzo Mirto (Fig. 1: 5)5 and in a semi-buried storage room of a Hellenistic habitation located in modern Via d’Alessi (Fig. 1: 8).6 The present contribution aims to provide the first overview of the amphora circulation at Palermo, mainly during the earlier Hellenistic period (Fig. 2), based on an analysis of the 1  I acknowledge the support of the Austrian Science Fund (FWF: P 25046–G19) of the project ‘Economic interactions between Punic and Greek settlements in the southern central Mediterranean (late seventh–fourth century BCE): The evidence of the transport amphorae.’ Special thanks are due to S. Gallagher for his critical input during the correction phase of the English paper. The digitalisation of all drawings and the composition of figures 5–6, 8–11, 14 are due to the kindness of R. Lampl (Vienna). 2  Sarà (1998), 42 amphorae, mostly of western Greek shape. 3  Falsone (1998), 15 amphorae. 4  Di Stefano (2009, pp. 32, 56–58, 78, 100, 102, 105, 113, 116–117, 142–143, 153, 157, 166–167, 176–177), c. 30 amphorae, mostly of western Greek shape. 5  Di Stefano 1993, pp. 266–267, figs. 19–21. 6  Lauro 2005. For an in-depth discussion of the chronology of this deposit, see Bechtold (2015a, p. 54, notes 208–210).

B. BECHTOLD

212

3

/

0

12 , + -

.

+%
 
!$
,%

   
%
+--(+-1$
-%
 ""
 $
.%
 ""
" ' $
/%
 ""
$
0%
$





$
1%
 ""
$
2%

&$
3%



Fig. 1. Palermo: The localisation of the excavation areas with the amphorae finds discussed in this study (Archivio Soprintendenza BB.CC.AA. di Palermo).

finds of recent rescue excavations by the Soprintendenza BB.CC.AA. di Palermo7 in both the ancient settlement and the necropolis. This research includes approximately 350 diagnostic fragments, complimented by the documentation of ceramic samples, studied according to the standardised methods of the database of FACEM.8 Thin section analysis has been undertaken on 37 fragments out of this group, mainly selected from the Graeco-Italic amphorae set.9 For the present contribution, we have considered approximately 70 fragments from three different areas of the necropolis localised along Corso Calatafimi (Fig. 1: 2–3) and in Piazza Indipendenza (Fig. 1: 4).10 These materials refer to deposits that were not sealed due to frequentation and the disturbance of the late sixth to mid-third century BCE 7

 I am deeply indebted to my friends and colleagues C. Aleo Nero, M. Chiovaro and S. Vassallo (all Soprintendenza BB.CC.AA. di Palermo) for giving me the opportunity to record, study and publish nearly 400 amphora fragments from recent rescue excavations in several portions of Palermo’s necropolis and urban areas (2011–2016). 8  Analysis of each sample by means of binocular microscopy and digital photos of freshly broken surfaces (at 8×, 16× and 25× magnification), possibly compared with reference samples of already attributed fabrics, see also http://facem.at/project/about.php#photography. 9  Bechtold et al. 2018. 10  Corso Calatafimi, civ. 133–137 (short CAL) and Palazzo Orlando (short PORL); Piazza Indipendenza / Palazzo d’Orléans (short PIO), all 2011, for a preliminary report, see Aleo Nero et al. 2012.

AMPHORA CIRCULATION AT PALERMO

213

Fig. 2. The quantitative occurrence of the main amphora classes (N 354).

Punic graves. The majority of the analysed amphorae were discovered during three excavations undertaken in the urban area:11 in Piazza Bologni (Fig. 1: 7), in the vicinity of the principal traffic axis of the city, in Via Celso (Fig. 1: 9) along the Punic fortification, and below the Steri/Sala delle Verifiche (Fig. 1: 6) close to Piazza Marina, in the area of the ancient harbour. The bulk of these latter materials belong to disturbed archaeological deposits which are usually interpreted as fills or levelling levels. Others may stem from sealed contexts which are, however, yet to be studied. Due to the almost complete lack of secure, primary contexts12 among all of the areas taken into consideration, this paper had to focus on the production areas of the amphorae and their chrono-typological repertoire, intentionally neglecting all stratigraphic aspects. Half of the studied materials refer to Graeco-Italic amphorae of Gassner’s rim shapes 8–13/ Cibecchini’s Graeco-Italic III–VI13 (and five Dressel 1 fragments), while about 41 per cent belong to Punic types. Approximately nine per cent of the assemblage has been attributed to Greek or western Greek amphorae. The bulk of the material (almost 71 per cent) dates to the third century BCE, better documented are the fourth century BCE amphorae (about 13 per cent) and items referred to as the second or early first century BCE (approximately ten per cent), while the ArchaicClassical period appears to be almost without representation. Out of the third century BCE group, at least one third of the fragments have been attributed to types which start to circulate around the mid-third century BCE, but continue into the late third or even early second century BCE. 11

 Piazza Bologni (short PB), Steri/Sala delle Verifiche (short STV) and Via Celso (FRC).  Exception made for one huge deposit excavated in Piazza Bologni, SU 701, already published in Aleo Nero et al. (2018) and a very few, smaller contexts found in Via Celso, still to be studied. A disturbed, late sixth–early fifth century BCE deposit from the necropolis of Corso Calatafimi (civ. 133–137) has been presented in Bechtold 2015a, pp. 106–108. 13  Gassner and Sauer 2015; Cibecchini and Capelli 2013. 12

214

B. BECHTOLD

Fig. 3. The chronological distribution of the datable amphora fragments from Palermo (N 282).

Fig. 4. Quantitative distribution of Punic amphora productions.

Starting with the Punic amphorae, most impressively, more than 88 per cent of this group were produced in northwestern Sicily, mostly at Panormos itself, but also at Solus. Both productions make use of the same raw material (Argille di Ficarazzi) and are indistinguishable from an archaeometric point of view.14 Recent archaeological research suggests, however, that Palermo’s local fabrics appear to be generally finer and predominantly red-fired 14

 For the fullest archaeometric characterisation of this production, see Montana and Randazzo (2015, pp. 121–131).

AMPHORA CIRCULATION AT PALERMO

215

(Fig. 10: 1) compared to the more coarse ones of Solunto (Fig. 10: 2).15 From the Archaic period onwards, both cities developed a parallel amphora repertoire, very recently classified in a new typology.16 Among the new materials from Palermo, the earliest fragments probably originate from Solus and refer to types Sol/Pan 3.1/T–1.3.2.1 (Fig. 5: 1) and Sol/Pan 3.2/3/ T–1.4.1.1/2.1 (Fig. 5: 2). They date to the first and second half of the sixth century BCE respectively and confirm the distribution pattern of Solunto’s earliest amphora production, chiefly along Sicily’s northwestern shores.17 Three more fragments from the late sixth and early fifth centuries BCE of the Sol/Pan 3.3/T–1.4.2.2 shape (Fig. 5: 3) include a local amphora and two items from Solus. Interesting is the identification of two contemporaneous western Greek amphorae of supposed local production of Sourisseau’s type 218 (Fig. 5: 4),19 confirming the production of Greek-style vessels at the Punic towns of Panormos and Solus during the late sixth to fifth century BCE.20 From the fifth century BCE onwards, the Palermo assemblage is characterised by the dominance of local amphorae. Emblematic of the fifth century BCE series of Palermo and Solunto is type Sol/Pan 4.1–3/T–1.4.5.1 (Fig. 5: 5)21 with a discus-shaped rim. In the course of the century, this shape becomes more elongated and the relation between height and width, as well as the increase of the rim inclination (Fig. 5: 6). Finally, during the later fifth century BCE, we find another locally produced western Greek amphora similar to Gassner’s rim shape 7 early stage (Fig. 5: 7).22 Derived from the fifth century BCE prototype Sol/Pan 4.1–3, from the beginning of the fourth century BCE, subtype 4.4/T–4.2.2.6 (Fig. 5: 8) with a more inclined rim was produced. Towards the last third of the fourth century BCE, this type evolves into Sol/Pan 4.5/ T–4.2.2.7 with a thin, strongly downward-sloping rim (Fig. 5: 9).23 Among the groups of findings presented here, this type represents the most common Punic amphora of the preHellenistic period. Less frequent are amphorae with the squared or triangular-shaped rims of type Sol/Pan 6.2–3/T–2.2.1.2/6.1.1.1 (Fig. 5: 10–11),24 documented from the late fifth and the majority of the fourth century BCE. Towards the end of the fourth century BCE, another highly characteristic shape of the northwestern Sicilian amphora Koine emerged: subtype Sol/ Pan 7.1/T–7.1.2.1 with an elongated, cylindrical body, more or less carinated shoulders and a clearly distinguished triangular-shaped rim (Fig. 5: 12),25 best attested among the Palermo amphora set. During the central decades of the third century BCE, being derived from this

15

 In detail, see Bechtold 2015a, pp. 26–58, particularly p. 47.  Bechtold 2015a, pp. 4–26. The following typological attributions of the present contribution are all referred to this latter study and to Ramon’s universal classification of 1995. 17  Bechtold 2015a, pp. 39, 90–92, fig. 32. 18  Sourisseau 2011, pp. 176, fig. 6 and pp. 189–190. 19  For one more items, see also FACEM https://facem.at/m-106-95. 20  For this topic, see in detail Bechtold and Schmidt 2015, pp. 9, 12, 16, fig. 5. 21  For another item from Palermo, see also Bechtold 2015a, pp. 106–107, fig. 36: 2, fabric PAN–A–1; FACEM http://facem.at/m-106-61. 22  For the production of this type at Velia, see Gassner and Sauer 2015, p. 3, pl. 1, cat. 6. 23  For more items, see Aleo Nero et al. 2018, pp. 17–18 and 25, cat. 2, fabric PAN–A–1, cat. 22, fabric SOL–A–4. 24  For one more item, see Aleo Nero et al. 2018, pp. 24–25, cat. 21 (fabric SOL–A–2). 25  For an in-depth discussion of this type, see also Bechtold 2015b, pp. 64–65, fig. 1: 5–8. 16

216

B. BECHTOLD

Fig. 5. Amphorae from the production area of Panormos/Solus, sixth–mid-third century BCE. 1) Sol/Pan 3.1; 2) Sol/Pan 3.2/3; 3) Sol/Pan 3.3; 4) Sourisseau 2; 5) Sol/Pan 4.1/2; 6) Sol/Pan 4.3; 7) Gassner 7; 8) Sol/Pan 4.4; 9) Sol/Pan 4.5; 10) Sol/Pan 6.2; 11) Sol/Pan 6.3; 12) Sol/Pan 7.1; 13) Sol/Pan 7.4; 14) Sol/Pan 8.1; 15) Sol/Pan 8.2.

AMPHORA CIRCULATION AT PALERMO

217

latter shape, we find subtype Sol/Pan 7.4/T–6.1.2.1/7.1.1.2 (Fig. 5: 13),26 characterised by a vertical, very high and triangular-shaped rim. The amphorae with clearly thickened rims of rounded, or even squared profile, and a rim diameter measuring between 14–18 cm, shape Sol/ Pan 8 (Fig. 5: 14–15), are the most likely to be contemporaneous.27 As well as types Sol/ Pan 4 and 7, this latter type is also nearly exclusive to those amphorae coming from Panormos and Solus. They seem to circulate around the time of the First Punic War, almost exclusively in the regional context of the modern province of Palermo. Currently, very few Punic vessels of non-western Sicilian fabric have been identified: two rims with externally moulded profiles of T–7.2.1.1 (Fig. 6: 1 and Fig. 10: 3), of the second half (?) of the third century BCE, have been attributed to the production of Lilybaion.28 A stamped handle fragment showing remains of the stylised goddess Tanit (Fig. 6: 2)29 and at least one discus-shaped rim of a T–5.2.3.1 (Fig. 6: 3 and Fig. 10: 4) seem to originate from Selinus, where this shape had been produced shortly before the Roman attack in 250 BCE.30 Highly important is the identification of eight fragments from the area of Carthage. The earliest item refers to T–4.2.1.6 and might be dated between the late fourth or early third century BCE (Fig. 6: 4). One fragment belongs to the rarely attested shape T–6.1.1.4 (Fig. 6: 5) of the second half (?) of the third century BCE. Five discus-shaped rims are of T–5.2.3.1 (Fig. 6: 6 and 10: 5), produced at least at Selinus, but perhaps also elsewhere, before 250 BCE.31 They are regularly documented in archaeological deposits dated to the second half of the third century and early second century BCE. Furthermore, one rim represents Carthage’s most typical productions from the first half of the second century BCE, shape T–7.4.2.1 (Fig. 6: 7). The small North African group is completed by the presence of four fragments of T–5.2.3.1 (Fig. 6: 8–9 and Fig. 10: 6) recovered from the kiln site of Besbassia, close to Utica.32 Finally, three fragments of PunicSardinian amphorae have been isolated: the first one belongs to an early Hellenistic vessel of T–4.2.1.10 (Fig. 6: 10); a peg from the same sealed deposit dating around the middle of the third century BCE (Fig. 6: 11 and Fig. 10: 7) has been attributed to the area of Olbia; finally, one rim refers to the third century BCE type T–5.2.1.1 and originates from western central Sardinia (Fig. 6: 12 and Fig. 10: 8). 26  For more items see Aleo Nero et al. 2018, pp. 19–20 and 25, cat. 5–9, fabric PAN–A–1, cat. 23, fabric SOL–A–5; FACEM http://facem.at/m-106-32, http://facem.at/m-106-33. 27  For more items, see Aleo Nero et al. 2018. pp. 20–23, cat. 10–17, fabric PAN–A–1; FACEM http:// facem.at/m-106-44. 28  For the documentation of this type amongs Lilybaion’s amphora repertoire, see Bechtold 2015a, p. 76, fig. 28: 8 and p. 78. For the highly significant, recent identification of four items of this type among the amphorae yielded by the military installation of Villa Belmonte (Monte Pellegrino), see Battaglia et al. 2019, pp. 17–19, fig. 19: 1–4. 29  For a handle with a Tanit stamp of unidentified production from Palermo, see Falsone (1998, p. 316) with earlier references for stamped handles from various western Sicilian sites. For a Tanit stamp below the handle attachment of an amphora of presumed local production found in kiln 3 of ‘isolato FF 1 Nord’ on the acropolis of Selinunte, see Fourmont (2013, p. 21, fig. 22, of Ramon’s T–5.2.3.2 type attribution of the present author). For a second Tanit stamp of Selinuntian fabric, see Battaglia et al. (2019, pp. 39, fig. 31: c; 43, tab 3; 47, from Villa Belmonte/Monte Pellegrino). 30  In this regard, see Battaglia et al. 2019, p. 17, fig. 17: 4. 31  Bechtold (2015a, pp. 86–88, fig. 31: 5), with full discussion. 32  Maraoui Telmini and Schmidt 2015. For the identification of several items of the same type and fabric on Monte Pellegrino, see Battaglia et al. 2019, p. 21.

218

B. BECHTOLD

Fig. 6. Production of Lilybaion. 1) T–7.2.1.1 Production of Selinus. 2) Tanit stamped handle; 3) T–5.2.3.1. Production of the area of Carthage. 4) T–4.2.1.6; 5) T–6.1.1.4; 6) T–5.2.3.1; 7) T–7.4.2.1. Production of the area of Utica. 8–9) T–5.2.3.1. Production of Punic Sardinia; 10) T–4.2.1.10; 11) Unidentified peg; 12) T–5.2.1.1.

AMPHORA CIRCULATION AT PALERMO

219

Fig. 7. Production areas of Graeco-Italic amphorae (N 159).

Graeco-Italic amphorae are best documented among the Palermo amphora group (Fig. 2). A fabric study of almost 160 items shows that about 45 per cent of the set originates from the Gulf of Naples (Fig. 10: 9–10),33 while approximately 26 per cent stem from still unidentified workshops located along the shores of Tyrrhenian Italy, in Campania (Fig. 11: 1)34 as well as in Lazio or Etruria. Relevant from a quantitative point of view, is also the documentation of roughly 21 per cent of Lucanian amphorae from Elea and Poseidonia,35 while Ionian-Adriatic fabrics and unidentified fabrics form clearly minor assemblages (Fig. 7). As at other western Sicilian sites, as well as at Palermo, the earliest wine amphorae from the Gulf of Naples,36 or more generally from central Tyrrhenian Italy, arrive already towards the later fourth and the early third century BCE.37 Two fragments can be referred to Gassner’s rim 838/Cibecchini’s Gr.–Ita. III39 (Fig. 8: 1–2). Five items, mostly from the Gulf region, match Gassner’s rim shape 940 of the very late fourth and the first third of the third century BCE (Fig. 8: 3–4). With almost 25 fragments, Gassner’s rim shape 1041 of the first half of the third century BCE is even better documented, the overwhelming majority of Palermo items stem from the Bay of Naples (Fig. 8: 5–6). Based on an in-depth analysis of the stratified finds from Velia, rims characterised by still 33

 Based on Gassner and Sauer 2016.  Based on Gassner and Sauer 2016, pp. 6–7. 35  Based on Gassner and Sauer (2015) for Velia and Gassner and Trapichler (2011) for Poseidonia. For the widespread distribution of this class in the central southern Mediterranean, see Bechtold 2018a–b. 36  For the prominent role of the port of Neapolis after the concession of the civitates sine suffragio in 326 BCE, also in relation to Rome itself ‘(…) non servita dal mare (…)’, see Panella 2010, p. 23. 37  Bechtold 2018, pp. 42–46; Bechtold et al. 2018, pp. 25–27; Olcese 2010, p. 302. 38  For the type, see Gassner and Sauer 2015, p. 4, pl. 2, cat. 11–12. 39  Cibecchini and Capelli 2013, pp. 433–434, fig. 5: 1–2. 40  For the type, see Gassner and Sauer 2015, pp. 4–5, pl. 2, cat. 13–14. 41  For the type, see Gassner and Sauer 2015, p. 5, pl. 2, cat. 15; for its documentation at the Gulf of Naples, see Gassner and Sauer 2016, p. 17, cat. 7, pl. 1, cat. 11 and p. 14, pl. 2. 34

220

B. BECHTOLD

Fig. 8. Amphorae from the Gulf of Naples and Tyrrhenian Italy. 1–2) Gassner 8; 3–4) Gassner 9; 5–6) Gassner 10; 7) Gassner 11; 8) Gassner 12; 9–10) Late Graeco-Italic types. Amphorae from Lucania. 11) Gassner 7; 12) Gassner 9; 13) Gassner 11; 14) Gassner 12; 15) Late Graeco-Italic type.

AMPHORA CIRCULATION AT PALERMO

221

more downward-sloping upper surfaces, often slightly undercut inferiorly and classified as Gassner shape 11, appear no earlier than the second quarter of the third century BCE.42 Around 35 fragments refer to this type, half of them have been attributed to fabrics of the Gulf of Naples (Fig. 8: 7). Roughly contemporaneous is Gassner’s rim shape 12 with an isosceles, triangular-shaped rim (Fig. 8: 8), documented by 15 fragments, with the majority from the Gulf of Naples. A significant group of 16 rims, some of Neapolitanean fabric and, in almost all cases, from the Via Celso excavation, have been referred to as ‘Late Graeco-Italic’ amphorae of Gassner’s rims 13–1443/Cibecchini’s Graeco-Italic VIa–b44 (Fig. 8: 9–10). The Lucanian amphorae show the same type-range of the Campanian series, with one important exception: two items of Gassner’s rim 745 from Velia (Fig. 8: 11), with comparative pieces dating to the second or third quarter of the fourth century BCE, which precede the Campanian Graeco-Italic group and currently represent the earliest transport vessels from Tyrrhenian Italy identified at Palermo. From the late fourth to the late second century BCE, we find the whole sequence discussed above: Gassner’s rim shapes 8 (four fragments),46 9 (six fragments, Fig. 8: 12), 10 (six items),47 11 (four items, Fig. 8: 13), 12 (one item, Fig. 8: 14) and late Graeco-Italic (six items, Fig. 8: 15). It is highly interesting that the late fourth to early third century BCE items all stem from Velia, while the second century BCE amphorae are almost exclusively from Poseidonia. Finally, it is worth mentioning that there are four mid-third to mid-second century BCE Graeco-Italic amphorae, probably from the Ionian-Adriatic region.48 Greek and western Greek amphorae form the smallest group at Palermo (Fig. 2). Of special interest is the identification of a few eastern Greek vessels: a peg (Fig. 9: 1 and Fig. 11: 2) belonging to a North Aegean, late fifth or fourth century BCE amphora,49 one rim may be identified as a mid–fifth century BCE ‘swollen-necked’ amphora from Chios50 (Fig. 9: 2), while two more pegs show fabric CHI–A–2 (Fig. 9: 3 and Fig. 11: 3) and might date to the later fourth or early third century BCE.51 Lastly, three fragments (Fig. 9: 4–5 and Fig. 11: 4) have been attributed to the Early Hellenistic ‘mushroom rim’ type amphorae52 from the area of Samos/Ephesos. Moving to the Greek mainland, three fragments stem from the area of Corkyra/Bouthroton, at least two of them can be referred to as fifth century BCE Corinthian B-shaped amphorae53 (Fig. 9: 6–7 and Fig. 11: 5). A single peg (Fig. 9: 8) belongs to a late sixth or early fifth century BCE Corinthian A amphora of Sourisseau’s type 6.54 42

 For the type, see Gassner and Sauer 2015, p. 5, pl. 2, cat. 16.  For the type, see Gassner and Sauer 2015, p. 6, pl. 2, cat. 18–19. 44  Cibecchini and Capelli 2013, pp. 440–443, figs. 9–10. 45  For the type, see Gassner and Sauer 2015, pp. 3–4, pl. 1, cat. 7–8. 46  See Aleo Nero et al. (2018, pp. 33-34, cat. 41–42), from Velia. 47  See Aleo Nero et al. (2018, p. 34, cat. 43), from Velia. 48  For one published fragment, see Aleo Nero et al. 2018, p. 32, cat. 38, fabric ION–ADR–A–6?. 49  Lawall 1997, pp. 117–118, fig. 4. 50  For the type, see Dupont (1998, pp. 149–150, fig. 23: 2f); for a good comparison from Lipari, see Cavalier (1985, p. 65, fig. 16: f). 51  Göransson (2007, p. 142, nos. 262–269), here attributed to Thasos; see also Lawall (2004, p. 449, pl. 197; 2, 3 and 5–7). 52  Lawall 2004, pp. 451–452, pl. 197: 20: late fourth century BCE. 53  For the type, see Gassner 2003, pp. 181–186 and 213, tab. 22 with earlier references. 54  Sourisseau 2006, pp. 140–141, fig. 7. 43

222

B. BECHTOLD

Fig. 9. Eastern Greek amphorae. 1) North Aegean amphora; 2) ‘Swollen-necked’ type; 3) Chian amphora peg; 4–5) ‘Mushroom rim’ type. Greek amphorae; 6–7) Corinthian B type; 8) Corinthian A type. Western Greek amphorae from Calabria; 9) Gassner rim 6. Western Greek amphorae from Sicily; 10) ‘Ad echino sottolineato’ type; 11 a–b) Gassner rim 7 close to Graeco-Italic amphorae from north eastern Sicily; 12) Close to Gassner rim 8; 13) Close to Gassner rim 12.

AMPHORA CIRCULATION AT PALERMO

223

A handful of western Greek amphorae have been identified: an almond-shaped rim of Gassner’s type 655 (Fig. 9: 9 and Fig. 11: 6) and two pegs56 have been attributed to the later fifth or fourth century BCE series from southern Calabria. A small amount of fragments can probably be associated with Sicilian productions. A sample of the ‘ad echino sottolineato’ amphora (Fig. 9: 10 and Fig. 11: 7) matches northwestern Sicilian ‘Terravecchia di Cuti’ raw material. The fragment finds comparisons in later fifth and mid-fourth century BCE materials.57 A second rim fragment and a peg, possibly belonging to the same vessel (Fig. 9: 11a–b and Fig. 11: 8), with a late fifth to fourth century BCE parallel,58 macroscopically resembles a third item of this hypothetical Sicilian group on the basis of thin section analysis attributed to the ‘Eastern Nebrodi/Calabrian-Peloritani arc’ (Fig. 9: 12 and Fig. 11: 9). From a morphological point of view, this latter fragment matches Gassner’s late fourth to early third-century BCE rim shape 8 (see above). Finally, to the archaeometric ‘Eastern Nebrodi/Calabrian-Peloritani arc’ group59 belongs a rim of a Graeco-Italic amphora from the second half of the third century BCE (Fig. 9: 13 and Fig. 11: 10) which is close to Gassner’s rim shape 12 (see above). The new amphorae assemblage allows for the first observations of the circulation of transport vessels at Punic Palermo (Figs. 12–13). There is almost no evidence of non-regionally produced amphorae dating to the late seventh to sixth century BCE.60 In fact, even though our data remains very limited, the pre–eminence of transport vessels produced at Panormos (or Solus) has already become clearly evident.61 Among our sample set, the only supraregional fifth century BCE imports originate from eastern62 and mainland Greece as well as from Corkyra/Bouthroton.63 Nevertheless, the numerous and almost entirely preserved finds from the necropolis notably increase the morphological repertoire, especially regarding the earlier western Greek amphora series, at Palermo which is documented from the second half of the sixth and the whole of the fifth century BCE.64 Even if we are not certain about the provenance areas of these amphorae,65 the group indicates that there was a regular circulation 55

 For the type see Gassner (2003, pp. 181–182, fig. 91 and p. 213, tab. 22); for the widespread distribution of this shape in Carthage’s sphere of influence during the later fifth-mid fourth century BCE, see Bechtold 2013a, pp. 55–58. 56  For one published fragment, see Aleo Nero et al. (2018, p. 32, cat. 39), from Locri. 57  For an in depth discussion of this fragment, see Aleo Nero et al. 2018, p. 33, cat. 40. 58  Bacci and Tigano (2001, pp. 29–29, fig. 10: 17), ‘Pseudo-Chiota’ produced in the area of the Straits of Messina, dated to the late fifth to fourth century BCE. 59  For the recent archaeometric identification of this group, see Bechtold et al. 2018, p. 15, tab. 1, 22–23: microfabric 3, 26. 60  For one late seventh to early sixth century BCE Corinthian A amphora from the necropolis, see Sarà 1998, p. 329, R 1. 61  A similar picture can be assumed from the Phoenician-Punic amphorae from the necropolis published by G. Falsone where the majority of the ten or so discussed items dating to the late seventh to late fifth century BCE seem to be of local production: Falsone 1998, p. 316. 62  For one more late Archaic Aegean amphora from the earlier necropolis excavations, see Sarà 1998, pp. 157–332, cat. 201. 63  For one Corinthian B amphora (from Corkyra?) from the necropolis, see Sarà 1998, p. 225, VG 191. 64  G. Sarà (1998, pp. 326–330) and C. A. Di Stefano (2009) list about 40 western Greek amphorae which can be referred to as Sourisseau’s shapes 1α, 2–3, 5 (Sourisseau 2011, p. 176, fig. 6) and Gassner’s rim 7 (Gassner and Sauer 2015, pp. 3–4, pl. 1, 4–6). 65  In our opinion, a selection of the items recorded by G. Sarà might also be of local or regional fabric, as has already suggested by the author: Sarà 1998, pp. 326–327.

224

B. BECHTOLD

Fig. 10. Amphorae fabric at 8× magnification. 1) Panormos (PAN–A–1). 2) Solus (SOL–A–4). 3) Lilybaion (LIL–A–2). 4) Selinus (SEL–A–2). 5) Area of Carthage. 6) Utica (UTI–A–2). 7) Olbia (NE–SARD–A–1/2). 8) Western-central Sardinia (W–CENT–SARD–A–1). 9–10) Gulf of Naples (BNap–A–3, BNap–A–6).

AMPHORA CIRCULATION AT PALERMO

225

Fig. 11. Amphora fabrics at 8× magnification. 1) Campania/Lazio (CAMP–A–3). 2) North Aegean area (Close to N–AEG–A–3). 3) Chios (CHI–A–2). 4) Area of Samos/Ephesos (EAST–AEG–A–2). 5) Corkyra/Bouthroton (Close to ION–ADR–A–2). 6) Southwestern Calabria (CAL–A–2). 7) Northwestern Sicily (Terravecchia di Cuti raw materials). 8–10) Peloritanian/eastern Nebrodi area.

226

B. BECHTOLD

Fig. 12. Quantitative distribution of amphorae of regional production versus supra-regional imports (N 282).

of Greek wine amphorae possibly from Corkyra and from other, still unidentified, colonial production sites.66 Finally, it is likewise significant that no sixth to fourth century BCE Punic amphorae, from neither Carthage nor Motya,67 have been identified so far. If this tendency is confirmed by future research, it might corroborate the hypothesis that Palermo received privileged commercial interaction with the western colonial world. An important group of approximately 25 western Greek amphorae from the necropolis, with a characteristic ‘bulbous neck,’ can probably be dated to the span of time between the later fifth and the early or mid-fourth century BCE.68 To the same period belong the North Aegean peg and the Calabrian almond-shaped rim amphora discussed above (Fig. 9: 1 and 9: 9). Again, these finds hint at Palermo’s integration into trading routes linked to Greek production centres. Among the new sample set from Palermo, amphorae from Elea appear to be documented from the second quarter of the fourth century BCE onwards. This is in line with the distribution pattern of this class in Carthage’s sphere of influence during the Middle Punic II.2 period (400–300 BCE).69 At all the central southern Punic Mediterranean sites taken into consideration, Lucanian fourth century BCE amphorae clearly precede the influx of Campanian wine containers which, in Carthage’s epikrateia, are attested from the very late fourth century BCE onwards.70 66

 For Palermo, a particularly strong Greek cultural influence, and most probably also the presence of a community of Greek individuals, has already been observed by A. Spanò Giammellaro (2000, pp. 329–330). However, the city’s ceramic repertoire has unfortunately received very minimal study. 67  For one late fifth to early fourth century BCE amphora of Toti’s type 18 probably from Motya from the necropolis, see Falsone 1998, pp. 315 and 320, R 17. 68  Sarà 1998, pp. 327–331; Di Stefano (2009, p. 31) proposes Palermo itself as the production centre for some of the later fifth to early fourth century BCE items. 69  For the most recent, see Bechtold (2018a, p. 29 and 2013a, pp. 68–80) with a full discussion of this phenomenon conjecturally related, during this initial phase, to the “wider context of mobility of individuals and groups of individuals, merchandise and resources” of Italian mercenaries. 70  For this topic, refer to Bechtold (2018a, pp. 40–44 and 2015b, 70–71, notes 66–70) with earlier references.

AMPHORA CIRCULATION AT PALERMO

227

Fig. 13. The diachronic distribution of the identified amphora productions (N 282 datable items).

Specifically, from the second half of the fourth century BCE onwards, the archaeological contexts of Palermo show the repeated association between Punic amphorae from Panormos/ Solus and Gassner’s rim shape 7, but with 8 and 9 originating chiefly from Elea. This phenomenon, together with the capillary distribution of red-figured fine wares, attributed to the Campanian-Liparote painter, NYN,71 characterises other western Sicilian sites (see notes 70–71). At the same time, transport amphorae from Panormos/Solus and red-figured fish plates, attributed to the Punic-Sicilian koine (Pittore di Bastis),72 appear to be documented at many sites of southern Campania, modern Basilicata and the western Calabrian shores.73 All these elements hint at the formation of a veritable commercial axis between the central Tyrrhenian area (coastal Lucania and the Gulf of Naples) and northwestern Sicily towards the very late fourth and early third century BCE (Fig. 14).74 The very few recent case studies from western Sicily help to better understand the beginning of the wine trade from Campania. The amphora data of the surveys undertaken in suburban Cossyra75 and the hinterland of Entella,76 as well as the new materials from the harbour area of Panormos (Steri/Sala delle Verifiche), show that at the very beginning of the third century BCE, with the regular circulation of Gassner’s rim 10/Cibecchini’s Graeco-Italic Va, amphorae from Naples already outnumbered vessels from Lucania. Campanian amphorae have been identified mostly from Eolian wrecks,77 but also at

71

 De Cesare (2006, pp. 435–436), with full references.  Mollo 2011, p. 241. 73  Mollo 2011, pp. 241–243; Bechtold 2015a, p. 97, fig. 33. 74  For the most recent, see Bechtold (2018a, pp. 42–52) with earlier references. 75  Bechtold 2013b, p. 434, tab. 10. 76  Corretti et al. 2014, p. 524, fig. 7 group MO 03. 77  Olcese 2010, p. 259, tab. VII.1. For a recent synthesis, see also Cibecchini and Capelli 2013, p. 425, tab. 2. 72

228

B. BECHTOLD

Fig. 14. Central Tyrrhenian amphorae documented in western Sicily and amphorae from Panormos/Solus attested in southern Italy (c. 330–250 BC).

Mylai78 and Termini Imerese79 which pinpoint the itinerary of the central Italian wine along the northern shores of Sicily towards the consumption areas located in the Carthaginian epikrateia. In earlier papers, I suggested considering Panormos as the major emporium for the local and regional distribution of the earliest, dating to the first half of the third century BCE, series from Tyrrhenian Italy.80 The massive presence of this class among the present sample set (Fig. 2), chiefly in the harbour area (Fig. 1: 6), but also in the rest 78  For some first half/mid-third century BCE Graeco-Italic amphorae attributed to the region of CampaniaLazio, see Ingoglia 2009, pp. 211–212 and 216, impasti 1–2. 79  Alaimo et al. 1997, p. 147, tab. 62–63, subgroup IIa fig. 10: A9, A43. 80  Bechtold 2018a, pp. 49–51; Bechtold et al. 2018, pp. 25–26.

AMPHORA CIRCULATION AT PALERMO

229

of the settlement and in the necropolis, seems to overwhelmingly confirm this hypothesis. During the decades before the First Punic War, and probably during the conflict, Italian wine amphorae, mostly from the Gulf of Naples, but also from other, still unidentified, Tyrrhenian workshops and from the production area of Poseidonia and Elea, overtake all other classes documented among the Palermo assemblage (Fig. 13). The recent discovery, on the southern slopes of Monte Pellegrino (Palermo), of archaeological evidence interpreted as the remains of Carthaginian military installations which date to this period seems to confirm this hypothesis. In fact, the bulk of the ceramic material yielded by the excavations at Villa Belmonte consist of transport amphorae imported from Selinus, Carthage/ Utica and Lilybaion with significant parallels among the repertoire from Palermo discussed above (Fig. 6).81 In fact, the first half of the third century BCE represents the first period characterised by a higher incidence of imported amphorae in comparison to local productions.82 Finally, Palermo’s first half of the third century BCE repertoire is composed of a third, quantitatively insignificant, but highly emblematic, ensemble consisting of Punic amphorae from production sites under Carthage’s political control: Lilybaion, Selinus, Utica, Carthage itself and Punic Sardinia. In my opinion, this small sample set, for morphological reasons dating no earlier than the mid-third century BCE, should not be interpreted as an indicator of regular trade, but is likely to be related to movements of the allied Punic forces and their upkeep within the wider framework of the First Punic War. The very recent discovery, on the southern slopes of Monte Pellegrino (Palermo), of archaeological evidences interpreted as the rests of Carthaginian military installations dated to exactly this period seems masterly to confirm this hypothesis. In fact, the bulk of the ceramic materials yielded by the excavations at Villa Belmonte consist of transport amphorae imported from Selinus, Carthage/Utica and Lilybaion with significant parallels among the repertoire from Palermo discussed above (Fig. 6).83 Obviously, this assumed, apparently very late, mid-third century BCE appearance of Punic amphorae, found at Palermo and produced in Carthage’s sphere of influence, still needs to be confirmed by future research. Fig.

FACEM Site inventory M–no. Palermo

Provenance/ fabric

Published

5: 1

106/195

PB 736/1

Solus?

Aleo Nero et al. 2018, cat. 19.

5: 2 10: 2

106/18

CAL 13/2 (US 16)

SOL–A–4

Bechtold 2015a, pp. 106–107, tav. 4, fig. 36: 3.

5: 3

106/19

CAL 13/3 (US 16)

SOL–A–4

Bechtold 2015a, pp. 106–107, fig. 36: 4.

5: 4

106/129

PORL 32 (tomba 10, US 19)

PAN–A–1 coarse

81

Archaeometric analysis

Thin section, unpublished

 Similar evidence can be assumed for the mid-third century BCE amphorae stored in the semi-buried storage room of Via d’Alessi, see Lauro 2005, n. 6. 82  A very similar picture has been outlined for Pantelleria’s amphora repertoire of phase Va (300–250/240 BCE), see Bechtold 2013b, pp. 435–436, tab. 11. 83  For a preliminary report on this context, see Battaglia et al. 2019.

B. BECHTOLD

230 5: 5

106/17

CAL 13/1 (US 16)

PAN–A–1

Bechtold 2015a, pp. 106–107, fig. 36: 1.

5: 6

106/49

PB 701/20

SOL–A–4

Aleo Nero et al. 2018, cat. 20.

5: 7

106/59

PORL 11 (tomba 10, US 19)

PAN–A–1

Bechtold and Schmidt 2015, p. 12, fig. 5: 2.

5: 8

106/46

PB 701/17

PAN–A–1 close to

Aleo Nero et al. 2018, cat. 1.

5: 9 10: 1

106/47

PB 701/18

PAN–A–1

Aleo Nero et al. 2018, cat. 3.

106/122

PORL 25 (saggio 7, tombe 8–9, US 20)

PAN–A–1 coarse

PB 201/1

PAN–A–1

Aleo Nero et al. 2018, cat. 4. Bechtold 2015a, p. 178, fig. 4: 7, with further references.

5: 10 5: 11 5: 12

106/13

CAL 17/1 (dromos US 15, US 29)

PAN–A–1

5: 13

106/20

PORL 1 (tomba 10, US 19)

PAN–A–1

5: 14

106/40

PB 701/11

PAN–A–1

STV 35/1

PAN–A–1

5: 15

Thin section, unpublished

Aleo Nero et al. 2018, cat. 13.

6: 1 10: 3

106/145

STV 22/1

LIL–A–2

Thin section, unpublished

6: 2

106/187

STV 27/14

SEL-A-2

Thin section, unpublished

6: 3 10: 4

106/200

PB 428/1

SEL–A–2

6: 4

106/196 PB 200/201/1 CAR–REG–A–4 Aleo Nero et al. 2018, cat. 29.

6: 5 6: 6 10: 5

106/188

6: 7 6: 8 10: 6

106/157

6: 9

PB 714/3

CAR–REG–A–4

STV 27/31

Close to CAR–REG–A–2

FRC 14/23

CAR–REG?

PB 901/3

UTI–A–2

FRC 24/13

UTI–A–2

Aleo Nero et al. 2018, cat. 28.

Thin section, unpublished

Aleo Nero et al. 2018, p. 28, cat. 30. Thin section, unpublished Aleo Nero et al. 2018, p. 29, cat. 32.

6: 10

106/52

PB 701/23

Southern Sardinia?

Aleo Nero et al. 2018, pp. 29–30, cat. 33.

6: 11 10: 7

106/202

PB 701/125

NE–SARD–A–1

Aleo Nero et al. 2018, p. 30, cat. 34.

6: 12 10: 8

106/15

CAL 11

W–CENT– SARD–A–1

8: 1

106/154

PB 309/1

Campania/Lazio?

Aleo Nero et al. 2018, pp. 34–35, cat. 44; Bechtold et al. 2018, pl. 3: 5.

Bechtold et al. 2018, p. 19.

AMPHORA CIRCULATION AT PALERMO

8: 2

106/180

PB 720/1

Similar to Aleo Nero et al. 2018, cat. 45; FACEM Bechtold et al. 2018, p. 35, Bechtold et al. (http://facem.at/ pl. 1: 1; Bechtold 2018a, 2018, p. 18. bnap-c-2) p. 53, fig. 4: 1.

8: 3

106/179

STV 29/8

Very similar to FACEM (http://facem.at/ bnap-c-1)

8: 4

106/163

STV 42/5

Tyrrhenian Italy

8: 5 10: 9

106/193

STV UE 4/1

8: 6 11: 1

106/65

8: 7 106/174 10: 10

Bechtold et al. 2018, pl. 1: 2; Bechtold 2018a, p. 54, fig. 6: 3.

Bechtold et al. 2018, p. 19.

BNap–A–3

Bechtold et al. 2018, pl. 1: 3. Bechtold 2018a, p. 53, fig. 4: 2.

Bechtold et al. 2018, p. 19.

CAL 13/4 (US 16)

CAMP–A–3

Bechtold et al. 2018, pl. 2: 5.

Bechtold et al. 2018, p. 19.

STV 27/10

BNap–A–6

Bechtold et al. 2018, pl. 1: 5.

Bechtold et al. 2018, p. 19.

Bechtold et al. 2018, pl. 1: 7; Bechtold 2018a, p. 55, fig. 9: 6.

Bechtold et al. 2018, p. 19.

8: 8

106/171

STV 27/7

BNap–A–7

8: 9

106/214

FRC 14/1

BNap–A–11

FRC 0/11

Very similar to FACEM (http://facem.at/ bnap-c-1)

8: 10

106/226

8: 11

PORL 28 106/125 (tomb 10, US 19)

8: 12

VEL–A–2

STV 40/24

VEL–A–2

Bechtold 2018a, p. 52, fig. 2: 3.

8:13

106/207

FRC 24/10

PAE–A–1

Bechtold 2018a, p. 55, fig. 11: 3.

8: 14

106/149

STV 34/40

VEL–A–2

Bechtold 2018a, p. 55, fig. 11: 5.

8: 15

106/217

FRC 3/5

PAE–A–1

Bechtold 2018b, p. 17, fig. 9: 5a–b.

9: 1 11: 2

106/204 PB 300/301/2

Close to N–EG–A–3

Aleo Nero et al. 2018, p. 31, cat. 36.

9: 2

FRC 21/1

CHI–A–2

9: 3 11: 3

106/199

STV 27/36

CHI–A–2

9: 4

106/56

PB 201/26

EAST–AEG–A–2

9: 5 11: 4

106/148

STV 34/24

EAST–AEG–A–2

9: 6 11: 5

106/133

PORL 36 (tomba 10, US 19)

ION–ADR–A–2

PB 201/3

ION–ADR–A–2

9: 7

231

Aleo Nero et al. 2018, p. 30, cat. 35.

Aleo Nero et al. 2018, p. 31, cat. 37.

B. BECHTOLD

232 9: 8

STV 27/37

COR–A–2 close to

9: 9 11: 6

106/135

PORL 38 (tomba 10, US 19)

CAL–A–2

9: 10 11: 7

106/153

PB 201/2

Northwestern Sicily?

9: 11a 106/127 11: 8

PORL 30 (tomba 10, US 19)

Eastern Nebrodi/ CalabrianPeloritani arc?

9: 11b 106/132

PORL 35 (tomba 10, US 19)

Eastern Nebrodi/ Calabrian-Peloritani arc?

9: 12 11: 9

106/58

PB 701/28

9: 13 106/182 11: 10

STV 42/1

Aleo Nero et al. 2018, p. 33, cat. 40.

Thin section, unpublished

Eastern Nebrodi/ Calabrian–Peloritani arc

Aleo Nero et al. 2018, pp. 38–39, cat. 53; Bechtold et al. 2018, pl. 3: 11.

Bechtold et al. 2018, p. 18.

Eastern Nebrodi / CalabrianPeloritani arc

Bechtold et al. 2018, pl. 3: 12.

Bechtold et al. 2018, p. 18.

Fig. 15. Concordance of figures, inventory numbers, fabric attributions, previous publications and archaeometric analyses (after Bechtold et al. 2018).

BIBLIOGRAPHY ALAIMO, R., MONTANA, G., GIARRUSSO, R., DI FRANCO, L., BONACASA CARRA, R. M., DENARO, M., BELVEDERE, O., BURGIO, A. and RIZZO, M. S. 1997 “Le ceramiche comuni di Agrigento, Segesta e Termini Imerese: risultati archeometrici e problemi archeologici,” in Il contributo delle analisi archeometriche allo studio delle ceramiche grezze e comuni. Il rapporto forma/funzione/impasto. Atti della 1a giornata di archeometria, Bologna, 1997, edited by S. Santoro Bianchi and B. Fabbri, pp. 46–69. Imola: University Press Bologna. ALEO NERO, C., BECHTOLD, B. and CHIOVARO, M. 2018 “Palermo. Scavi archeologici in Piazza Bologni (2011). Contesti e materiali,” in Notiziario Archeologico Soprintendenza Palermo 34 https://sicilia.academia.edu/NotiziarioArcheologicoSorpintendenzaPalermo (4 November 2020). ALEO NERO, C., BRUNAZZI, V., CANZONIERI, E. and LAURO, D. 2012 “Novità sulla necropoli punica di Palermo,” in Ottave Giornate Internazionali di Studi sull’Area Elima e la Sicilia occidentale nel contesto mediterraneo: La città e le città della Sicilia antica, 2012 https://sicilia.academia.edu/CarlaAleoNero (4 November 2020). BACCI, G. M. and TIGANO, G. (eds.) 2001 Da Zancle a Messina. Un percorso archeologico attraverso gli scavi, Vol. II. Messina: Sicania. BATTAGLIA, G., BECHTOLD, B., DE SIMONE, R., VASSALLO, S., MONTANA, G., RANDAZZO, L., CANZONIERI, E. and SCOPELLITI, G. M. 2019 “Le postazioni militari cartaginesi della prima guerra punica su Monte Pellegrino (Palermo),” Cartagine. Studi e Ricerche 4: 1–56. BECHTOLD, B. 2013a “Distribution patterns of western Greek and Sardinian amphorae in the Carthaginian sphere of influence (6th–3rd century BCE),” Carthage Studies 7: 43–119.

AMPHORA CIRCULATION AT PALERMO

233

2013b “Le anfore da trasporto da Cossyra: un’analisi diacronica (VIII sec. a.C. – VI sec. d.C.),” in Cossyra II. Ricognizione topografica. Storia di un paesaggio mediterraneo (Tübinger Archäologische Forschungen 11), edited by Th. Schäfer, K. Schmidt and M. Osanna, pp. 409–455. Rahden/Westf.: Marie Leidorf. 2015a Le produzioni di anfore puniche della Sicilia occidentale (VII–III/II sec. a.C.) (with contributions by G. Montana, L. Randazzo and K. Schmidt) (Carthage Studies 9). Gent: Department of Archaeology, Ghent University. 2015b “Cartagine e le città punico-siciliane fra il IV e la metà del III sec. a.C.: continuità e rotture nella produzione anforica siciliana,” Babesch 90: 63–78. 2018a “Rapporti commerciali fra la Sicilia occidentale e l’Italia tirrenica fra IV–III sec. a.C.: i dati della cultura materiale,” HEROM. Journal on Hellenistic and Roman Material Culture 7/1–2: 25–61. 2018b “La distribuzione della produzione anforica di Poseidonia/Paestum (V–I sec. a.C.) nell’area di influenza punica (Sicilia, Tunisia, Malta): una revisione dei dati editi e prospettive di ricerca,” in FACEM (version 06/12/2018) http://www.facem.at/projectpapers.php (24 November 2020). BECHTOLD, B. and SCHMIDT, K. 2015 “Amphora and coarse ware fabrics of Panormos: Evidences for local production and export,” in FACEM (version 06/06/2015) http://www.facem.at/project-papers.php (24 November 2020). BECHTOLD, B., MONTANA, G. and RANDAZZO, L. 2018 “Campanian wine for Punic Sicily: Provenance studies on Graeco-Italic amphorae from recent excavations at Palermo,” Mediterranean Archaeology and Archaeometry 18/2: 11–33. CAVALIER, M. 1985 Les amphores du VIe au IVe siècle dans les fouilles de Lipari (Cahiers des amphores archaïques et classiques 1). Naples: Centre Jean Bérard. CIBECCHINI, F. and CAPELLI, C. 2013 “Nuovi dati archeologici e archeometrici sulle anfore greco-italiche: i relitti di III secolo del Mediterraneo occidentale e la possibilità di una nuova classificazione,” in Itinéraires des vins romains en Gaule IIIe–Ier siècles avant J.-C. Confrontations de faciès, Latte, 2007, edited by F. Olmer, pp. 423–452. Lattes: Centre de Documentation Archéologique Régional. CORRETTI, A., MICHELINI, C., MONTANA, G. and POLITO A. M. 2014 “Contessa Entellina (PA): Amphorae and ‘Romanization’ in inner western Sicily,” Rei Cretariae Romanae Fautorum Acta 43: 519–527. DE CESARE, M. 2006 “Ceramica figurata e mercenariato in Sicilia,” in Guerra e pace in Sicilia e nel Mediterraneo antico (VIII–III sec. a.C.). Arte, prassi e teoria della pace e della guerra, Erice, 2003, pp. 431–445. Pisa: Edizioni della Normale. DI STEFANO, C. A. 1993 “Palermo,” in Di terra in Terra. Nuove scoperte archeologiche nella provincia di Palermo (Mostra Museo Archeologico Regionale di Palermo Antonino Salinas), pp. 254–283. Palermo: Arti Grafiche Siciliane. 2009 La necropoli punica di Palermo. Dieci anni di scavi nell’area della Caserma Tuköry (Biblioteca di “Sicilia Antiqua” 4). Pisa-Roma: Fabrizio Serra Editore. DUPONT, P. 1998 “Archaic East Greek trade amphoras,” in East Greek Pottery, edited by R. M. Cook and P. Dupont, pp. 141–191. London-New York: Routledge. FALSONE, G. 1998 “Anfore fenicio-puniche,” in Palermo Punica, pp. 314–320. Palermo: Sellerio editore. FOURMONT, M. 2013 “Fornaci da vasaio dell’isolato FF1 Nord e produzione anforica nella Selinunte punica (Sicilia),” in FACEM (version 06/12/2013) http://www.facem.at/project-papers.php (20 November 2020).

234

B. BECHTOLD

GASSNER, V. 2003 Materielle Kultur und kulturelle Identität in Velia in spätarchaisch-frühklassisscher Zeit. Untersuchungen zur Gefäß- und Baukeramik aus der Unterstadt (Grabungen 1987– 1994) (Archäologische Forschungen 8, Velia Studien 2). Wien: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften. GASSNER, V. and SAUER, R. 2015 “Transport amphorae from Velia,” in FACEM (version 06/06/2015) http://www. facem.at/project-papers.php (20 November 2020). 2016 “Fabrics of Western Greek amphorae from Campania and from the Bay of Naples,” in FACEM (version 06/12/2016) http://www.facem.at/project–papers.php (20 November 2020). GASSNER, V. and TRAPICHLER, M. 2011 “Fabrics of Paestum,” in FACEM (version 06/06/2011) http://www.facem.at/projectpapers.php (20 November 2020). GÖRANSSON, K. 2007 The Transport Amphorae from Euesperides: The Maritime Trade of a Cyrenaican City 400–250 BCE (Acta Archaeologica Lundensia 25). Lund: Lunds Universitet. INGOGLIA, C. 2009 “I materiali dallo scavo della fattoria si Via Ciantro: ceramica fine e anfore da trasporto,” in Mylai 2. Scavi e ricerche nell’area urbana (1996–2005), edited by G. Tigano, pp. 201–232. Messina: Sicania. LAURO, D. 2005 “Panormos. Scavi nell’area di Via d’Alessi: I materiali del vano ipogeico,” in Atti del V Congresso internazionale di Studi Fenici e Punici. Vol. II, edited by A. Spanò Giammellaro, pp. 739–754. Palermo: Punto grafica. LAWALL, M. 1997 “Shape and symbol: Regionalism in 5th century transport amphora production in Northeastern Greece,” in Trade and Production in Premonetary Greece: Production and Craftsmen, Athens, 1994–1995, edited by C. Gillis, B. Sjöberg and Ch. Risberg, pp. 113–130. Jonsered: Aström. 2004 “Amphoras without stamps: Chronologies and typologies from the Athenian Agora,” in ΣΤ’ ΕΠΙΣΤΗΜΟΠΙΚΗ ΣΥΝΑΝΤΗΣΗ ΓΙΑ ΤΗΝ ΕΛΛΗΠΙΣΤΙΚΗ ΚΕΡΑΜΙΚΗ. ΠΡΟΒΛΗΜΑΤΑ ΧΡΟΝΟΛΟΓΗΣΗΣ, ΒΟΛΟΣ, 2000, pp. 445– 454. Athens: ΕΚΔΟΣΗ ΤΟΥ ΤΑΜΕΙΟΥ ΑΡΧΑΙΟΛΟΓΙΚΩΝ ΠΟΡΩΝ. MARAOUI TELMINI, B. and SCHMIDT, K. 2015 “Des amphores puniques Mañá D de la région d’Utique (Utica): la production de Besbassia,” in FACEM (version 06/06/2015) http://www.facem.at/project-papers.php (20 November 2020). MOLLO, F. 2011 “La circolazione di ceramiche fini e di anfore tra i centri italici del Tirreno calabrese e la Sicilia punica tra IV e III sec. a.C.: rotte commerciali e ateliers produttivi,” in Rivista Studi Fenici XXXVI/1–2 (Fenici e Italici, Cartagine e la Magna Grecia. Popoli a contatto, culture a confronto, Cosenza, 2008), edited by M. Intrieri and S. Ribichini, pp. 233–246. Pisa: Fabrizio Serra Editore. MONTANA, G. and RANDAZZO, L. 2015 “Le ricerche archeometriche: la caratterizzazione delle produzioni di anfore punicosiciliane,” in B. Bechtold, Le produzioni di anfore puniche della Sicilia occidentale (VII– III/II sec. a.C.) (with contributions by G. Montana, L. Randazzo and K. Schmidt) (Carthage Studies 9). Gent: Department of Archaeology, Ghent University. OLCESE, G. 2010 Le anfore greco italiche di Ischia: archeologia e archeometria. Artigianato nel Golfo di Napoli (with contributions by S. Giunta, I. Iliopoulos, V. Thirion Merle and G. Montana) (Immensa Aequora). Roma: Edizioni Quasar.

AMPHORA CIRCULATION AT PALERMO

235

PANELLA, C. 2010 “Roma, il suburbio e l’Italia in età medio e tardo-repubblicana: cultura materiale, territori, economie,” Facta. A Journal of Roman Material Culture Studies 4: 11–118. PALERMO PUNICA 1998 Palermo Punica. Mostra Museo Archeologico Regionale Antonino Salinas, 6 Dicembre 1995 - 30 Settembre 1996. Palermo: Sellerio editore. RAMON TORRES, J. 1995 Las ánforas fenicio-púnicas del Mediterráneo central y occidental (Col·lecció Instrumenta 2). Barcelona: Universitat de Barcelona. SARÀ, G. 1998 “Anfore greche,” in Palermo Punica. Mostra Museo Archeologico Regionale Antonino Salinas, 6 Dicembre 1995 - 30 Settembre 1996. pp. 326–334. Palermo: Sellerio editore. SOURISSEAU, J.-C. 2006 “Les amphores commerciales de la nécropole de Refriscolaro à Camarina. Remarques préliminaires sur les productions corinthiennes de type A,” in Camarina. 2006 anni dopo la sua fondazione. Nuovi studi sulla città e sul territorio, Ragusa, 2002/2003, edited by G. Pugliese Caratelli, P. Pelagatti, S. Di Stefano and L. De Lachenal, pp. 129–147. Roma: Istituto Poligrafico e Zecca dello Stato. 2011 “La diffusion des vins grecs d’Occident du VIIIe au IVe s. av. J.-C., sources écrites et documents archéologiques,” in La vigna di Dioniso: vite, vino e culti in Magna Grecia (Atti del quarantanovesimo Convegno di Studi sulla Magna Grecia, Taranto, 2009), edited by M. Lombardo, A. Siciliano and A. Alessia, pp. 145–252. Taranto: Istituto per la storia e l’archeologia della Magna Grecia. SPANÒ GIAMMELLARO, A. 2000 “La ceramica fenicia della Sicilia,” in La ceramica fenicia di Sardegna. Dati, problematiche, confronti, edited by P. Bartoloni and L. Campanella, pp. 303–331. Roma: Consiglio nazionale delle ricerche. SPANÒ GIAMMELLARO, A. (ed.) 2005 V Congresso Internazionale di Studi Fenici e Punici, Marsala–Palermo, 2000. Palermo: Università degli Studi di Palermo.

Babette BECHTOLD Institut für Klassische Archäologie Universität Wien Austria

AMPHORAE FROM SANT’IMBENIA (ALGHERO, SARDINIA)1 Marco RENDELI, Elisabetta GARAU and Beatrice DE ROSA ABSTRACT The local production of amphorae at Sant’Imbenia (Alghero, Sardinia), testifies to the cooperation between local and foreign potters in order to create a new shape for the Nuragic community. The analysis of clays and the morphological study of the shapes has widened the repertoire of these transport vessels, adding to the Sant’Imbenia type another ‘family’ of amphorae without a neck which was produced on site. The amphorae produced in the Nurra region were widespread in North Africa and southern Spain both at local sites such as Utica, Huelva and La Rebanadilla, and at colonial sites including Carthage and Cadiz.

INTRODUCTION The Nuragic site of Sant’Imbenia lies near the Porto Conte bay in northwestern Sardinia (Fig. 1). Thirty years of archaeological research on the Iron Age settlement has brought to light a ninth century BCE urban plan in connection with the economic, social and cultural changes related to this period (Fig. 1). The identification of a market place implies a strong transformation of social and economic systems with the creation of a territorial network which produced surplus goods and organised their centralisation at Sant’Imbenia. In this nouveau milieu, the beginning of the production and the of ‘amphorae’, within the typical local assemblage, and the arrival of imported transport vessels are placed. The amphorae, both local and imported, had been found in almost every room of the site (Fig. 1) in various stages of life and use. Amphorae were found on the floors or the related floor preparation of rooms 242 and 47,3 in some ritual depositions in rooms 474 and 515 among the layers of collapse and abandon in room 30.6 Regarding the large number of amphorae found at Sant’Imbenia, we have adopted a methodological approach that considers technology and typology as two aspects of equal significance. An integrated, cross-study was carried out on the clays, and the technological processes and typological characteristics of the sherds were analysed. 1

 Intrduction by E. Garau; I. The archaeometric study by B. de Rosa; II. Morphology… in progress by E. Garau; Conclusion by M. Rendeli. 2  Sartini 2012–2013. 3  Fadda 2015, pp. 12–13. 4  Fadda 2015, p. 8. 5  De Rosa et al. 2015b, pp. 309–313. 6  Mura 2015, p. 5.

238

M. RENDELI

– E.

GARAU

– B.

DE ROSA

Fig. 1. Plan of the site of Sant’Imbenia (L. Sanna and M. A. Demurtas) with the indication of the distribution of the amphorae.

This method of analysis which is strictly connected to the stratigraphic context, allows for the definition of a coherent framework for the amphorae, which were examined for their main characteristics (technology, typology and chronology). The archaeometric analyses allow us to distinguish between local and non-local productions which correspond to four archaeometric groups: two local productions and two related to importations from the Mediterranean with a particular focus on the area of Carthage and Iberian Peninsula. The definition of local amphorae (Families 1 and 2: henceforth F/1 and F/2) was based on research undertaken within the territory surrounding Sant’Imbenia. The research was

AMPHORAE FROM SANT’IMBENIA

239

conducted within 20–25 km of the site in order to identify the exploitation areas of clays. The concept of ‘local pottery’ is related to the areas of exploitation and/or production included in the political and economic system of Sant’Imbenia.

I. THE ARCHAEOMETRIC STUDY The archaeometric analysis was carried out to characterise the raw clay, to locate the area of extraction and to understand the technological processes which took place during ceramic production.7 Several technological stages took place during the production of the amphorae which involved choices which were made within the confines of context, resources and the ability of the craftsman. These stages can be understood only if we analyse them within the social transformations of the site. Specialised production can be connected to a deeper knowledge and a wider level of experience and skill: the amphorae are not the result of experimentation and trials, but rather they are the result of a technological way which was followed with awareness and developed by some specialised potters.8 The location of the clay quarry, its distance from the site and an analysis of the different phases of the technological process may allow us to understand the specialisation of potters who spent their lives immersed in pottery production. The analysis has allowed for the identification of archaeometric groups (abbreviated as AG), both local and imported (Fig. 2).9 AG/A is characterised by a volcanic matrix, compact in texture and dark in colour, usually with a chromatic zoning forming a sandwich effect through the section. The porosity is low, between five and ten per cent, with a moderate amount of additions, between ten and 15 per cent, and both fine crushed and natural particles in equal quantities are present; grains are moderately birefracting. Among the additions we have observed quartz, feldspars (sanidine, orthoclase and microcline), pyroxenes, olivine, muscovite, iron oxides, fragments of volcanic rocks, pumices and ignimbrites. AG/B demonstrates a compact and light brown carbonate matrix with chromatic zoning throughout the section. The clay is highly porous, around 20 per cent, with a high concentration of additions, more than 15 per cent, demonstrating a bimodal distribution and a relatively low rate of birefraction. Among the mineral additions we have identified phyllosilicates, quartz, muscovite, calcite, rare feldspars, iron oxides, fragments of sedimentary and metamorphic rocks, phyllites and litharenites. Traces of vegetal remains are burnt. AG/C is characterised by samples with pink and red carbonate matrices and very little chromatic zoning. The porosity of the clay is medium, around 15 per cent, with a moderate amount of additions, approximately 15 per cent, demonstrating a bimodal distribution and a low rate of birefraction. Among the minerals in the clay, we have observed mono-crystalline quartz, micritic carbonate fragments, rare spatic calcite, feldspars and opaque minerals. 7

 De Rosa and Garau 2016, pp. 230–234.  Schiffer and Skibo 1987, pp. 595–622; Sillar and Tite 2000, pp. 43–60; Schiffer 2004, pp. 579–585; Albero Santacreu 2014, pp. 146–193. 9  De Rosa 2014, pp. 225–236; De Rosa et al. 2015a. 8

240

M. RENDELI

– E.

GARAU

– B.

DE ROSA

Fig. 2. Optical microscopy images of different samples of local production (B. De Rosa).

AMPHORAE FROM SANT’IMBENIA

241

Micro-fossils of a carbonate nature are frequent, some are oblong and others are round in shape. Traces of vegetal remains are burnt. AG/D is represented by very few samples which are characterised by a dense clay matrix, gradating from light brown to dark brown, with clear chromatic zoning. The clay is distinguished by a low to medium porosity, around ten per cent, with a high concentration of additions, more than 15 per cent, in which both the fine crushed and natural particles are equally represented and the grains are moderately birefracting. Among the tempers we have recognised quartz, muscovite, calcite and fragments of metamorphic rocks, such as schists. The mineralogical and chemical analyses were carried out only on a few samples, none of which included AG/D which will be analysed in the future. The samples of AG/A and B show an abundance of quartz and variable quantities of phyllo-silicates and muscovite. Large quantities of diopside, gehlenite and amorphous sections can be observed in AG/A, while the presence of calcite is low. The samples of AG/B are rich in calcite while the almost total absence of diopside and gehlenite is noted. The samples of AG/C are characterised by a high concentration of quartz and calcite, the latter almost always associated with illite/mica; the k-feldspar is always present, while the presence of hematite is very low. An analysis of the stages of technological production has indicated that the samples are of local manufacture (Fig. 3). The majority of the amphorae were hand-worked. The interior surfaces are seldom irregular, with some smoothing and pressed fingerprints, while the exteriors are generally smoothed and regular. Traces of the surface treatment can be observed on the exterior surfaces which were generally worked with soft tools or the palm of the hand while the clay was fresh. Handles and rims were added after the shaping of the body. Once the vase was moulded, the potter covered the surfaces with a ferrous clay slip which was applied with the hands or with a wet cloth. Once the amphora was partially dried, it was burnished with a hard tool. The samples made from the clay of AG/A, and related to F/2, are almost always slipped,10 while those of AG/B demonstrate a variable situation: those of F/2 are almost always red slipped, while those of F/1 generally show smoothed surfaces that are not slipped. The presence of the red surfaces is connected to the ceramic production of the Iron Age, when approximately half of all ceramic products had such a coating. This new data should be read as the result of technological and cultural exchanges with ‘other’ potters or artisans. The firing temperatures are estimated on the bases of mineralogical transformations which occured during the baking: the presence or absence of calcite and/or muscovite is suggestive of a temperature around 750 and 850°C, while neoformation minerals indicate temperatures higher than 800–900°C. These factors must be considered in combination with the observation of different parameters such as the highest temperature reached, the quickness of the heating in the kilns, the time and the atmosphere of baking. The samples of AG/A were baked at a temperature higher than 850°C. This hypothesis is suggested by the characteristics of the muscovite observed in the petrographic microscopy which shows very low interference colours, partially vitrified matrices and surfaces, the absence of calcite and phyllosilicates and 10

 The samples have different types of coating: slip and ‘ingobbio’, which differ from a technological point of view based on the vitrification of the coating itself. Here we use the general term ‘coating’ that includes both.

242

M. RENDELI

– E.

GARAU

– B.

DE ROSA

Fig. 3. Stereomicroscopy and optical images of sample 56, matrix and surfaces (B. De Rosa).

AMPHORAE FROM SANT’IMBENIA

243

the presence of gehlenite and diopside. The samples of AG/B were fired at temperatures around 750–800°C as the presence of calcite and muscovite and the absence of neoformation minerals indicate. The results obtained by the mineral and petrographic characterisation of the samples provide a clear picture of the supply areas of raw resources. The AG/A and B clays can be considered local, whereby local may be interpreted as something produced within the Sant’Imbenia network within 20–25 km of the site. The two clays show extraction basins located in different areas which were very distant from one another. This data reflects the production process regarding all pottery produced in the Sant’Imbenia system during the Iron Age. The AG/B clay is the same identified for the productions of the final Bronze Age where it was probably picked up in areas quite near to the site, between the lake of Baratz, Porto Ferro and Cala Viola. The clay of AG/A was used for the first time during the transition between the final Bronze and Early Iron ages, becoming dominant and almost exclusively used for cooking wares. The place of extraction is quite distant from Sant’Imbenia and is located in in the area of Calabona and Vessus, south of Alghero.

II. MORPHOLOGY …

IN PROGRESS

The comparison between technological characteristics and morphological types confirmed that the imported transport amphorae are related to Phoenician products mainly of North Africa (area of Carthage: Fig. 4)11 and the Iberian Peninsula (Círculo del Estrecho: Fig. 4). In relation to the total amount of the amphorae, we can confirm the dominant presence of local vessels and a considerable quantity of African products as the number of the finds for each archaeometric group clearly shows: 56/A (local); 41/B (local); 48/C (African) and 5/D (Iberian). Within the local amphorae, we have distinguished two typological ‘families’ (Fig. 5 and Figs. 6–7) according to the presence or absence of a neck. F/2 is related to the class of amphorae identified as the Sant’Imbenia type by I. Oggiano12 at the Sardinian site and as nuraghische Transportamphoren by R. Docter13 at Carthage. The other family (F/1) represents important new evidence within the framework of local amphorae which now appear more complex and diversified. Morphological peculiarities of the amphorae of the Sant’Imbenia type include a thickened rim, in a variety of shapes, which may be categorised into different types and variants (Fig. 5 and Figs. 6–7). The neck, typical of F/2, has a truncated cone profile, but in some cases it is vertical. In both families, the shoulder may be sloping, or less inclined, with an ovoid body and a rounded base. The handles have a sub-circular or sub-ovoid section, but they may also be wider and flattened along the lower section, similar to the askoid jugs.  The typological series represented in Figs. 5–7 should be considered as a work in progress; they include the drawing both elaborated by E. Garau and collected during previous studies (Oggiano 2000, figs. 4–5, 7–9; Fadda 2015, fig. 3, p. 2237) or tesi di laurea magistrale (Mura 2010–2011; Sartini 2012–2013). 12  Oggiano 2000, pp. 237–243. 13  Docter 2007, pp. 635–640. 11

244

M. RENDELI

– E.

GARAU

– B.

DE ROSA

Fig. 4. Imported amphorae (elab. by E. Garau).

AMPHORAE FROM SANT’IMBENIA

Fig. 5. Amphorae from Sant’Imbenia: Family 1 (elab. by E. Garau).

245

246

M. RENDELI

– E.

GARAU

– B.

DE ROSA

Fig. 6. Amphorae from Sant’Imbenia: Family 2 (elab. by E. Garau).

AMPHORAE FROM SANT’IMBENIA

Fig. 7. Amphorae from Sant’Imbenia: Family 2 (elab. by E. Garau).

247

248

M. RENDELI

– E.

GARAU

– B.

DE ROSA

We have also observed a strong connection between types and the archaeometric groups. Some types were manufactured with one clay only (AG/A: types 1.4, 1.7, 1.8, 2.2, 2.4, 2.5, 2.6, 2.7, 2.8, 2.9, 2.13, 2.16; AG/B: types 1.1, 1.5, 2.12). In other cases, the two groups of local clays were used for the same morphological types (types 1.2, 1.3, 1.6; 2.1, 2.3, 2.11, 2.14, 2.15). The two families are so represented in each group of clay: – AG/A (represented by 52 sherds) is characterised by a higher presence of F/2 (40 sherds) than F/1 (12 fragments); this group includes other 7 sherds not related to specific types as they are bases and handles; – AG/B (documented by 41 finds) shows a prominence of F/1 (29 sherds) compared to that of F/2 (12 fragments). This data indicates that F/2 is dominant with 52 sherds compared to 41 sherds of F/1. The sherds previously found in the hut of the hoards (room 23)14 and in the ‘piazzetta’ (area 29)15 related principally to F/2 which further increased the different weight between the two typological families. These indications also allow us to underline some peculiarities concerning the surface treatments: – the slip is more frequent on the amphorae related to Group A (44 of 56) than on those of the other local group (ten of 41); – this slip is more frequently documented on the amphorae of F/2 and was produced within both archaeometric groups: F/2–AG/A (total: 40): 34 with coating; F/2–AG/B (total: 12): six with coating; F/1–AG/A (total: 16): ten with coating; F/1–AG/B (total: 29): four with coating; – the same type, or the related variants (1.3; 2.4; 2.9; 2.13), may or may not be slipped; in other cases, the same type may be slipped within both the archaeometric groups (2.3, 2.15). The connection between the slip, AG/A and F/2 is clear. It confirms, again the liaison between AG/A and the slip which is observed in many vessels from Sant’Imbenia dating to the Iron Age. The production of a new ceramic class – the transport amphorae – follows the same technological processes that involve a great part of the local potteries (jars, cups, pots, jugs, storage vessels etc.).16 The transport vessels of Sant’Imbenia show correspondences with other amphorae which spread throughout Sardinia, the central western Mediterranean, North Africa and, particularly, southern Spain. In the insular context, we find various parallels, mainly between F/2, in other ‘Nuragic’ (or local) sites such as Su Padrigheddu-San Vero Milis,17 Santo Stefano-Irgoli, LuthutaiSiniscola,18 and for F/1 with vessels found at Sulky.19 14

 Oggiano 2000, pp. 237–243.  Oggiano 2000, p. 243. 16  See paragraph 1 (B. De Rosa). 17  Roppa 2012, pp. 9–10 and 19. 18  Sanciu 2010, pp. 3–5, 7 and 9. 19  Guirguis 2012, p. 51. 15

AMPHORAE FROM SANT’IMBENIA

249

A comparison with the Mediterranean allows us to identify a particular relationship with the Carthaginian area. The considerable number of African amphorae20 highlighted at Sant’Imbenia and the morphological peculiarities of F/1 (GA/B: types 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.5, 1.6; GA/A: 1.2, 1.3, 1.4, 1.6–1.8), which show a clear likeness to African types, suggest intense exchanges between the two areas. In this framework it is important to underline the similarity between F/2 of the Sant’Imbenia amphorae (currently 13 types) with the Subklassen nuraghische Amphoren 1–3.21 In the southern Mediterranean, the connection between Sant’Imbenia and Utica is also evident: the comparisons concern the family of amphorae with a neck.22 The various settlements of the Iberian Peninsula where the Nuragic amphorae were found, such as Huelva-Plaza de las Monjas,23 Cádiz, calle Ancha n. 2924 and Teatro Cómico25 and La Rebanadilla26 offer many comparisons related to some types of the Sant’Imbenia F/2. The Sant’Imbenia amphorae, associated with the stratigraphic sequences and contexts recently highlighted and studied, including rooms 4727 and 24,28 can be dated to the middle of the eighth century BCE. A higher chronology, dating to the end of the ninth to the first half of eighth century BCE, was indicated for some amphorae previously found29 and by others from Mediterranean contexts such as Utica, La Rebanadilla and Huelva.30 These products underline the role of Sant’Imbenia as one of the earliest centres of the central western Mediterranean where amphorae were produced. The cross-analysis between the stratigraphic sequence and the archaeometric and typological data indicate that the related production is connected to the ‘urbanistic’ transformations of the site which occurred between the second half of the ninth and the beginning of the eighth century BCE. The local amphorae, and those that were imported, represent important markers of a different economic-politic and social pattern which was related to a new system of production and exchange.31

CONCLUSIONS In summary, with approximately 200 diagnostic amphora sherds, we could change the procedure of analysis by giving equal importance to the typology and the archaeometry. This, from some perspectives, represents a return to the past, to Roman amphora studies, where the analysis was mainly carried out on the clays before the shapes. The research on 20

 Ramon Torres 1995, types T–3.1.1.2/T–3.1.1.1; Docter 2007, Subklasse Karthago 1 A1.  Docter 2007, pp. 635–640. 22  Six types at least: Monchabert and Ben Jerbania 2013, pp. 47–48; Lopez Castro et al. 2016; Ben Jerbania and Redissi 2015, pp. 188 and 190–191. 23  González de Canales Cerisola et al. 2004, fig. XIV: 2, XIV: 5 and XIV: 9. 24  Ruiz Mata et al. 2014, p. 104. 25  Torres Ortiz et al. 2014, pp. 53–54. 26  Sánchez Sánchez-Moreno et al. 2012, fig. 7. 27  AG/A: 2.3, 2.16. De Rosa and Garau 2016. 28  Sartini 2015; AG/A: 2.14; AG/B: 1.2. 29  Oggiano 2000, pp. 236–238. 30  López Castro et al. 2016, pp. 82–85, and previous bibliography. 31  Garau 2015, pp. 299–300. 21

250

M. RENDELI

– E.

GARAU

– B.

DE ROSA

the amphorae is part of a wider project which aims to define the typical features of the local wares, starting from the modern clays and comparing them with the old vases.32 In a market place, this research has allowed us to differentiate between local and foreign products with confidence. Being an almost unknown shape in Sardinia, and broadly in the western Mediterranean area, the analysis of the technological processes of the surface treatments gave us another important starting point: the Sant’Imbenia amphorae are the result of a common development between foreign and local potters, an interchange of knowledge, experience and technology.33 The transport amphora is unknown to the Nuragic ceramic repertoire and its introduction and production in a local site seems very significant. Contacts with Levantine merchants and craftsmen favoured the adoption of a foreign (Oriental) vessel that could satisfy the needs of a new production and exchange system.34 Hospitality and different forms of exchange can be the words, already used by S. Bafico,35 I. Oggiano,36 G. Garbini37 and D. Ridgway,38 which signal the new times from the second half of the ninth century BCE for at least three centuries. The second ‘revolution’ is evident in the families, types and shapes which were identified within the local clays.39 Until recently, the Sant’Imbenia amphora was represented by an ovoid vase with a short neck and a complex rim. However, Sant’Imbenia now produces two families of amphorae, one with neck and another without, perhaps nearer to some Oriental and western Mediterranean prototypes. This means, in our opinion, that many of our certainties have to be reanalysed and restudied starting with a cross-analysis of both the clays and shapes. The third ‘revolution’ was the result of an extraordinary transformation that occurred in the Nuragic society before the second half of the ninth century BCE which led to the creation of a strong network which had Sant’Imbenia as a type of capital and gateway community.40 In other words, the control of the production and distribution of goods and the transformation of a site into a market place with many annexes, is the result of a local development in which foreign merchants and craftsmen acted as catalyst and accelerator for change.41 In this regard, the transport amphorae produced at Sant’Imbenia are a sign of these social and economic changes of the milieu in which they were produced and exported. The amphorae encompas a new feature of the rural and agricultural landscape where the vines and wine presumably had an important part. Amphorae, ‘vasi a collo,’ askoid jugs and single or double handed cups have constituted the ‘drinking kit’ at Sant’Imbenia and in many other parts of the central and western Mediterranean area, presumably the Tyrrhenian area, North Africa, Carthage and southern Spain.42

32

 De Rosa and Rendeli 2016.  De Rosa and Garau 2016. 34  Rendeli 2014a, 2014b, forthcoming. 35  Bafico 1997, 1998. 36  Oggiano 1997. 37  Garbini 1997. 38  Ridgway 1997. 39  De Rosa and Garau 2016. 40  Rendeli 2014a, forthcoming. 41  Rendeli 2014b. 42  Rendeli forthcoming. 33

AMPHORAE FROM SANT’IMBENIA

251

BIBLIOGRAPHY ALBERO SANTACREU, D. 2014 Materiality, Techniques and Society in Pottery Production. The Technological Study of Archaeological Ceramics through Paste Analysis. Berlin: De Gruyter. BAFICO, S. 1997 “Fenici e indigeni a Sant’Imbenia (Alghero). Il villaggio nuragico,” in Phoinikes b shrdn. I Fenici in Sardegna: nuove acquisizioni, edited by P. Bernardini, R. D’Oriano and P. G. Spanu, pp. 45–46. Cagliari: Memoria Storica. 1998 Nuraghe e villaggio Sant’Imbenia, Alghero. Viterbo: Betagamma. BEN JERBANIA, I. and REDISSI, T. 2015 “Utique et la Méditerranée centrale à la fin du IXe et au VIIIe s. av. J.-C.: les enseignements de la céramique grecque géometrique,” Rivista di Studi Fenici XLII/2: 177–203. DE ROSA, B. 2014 “Anfore dal sito nuragico di Sant’Imbenia (Alghero, Sardegna): studi archeometrici,” in Materiali e contesti dell’età del Ferro sarda (Atti della Giornata di Studi, San Vero Milis, 2012) (Rivista di Studi Fenici XLI/1–2), edited by P. Van Dommelen and A. Roppa, pp. 225–236. Pisa-Roma: Fabrizio Serra Editore. DE ROSA, B. and GARAU, E. 2016 “The Sant’Imbenia amphorae,” in IMEKO. International Conference on Metrology for Archaeology and Cultural Heritage, Torino, 2016, pp. 230–234. Torino: International Measurement Confederation. DE ROSA, B. and RENDELI, M. 2016 “Pottery from S. Imbenia (Sardinia, Italy): Functions vs decorations,” in IMEKO. International Conference on Metrology for Archaeology and Cultural Heritage, Torino, 2016. Vol. 2, pp. 6–9. Torino: International Measurement Confederation. DE ROSA, B., RENDELI, M. and MAMELI, P. 2015a “Ceramica comune dall’abitato nuragico di Sant’Imbenia (Alghero, Sardegna). Alcune osservazioni sulla tecnologia di produzione di manufatti dell’età del Ferro,” The Journal of Fasti Online 334: 1–17. http://www.fastionline.org/docs/ FOLDER-it-2015-335.pdf (29 January 2021). DE ROSA, B., RENDELI, M., MAMELI, P. and ARCE CUETO, L. 2015b “Archaeometric and technological analyses of pottery from the Nuragic site of Sant’Imbenia (Alghero–Sardinia): Ambiente 51,” in IMEKO. International Conference on Metrology for Archaeology and Cultural Heritage, Benevento, 2015, pp. 309–313. Benevento: Università degli studi del Sannio. DOCTER, R. F. 2007 “Transportamphoren. Archaische Transportamphoren,” in Karthago. Die Ergebnisse der Hamburger Grabung unter dem Decumanus Maximus (Hamburger Forschungen zur Archäologie 2), edited by H. G. Niemeyer, R. F. Docter and K. Schmidt, pp. 616–662. Mainz am Rhein: Philipp von Zabern. FADDA, N. 2015 “Ambiente 47: la sala di rappresentanza,” in E. Garau, M. Rendeli, I. Mura, N. Fadda and E. Sartini, “Sant’Imbenia: gli ambienti commerciali e la piazza,” in Momenti di continuità e rottura: bilancio di 30 anni di convegni (Atti del XX Convegno Internazionale L’Africa romana, Alghero, 2013), edited by P. Ruggeri, pp. 2235–2241. Sassari: Carocci. GARAU, E. 2015 “‘Logiche’ insediative costiere nella Sardegna dell’età del Ferro,” in I pascoli, i campi, il mare. Paesaggi d’altura e di pianura in Italia dall’Età del Bronzo al Medioevo (Storia e Archeologia Globale 2), edited by F. Cambi, G. De Venuto and R. Goffredo, pp. 297–312. Bari: Edipuglia.

252 GARBINI, G. 1997

M. RENDELI

– E.

GARAU

– B.

DE ROSA

“Fenici e indigeni a Sant’Imbenia (Alghero). Due iscrizioni su ceramica,” in Phoinikes b shrdn. I Fenici in Sardegna: nuove acquisizioni, edited by P. Bernardini, R. D’Oriano and P. G. Spanu, pp. 52–53. Cagliari: Memoria Storica. GONZÁLEZ DE CANALES CERISOLA, F., SERRANO PICHARDO, L. and LLOMPART GÓMEZ, J. 2004 El emporio fenicio precolonial de Huelva (ca. 900–770 a.C.). Madrid: Biblioteca Nueva. GUIRGUIS, M. 2012 Tyrio fundata potenti. Temi sardi di archeologia fenicio-punica. Sassari: Editrice Democratica Sarda. LÓPEZ CASTRO, J. L., FERJAOUI, A., MEDEROS MARTÍN, A., MARTÍNEZ HAHNMÜLLER, V. and BEN JERBANIA, I. 2016 “La colonización fenicia inicial en el Mediterráneo Central: nuevas excavaciones arqueológicas en Utica (Túnez),” Trabajos de Prehistoria 73/1: 68–89. MONCHAMBERT, J.-Y., BEN JERBANIA, I., BELARBI, M., BONADIES, L., BRICCHI-DUHEM, H., DE JONGHE, M., GALLET, Y., NACEF, J., SGHAÏER, Y., TEKKI, A., THÉBAULT, E. and VERMEULEN, S. 2013 “Utique,” in Chronique des activités archéologiques de l’École française de Rome http://journals.openedition.org/cefr/996 (29 January 2021). MURA, I. 2010–2011 Sant’Imbenia: i materiali dell’ambiente 30 del villaggio nuragico. Unpublished PhD diss., Università degli studi di Sassari. 2015 “Ambiente 30: la piazza,” in E. Garau, M. Rendeli, I. Mura, N. Fadda and E. Sartini, “Sant’Imbenia: gli ambienti commerciali e la piazza,” in Momenti di continuità e rottura: bilancio di 30 anni di convegni (Atti del XX Convegno Internazionale L’Africa romana, Alghero, 2013), edited by P. Ruggeri, pp. 2232–2235. Sassari: Carocci. OGGIANO, I. 1997 “Fenici e indigeni a Sant’Imbenia (Alghero). La ceramica fenicia,” in Phoinikes b shrdn. I Fenici in Sardegna: nuove acquisizioni, edited by P. Bernardini, R. D’Oriano and P. G. Spanu, pp. 46–50. Cagliari: Memoria Storica. 2000 “La ceramica fenicia di Sant’Imbenia (Alghero, SS),” in La ceramica fenicia di Sardegna. Dati, problematiche, confronti (Atti del I Congresso Internazionale sulcitano, Sant’Antioco, 1997) (Collezione di Studi Fenici 40), edited by P. Bartoloni and L Campanella, pp. 236–258. Roma: Consiglio nazionale delle ricerche. RAMON TORRES, J. 1995 Las ánforas fenicio-púnicas del Mediterráneo central y occidental (Col·lecció Instrumenta 2). Barcelona: Universitat de Barcelona. RENDELI, M. 2014a “Sant’Imbenia (Alghero, Sardegna),” in Phéniciens d’Orient et d’Occident. Mélanges Josette Elaye, edited by A. Lemaire, B. Dufour and F. Pfitzmann, pp. 471–486. Paris: Maisonneuve. 2014b “Prolegomena alle transazioni economiche del I millennio a.C.,” in L’isola delle torri. Giovanni Lilliu e la Sardegna nuragica, Catalogo della mostra, edited by M. Minoja, G. Salis and L. Usai, pp. 143–147. Sassari: Carlo Delfino editore. forthcoming “Sant’Imbenia, la Sardegna nuragica e il Mediterraneo,” in IX Coloquio Internacional del Centro de Estudios Fenicios y Púnicos (Almería, 2015). RIDGWAY, D. 1997 “Fenici e indigeni a Sant’Imbenia (Alghero). Nota sui frammenti di skyphoi euboici geometrici,” in Phoinikes b shrdn. I Fenici in Sardegna: nuove acquisizioni, edited by P. Bernardini, R. D’Oriano and P. G. Spanu, pp. 50–52. Cagliari: Memoria Storica. ROPPA, A. 2012 “L’età del Ferro nella Sardegna centro–occidentale. Il villaggio di Su Padrigheddu, San Vero Milis,” The Journal of Fasti Online 252: 1–25. http://www.fastionline. org/docs/FOLDER-it-2012-252.pdf (29 January 2021).

AMPHORAE FROM SANT’IMBENIA

253

RUIZ MATA, D., PÉREZ, C. J. and GÓMEZ FERNÁNDEZ, V. 2014 “Una nueva zona fenicia de época arcaica en Cádiz: el solar de la “calle Ancha, 29,” in Los Fenicios en la Bahía de Cádiz. Nuevas investigaciones (Collezione di Studi Fenici 46), edited by M. Botto, pp. 83–122. Roma: Fabrizio Serra. SÁNCHEZ SÁNCHEZ-MORENO, V. M., GALINDO SAN JOSÉ, L., JUZGADO NAVARRO, M. and DUMAS PEÑUELAS, M. 2012 “El asentamiento fenicio de La Rebanadilla a finales del siglo IX a.C.,” in Diez años de arqueología fenicia en la provincia de Málaga (2001–2010), María del Mar Escalante Aguilar, in memoriam, edited by E. García Alfonso, pp. 67–85. Sevilla: Dirección General de Bienes Culturales e Instituciones Museísticas. SANCIU, A. 2010 “Fenici lungo la costa orientale sarda. Nuove acquisizioni,” The Journal of Fasti Online 174: 1-12. http://www.fastionline.org/docs/FOLDER-it-2010-174.pdf (29 January 2021). SARTINI, E. 2012–2013 Sant’Imbenia. Studio di un ambiente artigianale e commerciale. Unpublished PhD diss., Università degli studi di Roma “La Sapienza”. 2015 “Ambiente 24: una bottega,” in E. Garau, M. Rendeli, I. Mura, N. Fadda and E. Sartini, “Sant’Imbenia: gli ambienti commerciali e la piazza,” in Momenti di continuità e rottura: bilancio di 30 anni di convegni (Atti del XX Convegno Internazionale L’Africa romana, Alghero, 2013), edited by P. Ruggeri, pp. 2241–2248. Sassari: Carocci. SCHIFFER, M. B. 2004 “Studying technological change: A behavioral perspective,” World Archaeology 36: 579–585. SCHIFFER, M. B. and SKIBO, J. M. 1987 “Theory and experiment in the study of technological change,” Current Anthropology 28/5: 595–622. SILLAR, B. and TITE, M. S. 2000 “The challenge of ‘technological choices’ for material science approaches to archaeology,” Archaeometry 42/1: 43–60. TORRES ORTIZ, M., LÓPEZ ROSENDO, E., GENER BASALLOTE, J. M., NAVARRO GARCÍA, M. A. and PAJUELO SÁEZ, J. M. 2014 “El material cerámico de los contextos fenicios del “Teatro Cómico” de Cádiz: un análisis preliminar,” in Los Fenicios en la Bahía de Cádiz. Nuevas investigaciones (Collezione di Studi Fenici 46), edited by M. Botto, pp. 52–82. Roma: Fabrizio Serra.

Marco RENDELI Dipartimento di Storia, Scienze dell’Uomo e della Formazione Università degli Studi di Sassari Italy

Elisabetta GARAU Dipartimento di Storia, Scienze dell’Uomo e della Formazione Università degli Studi di Sassari Italy

Beatrice DE ROSA Botanica, Ecologia e Geologia Università degli Studi di Sassari Italy

THE PHOENICIAN AND PUNIC AMPHORAE FROM PANI LORIGA (AREA A) Tatiana PEDRAZZI ABSTRACT In the Phoenician and Punic settlement of Pani Loriga, in Sardinia, a residential quarter has been discovered on top of the mound (Area A) in the 2007–2011 excavations carried out by the Italian CNR. In a large room, more than 15 complete Punic amphorae have been unearthed. A preliminary typological study of these vessels will be presented here, with some additional reflections on their provenance and function.

INTRODUCTION The Phoenician and Punic settlement of Pani Loriga is located near the modern village of Santadi (Carbonia-Iglesias), in the southwestern part of Sardinia.1 Since 2007, a project of archaeological research at Pani Loriga has been conducted by the Italian National Council of Researches (CNR) of Rome under the direction of Massimo Botto. Investigations on the plateau, located on the south side of the hill, in the part of the mound known as Field A, were directed between 2007 and 2011 by Ida Oggiano with the collaboration of the present author.2 A brief history of human settlement in this area may help to understand the context in which the Phoenician and Punic amphorae were discovered. In this sector of the mound, previous investigations were carried out in the 1970s and the presence of Punic houses here were already known. The CNR research mainly focused on two well-preserved large rooms in the southeastern part of Field A.3 This part of the mound was inhabited from the third millennium BCE when the area was used as a settlement.4 Abandoned for a long time, the plateau had again been chosen for the establishment of a settlement with an orthogonal organisation during the sixth century BCE. It was characterised by residential units with a regular layout placed along main streets.5 The shape of the houses, with elongated rooms with alternating open courtyards and covered areas, are 1

 Botto 2012; Botto and Candelato 2014; Botto et al. 2010.  My special thanks to Ida Oggiano and Massimo Botto, who gave me the opportunity of this study. 3  The study of amphorae and their contexts would not have been possible without the contribution of a team. I thank all those who have collaborated and are still collaborating. The amphorae were meticulously brought to light and recovered thanks to the tireless work my the colleague and friend, Fabio Dessena, whom I want to remember here. To his memory this paper is gratefully dedicated. 4  Thanks to the indications of Remo Forresu, we can state, as a preliminary observation, that the materials date back to the prehistoric facies of Abealzu-Filigosa. There was also a necropolis (domus de Janas) dug into the slope leading to the top of the hill, where the nuraghe is still in place. 5  The houses had courtyards; the different rooms were connected by passageways so as to give the impression of a complex and elaborate building. 2

256

T. PEDRAZZI

reminiscent of Levantine and Carthaginian houses of the same period.6 The construction technique, with the lower part of the walls built in stone masonry and the higher section built with mudbricks, supporting a flat roof made of clay, is also attested in the Phoenician and Punic world. It is a technique that is still in use today in Sardinia, as well as in the Levantine countries and North Africa. One of the investigated houses yielded an extraordinary stratigraphic sequence that allows us to reconstruct in detail both the building methods used and the life of the settlement up to the fourth century BCE, when the building was suddenly abandoned for reasons unknown. In order to date the foundation of the house, we may utilise the morphology of the cooking pot found buried as ritual foundation deposit near the northern wall of the Room 1; the pot belongs to a type attested between the seventh and sixth centuries BCE. When the foundations of the house were being laid, a ritual practice was carried out and two cooking pots were deposited below floor level near the walls. Foundation deposits in homes are a ritual practice attested in the Phoenician and Punic world from the eighth up to the second century BCE.7 The house consisted of two spaces (called 1 and 2; Fig. 1) connected to each other by a passageway. Room 2 was probably an open courtyard with a bench, a tannur for baking bread and several jars near the southern wall. The courtyard led into Room 1, on whose floor were found crushed amphorae (at least 15), many of which were originally supported by a quadrangular structure near the southern wall (US 42). Here, different activities were carried out: food (both liquids and solids) were processed in special basins, cooked on a small hearth using cooking-pots and hand-worked pans, or eaten in dishes and bowls of different shapes. Weaving activities were probably performed upstairs, given that loom weights were discovered among the debris. The significance of the discovery of the amphorae in Area A lies primarily in the possibility to analyse the contextual aspects, so we initially address the issue of the description of the contexts and provenance of the vessels. Commercial amphorae were found crushed on the floor, mainly in the eastern and southeastern part of Room 1, and covered by material from the collapse of the walls and roof (Fig. 1). The vessels had been incorporated into the layer of collapsed masonry caused by the disintegration of the brick walls. The fragments of the many amphorae were highly mixed, making it impossible to identify all the individual containers in their in situ position.8 Some of the amphorae were originally placed against the walls, as shown by the discovery of several bases (or base fragments) recovered in situ near the southern and eastern walls. Some vessels were placed near the quadrangular structure in the corner of the room. Many amphorae fragments were also located near the door. Other materials stratigraphically associated with the amphorae were found; all were recovered from the floor or embedded in the debris of the collapse. A large baking pan stood at 6

 Oggiano and Pedrazzi 2021.  Thanks to Marianna Castiglione for these chronological and typological remarks. Castiglione 2018; Mansel 2003, pp. 129–148. 8  Therefore, we decided to divide the space into small squares in order to record the position of the pieces collected and to understand the directions of the collapse. 7

THE PHOENICIAN AND PUNIC AMPHORAE FROM PANI LORIGA

Fig. 1. Pani Loriga (Area A). Plan of rooms 1 (on the left) and 2 (on the right). Courtesy of Ida Oggiano.

257

258

T. PEDRAZZI

the centre of the room near a hearth along with a straight rimmed cooking pot, a type used in Sardinia during the fourth century BCE,9 and two incense burners which were probably used as lamps.10 Attic pottery, dating from the fifth century BCE, was also present. Some vessels, such as a basin, were found in fragments scattered on the floor, some of which were found at a measurable distance from each other. This could indicate that they were originally placed high upon shelves, falling down when the building collapsed. For many of the amphorae, the fragments were scattered over a wide surface; the restoration of the material, whose original location was carefully documented, will help to reconstruct the dynamics of the collapse. We may assume that the fragmentation and dispersion of the vessels is due to the suddenness and violence of the collapse, and to the heavy weight of the walls that fell on the amphorae. It does not seem likely that the jars were placed at a higher level and that, therefore, their fragmentation is solely due to falling from a second floor. The house had been suddenly abandoned, probably in the fourth century BCE. Thanks to the extension of the debris, it has been possible to reconstruct the original appearance of the building whose western half likely had an upper floor covered by a clay roof, while the eastern section probably had a simple roof, perhaps accessible via a staircase. After the collapse of the roof, the house must have been inhabited again. A small structure was built in the southeastern corner of Room 1 where part of an amphora of Western Greek production was found (dating to the fourth to third century BCE) in association with a fragmentary fourth century Punic amphora (Bartoloni type D6 and D7).11 Restorations and analyses of the amphorae are currently underway at the Archaeological Museum of Santadi.12 Due to the present lack of financial support, we are still waiting for the analysis of the clay samples and for more analyses of residual traces of contents.13 By analysing and grouping together thousands of fragments found in Room 1, at least 15 complete amphorae could be almost entirely reconstructed. Two further vessels have been uncovered in the nearby Courtyard 2.14 Amphora 8, from Room 1, belongs to a form dating back to the sixth century BCE. The well-known type, referred to as D3 by Bartoloni or T–1.4.2.1 by Ramon, has a thickened rim and a typical internal ridge.

9

 Campanella 2009, p. 325. Cf. Castiglione 2018; Castiglione et al. 2021.  Botto and Oggiano 2012, pp. 154–156. 11  The final event was the collapse of the lower part of the walls, made of stone, which definitively sealed in the contexts we have just discussed. 12  Many thanks to Remo Forresu for his indispensable help and his suggestions. Thanks to Marilena Atzeni for her logistic support during the work at the Archaeological Museum of Santadi. I extend a special thanks also to the Cooperativa Semata and to the Santadi Municipality for their precious support and to Michela Gioia Serra for her help during the first years of work at Santadi. My profound gratitude goes to Gianluca Buonomini of the University of Pisa for his indispensable and excellent work and teachings. 13  The recovered fragments help to document the original position of vessels based on a reconstruction of the distribution of the containers inside the room. 14  Bartoloni 1988. In relation to these preliminary remarks on the morphological types, I sincerely thank Stefano Finocchi for his kind suggestions and corrections, although, of course, I am completely responsible for any mistakes. For typological issues, see Finocchi 2009. 10

THE PHOENICIAN AND PUNIC AMPHORAE FROM PANI LORIGA

Fig. 2. Pani Loriga (Area A). Amphora n. 14.

259

Fig. 3. Pani Loriga (Area A). Amphora n. 3.

Another example of a similar morphological type is amphora 14 which is allocated, thanks to Ramon’s suggestions, to type T–4.1.1.2 (Fig. 2).15 The example from Pani Loriga has oval-shaped handles placed below the shoulder. The possible chronology for this vessel is around the second half of the fifth century BCE. This amphora may well have been produced in Carthage, as the fabric seems to suggest. The majority of the amphorae in Room 1 belong to the well-known Bartoloni D4 type, which corresponds to Ramon T–1.4.4.1, with the typical rim16 and a light groove on the outside.17 Amphorae 3 and 4, from Pani Loriga, belong to this type (Fig. 3). Amphorae 2 and 6, again from Room 1, also belong to type Bartoloni D4 and Ramon T–1.4.4.1 (see Fig. 4). This type was common in Sardinia, especially during the fifth century BCE, at a time when amphora production on the island increased dramatically. It should 15

 My warmest thanks to J. Ramon for his very kind remarks.  Bartoloni 1988; Ramon 1995. 17  The body profile has a characteristic narrowing below the handles on our near complete specimens under restoration. 16

T. PEDRAZZI

260

Fig. 4. Pani Loriga (Area A). Amphora n. 2.

be noted that the type is a variation of models known in the central Mediterranean from the sixth century BCE (in this case it evolved from the Ramon T–1.4.2.1); it does not appear exclusively in Sardinia, but is also present in Sicily and Carthage. Finally, among the restorable amphorae of Room 1, there are examples of the Ramon T–1.4.4.1 which represents the transition between types D4 and D6 Bartoloni.Regarding the D6 type, the rim, while internally swollen, no longer has the distinctive outer groove typical of type D4. These jars are placed chronologically in the fourth century BCE. The material from the layers of the outer area is only fragmentary. This area was probably an open space bordering the street and, therefore, the material may have come from rubbish dumps and pits. Here, we may only flag the presence of type T–1.4.2.1 both in the variant (g), described by Stefano Finocchi, which corresponds to the Bartoloni D3 shape of the end of the sixth century BCE, and in the variant (a), which corresponds to the even earlier Bartoloni D2 type.18 These ancient forms also appear near the front door/main entrance (from the street to the house). A rim attributable to the Bartoloni D3 form of the late sixth 18

 Finocchi 2009.

THE PHOENICIAN AND PUNIC AMPHORAE FROM PANI LORIGA

261

to early fifth century BCE is attested here. In the same context, the later type T–4.1.1.4 (Bartoloni D7) also appears. This type is attested from the end of the fifth to the second half of the fourth century BCE. In regard to Courtyard 2, this open space was mainly in use at the same time as Room 1, with some amphorae arranged near the wall separating the two rooms. The amphorae were found collapsed on the floor and against the wall. They were also found in association with a clay support for vessels. The containers from this space also belong to the D4 shape of the fifth century BCE. The subsequent layers, covering the layer of collapse, show the presence of later amphora forms which indicates human presence in the area after the abandonment of the building. In particular, a rim was found, probably belonging to a pot of the D10 Bartoloni type, dating to the second century BCE. Analysis of the clays allows us to identify the most common types. A reddish clay, with inner and outer surfaces of a red-brown colour and a few white and grey spheroidal and limestone grits, is used mainly in the morphological group corresponding to Ramon T–1.4.4.1 (Bartoloni D4–D6). The fabric, characterised by a reddish-brown clay which is generally homogeneous, is used for examples of the D3 morphological type (such as amphora 8) and for the D4 type (amphorae 2 and 7). The clay has predominantly white grits or quartz inclusions with occasional reddish grits. Amphora 14 has a clay with a light brown homogeneous colour (7.5YR6/3) and a whitish coating (5Y8/1). This kind of amphora clay represents a unicum in the repertoire from Area A and it could have come from Carthage. The other type of clay, non-homogeneous in colour, with a grey core and white and black grits, is used for the amphorae of morphological type D4 as well as for specimens that we have preliminarily attributed to the Bartoloni D6 type. In order to determine the possible contents of the amphorae, we carried out an analysis of the organic substances present on the interior surface of a fragmentary amphora base uncovered in Room 1.19 The inner walls of the amphora were covered with pine (Pinaceae) resin. The presence of animal fats and wax were also detected, whereas vegetable oils were absent. This led us to hypothesise that the amphora had been used as a container for wine or fish or meat based sauces. The resin was used to waterproof the inner walls of the vessels, especially with the aim of preserving liquid substances. The complete study of the restored amphorae from Pani Loriga, still in progress, will provide us with new data about known morphological types. This will allow us to investigate a very significant chrono-morphological issue with cultural implications: the transition from the amphora types dating to the sixth century BCE to those dating to the fifth century BCE. The coexistence, in the same contexts, of amphorae of Bartoloni types D2, D3, D4 and D6, is probably due to the fact that the evolution towards new containers in the Punic phase was gradual, and must be interpreted as a process of ‘innovation through continuity.’ The material culture, therefore, is a witness to the fact that some socio-economic processes of  Sample PL08A37/3 (from Room I); internal surface covered by Pinaceae pitch; animals’ fats; no vegetal oils: see Botto and Oggiano 2012. 19

262

T. PEDRAZZI

change were conservative in that they moved slowly, although obviously other events and processes were governed by different (faster-moving) dynamics. The task of interpreting the non événementiel dimension based on the amphora sherds is certainly challenging, but without doubt the gradual transformation of the amphora repertoire, during the transition from the proper ‘Phoenician’ phase to the Punic cultural phase in Sardinia, is a sign of strong traditionalism in production and trading processes.20

BIBLIOGRAPHY BARTOLONI, P. 1988 Le anfore fenicie e puniche di Sardegna (Studia Punica 4). Roma: Università degli Studi di Roma. BONETTO, J., FALEZZA, G., GHIOTTO, A. R. and NOVELLO, M. 2009 Nora. Il Foro Romano. Storia di un’area urbana dall’età fenicia alla tarda antichità. 1997–2006. Padova: Italgraf. BOTTO, M. 2012 “Alcune considerazioni sull’abitato fenicio e punico di Pani Loriga,” Rivista di Studi Fenici XL/2: 267–303. BOTTO, M. and CANDELATO, F. 2014 “Recenti indagini nell’abitato fenicio e punico di Pani Loriga,” in Summer School di Archeologia fenicio-punica (Atti 2012, Quaderni di Archeologia Sulcitana 5), edited by M. Guirguis and A. Unali, pp. 26–32. Sassari: Susil. BOTTO, M. and OGGIANO, I. 2012 “Le site phénico-punique de Pani Loriga (Sardaigne). Interprétation et contextualisation des résultats d’analyses organiques de contenus,” in Les huiles parfumées en Méditerranée occidentale et en Gaule, VIIIe siècle av. - VIIIe siècle apr. J.-C., edited by D. Frère and L. Hugot, pp. 151–166. Rennes: PU Rennes. BOTTO, M., CANDELATO, F., OGGIANO, I. and PEDRAZZI, T. 2010 “Le indagini 2007–2008 all’abitato fenicio-punico di Pani Loriga,” The Journal of Fasti Online 175: 1–18. http://www.fastionline.org/docs/FOLDER-it-2010-175.pdf (29 January 2021). CAMPANELLA, L. 2009 “La ceramica da cucina fenicia e punica,” in Nora. Il foro romano: storia di un’area urbana dall’età fenicia alla tarda antichità: 1997–2006. Vol. II.1. I materiali preromani, edited by J. Bonetto, G. Falezza and A. Ghiotto, pp. 295–358. Padova: Italgraf. CASTIGLIONE, M. 2018 “La ceramica da cucina di Pani Loriga (Area A): contesti, forme e usi,” in From the Mediterranean to the Atlantic: People, Goods and Ideas between East and West. 8th International Congress of Phoenician and Punic Studies, Sant’Antioco, 2013 (Folia Phoenicia 2), edited by M. Guirguis, pp. 59–64. Pisa-Roma: Fabrizio Serra Editore. CASTIGLIONE, M., CAVALIERE, P., and QUARTARARO, M. 2021 “Ceramica punica dall’Area A di Pani Loriga. Prime evidenze,” in Il Mediterraneo occidentale dalla fase fenicia all’egemonia cartaginese. Dinamiche insediative, forme rituali e cultura materiale nel V secolo a.C., edited by A. Roppa, M. Botto and P. van Dommelen, pp. 81–90. Roma: Quasar.

20  Ultimately, this sort of ‘transformation through continuity’ does not seem to fit well with a context of sudden and widespread crisis and changes. Thus, the production and use of amphora types in the sixth and fifth centuries BCE speaks about continuity rather than rupture or transformations.

THE PHOENICIAN AND PUNIC AMPHORAE FROM PANI LORIGA

263

FINOCCHI, S. 2009 “Le anfore fenicie e puniche,” in Nora. Il foro romano: storia di un’area urbana dall’età fenicia alla tarda antichità: 1997–2006. Vol. II.1. I materiali preromani, edited by J. Bonetto, G. Falezza and A. Ghiotto, pp. 373–467. Padova: Italgraf. GUIRGUIS, M. and UNALI, A. (eds.) 2014 Summer School di Archeologia fenicio-punica (Atti 2012, Quaderni di Archeologia Sulcitana 5). Sassari: Susil. OGGIANO, I. and PEDRAZZI, T. 2021 “Il V secolo in Sardegna può ancora definirsi invisibile? Il contributo degli scavi dell’abitato punico di Pani Loriga (Area A),” in Il Mediterraneo Occidentale dalla fase fenicia all’egemonia cartaginese. Dinamiche insediative, forme rituali e cultura materiale nel V secolo a.C., edited by M. Botto, A. Roppa and P. Van Dommelen, pp. 67–80. Roma: Quasar. RAMON TORRES, J. 1995 Las ánforas fenicio-púnicas del Mediterraneo central y occidental (Col·lecció Instrumenta 2). Barcelona: Universitat de Barcelona.

Tatiana PEDRAZZI Istituto di Scienze del Patrimonio Culturale (ISPC) Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche (CNR) Milano Italy

PHOENICIAN AND PUNIC AMPHORAE FROM THE WATERS OF NORA (SARDINIA). THE RECOVERIES OF MICHEL CASSIEN (1978–1984) Emanuele MADRIGALI ABSTRACT Six extensive campaigns of underwater exploration were directed by Michel Cassien between 1978 and 1984 in the waters around the Nora peninsula (Sardinia). Yearly typewritten reports, with pictures, sketches and maps, were arranged by the French team (Touring Club de France) after each research season, but the results of these explorations were essentially unpublished. Although found in an extraordinary state of preservation, almost none of the recovered materials have been edited. This paper offers an overview on Phoenician and Punic amphorae recovered in the Nora seascape during Cassien’s campaigns and stored in the Museum of Pula. The study arose from a project funded by the Honor Frost Foundation and focused on the overall examination of Phoenician and Punic pottery from Cassien’s underwater recoveries. The chrono-typological analysis aims to identify the types of the vessels that were traded to and from Nora and to highlight some essential steps for the historical reconstruction of the development of the settlement. The identification of the ceramic fabrics helps to illustrate the circulation of transport containers and the connections of this Sardinian centre with other Mediterranean communities throughout the centuries. Moreover, the analysis of the contents of some amphorae allows us to relate vessels to the transport and consumption of bovine and ovine meat and to define storage techniques used to preserve foodstuffs.

INTRODUCTION The ancient city of Nora (Sardinia, Italy) rises up on the large peninsula of Pula that encloses the Gulf of Cagliari to the southeast (Fig. 1: a).1 The context under consideration is the Phoenician to Roman settlement of Nora, established on the south coast of the island of Sardinia from at least the late seventh century BCE.2 Some finds even refer to the early phases of the Phoenician presence on Sardinia, that is the middle eighth century BCE.3 The archaeological research carried out over the last twenty years in the Nora peninsula have been published in detail.4 The material documentation uncovered from the previous and continuing investigations and surveys on the mainland has contributed to the historical and archaeological reconstruction of Nora, the ‘first city of Sardinia’, according to Pausanias.5 The long-term research and the examination of the contextualised material culture from

1

 Tronchetti 2001.  Bonetto 2009, pp. 69–78; Tronchetti 2010, pp. 129–130. 3  Madrigali 2014, pp. 93–94. 4  Falezza and Savio 2011. 5  10.17.5. 2

E. MADRIGALI

266

Fig. 1. a) The peninsula of Nora; b) Location of the underwater explorations led by Michel Cassien (maps elaborated by Arturo Zara).

Nora had shed light on the role of eastern Mediterranean sailors on the establishment and the development of a multi-ethnic settlement far from their homeland. From the arrival of eastern sailors to the development as a city throughout the Punic and Roman periods, there was a strong connection between the site of Nora and the surrounding sea. The examination of the material culture from the underwater explorations off the coast of Nora is an essential element to be integrated with the material data from the several excavations and the surveys on the mainland. Therefore, this paper aims to give an overview of the archaeological knowledge of this ancient city through the analysis of some amphorae recovered from the waters around Nora.

THE

UNDERWATER EXPLORATIONS OF

MICHEL CASSIEN

The present paper arises from the project ‘The Underwater Cultural Heritage of the city of Nora (Sardinia). Phoenician and Punic finds from the explorations of Michel Cassien,’ which was funded by the Honor Frost Foundation and logistic support guaranteed by the Department of Cultural Heritage of the Università degli Studi di Padova.6 The project aimed to 6

 The participation to the First Amphoras of the Phoenician-Punic World Congress in Ghent was possible thank to a travel grant offered by the Honor Frost Foundation. I offer my thanks to the Foundation for the fundamental support to all the stages of the project. I also want to express my gratitude to Dr Maurizia Canepa (Soprintendenza archeologia, belle arti e paesaggio per la città metropolitana di Cagliari e per le province di Oristano e Sud Sardegna), Ms Rita Piras and Ms Luisella Ruvioli (Civico Museo Archeologico ‘Giovanni Patroni’ of Pula) and Professor Jacopo Bonetto (Università degli Studi di Padova) for their availability to carry out the work in Pula. A big thanks also to my colleague and friend Dr Jeremy Hayne for reading and editing the present paper.

PHOENICIAN AND PUNIC AMPHORAE FROM THE WATERS OF NORA

267

analyse the large amount of Phoenician and Punic pottery from the underwater recoveries made by Michel Cassien off the coast of Nora.7 A research team funded by the Touring Club de France, consisting of volunteers and led by the physician Michel Cassien (Université Paris 6), was involved between 1978 and 1984 in six extensive campaigns of underwater exploration and recovery in the waters around the Nora peninsula, especially in the area southeast of the little island called Coltellazzo (Fig. 1: b). The main purpose of the survey was to improve the knowledge of the underwater archaeological evidence around the ancient city, which was almost unknown until then.8 Based on this premise, the French investigator expressly described Nora as ‘un site à sauver’.9 At the same time as the dives, Michel Cassien’s team produced more than 30 maps where they represented the position and the geographical localisation of the archaeological finds. Overall, the French team recovered more than 440 objects, mostly pottery and mainly consisting of transport and storage containers in addition to cooking and table ware. The material recovered was preliminarily dated from the middle of the eighth century BCE to the Roman age.10 Even though they were found in an extraordinarily good state of preservation, almost none of the underwater recoveries have been analysed or published. Only a few papers focusing on restricted lots of transport containers have been published by some scholars.11 In spite of the considerable amount of collected data, Cassien published only brief articles of an outreach nature,12 while six detailed annual reports, with attached pictures, sketches and maps, remained unpublished in private libraries and in the archives of the archaeological Soprintendenza.13 The overall publication of Cassien’s investigations only took place recently. In 2014, the academic team of the Università degli Studi di Padova, in agreement with the regional Soprintendenza, published an anastatic reprint and the Italian translation of the typewritten reports.14 Moreover, through the integrated study of the reports and the maps produced by the researchers of the Touring Club de France, it has been possible to create an updated catalogue of all the finds15 and to reconstruct the positions of the objects recovered on a reference GIS map.16

THE PHOENICIAN AND PUNIC AMPHORAE IN

THE

MUSEUM

OF

PULA

The re-emergence of the French explorations’ records has brought a fresh interest to the experiences linked to Cassien’s recoveries and on the Nora underwater context. From this 7

 For the presentation of the project see (https://honorfrostfoundation.org/2015/08/08/the-underwatercultural-heritage-of-the-city-of-nora/). 8  Bonetto 2014c. 9  Cassien 1978a. 10  Barreca 1985, p. 89; Chessa 1988, p. 91. 11  Tronchetti 1985; Chessa 1988; Finocchi 2000; Pavoni and Pettenò 2003; Campanella 2005. 12  Bonetto 2014b, p. 6, tab. 2. 13  Bonetto 2014b, p. 5, tab. 1. 14  Bonetto 2014a. 15  Bertelli 2014. 16  Zara 2014.

268

E. MADRIGALI

perspective, an essential step to reconstruct the maritime cultural heritage of the seascape of Nora is the analysis of several transport containers uncovered by Michel Cassien. All the recovered materials are preserved in the Civico Museo Archeologico ‘Giovanni Patroni’ in Pula, the present town near the site of Nora, and inside the Calamosca depot of Cagliari. Due to unforeseen maintenance works, at the time of the meeting in Ghent, complete access was only possible for the artefacts stored in the Museum of Pula. Consequently, this paper refers to the amphorae from this storage, mainly containers which preserve the whole or a large portion of their profile, and the majority of finds recovered during the 1984 campaign. During the periods of study at the Museum of Pula, 85 diagnostic fragments related to Phoenician and Punic transport containers were classified. Among these, we can estimate a Minimum Number of Individuals,17 primarily on the basis of rims, of 46 amphorae. During Cassien’s explorations many Roman vessels were also found, but only a few amphorae have been published.18 In his reports, Michel Cassien gave a preliminary description and proposed a generic classification of the amphorae and small-size containers based on the body shape19 and occasionally made some general references to the Cintas and Mañá typologies.20 The present analysis of the amphorae stored in the Museum of Pula uses mainly Ramon Torres’ typology.21 Herein, each vessel has been named by the identification list developed in parallel to the recent reprint of the reports22 and linked as far as possible to Cassien’s original labels23 thanks to the identification of the finds through the analysis of the report pictures and the direct viewing of the artefacts in the depot. Due to preservation and storage circumstances, it was not always possible to trace back from the new classification (e.g. TRA 36) to Cassien’s tag (e.g. 79 A 44) and national inventory number (e.g. inv. 135747). The ancient containers recovered from the Nora seascape are known as ovoïde in Cassien’s reports. Among these finds, the presence of at least two amphorae identified as Ramon Torres T–3.1.1.2 type has previously been illustrated by several researchers.24 The rim and the shape of the body lead to this typology which is generically dated from the middle of the eighth to the second half of the seventh century BCE, in particular for the containers with a less spherical profile. This typology is also recorded through the surveys on the peninsula,25 excavations26 and more recent underwater research.27

17

 Orton et al. 1993, pp. 166–181; Hesnard 1998, pp. 18–20.  Tronchetti 1985; Pavoni and Pettenò 2003. 19  Cassien 1980, p. 15, fig. 2. 20  Cintas 1950; Mañá 1951. 21  Ramon Torres 1995. It should be mentioned that the amphora typology developed by Piero Bartoloni (1988) is frequently recalled in Sardinia along side the Ramon Torres typology. The Bartoloni classification is focused on the Sardinian island, therefore, many published contexts have been referred to that. 22  Bertelli 2014, pp. 487–490. 23  Cassien 1982–1984, p. 6. 24  Chessa 1988, pp. 91–93, n. 1–2; Ramon Torres 1995, p. 135; Finocchi 2000, pp. 163–167, n. 1–2. 25  Finocchi 1999, pp. 174–176, fig. 5: 1; Finocchi 2002, pp. 173–175, fig. 10. 26  Finocchi 2003, p. 50; Finocchi 2009, pp. 379–381; Madrigali 2021, p. 29. 27  Del Vais and Sanna 2012, p. 214, n. 33. 18

PHOENICIAN AND PUNIC AMPHORAE FROM THE WATERS OF NORA

269

The classification of a third amphora, listed as TRA 112/82 ACA 1, was more difficult. This container was characterised by six holes as a result of an ancient repair to the vessel.28 The amphora was first identified as a T–3.1.1.2,29 but the morphology of the rim, the body and the handle suggest a development toward the Ramon Torres T–2.1.1.2.30 In agreement with this analysis, we propose a new rim profile even though the drawing of this was very difficult due the heavy marine incrustation (Fig. 2: a). In addition to these containers, another amphora (TRA 42/79 A 50) attributed to the type T–3.1.1.2 was listed in the 1979 report.31 Although the vessel has been moved to the Cagliari depot, it needs to be mentioned as it is a very significant artefact to the understanding of the earliest development of Nora. In fact, this is the most ancient transport container from the Cassien recoveries which was used for the storage and transport of bovine bones revealing clear butchering cuts.32 Five fragments, stored in a box with several other sherds, can be attributed to another vessel on morphological and fabric grounds. The amphora, listed as TRA 162, preserves a portion of the rim, a wide body fragment with a handle and three pieces of the base (Fig. 2: c). The container was coil made and then wheel shaped. On the inner surface, there are remains of a light brown slip, the exterior surface is reddish due to burnishing. The morphology of the rim, the handle and the body, the manufacture, the surfaces and the fabric33 lead us to describe this vessel as a ‘Sant’Imbenia amphora’. The so-called ‘Sant’Imbenia type’,34 Docter’s former Subklasse ZitA Zentral-Italische Amphoren35 and later Subklasse Nuraghisch,36 may be evaluated as a Sardo-Phoenician amphora, a local production influenced by overseas models, dated generally from the end of the ninth to the first decades of the seventh century BCE.37 The identification of this vessel from the Nora seascape is very significant as it highlights the active role of the local communities in production and trade processes during the early Iron Age. The material culture and settlement patterns from Phoenician Nora as they relate to the indigenous communities is still not as clear as in other Sardinian regional contexts.38 Focusing on the amphorae from Nora dated to the archaic period, an overview of some types recovered during Cassien’s explorations highlights a clear connection to the results of the recent underwater research and the long-term excavations on the peninsula. 28

 Chessa 1988, p. 93, n. 4; Finocchi 2000, p. 165, n. 3.  Chessa 1988, p. 92. 30  Finocchi 2009, p. 385. 31  Cassien 1979, p. 13, R XXVI. 32  Poplin 1980, pp. 76–77; Poplin 2014, p. 559, figs. 14 and 20; Madrigali and Zara 2018, p. 55. 33  During this phase of the project, macroscopic work on the ceramic fabric was mainly based on quantitative criteria according to a procedure used for the classification of soils, cf. Stienstra 1986. TRA 162 fabric: dominant grain type: quartz (white, grey and translucent), calcite, red inclusions (feldspar); dominant shapes: sub-angular; few inclusions: silver mica; sporadic inclusions: bits of black rocks (angular); matrix: compact; sorting: moderately to well sorted; dominant grain size: 0.5–1.5, up to 5 mm; quantity: 25 per cent; fabric colour: reddish grey (2.5YR 5/1); grain colour: predominantly light. 34  Oggiano 2000, pp. 240–242. 35  Docter et al. 1997, pp. 18–26. 36  Docter 2007, pp. 635–640. 37  Botto 2011, pp. 40–41. 38  Tronchetti 2010, pp. 127–128. 29

E. MADRIGALI

270

a

10 cm

b

c d

e

f 20 cm

Fig. 2. Phoenician amphorae. a) TRA 112/82 ACA 1; b) TRA 202/box NP5 4 84; c) TRA 162/box NP5 A 84; d) TRA 90/82 AP 3; e) TRA 89/82 AP 2; f) TRA 117/84 AP 2.

PHOENICIAN AND PUNIC AMPHORAE FROM THE WATERS OF NORA

271

At least 20 amphorae can be attributed to the Ramon Torres T–2.1.1.2 (Fig. 2: b), T–1.2.1.2 (Fig. 2: d) and mainly T–1.4.2.1 (Fig. 2: e–f). These vessels were merely described as cardioïde and pansue shape by the French team. The large number of these containers conforms to the data from the excavations on the mainland.39 In accordance with the amphorae from the Nora peninsula and its hinterland, we have noticed a high percentage of fabrics that can be related to a North African provenience also for the vessels from the underwater recoveries. A ceramic fabric reference classification for Nora amphorae has been developed by Stefano Finocchi, based on work on the material from different excavation sectors.40 Around one third of the analysed archaic types can be associated to ceramic fabrics 5 and 6 of Finocchi’s classification.41 These clays can be referred to as the KTS fabric (Karthago Ton Struktur).42 The city of Nora was well connected to the Carthaginian region during the seventh and sixth centuries BCE through a constant and strong trade network.43 Amphorae were the containers for traded goods: thanks to the study of the residual contents, we can gain an idea of some of the imported foodstuffs from North African shores. The analysis of the contents of some containers allows us to relate vessels to the storage, transport and consumption of foodstuffs.44 During his research, Cassien identified 18 amphorae in which ovine and bovine meat were stored, as well as six finds of bones recovered outside the containers. Francois Poplin first examined these bones in 1980 and then again for the new edition of Cassien research.45 The French archaeozoologist recognised the presence of bovine meat in five of the amphorae from Nora, namely the vessel type T–3.1.1.2, found in 1979 (TRA 42/79 A 50), and amphorae attributed to the types T–2.1.1.2 and 1.4.2.1 (TRA 63/80 AØ 2; TRA 66/80 AØ 5; TRA 89/82 AP 2; TRA 116/84 AO 3): all bovine remains were contained in vessels dated to the archaic period. Despite the minor presence (25 per cent) of bovine meat in the amphorae from Nora compared to the total amount of bones, the finding is noteworthy. According to the analysis of Poplin, it is possible that these bones belong to zebu (Bos taurus indicus), a bovine widespread in northern Africa.46 These archaeozoological data provide substantial indications about the origin of the transported contents and, sometimes, can be related to the ceramic fabrics of the transport containers. In this sense, it is worth mentioning the amphora TRA 89/82 AP 2, attributed to Ramon Torres T–1.4.2.1 and related to a North African fabric (Finocchi fabric 6), and its significant shipment of bovine meat (Fig. 2: e). In some cases, the bones were found in association with seeds. Vegetal remains inside the containers were examined by Philippe Marinval.47 Primarily, the French archaeobotanist identified the presence of grape seeds (Vitis vinifera subsp. vinifera) in association with bones. This content suggests a specific procedure of preserving the meat during maritime 39

 Finocchi 2003, p. 50; Finocchi 2009, p. 373; Madrigali 2021, p. 28.  Finocchi 2003, p. 54; Finocchi 2009, pp. 461–467. 41  Finocchi 2009, pp. 463–464, tav. XII. 42  Briese and Peserico 2007, pp. 268–271; Bechtold 2008, pp. 79–83; Finocchi 2009, p. 467. 43  Botto and Madrigali 2016, pp. 263–264. 44  Madrigali and Zara 2018. 45  Poplin 1980; Poplin 2014. 46  Poplin 1980, pp. 90 and 95; Poplin 2014, pp. 563–565. 47  Marinval and Cassien 2001. 40

272

E. MADRIGALI

transport.48 The examination of the typological sequence of the transport containers, Ramon Torres T–1.4.2.1 to T–4.1.1.4,49 reveals the continuation of this distinctive storage technique throughout archaic and Punic periods, as indicated by some finds recovered from the sea around Nora and other Sardinian coastal settlements. The storage and transport of butchered meat inside amphorae appears as a procedure specific to Phoenician and Punic Sardinia.50 These underwater finds are common in Nora, but also in the harbour of Olbia,51 the lagoon of Santa Gilla at Cagliari52 and Santa Giusta around the site of Othoca.53 The first Punic amphorae in Sardinia are usually understood as Ramon Torres type T–1.4.4.1, dated to the fifth and early decades of the fourth century BCE.54 Seven vessels of this type have been found among the materials stored inside the Pula depot. The majority of them can be related to a fabric (Finocchi fabric 9) associated with a regional and probable local production (Fig. 3: a).55 On the other hand, the amphora TRA 200/84 AP 1 (Fig. 3: b) also provides evidence of a foreign production for this typology through the identification of a North African fabric (Finocchi fabric 5). Some transport containers, recovered during both Cassien’s and other more recent underwater surveys,56 reveal the plausible presence of Punic and Hellenistic shipwrecks in the waters around Nora. More recent container types were illustrated by Cassien on the basis of a general description of the body shape: the amphorae cigare are those with a cylindrical profile and the torpille with a torpedo profile. Significantly, most of these amphorae, attributed to types T–4.1.1.4, T–5.2.2.1, T–5.2.1.1 and T–5.2.1.3, were made with local ceramic fabrics (Finocchi fabrics 9 and 11) (Fig. 3: c–e). The identified contents of the Punic amphorae are related to the transport of ovine meat (e.g. TRA 88/82 AP 1: Fig. 3: a). In addition to the copious presence of grapes seeds inside an amphora of type T–4.1.1.4 (TRA 2/78 A 2: Fig. 3: e), Marinval identified the species of corn salad (Valerianella sp.), a weed of the cultivated vine.57 Tiny charred timbers and a fragment of almond were also documented.58 The most recent container with foodstuff recovered by Cassien was an amphora Ramon Torres type T–5.2.1.1 (TRA 110/84 AC 10) dated between the third and the second centuries BCE.59 The vessel contains some selected ovine bones60 and also provides evidence of 48

 Del Vais and Sanna 2012, p. 215.  Marinval and Cassien 2001, p. 125, fig. 2. 50  The presence of butchered meat inside a transport container found in Ibiza, Solinas (1997, p. 180) certainly refers to the reuse of an amphora type T–8.1.3.1 for the storage of pieces of pork which has been kindly confirmed to me by Joan Ramon Torres. In the same way, the presence of rabbit bones in the Ebusitan amphora T–8.1.1.1 from Ullastret should be attributed to a secondary use of this vessel. The only convincing evidence for the transport of ovine meat is the amphora T–2.1.1.2 recovered in Torre la Sal, Ramon Torres (1995, p. 264). 51  Pallarés 1975–1981, pp. 252–253. 52  Solinas 1997, pp. 179–180; Fonzo 2005. 53  Del Vais and Sanna 2009, pp. 132–133; Del Vais and Sanna 2012, pp. 215–217. 54  Bartoloni 1988, p. 47. 55  Finocchi 2009, pp. 465–466, pl. XIII. 56  Del Vais and Sanna 2012, p. 214, n. 33; Bonetto et al. 2017, pp. 205–208. 57  Marinval and Cassien 2001, pp. 125–127, fig. 3: B. 58  Cassien 1978b, p. 7. 59  Cassien 1982–1984, p. 49, cl. 56; Ramon Torres 1995, p. 196, fig. 164, n. 162. 60  Poplin 2014, pp. 554–555. 49

PHOENICIAN AND PUNIC AMPHORAE FROM THE WATERS OF NORA

a

c

b

d

e 20 cm

Fig. 3. Punic amphorae. a) TRA 88/82 AP 1; b) TRA 200/84 AP 1; c) inv. 140855; d) TRA 147 and TRA 160/box NP5 A 84; e) TRA 2/78 A 2.

273

274

E. MADRIGALI

traces of terebinth resin (Pistacia terebintus) around the mouth and on its internal surface.61 We can mention that this ‘queen of resins,’ according to Pliny the Elder,62 was a common additive to prevent wine turning to vinegar.63 The terebinth resin, as well as being a preservative for wine, was also noted in antiquity64 for its fragrance and delicate smell and also for its use in food and drink recipes. The data about the contents should be related to the analysis of the fabric. The regional production of these transport containers underlines a different role of the settlement of Nora and its hinterland due to the Punic organisation of the island.65 The presence of ovine bones and the identification of locally made amphorae illustrate the increase, from the late fifth century BCE, of specific manufacturing activities in Nora and the related trade flows to other Mediterranean shores.66 Finally, the analysis of the underwater materials focuses on the recovery of several smallsize amphorae described as amphorettes cardioïdes by Michel Cassien.67 Five small amphorae are stored inside the depot of the Museum of Pula (MEN 7/79 A 30; TRA 113/84 AeP 4; MEN 68/84 AE 1; TRA 201/84 Aca 2; body sherd in box N25 W P5 84) (Fig. 4: a–d). The amphorae from the Nora seascape are all similar with a height of around 27 cm in size, for complete containers, and rim of 7 cm. The vessels are also made with the same fabric.68 This ceramic fabric has been identified among other bigger transport containers and also for some table wares recovered during underwater explorations. Their definition as small-size amphorae is better than the miniature amphorae classification because they are linked to a storage and transport procedure. The production of these small-size amphorae can be set beside the manufacturing of the regular sized transport containers. These small-size vessels were mainly recovered from funerary contexts in Sardinia and other Mediterranean regions.69 The identification of small-size amphorae in urban settlements70 and from shipwrecks71 highlights the primary function for these vessels: to contain and transport selected foodstuffs or precious wine. On the basis of the comparison with similar amphorae from the necropolis,72 a chronology relating to the sixth to fifth century BCE can be proposed for Cassien’s containers. A lot of comparable evidence and finds from the sectors of the Nora seascape investigated by Michel Cassien were also confirmed during several underwater explorations carried out 61

 Marinval and Cassien 2001, pp. 124–125.  Naturalis Historia 14.122, 15.55. 63  McGovern 2004, pp. 70–72. 64  Theophrastus, Historia Plantarum 9.1–2, 4–7; Columella, De Re Rustica 9.4.2; Pliny the Elder, Naturalis Historia 24.34. 65  Finocchi 2002, pp. 185–186. 66  Bonetto 2009, pp. 195–197; Bonetto 2021, pp. 100–102. 67  Cassien 1982–1984, p. 21. 68  Small-size amphorae fabric: dominant grain type: quartz (white and translucent), limestone (white), red inclusions (iron nodules); dominant shapes: sub-angular; few inclusions: silver mica; sporadic inclusions: bits of black rocks (angular); matrix: moderately porous; sorting: poorly sorted; dominant grain size: 0.5–2, up to 5 mm; quantity: 15–25 per cent; fabric colour: reddish to brown (5YR 5/8; 7.5YR 5/4); grain colour: mixed, predominantly light. 69  Bartoloni 1988, p. 48; Bartoloni 2015, pp. 117–118; Bartoloni 2016, p. 26. 70  Campanella 2008, pp. 133–134; Madrigali 2021, pp. 32–33, pl. VIII: 22 and pl. X: 34–36. 71  D’Angelo 1991; Del Vais and Sanna 2009, p. 139, fig. 2. 72  Bartoloni 1985, p. 25, fig. 2: 21. 62

PHOENICIAN AND PUNIC AMPHORAE FROM THE WATERS OF NORA

a

b

c

d

275

10 cm

Fig. 4. Small-size amphorae. a) MEN 7/79 A 30; b) TRA 113/84 AeP 4; c) MEN 68/84 AE 1; d) TRA 201/84 Aca 2.

D

E

F

G

FP

FP

Fig. 5. Ceramic fabrics. Sant’Imbenia amphora: a) TRA 162/box NP5. Small-size amphorae: b) MEN 7/79 A 30; c) TRA 113/84 AeP 4; d) MEN 68/84 AE 1).

E. MADRIGALI

276

in more recent years.73 The data from the pottery stored in the depot, along with the more recent recoveries, should help us to understand the underwater cultural heritage of Nora and to identify the artefacts traded to and from Nora. The described typologies above are recorded through the excavation and the surveys on the mainland. Furthermore, the analysis of the ceramic fabrics, of both transport containers and other ceramic classes, provide a comparison of these with the clays identified in other local and regional contexts. Therefore, the overall study of Cassien’s underwater recoveries increases our knowledge of the site when integrated with material data from the several investigations that have taken place on Nora peninsula. From this perspective, the amphorae from the previous underwater recoveries offer an overview for a better understanding of local and overseas trade routes that affected Nora between the early Phoenician and the Late Punic periods. Consequently, this material culture highlights some essential phases for the reconstruction of the development of the settlement and the connections of this Sardinian centre with other Mediterranean communities.

BIBLIOGRAPHY BARRECA, F. 1985 BARTOLONI, P. 1985 1988 2015 2016 BECHTOLD, B. 2008 BERTELLI, A. 2014 BONETTO, J. 2009

2014a 2014b

73

“Le ricerche subacquee,” in Nora. Recenti studi e scoperte, edited by C. Tronchetti, p. 89. Pula: Amministrazione comunale. “La necropoli punica: La ceramica punica,” in Nora. Recenti studi e scoperte, edited by C. Tronchetti, pp. 22–28. Pula: Amministrazione comunale. Le anfore fenicie e puniche di Sardegna (Studia Punica 4). Roma: Università degli Studi di Roma. “Ceramica fenicia di Sardegna: la Collezione Pischedda,” Sardinia, Corsica et Baleares Antiquae XIII: 67–142. “La ceramica fenicia e punica di Sardegna: la necropoli di Tuvixeddu,” Sardinia, Corsica et Baleares Antiquae XIV: 9–81. “Observations on the amphora repertoire of Middle Punic Carthage,” Carthage Studies 2: 1–146. “I materiali rinvenuti nelle indagini subacquee di Michel Cassien,” in Nora e il mare. Vol. I. Le ricerche di Michel Cassien (1978–1984) (Scavi di Nora IV), edited by J. Bonetto, pp. 473–513. Padova: Università degli Studi di Padova. “L’insediamento di età fenicia, punica e romana repubblicana nell’area del foro,” in Nora. Il foro romano. Storia di un’area urbana dall’età fenicia alla tarda antichità (1997–2006). Vol. I. Lo scavo (Scavi di Nora I), edited by J. Bonetto, pp. 39–243. Padova: Università degli Studi di Padova. (ed.) Nora e il mare. Vol. I. Le ricerche di Michel Cassien (1978–1984) (Scavi di Nora IV). Padova: Università degli Studi di Padova. “Nora e il mare. Linee metodologiche della ricerca,” in Nora e il mare. Vol. I. Le ricerche di Michel Cassien (1978–1984) (Scavi di Nora IV), edited by J. Bonetto, pp. 3–9. Padova: Università degli Studi di Padova.

 Solinas and Sanna 2005; Bonetto et al. 2017.

PHOENICIAN AND PUNIC AMPHORAE FROM THE WATERS OF NORA

277

“Le ricognizioni di Michel Cassien e l’archeologia marittima a Nora,” in Nora e il mare. Vol. I. Le ricerche di Michel Cassien (1978–1984) (Scavi di Nora IV), edited by J. Bonetto, pp. 23–40. Padova: Università degli Studi di Padova. 2021 “Nora nel V secolo: dall’emporio fenicio alla colonia cartaginese,” in Il Mediterraneo occidentale dalla fase fenicia all’egemonia cartaginese. Dinamiche insediative, forme rituali e cultura materiale nel V secolo a.C., edited by A. Roppa, M. Botto and P. van Dommelen, pp. 91–106. Roma: Edizioni Quasar. BONETTO, J., SANNA, I., CARRARO, F., METELLI, M. C., MINELLA, I., ARCAINI, R., SORO, L., DEL VAIS, C., FANNI, S., SIRIGU, M., CONGIA, C. and LECCA, C. 2017 “Nora e il mare. Le indagini nelle aree sommerse e subacquee 2014–2015,” Quaderni Norensi 6: 201–211. BOTTO, M. 2011 “Interscambi e interazioni culturali tra Sardegna e Penisola Iberica durante i secoli iniziali del I Millennio a.C.,” in Fenicios en Tartessos: nuevas perspectivas, edited by M. A. Martí-Aguilar, pp. 33–67. Oxford: Archaeopress. BOTTO, M. and MADRIGALI, E. 2016 “Nora e i circuiti commerciali mediterranei fra VIII e VI sec. a.C. Bilancio delle indagini precedenti e dati inediti,” in Nora Antiqua. Atti del Convegno di Studi. Cagliari, 2014 (Scavi di Nora V), edited by S. Angiolillo, M. Giuman, R. Carboni and E. Cruccas, pp. 261–269. Perugia: Morlacchi editore. BRIESE, C. and PESERICO, A. 2007 “Die phönizisch-punische Feinkeramik archaischer Zeit,” in Karthago. Die Ergebnisse der Hamburger Grabung unter dem Decumanus Maximus, edited by H. G. Niemeyer, R. F. Docter and K. Schmidt, pp. 268–271. Mainz am Rhein: P. von Zabern. CAMPANELLA, L. 2005 “Anfore puniche dai fondali di Nora.” Quaderni Norensi 1: 157–162. 2008 Il cibo nel mondo fenicio e punico d’Occidente. Un’indagine sulle abitudini alimentari attraverso l’analisi di un deposito urbano di Sulky in Sardegna (Collezione di Studi Fenici 43). Pisa-Roma: Fabrizio Serra. CASSIEN, M. 1978a “Un site a sauver,” Plein Air 346: 18–22. 1978b Rapport de la prospection effectuée par le groupe en juillet-août 1978 sur le site marine de Capo di Pula, Nora. Sardaigne, typewritten. 1979 Rapport de prospection sur le site punico-romain de Nora. Commune de Pula. Partie –A–. Gisement de Coltellazzo, typewritten. 1980 Campagne de sauvetages 1980 sur les sites sous-marins de Nora – Pula, typewritten. 1982–1984 Rapport 82–84. Prospections et fouilles sous-marines. Gisement phénico-punique de Coltelazzo. Nora – Pula (Ca), Italie, typewritten. CHESSA, I. 1988 “Anfore fenicie da Nora,” Quaderni della Soprintendenza archeologica per le provincie di Cagliari e Oristano 5: 91–96. CINTAS, P. 1950 Céramique punique (Publications de l’Institut des Hautes Études de Tunis vol. III). Paris: Librarie C. Klincksieck. D’ANGELO, M. C. 1991 “Un’anfora fenicia da Capraia,” Studi Classici e Orientali 40: 383–386. DEL VAIS, C. and SANNA, I. 2009 “Ricerche su contesti sommersi di età fenicia e punica nella laguna di Santa Giusta (OR). Campagne 2005–2007,” Studi Sardi XXXIV: 123–149. 2012 “Nuove ricerche subacquee nella laguna di Santa Giusta (OR) (campagna del 2009–2010),” ArcheoArte. Rivista elettronica de Archeologia e Arte 1/ Supplemento 2012: 201–233. https://doi.org/10.4429/j.arart.2011.suppl.16 (29 January 2021). 2014c

278 DOCTER, R. F. 2007

E. MADRIGALI

“Transportamphoren. Archaische Transportamphoren,” in Karthago. Die Ergebnisse der Hamburger Grabung unter dem Decumanus Maximus, edited by H. G. Niemeyer, R. F. Docter and K. Schmidt, pp. 616–662. Mainz am Rhein: P. von Zabern. DOCTER, R. F., ANNIS, M. B., JACOBS, L. and BLESSING, G. H. J. M. 1997 “Early central Italian transport amphorae from Carthage: Preliminary results,” Rivista di Studi Fenici XXV/1: 15–58. FALEZZA, G. and SAVIO, L. “Nora 1990–2010. Bibliografia della Missione archeologica,” in Vent’anni di scavi 2011 a Nora: ricerca, formazione e politica culturale: 1990–2009 (Scavi di Nora II), edited by J. Bonetto and G. Falezza, pp. 137–162. Noventa Padovana: Italgas. FINOCCHI, S. 1999 “La laguna e l’antico porto di Nora: nuovi dati a confronto,” Rivista di Studi Fenici XXVII: 167–191. 2000 “Nora: anfore fenicie dai recuperi subacquei,” in La ceramica fenicia di Sardegna. Dati, problematiche, confronti (Atti del Primo Congresso Internazionale Sulcitano, S. Antioco, 1997), edited by P. Bartoloni and L. Campanella, pp. 163–173. Roma: Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche. 2002 “Considerazioni sugli aspetti produttivi di Nora e del suo territorio in epoca fenicia e punica,” Rivista di Studi Fenici XXX: 147–186. 2003 “Ceramica fenicia, punica e di tradizione punica,” in Nora. Area C. Scavi 1996– 1999, edited by B. M. Giannattasio, pp. 37–62. Genova: Brigati. 2009 “Le anfore fenicie e puniche,” in Nora. Il foro romano. Storia di un’area urbana dall’età fenicia alla tarda antichità 1997–2006. Vol. II – I materiali (Scavi di Nora I), edited by J. Bonetto, G. Falezza and A. R. Ghiotto, pp. 373–468. Padova: Università degli Studi di Padova. FONZO, O. 2005 “Conservazione e trasporto delle carni a Cagliari in età punica (Stagno di Santa Gilla, V–IV sec. a.C.)/Preservation and transport of meat in Cagliari (Sardinia) in the Punic Age (5th–4th century B.C.),” in Atti del 3° Convegno Nazionale di Archeozoologia. Siracusa, 2000, edited by I. Fiore, G. Malerba and S. Chilardi, pp. 365–369. Roma: Istituto poligrafico e Zecca dello Stato. HESNARD, A. “Des amphores pour l’histoire du commerce. Que compter et pourquoi,” 1998 in La quantification des céramiques: conditions et protocole. Actes de la Table Ronde du Centre Archéologique Européen du Mont Beuvray, Glux-en-Glenne, 1998 (Collection Bibracte 2), edited by P. Arcelin and M. Tuffreau-Libre, pp. 17–22. Glux-en-Glenne: Centre archéologique européen du Mont Beuvray. MADRIGALI, E. 2014 “Tempi e modi della presenza e stanzialità fenicia in Sardegna: una rilettura attraverso la documentazione archeologica,” in Atti della giornata di studi «Materiali e contesti nell’età del Ferro sarda», Museo Civico di San Vero Milis, Oristano, 2012 (Rivista di Studi Fenici XLI/1–2), edited by P. van Dommelen and A. Roppa, pp. 87–96. Pisa-Roma: Fabrizio Serra. “Le anfore fenicie e puniche,” in Nora. Il tempio romano. 2008–2014. Vol. II.1 – 2021 I materiali preromani (Scavi di Nora X), edited by J. Bonetto, V. Mantovani and A. Zara, pp. 27–50. Roma: Edizioni Quasar. MADRIGALI, E. and ZARA, A. 2018 “Anfore fenicie e puniche con contenuti alimentari dai rinvenimenti di Michel Cassien a Nora,” in From the Mediterranean to the Atlantic: People, Goods and Ideas between East and West. 8th International Congress of Phoenician and Punic Studies, Sant’Antioco, 2013 (Folia Phoenicia 2), edited by M. Guirguis, pp. 54–58. Pisa-Roma: Fabrizio Serra.

PHOENICIAN AND PUNIC AMPHORAE FROM THE WATERS OF NORA

MAÑÁ, J. M. 1951

279

“Sobre tipología de ánforas púnicas,” in Crónica del VI Congreso Arqueológico del Sudeste, Alcoy, 1950, edited by A. Beltrán, pp. 203–210. Cartagena: Museo Arqueológico de Murcia. MARINVAL, P. and CASSIEN, M. 2001 “Les pépins de raisin (Vitis vinifera L.) des amphores phénico-puniques de l’épave de Coltellazzo, Nora-Pula (Cagliari-Sardaigne, Italie),” in Histoires d’hommes, histoires de plantes. Hommages au professeur Jean Erroux, edited by P. Marinval, pp. 121–130. Toulouse: Éditions Mergoil. MCGOVERN, P. E. 2004 L’archeologo e l’uva. Vite e vino dal Neolitico alla Grecia arcaica. Roma: Carocci. OGGIANO, I. 2000 “La ceramica fenicia di Sant’Imbenia (Alghero – SS),” in La ceramica fenicia di Sardegna. Dati, problematiche, confronti (Atti del Primo Congresso Internazionale Sulcitano, S. Antioco, 1997), edited by P. Bartoloni and L. Campanella, pp. 235–258. Roma: Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche. ORTON, C., TYERS, P. and VINCE, A. 1993 Pottery in Archaeology (Cambridge Manuals in Archaeology). New York: Cambridge University Press. PALLARÉS, F. 1975–1981 “Atti del centro sperimentale di archeologia sottomarina (1980). Campagna di scavo nel porto di Olbia,” Forma maris antiqui XI–XII: 250–254. PAVONI, M. and PETTENÒ, E. “Ritrovamenti di anfore nelle acque di Nora,” in Richerche su Nora. Vol. II. 2003 Anni 1990–1998, edited by C. Tronchetti, pp. 117–123. Cagliari: Grafiche Sainas. POPLIN, F. 1980 Rapport sur les ossements animaux des amphores puniques de Nora, Sardaigne (Récoltes 1978 et 1979), typewritten. 2014 “Les ossements de 1984 étudiées au printemps 2013,” in Nora e il mare. Vol. I. Le ricerche di Michel Cassien (1978–1984) (Scavi di Nora IV), edited by J. Bonetto, pp. 551–566. Padova: Università degli Studi di Padova. RAMON TORRES, J. 1995 Las ánforas fenicio-púnicas del Mediterráneo central y occidental (Col·lecció Instrumenta 2). Barcelona: Universitat de Barcelona. SOLINAS, E. 1997 “La laguna di Santa Gilla: testimonianze di età punica,” in Phoinikes B Shrdn. I Fenici in Sardegna: nuove acquisizioni, edited by P. Bernardini, R. D’Oriano and P. G. Spanu, pp. 177–183. Oristano: S’Alvure. SOLINAS, E. and SANNA, I. 2005 “Nora: documenta submersa,” in Aequora, póntos, jam, mare… Mare, uomini e merci nel mediterraneo antico (Atti del Convegno Internazionale Genova, 2004), edited by B. M. Giannattasio, C. Canepa, L. Grasso and E. Piccardi, pp. 253–257. Borgo S. Lorenzo: All’Insegna del Giglio. STIENSTRA, P. 1986 “Systematic macroscopic description of the texture and composition of ancient pottery: Some basic methods,” Newsletter of the Department of Pottery Technology (Leiden University) 4: 29–48. TRONCHETTI, C. 1985 “Le ricerche subacquee,” in Nora. Recenti studi e scoperte, edited by C. Tronchetti, p. 90. Pula: Amministrazione comunale. Nora (Sardegna Archeologica. Guide e Itinerari 1), 2nd ed. Sassari: Carlo 2001 Delfino. 2010 “La facies fenicia di Nora,” Rivista di Studi Fenici XXXVII/1: 119–130.

280 ZARA, A. 2014

E. MADRIGALI

“La cartografia,” in Nora e il mare. Vol. I. Le ricerche di Michel Cassien (1978– 1984) (Scavi di Nora IV), edited by J. Bonetto, pp. 431–458. Padova: Università degli Studi di Padova.

Emanuele MADRIGALI Independent Researcher Italy

PUNIC AMPHORA LIDS. EVIDENCE OF A PARTICULAR CLASS OF POTTERY FROM CENTRAL WEST SARDINIA Jeremy HAYNE and Peter VAN DOMMELEN ABSTRACT This paper examines amphora lids found in later Punic contexts. Perhaps due to the difficulties in classifying them, these artefacts are often overlooked in the Punic ceramic repertoire, but are certainly an important part of the material evidence. Our samples focus on specific types with an inner rim and come from three excavations in west Sardinia. In this article, we note some ambiguities of production and consider whether these were covers made for amphorae or cooking vessels, or did they have a generic function? They seem to relate principally to the later Punic period after the fourth century BCE and were probably used to cover the torpedoshaped Punic amphorae from that period. We note their provenance within Sardinia and recognise further examples from Sicily, suggesting a western Mediterranean production.

INTRODUCTION Recent excavations in central west Sardinia have shed much light on the life of rural Punic communities in the Classical and Hellenistic periods. Since 2007, excavations by the University of Glasgow and the Joukowsky Institute for Archaeology and the Ancient World at Brown University (latterly supported by the museum of San Vero Milis) have revealed stratified deposits of rural and domestic contexts at several sites of Punic date. In particular, these include the farmhouses of Truncu ‘e Molas and Pauli Stincus, near Terralba, and the settlement around nuraghe S’Urachi, one of Sardinia’s largest nuraghi, just outside San Vero Milis. These sites have shed light on the everyday activities of the rural communities living there.1 These three sites have provided the evidence for the present study. The sites of Truncu ‘e Molas and Pauli Stincus form part of a dense distribution of Punic rural sites on the sandy soils of the Terralba district that extend north of the Riu Mannu, along the southeastern shores of the Gulf of Oristano, in western Sardinia (Fig. 1). Like the majority of these sites, both farms at Truncu ‘e Molas and Pauli Stincus were occupied between approximately the end of the fifth and the second centuries BCE. These sites offer a measure of the impact and extent of Carthaginian control and Punic cultural practices across the western Mediterranean in the second half of the first millennium BCE. During this time, small-scale farming units and rural, Punic type settlements became prominent which have been shown by systematic survey projects carried out since the early 1990s, such as the Riu Mannu and Nora projects. 2 These surveys have also highlighted the often close relationships between these Punic rural 1  Gómez Bellard et al. 2011, p. 200; Stiglitz et al. 2015; van Dommelen et al. 2012; van Dommelen et al. 2018. 2  Van Dommelen and Finocchi 2008.

282

J. HAYNE

– P.

VAN DOMMELEN

Fig. 1. Map of west Sardinia showing places mentioned (J. Hayne/G. Campisi).

establishments and indigenous settlements as represented by the ubiquitous nuraghi that dominated the Sardinian countryside in varying densities. This relationship is particularly prominent at the third site under consideration, S’Urachi, which started life as a large Bronze Age complex nuraghe in the marshy lowlands north of the Gulf of Oristano. S’Urachi was occupied from probably the Middle Bronze Age to the early Roman Imperial period; between the seventh and second centuries BCE, it was frequented by Phoenician and Punic communities. The farms at Truncu ‘e Molas and Pauli Stincus were excavated in 2007 and 2010 respectively, under the supervision of Peter van Dommelen (University of Glasgow) and Carlos Gomez Bellard (University of Valencia). Since 2013, the excavation at S’Urachi has been run by Brown University’s Joukowsky Institute and the local museum of San Vero Milis, with Peter van Dommelen and Alfonso Stiglitz as co-directors. This paper focuses on the ceramic evidence of Punic amphora lids from these three west Sardinian sites and encourages discussion on this type of artefact by looking out to the wider Mediterranean contexts of its provenance. This research was undertaken because of the large number of amphora lids discovered together at S’Urachi. Whilst Punic amphorae themselves have long been studied and classified in great detail, their associated covers have often been overlooked in the literature. A recent overview of Bronze and Early Iron Age transport

PUNIC AMPHORA LIDS

283

amphorae mentions lids or stoppers only a handful of times,3 whilst Ramon’s typology of Phoenician and Punic amphorae does not mention them at all.4 This may be due to the difficulty of assigning them to a particular classification, or because they were deemed not important enough to mention. It is only on some amphora lids from the Roman Republic,5 that marks have been noted which give more specific information about the manufacturer and consumer. The type of lids discussed here, conical and with an inner rim, were relatively elaborate and could have had a variety of functions in different situations (storage, transport, cooking), with one lid possibly used for several different types of amphora or vessel. Many transport and storage containers, especially in earlier periods, were not fitted with permanent lids or stoppers. The function of the amphora and its lid was primarily (but not always, see below) to transport liquids without loss. However, this function could also be achieved with a flexible stopper such as cork, pitch or even cloth, all of which provide a water and airtight seal, which is essential for transporting wine, and actually more difficult to achieve with an inflexible pottery cover. It is also conceivable that ceramic stoppers were employed for a one-off usage, just as clay seals found on Late Bronze Age storage jars were fixed with pitch or resin which were probably deliberately broken when the vessel was opened,6 leaving little evidence. Another reason why lids are not so readily assignable to amphorae is that they may have functioned as lids for cooking pots and/or funerary urns, such as those identified at Nora and Monte Sirai.7 Amphorae were also often reused as storage jars after transport and, in this case, lids might not have been necessary to seal the mouth of the jar, but merely to cover it, which is a more specific function that could have been performed by a stone or piece of wood rather than a specially made lid.

METHODOLOGY Bearing in mind the above, it seemed best to focus our efforts on a single type of lid from the three Sardinian Punic sites that was sufficiently well represented to offer a promising avenue of study. As the remains are usually fragmentary, and it is not always possible to assign a particular function to the lids, it was decided to concentrate on those that fulfilled three specific criteria which give greater weight to the proposed function: a conical inclination, a knob handle and an internal ledge. The latter was the most important as this ledge likely demonstrated where the lid was wedged into the mouth of the amphora, helping to keep it in place. The diameter was also an important factor as the mouths of cooking vessels are wider than those of amphorae. This was not always possible to ascertain given the fragmentary nature of many lids; often, only the knob handle remains. Indeed, it was difficult to find all three criteria together and the problem of the multi-functionality of the lids means that the presence of the handle and conical shape alone were not enough to identify the lids as being used for amphorae. 3

 Knapp and Demesticha 2017, pp. 37, 47, 68, 72, 75–77 and 98.  Ramon Torres 1995. 5  Šuta 2012/2013. 6  Knapp and Demesticha 2017, pp. 72–73. 7  Campanella 1999, p. 29; 2009; Bartoloni and Tronchetti 1981, p. 83, fig. 9. 4

284

J. HAYNE

– P.

VAN DOMMELEN

Fig. 2. Table summarising the lids from three sites (J. Hayne).

These criteria, nevertheless, produced a number of identifiable lids (Fig. 2). At Truncu ‘e Molas, from a total of 29 lid fragments of all types, only one falls into our category (TM 001.1.73) (Fig. 3). Although not defintely identified, it was likely made in a local coarse fabric, known as ‘A2’. It was found in a secondary deposit and had been purposely cut down for secondary use. In its final form, it measured only 4.5 cm across, which is far too small to be used as an amphora lid, but it could have had a secondary purpose as a stopper. At Pauli Stincus, a total of 14 lid fragments were found which satisfied two of our criteria: conical shape and knob handle. They were made in a local coarse fabric. Only one of these, however, has an internal ledge and may thus be identified as having been made for possible use with an amphora (PSt 014.1.026) (Fig. 3). Despite its fragmentary state, this object was morphologically similar to the S’Urachi (or San Vero Milis = SVM) group B below. The rest were too fragmentary to allow any identification. The one lid identified as similar to those of the SVM group has, however, an internal ledge of 17.5 cm, which seems far too large for use with an amphora. The most important site, for the number and variety of lids, is that of S’Urachi. The site, currently under excavation, has been divided into two areas; area D is a zone between towers 1 and 7, adjoining the southeastern defensive wall of the nuraghe, and area E lies outside the nuraghe to the east between towers 2 and 3. A third area, F, to the north of the nuraghe, was opened in 2017. The finds from area D date to the Late Classical and Hellenistic periods between the fourth and second centuries BCE. The area measures around 15 × 20 sq. m and lies between the external wall of the nuraghe and the old Roman or medieval road. Two rooms were identified, one adjacent to tower 7 and level with the tower’s outer wall, which was partially dismantled to accommodate it, and the other, further east, at a lower level and attached to the external defensive wall of the nuraghe. The two rooms were separated by a passageway leading to a doorway that pierced the outer defensive wall of the

PUNIC AMPHORA LIDS

285

Fig. 3. Amphora lids from Truncu ‘e Molas and Pauli Stincus. From top left TM 033.1.43, PSt 014.1.026, TM 001.1.73, PSt.014.1.010 (Photo: J. Hayne).

nuraghe at a level 1.5 m below the floor of the first room. Area E measures around 10 × 10 m and includes a massive ditch parallel to the outer wall of the nuraghe, which may have had a defensive function and was dated to the seventh to sixth century BCE. In later centuries, it was backfilled by the dumping of domestic rubbish, including food waste. In between these rubbish deposits are working surfaces dated between the sixth and fourth centuries BCE.8 A notable point of chronology is provided by the evidence of the two areas, since all lids have been found in area D which confirms their chronology as being from the Late Classical and Hellenistic period (fourth to first centuries BCE). The lids were mainly found in the first room, a rectangular structure of 3 × 3 m (US D024, Room A), which also contained a large amount of other Punic material including cooking pots and amphorae. Accordingly, it has been tentatively identified as part of a Punic house dated to the second century BCE.9 A lid was also found in the adjacent US 074, inside Tower 7, in a layer comprising the backfill from the aforementioned room.10 From the S’Urachi excavations, from a total number 8

 Van Dommelen et al. 2015, pp. 143–146.  Stiglitz et al. 2015, pp. 200–201. 10  Stiglitz et al. 2015. 9

J. HAYNE

286

– P.

VAN DOMMELEN

of 59 lids of all types, 28 fragments of lids were identified that could have been used for either cooking pots or amphorae (i.e. coarse fabric and conical shape with a knob handle). Of these 28 objects from S’Urachi, 19 have an internal ledge.

THE

LIDS

All lids are wheel-made and superficially similar, but were manufactured in different ways. There are two distinct designs. Type A, comprising D024.381; D024.382; D074.024, is conical with a roughly made, string-cut knob handle at the top (Fig. 4). These lids are characterised by a deep hollow area within the cone and relatively thin walls. They were probably made in two parts with the upper section including the knob handle and upper cone, and the lower section made up of the outer rim and inner ledge, which were then joined before firing. A clear joint is visible in D074.024. Lids D024.381 and D024.382 were made in the same fabric (B1) which is of a west Sardinian production, most probably from or around Tharros.11 The fabric of D074.024 (D1) is of Carthaginian provenance.12 None of the type A lids were made in the local SVM fabric.13 The second type, B, is also conical with a roughly made knob handle. This type is represented by D024.383; D024.384; D024.385; D024.386; D024.390 (Fig. 4). These appear to have been made in one piece with the ledge added at the end of the process which is clearly visible in D024.386. The area between the knob handle and the ledge is either solid or with a slight dip under the handle (as e.g. D024.385). Concerning the fabric, lids D024.383 and D024.384 are made in a local S’Urachi fabric provisionally labelled SVM3, whilst items D024.385, D024.386 and D024.390 are made in different fabrics (D2, B2 and B1 respectively). In all cases, the knob handle is slightly flared to allow an easier grip and the internal ledge slopes inwards, as is evident in the figure (Fig. 4).

DISCUSSION The context of the discoveries provides a useful guide for the chronology and use of the conical amphora lids. Custom-made lids for cooking came into use in the Punic world during the fourth century BCE with the adoption of Greek style cooking vessels.14 The use of these gradually spread throughout the western Mediterranean, probably via Sicily, with most examples being found between the second and first centuries BCE and continuing in use into late Roman times.15 The lids identified from S’Urachi belong to the same general 11

 Van Dommelen and Trapichler 2011.  Bechtold et al. 2011. 13  Note that the study of the SVM fabrics is in its early days. A preliminary study has been carried out by Andrea Roppa (2012). 14  Bechtold 2014, p. 352; Campanella 2009. 15  Campanella 2009, p. 352. 12

PUNIC AMPHORA LIDS

287

Fig. 4. Amphora lids from S’Urachi; clockwise, top left, D.024.382; bottom right, D.024.386, bottom middle, D.074.024; bottom left, D.024.385 (photos: J. Hayne).

classification as those of cooking pots with the addition of an internal ledge. The most common types of amphorae found in association with the lids in Room A are the torpedo-shaped containers Ramon T–5.2.1.3, T–5.2.1.1 and T–5.1.1.1, which correspond to Bartoloni types D9 and 10.16 In Sardinia, these are usually dated to the third and early second centuries BCE, and have a mouth measuring between 10 and 13 cm for type T–5.2.1.3 and 12 to 14 cm for T–5.2.2.2.17 The internal ledge of the lids are, where visible, inwardly sloping and range 16

 Bartoloni 1988.  Finocchi 2009.

17

288

J. HAYNE

– P.

VAN DOMMELEN

between a maximum diameter of 10 cm to a minimum of 6 cm, excluding the example from Pauli Stincus. There is, therefore, a clear discrepancy between the sizes of the amphora mouths and of the internal ledges of the lids which suggests that it would be difficult to use the latter during transport unless they were sealed with some organic material, such as resin, bitumen or even cloth or straw.18 It may, therefore, be the case that these lids were created separately and used primarily for storage purposes. If we look at the fabrics of the lids, the information is mixed. The lid from Pauli Stincus was made from the local A2 fabric which would match the second hypothesis. At S’Urachi, however, two lids in fabrics D1 and D2 probably came from North Africa which suggests that they had been imported with amphorae. Moreover, even if the B1 and B2 fabrics are Sardinian, they are not necessarily local. The A and SVM fabrics, on the other hand, mean that the lids were locally made and, consequently, probably had a storage rather than transport function. Wheel-made ceramic amphora lids are relatively uncommon, or at least rarely published, compared to the large numbers of amphorae that are found on Punic sites. There are, nevertheless, a number of examples known elsewhere that may be compared to the specimens from S’Urachi. A unique example comes from the Santa Giusta Lagoon, south of modern Oristano,19 and similar to the finds from S’Urachi, it was associated with a modestly sized T–5.2.1.3 amphora. Close to S’Urachi, at the site of Cuccuru ’e Mattoni (Cabras), many examples of similar lids have been collected alongside torpedo-shaped amphorae.20 This site was probably a pottery workshop which produced both amphorae and lids for use in the local area.21 A brief examination of these unpublished finds by J. Hayne noted their similarity with the objects from S’Urachi, although several had holes in the knob handle (missing at S’Urachi).22 This may have served to reduce the pressure from fermenting wine, a factor also noted for the so-called ‘spinning top’ lids of Punic Mañá C amphorae elsewhere in the Mediterranean.23 However, it might also have allowed steam to escape if they had been used on cooking pots. Slightly further afield, an interesting comparison can also be made to a series of amphora lids found in the port of Olbia in northeastern Sardinia.24 Of the four categories identified, the first one (a) is closest to group A in this study with a conical shape, short internal ledge, albeit less pronounced, and knob handle. The author suggests these were used for closing the Mañá D amphorae found nearby,25 perhaps also using a string attached to the knob and amphora handle to create a snugger fit. A similar system could also have been used at S’Urachi, although this might not have been necessary if the amphorae were used to transport non-liquid contents. It is worth noting that the Santa Giusta torpedo amphora and lid 18

 Dell'Amico 1986, p. 133.  Del Vais and Sanna 2012, p. 213, fig. 12. 20  Del Vais and Sanna 2012, p. 213, n. 27. 21  Del Vais, pers. comm. 22  A sincere thank you to Dr del Vais for allowing me to examine these objects and signalling their existence. 23  Carrié et al. 1979, p. 217, fig. 52 and 54; Wolff 2004, p. 455, fig. 5. 24  Dell'Amico 1986. 25  Although dell’Amico associates the lids with Mañá D (Bartoloni type E) amphorae their square shoulders seem less adapted for conical lids than the Bartoloni D types which have rounded shoulders. 19

PUNIC AMPHORA LIDS

289

Fig. 5. Comparison of amphora lids. Clockwise from top left: Santa Giusta – Cabras, Sardinia (after Del Vais and Sanna 2012, p. 229, fig. 12); Motya, Sicily (after Famà and Toti 2000, pl. XC11); Selinus – Sicily (after Fourmont 2013, p. 16, fig. 16.2); Lilybaion – Sicily (after Bechtold and Schmidt 2015, p. 9); S’Urachi – Sardinia (G. Campisi).

were found in association with other amphorae containing sheep or goat meat. It is, therefore, also possible that these lids were only or primarily used when transporting more solid contents. If we look beyond Sardinia, amphora lids are best documented in Sicily. At Motya, three examples of lids, similar to those in this study, have been found associated with amphorae (Ramon T–1.4.5.1/4.2.2.6) (Fig. 5). In both cases, the lid fabrics were the same as those of the associated amphorae which would imply that the two were made together. It should also be noted that none of the fabrics were local which supports the suggestion that the lids were made for transport.26 Several (an unknown number) lids from Lilybaion are comparable to those in this study even if it they are more rounded and with a less pronounced internal ledge (Fig. 5). These 26

 Famà and Toti 2000, p. 460, pl. XCII.

290

J. HAYNE

– P.

VAN DOMMELEN

were made from a local fabric and the same form was produced also in Soluntum, Panormos, Eryx and Segesta.27 Amphora lids of the same type were also found at Selinus where, as with Cuccuru ’e Mattoni in Sardinia, they come from a workshop and kiln and some, at least, are linked to amphorae T–4.2.1.5.28

CONCLUSIONS The production of Punic conical lids remains problematic as it is not always clear whether they were designed for cooking, transport or storage. It seems likely that the design of these objects came about through the diffusion of Greek-style cooking practices from the fourth century BCE onwards when cooking pots were endowed with an internal ledge and a snugly fitted lid. This chronology matches the stratigraphy and location of the lids found at S’Urachi which were all found in area D in Late Hellenistic contexts. The production of conical lids with an internal ledge that are much too narrow to sit on a cooking pot is likely to have been a development of this form. That these types of lids are mainly found in Sicily is suggestive as this is where contact between the Greek and Punic world was the most intense. Although amphora lids are found across the Punic world, and occasionally published (e.g. Byrsa, Athens, Iberia),29 these are often the ‘spinning top’ types usually found in association with the flared-rimmed and narrow-necked Mañá C2 (T–7.4.0.0) amphorae where the lid fitted inside the amphora neck.30 The conical lids are better suited to amphorae with inward curving rims such as T–4.2.2.6 or T–5.2.1.1/1.3. The production of lids is often linked to that of the amphora with which they were associated, for example at Cuccuru ’e Mattoni (Cabras) and Lilybaion (although the fabrics are not always identified),31 where it is likely that both items were transported together. The example from Motya shows that this was the case and the variety of fabrics found at S’Urachi implies that the lid was also attached to the amphora for transport. The fact that the lids did not necessarily fit snugly could mean that they were used for transporting dry or non-liquid goods or that string or cloth was used to make them fit. What remains interesting is why relatively large numbers of lids were found at S’Urachi and Cuccuru ‘e Mattoni. Whilst the latter was a production site, which may account for the large number of lids, S’Urachi was not. It may be that these types of lids had a more specifically Sardinian provenance and were associated with a certain type of amphora or practise. Whilst this article gives a glimpse of the different types of amphorae lids, more work remains to be done on the provenance and identification of these pottery classes.

27

 Bechtold and Schmidt 2015, p. 8.  Fourmont 2013, p. 16. Note also the longevity of this type of amphora lid; although not found at Carthage, examples ‘are very common in the northern Gulf of Hammamet in the 6th–7th centuries’ CE (Euzennat 2020, pp. 109–110, fig. 23, nos. 335–337). 29  Wolff 1986, pp. 95–96. Cerdà (1980) illustrates several different lid types including conical examples, albeit without an internal ledge from the Sant Jordi Roman Republican shipwreck. 30  Bechtold 2010, p. 59, fig. 34: 1. 31  Bechtold and Schmidt 2015, p. 8. 28

PUNIC AMPHORA LIDS

291

BIBLIOGRAPHY BARTOLONI, P. 1988

Le anfore fenicie e puniche di Sardegna (Studia Punica 4). Rome: Università degli Studi di Roma. BARTOLONI, P. and TRONCHETTI, C. 1981 La necropoli di Nora (Collezione di Studi Fenici 12). Rome: Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerca. BECHTOLD, B. 2010 The Pottery Repertoire from Late 6th – Mid 2nd Century BC Carthage: Observations based on the Bir Messaouda Excavations (Carthage Studies 4). Ghent: University of Ghent. 2014 “Imitazioni di produzioni Greche/Italiche in contesto fenicio/Punico. Le imitazioni locali di forme ceramiche allogene a Cartagine (V–II sec. a.C.),” in El problema de las “imitaciones” durante la protohistoria en el mediterráneo centrooccidental: entre el concepto y el ejemplo (Iberia Archaeologica 18), edited by G. Sciortino, M. Krueger, R. Graells i Fabregat and S. Seuma Sardà, pp. 83–120. Berlin: Deutsches Archaologisches Institut. BECHTOLD, B. and SCHMIDT, K. 2015 “Amphorae and coarse ware fabrics of Lilybaion: Evidences for local production and export,” in FACEM (version 06/06/2015) http://facem.at/img/pdf/ Fabrics_Lilybaion_Bechtold_Schmidt_20150530.pdf (13 December 2017). BECHTOLD, B., GASSNER, V. and TRAPICHLER, M. 2011 “The pottery production of Carthage,” in FACEM (version 06/06/2011) http:// facem.at/img/pdf/Pottery_Production_of_Punic_Carthage_06_06_2011.pdf (13 December 2017). CAMPANELLA, L. 1999 Ceramica punica di età ellenistica da monte Sirai (Collezione di Studi Fenici 39). Rome: Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche. 2009 “La ceramica da cucina fenicia e punica,” in Nora. Il Foro Romano: storia di un’area urbana dall’età fenicia alla tarda antichità. 1997–2006. Vol. II – I materiali preromani, edited by J. Bonetto, G. Falezza and A. R. Ghiotto, pp. 295–358. Padova: Italgraf-Novena Padovana. CARRIÉ, J.-M., DENEAUVE, J. and GROS, P. 1979 Mission archéologique française à Carthage. Byrsa I. Rapports préliminaires des fouilles (1974–1976) sous la direction de Serge Lancel. Rome: Publications de l'École Française de Rome. CERDÀ JUAN, D. 1980 La nave romano-republicana de la colonia de Sant Jordi ses Salines–Mallorca. Palma de Mallorca: Ediciones Cort. DEL VAIS, C. and SANNA, I. 2012 “Nuove ricerche subacquee nella laguna di Santa Giusta (OR) (campagna del 2009–2010),” ArcheoArte. Rivista elettronica di Archeologia e Arte (Supplemento 2012 al numero 1): 201–233. DELL’AMICO, P. 1986 “Le anfore del porto di Olbia,” in Archeologia Subacquea 3 (Bollettino d’Arte Supplemento 37–38), edited by P. A. Gianfrotta, pp. 125–134. Roma: Istituto Poligrafico dello Stato. EUZENNAT, M., SLIM, H., GUÉRY, R., HALLIER, G. and TROUSSET, P. 2020 Rougga I. Le forum et ses abords (fouilles 1971–1974). Archaeopress. Oxford. FAMÀ, M. L. and TOTI, M. P. 2000 “Materiali dalla «zona E» dell’abitato di Mozia. Prime considerazioni,” in Terze giornate internazionali di studi sull’area Elima (Gibellina-Erice-Contessa Entellina,

292

FINOCCHI, S. 2009

FOURMONT, M. 2013

J. HAYNE

– P.

VAN DOMMELEN

23–26 ottobre 1997), edited by M. L. Famà, pp. 451–478. Pisa-Gibellina: Edipuglia. “Le anfore fenicie e puniche,” in Nora. Il Foro Romano: storia di un’area urbana dall’età fenicia alla tarda antichità. 1997–2006, Vol. II – I materiali preromani, edited by J. Bonetto, G. Falezza and A. R. Ghiotto, pp. 373–467. Padova: Italgraf-Novena Padovana.

“Fornaci da vasaio dell’isolato FF1 Nord e produzione anforica nella Selinunte punica (Sicilia),” in FACEM (version 06/12/2013) http://facem.at/img/pdf/2013_ 12_06_fourmont.pdf (13 December 2017). GÓMEZ BELLARD, C., VAN DOMMELEN, P. and DÍES CUSÍ, E. 2011 “Excavaciones en la granja púnica de Pauli Stincus (Terralba, Cerdeña): Informe preliminar de la campaña de 2010,” Excavaciones en el Exterior 2011 (Informes y Trabajos 9), edited by M. Domingo, pp. 340–359. Madrid: Ministerio de Educación, Cultura y Deportes. KNAPP, A. B. and DEMESTICHA, S. 2017 Mediterranean Connections: Maritime Transport Containers and Seabourne Trade in the Bronze and Early Iron Ages. London-New York: Routledge. RAMON TORRES, J. 1995 Las ánforas fenicio-púnicas del Mediterráneo central y occidental (Col·lecció Instrumenta 2). Barcelona: Universitat de Barcelona. ROPPA, A. 2012 “L’età del Ferro nella Sardegna centro-occidentale. Il villaggio di Su Padrigheddu, San Vero Milis,” The Journal of Fasti Online 252: 1–25. http://www.fastionline.org/ docs/FOLDER-it-2012-252.pdf (29 January 2021). STIGLITZ, A., DIES CUSI, E., RAMIS, D., ROPPA, A. and VAN DOMMELEN, P. 2015 “Intorno al nuraghe: notizie preliminari sul progetto S’Urachi (San Vero Milis, OR),” Quaderni. Soprintendenza per i Beni Archeologici per le Province di Cagliari e Oristano 26: 191–218. ŠUTA, I. 2012/2013 “Amphora lids from Siculi,” Quaterni Friulani di Archeologia 22–23: 111– 129. VAN DOMMELEN, P. and FINOCCHI, S. 2008 “Sardinia. Divergent landscapes,” in Rural Landscapes of the Punic World, edited by P. van Dommelen and C. G. Bellard, pp. 159–201. London: Equinox. VAN DOMMELEN, P. and TRAPICHLER, M. 2011 “Fabrics of western Sardinia,” in FACEM (version 06/06/2011) http://facem. at/img/pdf/2013_12_06_fourmont.pdf (13 December 2017). VAN DOMMELEN, P., BELLARD, C. G. and TRONCHETTI, C. 2012 “Insediamento rurale e produzione agraria nella Sardegna punica: la fattoria di Truncu ‘e Molas (Terralba, OR),” in Epi Oinopa Ponton: studi sul Mediterraneo antico in ricordo di Giovanni Tore, edited by C. Del Vais, pp. 501–516. Oristano: S’Alvure. VAN DOMMELEN, P., DÍES CUSÍ, E., GOSNER, L., HAYNE, J., PÉREZ-JORDÀ, G., RAMIS, D., ROPPA, A. and STIGLITZ, A. 2018 “Un millennio di storie: nuove notizie preliminari sul progetto S’Urachi (San Vero Milis, OR), 2016–2018,” Quaderni. Soprintendenza Archeologia, Belle Arti e Paesaggio per la città metropolitana di Cagliari e le province di Oristano e Sud Sardegna 29: 141–165. WOLFF, S. Maritime Trade at Punic Carthage. Unpublished PhD diss. University of Chicago. 1986

PUNIC AMPHORA LIDS

2004

293

“Punic amphoras in the Eastern Mediterranean,” in Transport Amphorae and Trade in the Eastern Mediterranean. Acts of the International Colloquium at the Danish Institute at Athens, September 26–29, 2002, edited by J. Eiring and J. Lund, pp. 451–457. Aarhus: Danish Institute at Athens.

Jeremy HAYNE Independent Reseacher Italy

Peter VAN DOMMELEN Joukowsky Institute for Archaeology and the Ancient World Brown University United States of America

BETWEEN CARTHAGE AND ROME: THE ISLAND OF PRORATORA IN SARDINIA Paola CAVALIERE, Jeremy HAYNE and Giuseppe PISANU ABSTRACT This paper examines archaeological data from the excavation on the island of Proratora, northeast Sardinia. The amphora evidence suggests that the site formed part of the maritime networks that stretched across the western Mediterranean. Indications point to continuing contact with vectors carrying Carthaginian goods throughout the second century BCE. The site may have been both a workshop continuing traditional Carthaginian economic practices and a place for the storage and distribution of material with connections to Olbia and elsewhere. Furthermore, the evidence is in line with other data from surveys from nearby areas on the mainland. The currently excavated site is quite small, but a survey of the surrounding zone suggests that this was originally more extensive, something which can be verified by further excavation.1

INTRODUCTION During the second century BCE, Sardinia was already under Roman political control, but Punic practices and way of life continued across the island. These varied from region to region and, focusing on coastal sites, this paper aims to shed light on some economic and cultural aspects of the period between the end of Carthaginian control of Sardinia and the end of the Roman Republican period in the northeast of the island. The evidence, from an excavation on Proratora Island near Olbia, confirms that the Punic economy continued to be of importance, not only for urban centres but also for the local and rural communities, through to the end of the Republican era and later. The island of Proratora (northeast coast of Sardinia) is in the Area Marina Protetta di Tavolara – Punta Coda Cavallo. The small island closes the southern part of the Gulf of Olbia matched to the north by the island of Figarolo (Fig. 1).

CENTRAL PLACES AND NON-CENTRAL LANDSCAPES The main port and the only real Phoenician-Punic town in northeastern Sardinia is Olbia. Over the years, the city has been subject to a patchwork of excavations producing evidence of a site dating from the eighth century BCE when it was first inhabited by Phoenicians, followed by Greeks2 during the sixth century and becoming a major urban centre from the 1  The authors wish to thank the organisers of the APPWC for having invited us to present this poster at the Ghent conference and especially also to Rubens d’Oriano for his comments on a previous draft of this paper. 2  D’Oriano 2009, 2010; d’Oriano and Oggiano 2005.

296

P. CAVALIERE

– J.

HAYNE

– G.

PISANU

Fig. 1. Map of Proratora and surrounding area (After Google Maps by G. Campisi).

fourth century when it became a Punic city.3 Olbia can be considered a ‘central place’ as it had central functions (principally political and religious ones as well as being an important trading centre) which would have promoted social and political cohesion.4 But what about its hinterland? Surface surveys carried out by Antonio Sanciu in the 1990s have revealed how the territory was managed by local rural populations. Twenty seven sites contained material from the Late Punic/Roman Republican period, 25 of which can be considered farms.5 Only two of these have been well excavated: Serra Elveghes and S’Imbalconadu.6 They both comprise large rectangular structures and contain material such as Black Gloss ware and transport amphorae that date them between the mid-second and the early first centuries BCE. S’Imbalconadu, excavated more thoroughly, contains more cooking and kitchen ware and a wine press. Little is known of the other sites, but it is notable that they are principally connected to a Late Hellenistic phase, only seven continue to be used during the Roman Imperial period.7 The results of the Olbia survey and the density of settlement during this period matches evidence from elsewhere on the island where survey projects (e.g. Riu Mannu, Monte Sirai, 3

 Pisanu 2010.  Cf. Gerritsen and Roymans (2006), for a discussion of the meaning of ‘Central Places’. 5  Roppa 2013, p. 79. 6  Sanciu 1997, 1998. 7  Sanciu 1998, p. 780. 4

BETWEEN CARTHAGE AND ROME

297

Ager Bosanus, Neapolis) demonstrate the heavily rural and capillary organisation of Punic settlements in Sardinia, especially in the south and west of the island.8 Elsewhere, the evidence of Punic occupation along the east coast of Sardinia is patchy at best, although this probably reflects the state of research rather than the actual data.9 Some evidence can be gleaned from the coastal settlements. The small Roman settlement of San Teodoro (approximately 20 km south of Olbia) has never been excavated. However, some net weights made of Punic amphora walls, found in the lagoon, indicate the possible presence of Punic communities who frequented the area, at least on a seasonal basis. At Posada, a settlement 20 km further south, the evidence is more certain. The defensive position of the site on a rocky outcrop, its location on the Posada river, with possible contact with the hinterland, and the presence of Punic amphorae (T–4.2.1.10) suggests a stable Punic presence during the fourth and third centuries BCE.10

THE

SITE

In order to gain a better idea of the population of the area and the exploitation of the local resources (especially marine resources which must have been economically important in this period), it was decided to carry out an excavation on Proratora Island.11 The site complements the rural organisation revealed in the Olbia survey. Its geography and position means that it fits in well with the recent studies of minor centres, rural and coastal settlements that are becoming increasingly important in the study of the Hellenistic past, which are taking over from the traditional interest by Classical scholars of urban sites and towns. Indeed, alongside the better studied urban centres and central places, minor centres are often well placed to be part of the trade and contact that made up ancient networks. It is increasingly clear that “islands are uniquely accessible to the prime medium of communication and redistribution.”12 Proratora, in the Gulf of Olbia, was in a prime position to take advantage of these networks and the marine resources of the bay, partly through its role as a likely distribution centre from the Olbia hinterland. Despite its size, the site’s importance lies in the fact that it is one of the few Late Punic sites of north Sardinia to be excavated. It was chosen as a previous survey of the area around the excavation revealed rows of large stone blocks, indicating that the settlement may have been fairly extensive, consisting of several structures spread out across the flat southernmost part of the island. The surface evidence of ceramic material, scattered around the flat area nearest the mainland, and also in the rockier area near the beach, revealed that the island was frequented from the Punic to the Roman Imperial era. The oldest example is a fragment of an amphora Ramon T–5.2.3.1 which dates between the last quarter of the third century and the early second century BCE.13 8

 Annis et al. 1995; Finocchi 2005; van Dommelen and Finocchi 2008.  Sanciu 2011; Secci 2012. 10  Sanciu 2011. 11  Pisanu 2018. 12  Horden and Purcell 2000, pp. 225–227; Tol and de Haas 2016. 13  Ramon Torres 1995, pp. 197–198. 9

P. CAVALIERE

298

– J.

HAYNE

– G.

PISANU

Fig. 2. The excavated site (M. Amilcare, adapted by G. Campisi).

On the flat southern tip, sloping towards the sea, a preliminary excavation of the island in 2011 revealed a rectangular structure of approximately 100 sq. m, which was probably divided into different rooms and oriented north-west/south-east (Fig. 2). The excavation concentrated mainly on two rooms (A and B) which find a terminus post quem in a group of coins (probably left as a foundation rite) dated to the end of the third century BCE. These two rooms contained a notable number of amphorae which suggested that they were used for storage.

THE

AMPHORAE

Many of the amphorae from the 2011 excavation were found in their original positions. Some were made locally, on Sardinia (Fig. 3: a), whilst others were imports from North Africa (Fig. 3: b). The majority, the locally made amphorae, can be placed within Ramon’s typological family of T–5.2.1.1 and T–5.2.1.3 which are dated between the third and second centuries BCE. From the examples studied, two fabrics were identified (labelled 1 and 2,

BETWEEN CARTHAGE AND ROME

299

Fig. 3. Proratora. a) Local amphorae; b) North African amphorae (drawing by J. Hayne/G. Campisi).

Fig. 4). A preliminary study suggests that they conform to two of the FACEM samples from Olbia14 and, although research is still in progress, they are very likely to be locally made. For the North African amphorae, the earliest evidence so far are two rims (Ramon series T–7.0.0.0) dated between the third and second centuries BCE. Other examples are mainly typologically T–7.4.3.1 and T–7.4.2.1 and can be dated to the first half of the second century BCE. 14

 Trapichler 2011.

P. CAVALIERE

300

– J.

HAYNE

– G.

PISANU

Fig. 4. Two local amphora fabrics from Proratora (photo J. Hayne).

Fig. 5. Silver Republican Denarius. R./ Helmeted head of Goddess Roma. O./ Dioscuri on horseback (photo E. Grixoni).

More anomalous, albeit part of the same typology of open mouthed amphorae, is a piece of a smooth rim. Morphologically similar to some examples found at Tharros and Sulcis,15 it can be broadly placed within Bartoloni’s H2 classification16 and dated to the third and second centuries BCE (Fig. 3: b). All these examples were made in a typical reddish North African fabric. This chronology is coherent with the numismatic data (Fig. 5) and a preliminary identification of the Black Gloss ware. 15

 Acquaro and Uberti 1984.  Bartoloni 1988, p. 98, fig. 11: b.

16

BETWEEN CARTHAGE AND ROME

301

PRODUCTION Carthage exercised control over Sardinia from the end of the sixth century BCE until 237 BCE when, with its conquest of the island, Rome imposed political domination. However, despite being under Roman rule, the island’s communities maintained their Punic cultural traditions well into the Republican period in a phase often known as ‘Punic persistence.’ For example, the rural settlements of S’Imbalconadu and Serra Elveghes fall into the period of Roman rule, yet their material culture, especially that of the latter, shows close links to the Punic world.17 Among the ceramic assemblage recovered from Proratora, the presence of locally and foreign made amphorae demonstrate similar interactions and choices. Here, the ceramic forms, such as amphorae and some kitchenware, produced under the Roman domination of Sardinia continue to be made in a Punic way. The presence of the amphorae made in local fabrics is particularly interesting as it raises the question of whether Proratora could have been a production site as well as one of storage. The presence of large numbers of Murex shells on the opposite shore of Capo Coda Cavallo (which may have been conjoined with Proratora in antiquity, due to a lower ancient sea level) also points to the production of purple at the site. Such a mix of evidence hints at activities that closely reflect typical Punic occupations, implying that there was a continuity of the Punic activities even during the second century BCE. This suggests to us that the new Roman controllers of the island did not change the existing system of land/sea exploitation, at least not immediately, as the biggest changes to the island’s economy only occur during the Imperial period. The cooking pots, found during the excavation from the third to second centuries BCE, provide evidence from the domestic sphere which demonstrate that the Punic cooking traditions also continued.18

MEDITERRANEAN NETWORKS? Turning to the North African material, the presence of numerous T–7.4.3.1 and T–7.4.2.1 amphorae is very interesting. Comparisons can be found at Serra Elveghes 119 and Olbia where, at the current state of the research, a quantitative study has not been carried out.20 However, there is currently no evidence of such amphorae along the east coast of Sardinia, a factor possibly related to the limited survey work carried out in this area.21 On the other hand, there is concrete evidence of this type of amphora on the opposite side of the Tyrrhenian sea along both the Italian Peninsula, from Calabria to Liguria, and from Sicily. No single system of trade needed to have existed. The evidence suggests that Proratora was included in one of the various exchange networks along which this material was transported, making

17

 Sanciu 1998, pp. 789–790.  Hayne 2019. 19  Sanciu 1998, p. 784, fig. 9. 20  Dell’Amico 1986, pp. 127–128, fig. 4. 21  Secci 2012. 18

302

P. CAVALIERE

– J.

HAYNE

– G.

PISANU

it part of a wider system of trade that linked Sardinia, the Italian Peninsula, Sicily and beyond to the North African centre of production.

DISCUSSION The present state of our knowledge of this interesting site raises several questions concerning the period of transition between Carthaginian and Roman rule. For example, what were the maritime routes that crisscrossed the Tyrrhenian in this period, and what role did north Sardinia play? What were the contents of these amphorae and what commercial relationships existed between Rome and Carthage during the period between the Second Punic War and the fall of Carthage? Concerning this last question, it is interesting to note Livy's affirmation that Carthage was still able to send wheat to Rome in 191 BCE,22 even after its defeat in the Second Punic War. In fact, the presence of Punic amphorae along the coastline of the Italian Peninsula underline the continuation and possible reinforcement of Carthage’s commercial power in the early second century BCE which the evidence from Proratora helps to confirm. It also raises question of the micro-ecologies of Mediterranean connections. With the increasing control of Rome over Mediterranean trade, from the third century BCE onwards, there were huge increases in the scale of trade with ship cargoes of many thousands of amphorae and weighing up to 400 or 500 t crossing the Mediterranean. This was a big change from the pre-Roman situation (roughly until the third century BCE) where cargoes of a maximum of 1000 t would have been more normal. This pre-Roman trade was heterogeneous in origin where cargoes from different sources, albeit offering a limited range of functional and requested goods, were traded around the Mediterranean in a form of cabotage. Under the Roman Republic, these connections became much more organised with the merchants (mercatores) who organised and managed trade which often belonged to the commercial partnerships of people who came from a variety of backgrounds.23 However, even though the scale of enterprises meant that most cargoes would have been connected to wholesale markets, there were still opportunities in the Republican period for local and small-scale traders to work alongside them, especially to redistribute goods outside major ports. These cabotage traders would have continued to offer a heterogeneous cargo in a way not possible for large scale merchants, serving local routes and the non-urban areas of the Mediterranean. The example of Proratora is likely to be evidence of this. Carthage suffered a serious economic set back after the Punic wars and its loss of settlements in Sicily. Rome took advantage of this to open up trade routes between Sicily and southern Italy. However, the evidence of a number of T–7.4.3.1 amphorae in Sicily and southerm Italy show that, at least in the short term, this may have also worked to Carthage’s advantage.24 Discussions on the contents of these wide-mouthed amphorae are still open. They possibly contained wine, but this needs to be set against the growth of wine production in the Italian 22

 Livy 36.4.5–6.  Hollander 2015. 24  Bechtold 2007, p. 67; Mollo 2008; Ramon Torres 1995. 23

BETWEEN CARTHAGE AND ROME

303

Peninsula. Whatever the contents, it is clear from the historical sources that Carthage was still producing enough surplus in the early second century BCE. The amphorae from Proratora may be evidence of the way these organised short-distance merchants were trading in Carthaginian goods during the late third and the first half of the second century BCE.

BIBLIOGRAPHY ACQUARO, E. and UBERTI, M. L. 1984 “Tharros–X. Lo scavo del 1983,” Rivista Studi Fenici 12/1: 53–71. ANNIS, M. B., VAN DOMMELEN, P. and VAN DE VELDE, P. 1995 “Rural settlement and socio-political organization. The Riu Mannu survey project in Sardinia,” Babesch 70: 133–152. BARTOLONI, P. 1988 “Anfore fenicie e puniche da Sulcis,” Rivista Studi Fenici XVI/1: 91–110. BECHTOLD, B. 2007 “Alcune osservazioni sui rapporti commerciali fra Cartagine, la Sicilia occidentale e la Campania (IV–metà del II sec. a.C.): nuovi dati basati sulla distribuzione di ceramiche campane e nordafricane/cartaginesi,” Babesch 82: 51–76. DELL’AMICO, P. 1986 “Le anfore del porto di Olbia,” in Archeologia Subacquea 3 (Bollettino d’Arte Supplemento 37–38), edited by P. A. Gianfrotta, pp. 125–134. Roma: Istituto Poligrafico dello Stato. D’ORIANO, R. 2009 “Elementi di urbanistica di Olbia fenicia, greca e punica,” in Phönizisches und punisches Städtewesen, edited by S. Helas and D. Marzoli, pp. 369– 387. Mainz am Rhein: Philipp von Zabern. 2010 “Indigeni, Fenici et Greci a Olbia,” Bollettino di Archeologia Online 1/Volume Speciale: 10–25. D’ORIANO, R. and OGGIANO, I. 2005 “Iolao ecista di Olbia: le evidenze archeologiche tra VIII e VI secolo a.C.,” in Il Mediterraneo di Herakles: studi e ricerche, edited by P. Bernardini and R. Zucca, pp. 169–199. Rome: Carocci. FINOCCHI, S. 2005 “Ricognizione nel territorio di Monte Sirai,” Rivista di Studi Fenici XXXIII/1–2: 225–259. GERRITSEN, F. and ROYMANS, N. 2006 “Central places and the construction of tribal identities: The case of the Late Iron Age Lower Rhine region,” in Celtes et Gaulois, l’Archéologie face à l’Histoire, 4 : les Mutations de la fin de l’âge du Fer. Actes de la table ronde de Cambridge, 7–8 juillet 2005, edited by C. Haselgrove, pp. 251–266. Glux-en-Glenne: Bibracte, Centre Archéologique Européen. HAYNE, J. 2019 “Evidence of everyday Punic culinary habits from Proratora Island, Sardinia,” Sagvntvm. Papeles del Laboratorio de Arqueologia de Valencia 51: 121–131. HOLLANDER, D. 2015 “Risky business. Traders in the Roman world,” in Traders in the Ancient Mediterranean, edited by T. Howe, pp. 141–172. Chicago: Ares Publishers. HORDEN, P. and PURCELL, N. 2000 The Corrupting Sea: A Study of Mediterranean History. Oxford: Oxford University Press. MOLLO, F. 2008 “La circolazione di ceramiche fini e di anfore tra i centri italici del tirreno Calabrese e la Sicilia Punica tra IV e III sec. a.C.: rotte commerciali e ateliers produttivi,” in

304

PISANU, G. 2010

P. CAVALIERE

– J.

HAYNE

– G.

PISANU

Fenici e Italici, Cartagine e la Magna Grecia: popolo a contatto, cuture a confronto. Atti del Convegno Internazionale Cosenza, 27–28 maggio 2008, edited by M. Intrieri and S. Ribichini, pp. 233–246. Pisa-Rome: Consiglio Nazionale delle Richerche.

“Sulla cronologia di Olbia Punica,” in L’Africa Romana. I luoghi e le forme dei mestieri e della produzione nelle province africane. Atti del XVIII convegno di studio, Olbia, 11–14 dicembre 2008, edited by M. Milanese, P. Ruggeri and C. Vismara, pp. 1735–1742. Roma: Carocci. 2018 “San Teodoro. Isola di Proratora. Prima campagna di scavo,” Erentzias 2 [2012–2014]: 394–395. RAMON TORRES, J. 1995 Las ánforas fenicio-púnicas del Mediterráneo central y occidental (Col·lecció Instrumenta 2). Barcelona: Universitat de Barcelona. ROPPA, A. 2013 Comunità urbane e rurale nella Sardegna punica di età ellenistica (Sagvntvm. Papeles del Laboratorio de Arquelogia de Valencia Extra 14). Valencia: University of Valencia. SANCIU, A. 1997 Una fattoria d’età romana nell’agro di Olbia. Sassari: Boomerang. 1998 “Insediamenti rustici d’età tardo-repubblicana nell’agro di Olbia,” in L’Africa Romana. Atti del XII convegno di studio Olbia 12–15 dicembre 1996, edited by M. Khanoussi, P. Ruggeri and C. Vismara, pp. 777–799. Olbia: Editrice Democratica Sarda. 2011 “Nuove testimonianze d’età punica da Posada e dalla Sardegna centro-orientale,” Sardinia, Corsica et Baleares Antiqvae 9: 51–58. SECCI, R. 2012 “La presenza punica in Ogliastra: stato degli studi e prospettive di ricerca,” in Epi Oinopa Ponton: studi sul Mediterraneo antico in ricordo di Giovanni Tore, edited by C. del Vais, pp. 517–538. Oristano: S’Alvure. TOL, G. and DE HAAS, T. 2016 “The role of minor centres in regional economies: New insights from recent archaelogical fieldwork in the Lower Pontine plain,” Melbourne Historical Journal 44/2: 33–61. TRAPICHLER, M. 2011 “Fabrics of North Eastern Sardinia,” in FACEM (version 06/06/2011) http://facem.at/ img/pdf/Fabrics_of_NE_Sardinia_06_06_2011.pdf (30 November 2017). VAN DOMMELEN, P. and FINOCCHI, S. 2008 “Sardinia. Divergent landscapes,” in Rural Landscapes of the Punic World, edited by P. van Dommelen and C. G. Bellard, pp. 159–201. London: Equinox.

Paola CAVALIERE Independent Researcher Italy

Jeremy HAYNE Independent Researcher Italy

Giuseppe PISANU Independent Researcher Italy

PHOENICIAN, GREEK AND PUNIC AMPHORAE IN OLBIA: OVERALL PICTURE AND CURRENT PROBLEMS Paola CAVALIERE, Rubens D’ORIANO and Giuseppe PISANU ABSTRACT The amphorae found in Olbia, between the birth of the settlement (the second quarter of the eighth century BCE) and far beyond the Roman conquest, allow us to trace a profile of the economic and commercial aspects of this site, characterised by a very favourable geographical location. During the Phoenician phase of the settlement, the various origins of the amphorae (from the extreme west to the eastern Mediterranean), suggest a very dynamic phase of the the economy of Olbia, when the first colonial urban centres were formed. The absence of evidence relating to the production of amphorae, which is typical of Carthage’s establishment of colonies in Sardinia, between the end of the seventh and the sixth century BCE, confirms that the settlement of the Greeks was to the detriment of the Phoenicians. Punic amphorae appear only between the end of the sixth to the first half of the fifth century BCE and then increase during the first half of the fourth century BCE, confirming, in the absence of archaeological contexts in phase, the continuity of life on the site. During the second half of the fourth century, with the urban (re-)foundation, local production increased, together with imports from other Punic sites and by ‘Greek’ amphorae. The Punic imprint remains well beyond the Roman conquest with local productions that, during the whole of the second century BCE, continue the typical morphologies of the ‘neckless’ amphorae.

INTRODUCTION In this article,1 we present data concerning the amphorae found in Olbia and surrounding areas, dating from the origin of the Phoenician settlement (in the second quarter of the eighth century) up to the second century BCE, when the Punic city, recently conquered by the Romans, still produced and received Punic amphorae. Olbia is a multi-layered city and the modern settlement is completely built on top of the old one; therefore, any archaeological excavation tends to be partial and limited in extension. In this situation, it is unlikely to have a reliable quantification or relative percentage of pottery classes, shapes or typologies. Therefore, the amphora findings will be presented as simple attestations, except for specific cases. I. A BRIEF

HISTORY OF

OLBIA FROM

THE

PHOENICIAN TO THE ROMAN PERIOD

To allow the readers to fully undestand the context of the amphora findings, it is useful to summarise the history of Olbia, concentrating on commercial trading and omitting other aspects (urban planning, cults, etc.) not relevant to the topic of this paper. 1

 Chapter I: Rubens D’Oriano; Chapters II–III: Giuseppe Pisanu; Chapter IV: Paola Cavaliere. The drawings were made by Giovanni Sedda and the photographs by Enrico Grixoni.

306

P. CAVALIERE

– R. D’ORIANO – G.

PISANU

The ‘happiness’ of Olbia The city’s name, chosen by the Greeks (the Phoenician is unknown), indicated the favourable geo-topographical and environmental conditions that justify the success of the anthropisation process: the urban settlement rose on a low hill with a nearby freshwater aquifer, surrounded by areas suitable for fish farming and salt extraction. The gulf, located at the crossroads of the main Tyrrhenian routes, was one of the most sheltered in the entire Mediterranean and the land sourrounding the settlement was fertile, flat and protected by the adjacent hills. Phoenician Olbia2 The urban settlement was founded during the second quarter of the eighth century BCE, probably promoted by Tyre, and remained, until the third quarter of the seventh century BCE, the only independent Phoenician settlement on the Tyrrhenian Sea to the north of Sicily. It was, therefore, an important port of call for trade with the motherland, but perhaps also with other Phoenician settlements in the western Mediterranean, including the wealthy Etruscan and Lazio aristocracies on the opposite Italic shore, with whom there was also trade in valuable metal containers. Important economic items of trade were probably fish and salt, thanks to the shallow waters close to the inhabited area, and other goods produced in the indigenous hinterland. Greek Olbia3 Around 630 BCE, the city passes under the rule of the Greeks of Phocaea and represents their first settlement in the western Mediterranean and an important base for the subsequent expansion on the coasts of southern France (Massalia, etc.). The types of amphorae imported (SOS middle and late, Corinthian A, Chian with cream slip and red paint, Clazomenian, Etruscan, ‘Ionic’ and perhaps East Greek) resemble those found on the coasts of Latium and southern Etruria, showing that Olbia continued to be an important trading port and a stopover for central Tyrrhenian Italy. Punic Olbia 1 At the end of the sixth century BCE, the city, like the rest of Sardinia, fell in to Carthaginian hands following the military campaigns conducted on the island and after the naval battle of Alalia. Punic Olbia 24 Around 330 BCE, Carthage undertook a form of colonial foundation in Olbia: demolition of the previous inhabited area, construction of a larger urban area following Hellenistic 2

 D’Oriano 2010, with previous bibliography.  D’Oriano 2010, 2012; d’Oriano et al. 2012–2014. 4  D’Oriano 2009; Pisanu 2010. 3

PHOENICIAN, GREEK AND PUNIC AMPHORAE IN OLBIA

307

standards (orthogonal mesh, city walls in isodomic masonry, etc.) and transferring indigenous North African peoples. Carthage did so due to the renewed expansion of Rome in Sardinia, which had attempted an ephemeral colonial foundation in 376 in Posada (located on the northeastern coast, just 38 km south of Olbia). The ‘re-foundation’ of Olbia was also related to the increase in overseas exports (wine, table ware, etc.) from central and southern Italy. This is confirmed by the remains of italic wine amphorae and table ware discovered among the foundation layers of the renovated urban walls. Punic Olbia in the power of Rome5 In 238 BCE, Olbia and the whole of Sardinia fell in to Roman hands. Throughout the second century BCE, until the beginning of the first century BCE, Olbia remained essentially a Punic city with a progressive integration of human, cultural, material culture and other elements by the Romans. This was a particularly prosperous period for Olbia: geographically it became the principal Roman seaport of northeastern Sardinia, and experienced a productive and demographic boom due to an immigration flow from North Africa.

II. THE PHOENICIAN PHASE The Phoenician phase of Olbia is only attested today by residual materials. This is due to the following urbanisations, especially the Punic (second half of the fourth century BCE) and the Roman settlements, which seem to have obliterated the previous stratigraphy and structures. As the materials are out of context and fragmentary, it is hard to give a precise typological and chronological attribution. The findings that are presented here originate from the eastern and western Mediterranean, confirming the key trade role of Olbia at the crossroads of commercial routes. The fragments, although not numerous, are very significant both for their early chronology and for the area of origin. The only chronological ‘void’ is the sixth century BCE, when the Carthaginian ‘anfore a sacco’ invaded most of the market of the main Sardinian cities (Tharros, Nora and Sulky above all) with the exception of Olbia which, between 630 and 510 BCE, was the only Greek settlement in Sardinia. The materials presented here mainly come from the excavations of the ancient harbour and the city. The first examples presented are commercial containers with carinated shoulders that bear more or less marked typological details and which can all be attributed to the Series 10.0.0.0 of the Ramon classification (Figs. 1: a–b, d, e and 2: a).6 These amphorae are characteristic of the ‘Círculo del Estrecho’ (among them Castillo de Doña Blanca, Morro de Mezquitilla and Toscanos) and are to be found between the eighth and early seventh7 centuries. These vessels, 5

 Pietra 2014.  Most fragments belong to the T–10.1.1.1 type and, to a lesser extent, T–10.1.2.1. Cf. Ramon (1995, p. 229), corresponding to the Subklasse CdE 1A and 1B, see Docter (1997, pp. 118–133). 7  Ramon 1995, pp. 76–88. 6

308

P. CAVALIERE

– R. D’ORIANO – G.

PISANU

A

B

C

D

E

0

Fig. 1. Olbia. Phoenician Amphorae: Eighth–seventh century BCE (drawings by Soprintendenza Archeologica).

5

PHOENICIAN, GREEK AND PUNIC AMPHORAE IN OLBIA

309

characterised by high and hemispherical shoulders, have a tapering of the body just below the handles and the rim is placed directly over the shoulders. A groove often determines the conjunction that is concave on the outside, especially with the most ancient specimens. On the inside, the rim is thickened and rounded while the lower part can be both apical or rounded. The variety of rim types just presented are unlikely to have originated in Olbia as they bear the features of other sites,8 particularly of Andalusian settlements. These settlements, during the eighth and seventh centuries BCE, traded fish all over the central Mediterranean.9 In Sardinia, we find these common amphorae in Sant’Imbenia,10 Sulky,11 Monte Sirai and Nora.12 Another amphora has a carinated shoulder with a tapering of the body underneath it. The rim has a step in the outer face. This is probably an amphora of oriental origin belonging to the type Sagona 2 (Fig. 2: e),13 already present in Sardinia in at least two specimens.14 This container relates to the first remains of the Phoenicians in Sardinia since the mid-eighth century BCE. The recent discovery of an amphora of the type known in the literature as ‘Sant’Imbenia’, distinguished by a rounded edge on a short hand-shaped neck, completes the picture of the most ancient commercial containers of the Mediterranean for these chronological phases (Fig. 2: d). Currently, it is the first documentation of this class in Olbia. The Sant'Imbenia amphorae began at the end of the ninth century BCE and lasted until the middle or the end of the seventh century BCE. It was Ida Oggiano who first recognised this particular commercial container. The container corresponds to the amphorae previously classed as ‘ZitA’, found in the Nuragic village of Sant'Imbenia, in the Bay of Porto Conte in Alghero, which from the ninth century BCE housed a community of oriental people.15 This amphora, named Sant'Imbenia from the name of the Algherese site, was inspired by Levantine models and has quickly become one of leading historical artifacts of trade involving Sardinians, Phoenicians and Greeks around the Mediterranean.16 The trade of metals and agricultural products, primarily wine, from the fertile area of Nurra, was the reason of the close collaboration between Sardinians and Phoenicians as clearly showcased in Sant'Imbenia. Archaeologists are finding more and more examples of these Sardinian-Phoenician containers, especially along the route from Carthage to Huelva.17 In Sardinia, among the countless attestations, those of the area near Posada, published by A. Sanciu, should be noted.18 8

 Very close to the dough ‘Bahía de Cádiz’ and ‘Málaga’ clay. Cf. Ramon 1995, pp. 256–257.  Ramon 2000, p. 280. 10  Oggiano 2000, p. 243, fig. 7: 4. 11  Guirguis 2012, pp. 49–50. 12  Finocchi 2009, pp. 374–376. 13  For the framing of the type, see Sagona 1982, pp. 74–78. 14  Guirguis 2010, p. 177. 15  Oggiano 2000, pp. 235–258. 16  This amphora is inspired by models of the Levant and also gives some clues regarding the origin of the Phoenician cordiform amphorae: the Bartoloni B2 or Ramon T–3.1.1.1. These containers, whose first traces are found between Sulcis and the upper Tyrrhenian, were, in turn, inspired by the creation of the Etruscan amphorae. González de Canales Cerisola et al. 2004, pp. 100 and 186. This very fruitful phase created the conditions which defined the continuation of exchanges in the central Mediterranean between eighth and sixth centuries BCE. 17  González de Canales Cerisola et al. 2004, p. 70. Lastly, see the findings from Utica presented in this volume by Imed Ben Jerbania. 18  Sanciu 2010, p. 4, figs. 1–3. 9

P. CAVALIERE

310

– R. D’ORIANO – G.

PISANU

A

B

C

D

5

0

E

0

5

Fig. 2. Olbia. Phoenician amphorae: Eighth–seventh century BCE (drawings by Soprintendenza Archeologica).

PHOENICIAN, GREEK AND PUNIC AMPHORAE IN OLBIA

311

The short rim of T–3.1.1.2 has the same chronology found in the chora of Olbia. The rim belongs to an amphora with an ovoid profile, which is the first specimen made in the central Mediterranean, in particular in Carthage (Fig. 1: c).19 The last profile could be related to a T–10.1.2.1, dated from 675/650 to 575/550 (Fig. 2: b). It is present in the shipwreck of Giglio Island which is dated to 600 BCE.20 Finally, the very recent discovery of a T–2.1.1.2, that Ramon dated to the late seventh century BCE, seems to represent the lower limit for the Phoenician findings21 which is close to the start of the Greek phase of Olbia (Fig. 2: c). The various origins of the amphorae, from the extreme west to the eastern Mediterranean, suggests a very dynamic phase of the Olbian economy. The absence of typical Carthaginian amphorae from the end of the seventh to the sixth centuries BCE, seems to confirm the succession of the Greeks against the Phoenicians. Punic amphorae will appear between the end of the sixth to the beginning of the fifth centuries BCE.

III. FIFTH CENTURY

TO THE MID-FOURTH CENTURY

BCE

The materials relating to the first Punic phase of Olbia are decidedly more numerous than those of the Phoenician phase. However, they are also out of context, and therefore only a selection will be presented here. 1) Punic amphora rim from the Olbia’s old town, T–1.4.2.2 Ramon.22 It seems to have been produced in Olbia; it is characterised by small and medium-size white inclusions.23 The type is widespread in Sardinia24 and in Carthage.25 Chronology: fifth century BCE (Fig. 3: 1). 2) Small Punic amphora rim found in Via Pala and made in Olbia. Ramon T–1.4.2.2. Chronology: fifth century BCE (Fig. 3: 2). 3) Punic amphora rim, T–1.4.4.1 Ramon, from the former Mercato Civico. It still presents the gap of the rim insertion. Probably a local production. In Sardinia, the type is well known in Tharros26 and in Nora.27 Outside Sardinia, it can be found in Carthage.28 Chronology: fifth century BCE (Fig. 3: 3).29 4) Punic amphora rim, T–1.4.4.1 Ramon, found in the former Mercato Civico. Local production. Chronology: end of the fifth century BCE (Fig. 3: 4). 19

 D’Oriano and Oggiano 2005, p. 171.  Ramon 1995, pp. 145 and 230. 21  The absence of the full sixth century BCE T–1.4.2.1 is emphasised once again, see Pisanu 2007, p. 263. 22  For the general classification of the type, see Ramon 1995, pp. 174 and 369. 23  Here and below, the attribution to local production is determined through a visual analysis and after studying the local finds of many excavations over the years. The data gained by this procedure was confirmed by the archaeometric analysis performed by the FACEM project, see Gassner et al. (2013), in which the samples selected as local productions are in fact attributed to a local productions. 24  In Sardinia the type is known in Tharros, see Pisanu 1997, p. 52, fig. 2: c. For Nora, see Finocchi 2009, p. 441, n. 1072, 1073, 1074. 25  Bechtold 2013a and bibliography. In particular, the fragment features in pp. 81–83, fig. 29: 1. 26  Pisanu 1997, p. 46, fig. 2: e. 27  Finocchi 2009, p. 442, n. 1078. 28  Bechtold 2013a, pp. 83–88, figs. 27: 1 and 29: 6. 29  Ramon 1995, pp. 175 and 371. 20

P. CAVALIERE

312

– R. D’ORIANO – G.

PISANU

1 2

3 4

6

5

0

7 Fig. 3. Olbia. Punic Amphorae: Fifth–fourth century BCE (drawings by Soprintendenza Archeologica).

5

PHOENICIAN, GREEK AND PUNIC AMPHORAE IN OLBIA

313

5) Punic amphora rim, T–1.4.4.1 Ramon, found in the former Mercato Civico. It does not seem an Olbian production and would rather seem to belong to a Carthaginian pottery workshop. Chronology: produced during the fifth century BCE (Fig. 3: 5).30 6) Ramon type Punic amphora rim T–1.4.4.1 found in the city centre. It presents a ribbed and swollen edge. Chronology: produced in Olbia during the second half of the fifth century BCE (Fig. 3: 6). 7) Ramon Punic amphora rim T–1.4.4.1 found in the former Mercato Civico. Local production. Chronology: produced during the fifth century BCE (Fig. 3: 7). 8) Punic amphora rim T–1.4.4.1 found in the former Mercato Civico. Olbian production. Chronology: this amphora type was produced during the fifth century BCE (Fig. 4: 8). 9) Characteristic amphora rim from the fifth century BCE, Ramon T–1.4.4.1, found in Via Pala. Local production characterised by the upper thickening of the rim. Chronology: fifth century BCE (Fig. 4: 9). 10) Punic amphora rim characterised by the lack of the enlargement of the edge which appears rather sharp and thin. It belongs to type T–4.1.1.3 of the Ramon classification and was found in the former Mercato Civico.31 Like number 13, and due to its consistency, fabric and morphology, it does not seem to be a local production (perhaps from Tharros?).32 This type is widespread in Sardinia,33 but it has also been found in Carthage and Pantelleria.34 Chronology: produced between the end of fifth century BCE and the first quarter of the fourth century BCE (Fig. 4: 10).35 11) Small rim of a Punic amphora, Ramon T–4.1.1.3, from the city centre. Local production. Chronology: end of the fifth century BCE to the early fourth century BCE (Fig. 4: 11). 12) Amphora rim, Ramon T–4.1.1.3, found in the former Mercato Civico. Chronology: produced in Olbia during the second half of the fifth century BCE to the early fourth century BCE (Fig. 4: 12). 13) This amphora was found during the excavation of the former Mercato Civico. It belongs to T–4.1.1.3 of Ramon’s classification. The amphora does not seem to come from an Olbian pottery workshop (maybe from Tharros?). Chronology: first half of the fourth century BCE (Fig. 4: 13). 14) A T–4.1.1.3 rim found in the former Mercato Civico. Based on the morphology and the fabric, it is unlikely that the amphora was produced in Olbia. It is probably, pending a more accurate analysis, from the south of the island or from Carthage. Chronology: first half of the fourth century BCE (Fig. 4: 14). 15) Punic amphora rim. The everted edge is attached to the neck just mentioned. The fabric is reddish-brown, tending towards brown, and well levigated, containing only mica particles.

30

 For a chronological comparison of this profile, see Finocchi 2009, p. 442, fig. 1078.  Ramon 1995, p. 185, fig. 38. 32  Pisanu 1997, p. 54, fig. 3: a and b. 33  In the Sinis, see Del Vais 2014, p. 21, fig. 2: 21. At Nora, see Finocchi 2009, p. 444, fig. 49: 1108. 34  For Carthage, see Bechtold 2013a with additional references, p. 84, fig. 28: 2. For Pantelleria, see Bechtold 2013b, fig. 30: 67a. 35  Ramon 1995, p. 185, fig. 38. 31

314

P. CAVALIERE

– R. D’ORIANO – G.

PISANU

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

0

5

Fig. 4. Olbia. Punic Amphorae: Fifth–fourth century BCE (drawings by Soprintendenza Archeologica).

Ramon type T–2.2.1.2. Chronology: last quarter of the fifth to the first half of the fourth century BCE (Fig. 4: 15).36 These amphora remains form part of a process of evolution of the Sardinian containers at the time of the rule of Carthage in Sardinia, which is referenced in the first treaty between Rome and Carthage of 509 BCE. 36  In some specimens a ‘sandwich’ along the intersection of the fabric has been recorded. For the type, Ramon 1995, p. 376, fig. 27.

PHOENICIAN, GREEK AND PUNIC AMPHORAE IN OLBIA

315

At the beginning of the fifth century BCE, the period to which the earliest specimens belong (in particular numbers 1 and 2), the amphorae of the so-called ‘a sacco’ morphology became common on the island, from Nora to Tharros and from Sulky to Monte Sirai (Ramon T–1.4.2.2). These amphorae demonstrate a tapering of the body below the handles and their maximum diameters near the bottom of the vessel. The rim is directly on the shoulder and characterised by a higher thickening which is sometimes underlined by a small gap. During the fifth century BCE, Sardinia elaborates its own amphoric models deriving from the previous prototype. The containers are characterised by a biconvex body with a slight medial reduction (Ramon T–1.4.4.1, numbers 3 to 9). Over time, the characteristic enlargement of the rim looses consistency while the shape of the amphora body takes on a cylindrical appearance (Ramon T–4.1.1.3, numbers 10 to 14). The productions from Olbia seem to be consistent with the evolution of other Sardinian settlements. It is also important to note that this was a busy market that traded goods from many Mediterranean ports. The coexistence of different trade routes that supplied the markets of the Punic cities of Sardinia should also be acknowledged. In particular, in addition to the amphorae coming from Carthage (e.g. number 5) at Olbia, there is no doubt that many products could have come from regional markets, as already shown by various imports from Tharros and Cagliari.37 Another amphora, this time with an ovoid profile, has been found with approximately ten specimens in the excavation of the former Mercato Civico (number 15). The closest comparison refers to a tomb from Siġġiewi, in Malta, where a very similar amphora was found with a black glaze skyphos dated to the fifth century BCE.38 So far, this appears to be the only example in Sardinia. This is type T–2.2.1.2 of the Ramon classification which circulated during the last quarter of the fifth and the first half of the fourth century BCE.39 In summary, the amphorae (Ramon T–1.4.2.2) were rather scarce at the beginning of the fifth century BCE. However, they became more numerous over the course of the century (T–1.4.4.1 and T–2.2.1.2) and during the first half of the fourth century BCE (T–4.1.1.3). As a final technical consideration, the characteristics that allow us to recognise the mid-fifth to mid-fourth century BCE Olbian amphorae, such as consistency and the type of fabric and firing, can be found in similar productions in the settlement that was later established after 348 BCE.40 This confirms the continued North African presence in Olbia from the end of sixth century BCE until the construction of the Hellenistic town during the second half of the fourth century BCE.

37

 See, for example, Cavaliere 2000b, pp. 50 and 58.  Semeraro 2002, pp. 498–511, figs. 8–9. 39  It is the ‘type 20’ in the classification of M. P. Toti of the forms from Mozia which are already present in the wreck of the Porticello of 400 BCE. In reality, the form probably originates from the Solunto settlement where the amphora type was produced between the end of the fifth century BCE and the middle of the fourth century BCE, see Toti 2002, pp. 296–297, figs. 22–24. Two fragments from Olbia were analysed in laboratories in Vienna as part of the FACEM project which confirmed that they were locally produced. Finally, we would like to underline the absence of this container in Olbia at the end of the fourth–third century BCE, which makes us think that this form was in use prior to the foundation of the Carthaginian city. We thank our friends B. Bechtold and M. P. Toti for their useful suggestions. 40  These characteristics are already found in other local productions (plates and cups) of the Phoenician phase and even in common ceramics of the Greek one. 38

P. CAVALIERE

316 IV. FROM

THE

– R. D’ORIANO – G.

PISANU

CARTHAGINIAN ‘RE-FOUNDATION’ TO THE ROMAN CONQUEST

During the second half of the fourth century the new urban status of Olbia, following the Carthaginian ‘re-foundation’, is evident in the new and expanded urban planning, which results in a remarkable quantity and variety of objects of different classes. From this time onwards, and until the Roman conquest, many commercial amphorae are found on the site; some of these containers are local Punic productions, others are imported from Punic regions, but also from other cultural areas.41 The following section briefly presents some published examples, which illustrate the amphoric typologies found in Olbia and the problems that may sometimes emerge from the examination of the materials. The most ancient examples of amphorae production in situ42 come from the excavation of a structure identified as a possible kiln.43 The chronology of the amphorae found here has been established through a comparative analysis with the black glaze pottery of the third quarter of the fourth century BCE. Furthermore, on the basis of the analysis of the surviving fragments, these remains could represent an intermediate local interpretation and evolution between the Ramon T–4.1.1.4 (chronology up to the beginning of the fourth century BCE) and the Ramon T–4.2.1.10 (Fig. 5: 1).44 The interior edges are enlarged; on the exterior surface, the attachment to the body of the vase is clearly visible. The reconstructed diameters are between 11.5 and 16.5 cm. This workshop, and its ceramic products, confirm the solid economic-productive activities in Olbia since the early stages of the expansion of the Carthaginian colony in the second half of fourth century BCE.45 The geographical location of the city and some archaeological findings confirm the use of the surrounding marine resources. This is confirmed by the remains found in Via delle Terme, sealed by a fire and dating between the end of the fourth to the beginning of the third century BCE. This site was interpreted as a ‘warehouse’ for consumer goods and, among the various materials brought to light, the amphorae belong mostly to a local production and seem to be have been used as containers for the conservation of food provisions in the ‘warehouse’. These present a different profile along the edges: they are variously thickened on the interior, sometimes with an external prominence, but in general they seem to be indicatively like Ramon T–4.2.1.10 (Fig. 5: 2–3).46 Also of the same type is an amphora coming from Tharros, which is a unicum because the fish that it originally contained is still preserved inside, sealed with a clay stopper.47 Furthermore, the site revealed containers that, due to their typological characteristics (Ramon 41

 Most of the amphoric documentation of historic Olbia was published after the enormous, and still basic, systematisation work done by Joan Ramon (1995). For this reason, not all types of amphorae, and in particular those for which a local production is assumed, always find immediate confirmation in this typology, perhaps presenting specific characteristics of the site. It also should be added that, with some notable exceptions, the materials of the Olbia contexts are in a mostly fragmentary state, therefore, the classification proposed here must be considered preliminary. 42  From the fifth century BCE, and up to the Roman period, the productions of Olbia maintain some constant characteristics including fabric, colour (which presents itself in variants from light brown to brown-orange) and the presence of granite inclusions. In a few cases, the presence of mica is noted (see supra G. Pisanu). 43  Sanciu 1995. 44  For an overview of the dynamics of the relations between Olbia and Carthage, see Pisanu 2010, p. 33. 45  Cavaliere 2010. 46  Cavaliere 2000b. 47  Cavaliere 2000c.

PHOENICIAN, GREEK AND PUNIC AMPHORAE IN OLBIA

317

1

2

3

4

5

6

0

5

Fig. 5. Olbia. Punic Amphorae: Fourth–second century BCE. Amphorae from: Via Circonvallazione (1); Via delle Terme (2–3); Via Regina Elena (4); S’Imbalconadu (5–6) (from Cavaliere 2000; Cavaliere 1998; Sanciu 1997).

318

P. CAVALIERE

– R. D’ORIANO – G.

PISANU

T–4.2.1.5/T–4.2.1.8, chronology from the fourth century up to the first half of the third century BCE) and/or for the nature of the fabrics (T–4.2.1.2 dated to the fourth century BCE), were produced in North Africa. Again, the excavations in Via delle Terme and other urban excavations48 revealed imports from non-Punic areas, mostly from the Greek world: containers likely to be framed as Mendean amphorae (whose chronology is situated between the phases described here as Olbia I and II), amphorae of Corinthian type A1 and Corinthian type B, Massaliote amphorae, amphorae with ‘echino’ rim and early Greco-Italic amphorae.49 These containers were often used to store and transport wine, as wine seems to have been the primary content of the Ramon T–4.2.1.5/T–4.2.1.8 amphorae. In the context of Via Regina Elena have been found local amphorae from the late fourth to third century BCE and similar to the Ramon T–4.2.1.10 (chronology: fourth century BCE) and Ramon T–5.2.1.3 and T–5.2.1.1 (chronology: third to second century BCE) (Fig. 5: 4). The investigations of the hinterland areas of Olbia revealed numerous new sites with many Olbian amphorae dating to the period after the Roman conquest of the island. Examples include the S'Imbalconadu farm and the small island of Proratora.50 From these sites comes a type of amphorae produced locally and attributable to the Ramon T–5.2.1.1 and T–5.2.1.3 (continuing, according to the data collected in Olbia, at least until the second half of the second century BCE) (Fig. 5: 5–6). At these sites, despite the political domination of Rome, the continued production of amphorae with typical Punic morphologies is notable; the explosion of local viticulture led to the spread of the late Greco-Italic and Dressel 1 amphorae from the Italian Peninsula. Imports from North Africa, with amphorae generally similar to the S–7.0.0.0, or in particular to the Ramon T–7.4.3.1 and T–7.4.2.1 (from the first half of the second century BCE), represent the last attempt of Carthaginian control between the Second and Third Punic War. Even after the defeat of Carthage, the vitality of these forms, with many local variations, is seen by the continuity of production and exports also in Sardinia. Between the fourth and the second century BCE, Olbia is a market for the arrival of products from various production sectors that come to the city from different commercial routes. In addition to the amphorae, various other ceramic classes were imported, which reveal the variety of the trading and commercial frameworks with Tyrrhenian products.51 In fact, ceramic productions include those of the Atelier des petites estampilles (regularly occurring in Olbia excavations), but also, though less frequent, the Genucilia plates, the skyphoi of the so-called Phantom Painter, Apulian askoi and others. In exchange for these imports, what did Olbia export? What did the site produce and what was being exported to the Tyrrhenian markets? The presence of an intense local production of amphorae provides an indication of productive activities of which we can only partially understand. In addition to the marine resources, another production may have been wine. The discovery of an amphora of Greco-Italic typology produced in local clay,52 and the rich 48

 For a part of the materials, cf. Cavaliere 2013; other specimens are still being studied.  Cavaliere 2013. 50  Sanciu 1997; Sanciu 1998. For the island of Proratora, see Cavaliere et al. 2019. 51  Pisanu 2010. 52  Cavaliere 2013. 49

PHOENICIAN, GREEK AND PUNIC AMPHORAE IN OLBIA

319

series of stamps on local amphorae, analysed by G. Pisanu, seem to confirm this hypothesis. Over the years, archaeological research has brought to light more and more Punic amphorae along the Italian Peninsula.53 In future studies, it would be interesting to match generic Punic amphorae found along the Italian Peninsula, to their places of production using the growing definition of ceramic fabrics. These findings pose a significant question regarding the contents of the Punic amphorae, that, whenever found, are varied and often said to be ‘unexpected’. Finally, in view of the huge quantities of products coming to Olbia from the eastern Tyrrhenian coast, can materials coming from Olbia be found in these same geographical areas?

BIBLIOGRAPHY BECHTOLD, B. 2010 2013a 2013b

CAVALIERE, P. 1998a 1998b 2000a 2000b 2000c 2010 2013

D’ORIANO,

2009

R.

“The pottery repertoire from Late 6th-Mid 2nd century BCE Carthage: Observations based on the Bir Messaouda excavations,” Carthage Studies 4: 1–82. “Distribution patterns of Western Greek and Sardinian amphoras in the Carthaginian sphere of influence (6th–3rd century BCE),” Carthage Studies 7: 43–120. “Le anfore da trasporto da Cossyra: un’analisi diacronica (VIII sec. a.C.– VI sec. d.C. attraverso lo studio del materiale della ricognizione),” in Cossyra II. Ricognizione topografica. Storia di un paesaggio mediterraneo, edited by M. Almonte, pp. 409–517. Rahden: Marie Leidorf. “Lo scavo di via Regina Elena a Olbia. Anfore da trasporto di produzione grecooccidentale,” Rivista di Studi Fenici XXVI/1: 81–84. “Lo scavo di via Regina Elena a Olbia. I materiali punici,” Rivista di Studi Fenici XXVI/1: 85–131. “Il ‘magazzino’ di via delle Terme a Olbia. Le anfore da trasporto ‘greche’,” Rivista di Studi Punici XXVIII/1: 39–45. “Il ‘magazzino’ di via delle Terme a Olbia. Le anfore puniche,” Rivista di Studi Punici XXVIII/1: 47–74. “Anfore puniche utilizzate come contenitori di pesce, Un esempio olbiese,” Mélanges de l’école française de Rome 112/1: 67–72. “Manifatture urbane di Olbia punica,” in I luoghi e le forme dei mestieri e della produzione nelle province africane (XVIII Convegno L’Africa Romana), edited by M. Milanese, P. Ruggeri and C. Vismara, pp. 1743–1759. Roma: Carocci Editore. “Il vino ‘straniero’ a Olbia di Sardegna,” in Immensa Aequora Workshop. Ricerche archeologiche, archeometriche e informatiche per la ricostruzione dell’economia e dei commerci nel bacino occidentale del Mediterraneo (metà IV sec. a.C.–I sec. d.C.), edited by G. Olcese, pp. 287–296. Roma: Quasar Edizioni. “Elementi di urbanistica di Olbia fenicia, greca e punica,” in Phönizisches und punisches Städtewesen. Akten der internationalen Tagung in Rom von 21. bis 23. Februar 2007 (Iberia Archaeologica 13), edited by S. Helas and D. Marzoli, pp. 369–387. Mainz am Rhein: Philipp von Zabern.

53  The significance of these items also depends on their classification. Probably in previous years in the ‘Classical’ excavation contexts, many of these containers had not been recognised. Amphorae still represent only a part of the goods that may have been exported from Olbia.

P. CAVALIERE

320

– R. D’ORIANO – G.

PISANU

“Indigeni, Fenici et Greci a Olbia,” Bollettino di Archeologia Online 1/Volume Speciale: 10–25. https://bollettinodiarcheologiaonline.beniculturali.it/wp-content/ uploads/2019/01/3_DOriano_paperfinal.pdf (29 January 2020). 2012 “Olbia greca: il contesto di via Cavour,” ArcheoArte. Rivista elettronica di Archeologia e Arte 1/Supplemento 2012: 183–199. https://doi.org/10.4429/j.arart.2011. suppl.15 (29 January 2020). D’ORIANO, R. and OGGIANO, I. 2005 “Iolao ecista di Olbia. Le evidenze archeologiche tra VIII e VI secolo a.C.,” in Il Mediterraneo di Herakles. Atti del Convegno di Studi (Sassari-Oristano, 26–28 marzo 2004), edited by P. Bernardini and R. Zucca, pp. 169–199. Roma: Carocci Editore. D’ORIANO, R., PIETRA, G. and PISANU, G. 2012–2014 “Olbia. San Simplicio-Urban Center. Tempio e necropoli,” Erentzias 2/2012– 2014: 383–387. DEL VAIS, C. 2014 “Il Sinis di Cabras in età punica,” in Le sculture di Mont’e Prama. Contesto, scavi e materiali, edited by M. Minoja and A. Usai, pp. 103–136. Roma: Gangemi Editore. DOCTER, R. F. 1997 Archaische Amphoren aus Karthago und Toscanos. Unpublished PhD diss., Universiteit van Amsterdam. FINOCCHI, S. 2009 “Le anfore fenicie e puniche,” in Nora. Il Foro Romano. Storia di un’area urbana dall’età fenicia alla tarda antichità 1997–2006, edited by J. Bonetto, G. Falezza and A. R. Ghiotto, pp. 373–467. Padova: Quasar Edizioni. GASSNER, V., TRAPICHLER, M. and BECHTOLD, B. (eds.) 2013 FACEM: Provenance Studies on Pottery in the Southern Central Mediterranean from the 6th to the 2nd c. B.C. (version 3 of 6/12/2013) http://facem.at/ (1 Feburary 2021). GONZÁLEZ DE CANALES CERISOLA, F., SERRANO PICHARDO, L. and LLOMPART GÓMEZ, J. 2004 El emporio fenicio precolonial de Huelva (ca. 900–770 a.C.). Madrid: Biblioteca Nueva. GUIRGUIS, M. 2010 “Il repertorio ceramico fenicio della Sardegna: differenziazioni regionali e specificità evolutive,” in Motya and the Phoenician Ceramic Repertoire between the Levant and the West, 9th–6th Century BC. Proceedings of the International Conference held in Rome, 26th February 2010 (Quaderni di Archeologia FenicioPunica 5), edited by L. Nigro, pp. 173–210. Roma: Missione Archeologica a Mozia. OGGIANO, I. 2000 “La ceramica fenicia di Sant’Imbenia (Alghero – SS),” in Atti del Primo Congresso Internazionale Sulcitano, La ceramica fenicia di Sardegna. Dati, problematiche, confronti, edited by P. Bartoloni and L. Campanella, pp. 235–258. Roma: Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche. PIETRA, G. 2014 Olbia romana. Sassari: Carlo Delfino Editore. PISANU, G. 1997 “Le anfore puniche,” Rivista di Studi Fenici XXV: 43–55. 2007 “Olbia punica: lo scavo dell’ex Mercato,” in Ricerca e confronti 2006. Giornate di studio di archeologia e storia dell’arte, edited by S. Angiolillo, M. Giuman and A. Pasolini, pp. 261–266. Cagliari: Quaderni di Aristeo. 2010 “Olbia punica e il mondo tirrenico,” Bollettino di Archeologia Online 1/Volume Speciale: 26–35. https://bollettinodiarcheologiaonline.beniculturali.it/wp-content/ uploads/2019/01/4_Pisanu_paper.pdf (29 January 2020). 2010

PHOENICIAN, GREEK AND PUNIC AMPHORAE IN OLBIA

321

RAMON TORRES, J. 1995 Las ánforas fenicio-púnicas del Mediterráneo central y occidental (Col·lecció Instrumenta 2). Barcelona: Universitat de Barcelona. 2000 “Ánforas fenicias en el Mediterráneo central: nuevos datos, nuevas perspectivas,” in Atti del Primo Congresso Internazionale Sulcitano, La ceramica fenicia di Sardegna. Dati, problematiche, confronti, edited by P. Bartoloni and L. Campanella, pp. 277–292. Roma: Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche. RAMON TORRES, J. and AMADASI GUZZO, M. G. 2009 “Dos sellos sobre ánforas púnico-ebusitanas,” in Ses Païsses (Artà, Mallorca). Excavaciones en el edificio 25 (“Climent Garau”). Campañas 2004, 2005, 2006 (Arqueobalear. El portal dela arqueologia Balear), edited by J. Aramburu-Zabala, pp. 728–736. Palma: Arqueobalear. SAGONA, A. G. 1982 “Levantine storage jars of the 13th to 14th century B.C.,” Opuscula Atheniensia 14: 73–110. SANCIU, A. 1995 “Nuove acquisizioni su Olbia punica: una fornace,” in Actes du IIIe Congrès international des études phéniciennes et puniques (Tunis, 1991), edited by M. H. Fantar and M. Ghaki, pp. 366–375. Tunis: Institut National du Patrimoine. 1997 Una fattoria d’età romana nell’agro di Olbia. Sassari: Boomerang Edizioni. 1998 “Insediamenti rustici d’età tardo-repubblicana nell’agro di Olbia,” in L’Africa romana: atti del XII convegno di studio Olbia, 12–15 dicembre 1996, edited by M. Khanoussi, P. Ruggeri and C. Vismara, pp. 777–799. Sassari: Editrice Democratica Sarda. 2010 “Fenici lungo la costa orientale sarda. Nuove acquisizioni,” The Journal of Fasti Online 174: 1–12. http://www.fastionline.org/docs/FOLDER-it-2010-174.pdf (29 January 2021). SEMERARO, G. 2002 “Osservazioni sui materiali arcaici di importazione greca dall’arcipelago maltese,” in Da Pyrgi a Mozia. Studi sull’archeologia del Mediterraneo. In memoria di Antonia Ciasca, edited by A. Ciasca, M. G. Amadasi, M. Liverani and P. Matthiae, pp. 489–531. Roma: Università degli studi di Roma ‘La Sapienza’. TOTI, M. P. 2002 “Anfore fenicie e puniche,” in Mozia. Gli scavi nella “Zona A” dell’abitato, edited by M. L. Famà, pp. 275–304. Bari: Edipuglia. ZAMORA LÓPEZ, J. A. 2005 “Un bollo punico da Puig de la Nau de Benicarló (Castellón) e la questione della stampigliatura anforica nell’Occidente mediterraneo,” Studi Epigrafici e Linguisitici sul Vicino Oriente Antico 22: 59–77.

Paola CAVALIERE Independent Researcher Italy

Rubens D’ORIANO Independent Researcher Italy

Giuseppe PISANU Independent Researcher Italy

PUNIC AMPHORAE IN POST-TALAYOTIC MENORCA (FIFTH TO FIRST CENTURY BCE) Helena JIMÉNEZ VIALÁS, Fernando PRADOS MARTÍNEZ, Joan Carles DE NICOLÁS MASCARÓ and Andrés María ADROHER AUROUX ABSTRACT This paper tries to update the evidence relating to the Punic amphorae on Menorca island, not only those recovered from indeterminate contexts, but also from the more recent excavations. The paper focuses on Torrellafuda and Son Catlar, where the modern quantification system of archaeological pottery was used. It is evident that from the fourth century BCE, the presence of Punic material on the island increased until the middle of the first century BCE, when the Ebusitan wine was replaced by the Tarraconensis one. Apart from Ibiza, the rest of the Punic amphorae mainly came from the central Mediterranean. No Punic-Iberian production was found until recently.

INTRODUCTION Menorca (Balearic Islands, Spain) is the most northern island of the Balearic archipelago and, perhaps, one of the least known from an archaeological point of view. This is despite the historical importance of the megalithic remains known as talaiots and taulas, which were built by communities that coexisted with the great population movements that took place in the Mediterranean at the end of the second millennium BCE. During Antiquity, the two major islands, Majorca and Menorca, were called Balearic, while the two smaller ones, Ibiza and Formentera, were considered as the Pityuses in Classical sources.1 Among the western Mediterranean islands, Menorca maybe the one located in the most advantageous place, situated practically in the centre of the basin, serving as a bridge between all the islands and the continental coasts of Europe and Africa (Fig. 1). Menorca is about 50 km long (E–W) by about 15 to 20 km wide (N–S), occupying a total area that barely exceeds 700 km2. The two most important cities are located at opposite ends of the island. Maó/Mahón is situated in the eastern part (Fig. 2: a) and was founded by the Carthaginian general Mago in 206 BCE. Due to its physical characteristics, its harbour is one of the best protected in the whole of the Mediterranean Sea. At the other end of the island is Ciutadella/Ciudadela which also has a magnificent harbour that surpasses Mahón’s because it is better placed in relation to Mallorca and the Iberian Peninsula (Fig. 2: b). Both locations were used as ports since the beginning of the first millennium BCE as demonstrated by the numerous remains of hypogea and other elements corresponding to the so-called Talayotic and post-Talayotic phases. The island, in general, was first occupied

1

 Strabo, Geoography III, 5, 1.

324

H. JIMÉNEZ

– F.

PRADOS

– J. C.

DE NICOLÁS

– A. M.

ADROHER

Fig. 1. Menorca in the central Mediterranean (© Proyecto Modular based on Tabula Imperii Romani).

Fig. 2. The main harbours of the island: Maó/Mahón supra, Ciutadella/Ciudadela infra (© Proyecto Modular based on Google Maps).

PUNIC AMPHORAE IN POST-TALAYOTIC MENORCA

325

during the late Neolithic and Early Bronze Age; there has been no documented occupational gaps to date, although, during some of these periods, Menorca has suffered from some isolation as is common in the history of Mediterranean islands. On the other hand, there are similarities in the stone construction systems with other islands of the western Mediterranean, such as Majorca, Corsica and Sardinia, where the megalithic structures are part of the old and current landscape. In fact, in the case of Menorca, a large number of them have survived, having been frequently occupied during the Iron Age and, in some cases, during the Middle Ages through to the present, as some were still used as stables until recently. During the oldest phases, a varied typology of megalithic tombs, based on cysts with tumuli structures, are known. Later, these evolved into the so-called navetas (exclusive funerary monuments of Menorca) which were already beginning to characterise the Talayotic culture at the end of the second millennium. There are other earlier monuments, which are similar in their shape, called navetas in Majorca and naviformes in Menorca in order to avoid confusion. Naviformes are houses that can appear isolated or in small groups (two to four units). Finally, the talaiots are large turriform monuments which give their name to the island’s culture. They were first built between the end of the second and the beginning of the first millennium BCE, in a context of sporadic contacts with the different colonising phenomena present in the western Mediterranean since at least the mid-ninth century BCE. Some of the chronologies and features of this phase are becoming clearer in the context of research today, especially in the case of the large settlements surrounded by walls and sometimes associated with the talaiots. Unlike Ibiza, which is a separate case within the archipelago, the contacts that should have existed between the Balearic Islands proper, Majorca and Menorca, and the Semitic and the Greek world did not seem to exist since the fourth century BCE. The Phoenician, Punic and Greek presence in Menorca have only been discussed in the contributions of the last 50 years, especially by Joan Ramon,2 Victor M. Guerrero3 and, more recently, by Miriam Castrillo4 and again by J. Ramon.5 Practically, a direct or indirect contact with the indigenous communities and the Phoenician world until the consolidation of the Ebusitan colony (Ibosim-Ebussus) has been overlooked. The influence of Ibiza extended across the world from the fifth and the fourth centuries BCE when its wares, particularly its wine and amphorae, began to ‘flood’ the Balearic market. However, there are very few general or particular studies that have been carried out regarding the Phoenician, Punic or even Greek presence, whether direct or indirect, except for the cases mentioned above. In fact, while the contacts of the autochthonous groups with the Phoenician communities have been clearly observed in Ibiza or Majorca, direct evidence of the Punic presence on the island or, at least, of materials from that source has been very scarce until recently. We have a very superficial idea of the role that Menorca must have played in the commercial networks of the western Mediterranean due to the scarce data. This is one of the reasons why, in the last decade, several researchers have focused on searching, analysing and contextualising the meagre evidence. 2

 Ramon 1995.  Guerrero 1994. 4  Castrillo 2005. 5  Ramon 2017, pp. 77–84. 3

326

H. JIMÉNEZ

– F.

PRADOS

– J. C.

DE NICOLÁS

– A. M.

ADROHER

Among them we must mention the Modular Project, which, since 2014, has been developing its work with the objective to detect most of the milestones related to the direct or derivative contact with the Semitic communities on the island of Menorca. Its primary goal is to document the changes in the building techniques and the architectural typologies observed in some of the Talayotic and post-Talayotic constructions. However, these elements are not examined in isolation, but rather are integrated into their corresponding archaeological records and properly contextualised, where pottery plays an important role from three points of view: providing chronological, cultural and commercial information. For this reason, archaeo-architectural studies were carried out in several insular towns, including an archaeological survey campaign at the site of Torrellafuda and two excavation campaigns in Son Catlar. It was considered necessary to review the material of PhoenicianPunic origin present on the island, paying special attention to its archaeological context and its geographical position. We begin by presenting the amphorae of Punic origin, establishing parameters that will help to better understand the post-Talayotic phases on the island. Regardless of their origin, the Punic amphorae (Iberian, Ebusitan or central Mediterranean) will reveal, across what can be considered a short period of time, the position of Menorca in the trade routes between the different coasts of the mainland and islands that define the western basin of the Mediterranean. An attempt is made to collect most fragments, diagnostic or not, of the amphorae of Phoenician or Punic origin, regardless of their production centre, so that we may establish the parameters as close as possible for the evolution of the Menorcan markets and their osmosis with the products of extraneous origin. In this way, four sources of information are prioritised, two of them directly related to the Modular Project. The first includes a survey conducted at Torrellafuda in 2015 and the first excavation campaign in Son Catlar in 2016. Both places have a long-lasting occupation, from at least the Talayotic to Late Roman times. Thus, they can provide valuable information, not only on materials, but on their context and relative importance among the ceramic facies of Menorca. Together with fieldwork, other available sources are also studied, such as documents and publications of other archaeological excavations. Unfortunately, they always lack stratigrafic and statistical information, so the search was less fruitful than was anticipated. As can be seen in the studies on ceramology in the western Mediterranean, adequate protocols have hardly been established for the presentation of the data or the quantification models in addition to their scope and results, with the exception of the French. One can refer to the recent publication on the proposal of the so-called Seville Protocol (Protocolo de Sevilla) on the quantification and presentation of graphic results of studies of this nature.6 Finally, other objects, found in better or worse defined contexts, but whose existence are known directly or indirectly, and which are essential to give a global view about the problematic posed, could not be excluded.

6

 Adroher et al. 2015b.

PUNIC AMPHORAE IN POST-TALAYOTIC MENORCA

327

Fig. 3. Menorca. Location of the two main cities and the sites where the Modular Project has worked (© Proyecto Modular).

ARCHAEOLOGICAL INTERVENTIONS OF THE MODULAR PROJECT The two interventions that have been the object of a more systematic study (Torrellafuda and Son Catlar) are integrated into the already mentioned global project whose primary objective is the study of the Phoenician-Punic world through its architectural manifestations in four areas of the western Mediterranean: Tunisia, the Strait of Gibraltar, the Spanish southeast and Menorca.7 The first of the interventions took place at the Torrellafuda site, where a non-destructive intervention was planned for the study of the archaeological record. It involved the collection of material by a grid system which allowed the analysis of surface contexts under a systematic collection, and, in turn, the material could be correlated exactly to its place of origin. Unfortunately, we have noticed a decrease in the surface archaeological record. It is strongly believed that this is the result of curious passers-by, amateurs and some more systematic collections, since diagnostic elements are scarcely attested.8 Torrellafuda is located in the central western part of the island (Fig. 3). It is a settlement characteristic of the Talayotic culture with a wall which shows some cyclopean elements and sectors where a more recent remodelling is evident. This defensive structure starts from the talaiot, that is located in one of the corners, and its interior encloses a large sanctuary with a 7 8

 https://web.ua.es/es/modular/.  Jiménez Vialás et al. 2017.

328

H. JIMÉNEZ

– F.

PRADOS

– J. C.

DE NICOLÁS

– A. M.

ADROHER

taula and some other rooms which are barely visible on the surface. Having seen some of the remodelling of the Cyclopean wall, together with the material that was observed on the surface, it is evident that there was a period of occupation in this space after the fourth century BCE. The occupation lasted, without discontinuity, at least, until the first century CE with subsequent occupations. In order to delimit the main phases of occupation and establish a relationship with the various construction phases, it was decided in 2015 to conduct an extramural survey, distributing three transects in the southern area, radial to the wall, and many others, in the north, where unusual concentrations of material had been observed. One of the objectives was to try to determine the possible existence of anthropic activities of production or extramural occupation. Additionally, as previously mentioned, there was a scarcity of material within the village, which made it impossible to perform these intramural analyses. For the data analysis, SIRA (Sistema Informatizado de Registro Arqueológico – Computerised System of Archaeological Registry), which allows for the correct use of the Seville protocol (quantification of ancient ceramics in archaeology) was used,9 which in turn are inspired by the conclusions of the Mont Beuvray meeting.10 SIRA allows for the calculation of the NMIp (Minimum Number of Weighted Individuals) or the EVE (Estimates Vases Equivalent) among others (weight, number of fragments, typological number of individuals, etc.) by returning simple statistical algorithms differentiated by types, classes or ceramic categories. In the case of Torrellafuda, it was established that the material collection from each grid would be treated with the same procedure as a stratigraphic unit. It was concluded that it was better to use the weight as a unit of measurement, as it could determine a good criterion for the entity of the remains located on the surface. This would allow for the establishment of areas of concentration that could be due to sedimentary processes related to the topography or to activities of a diverse nature. Focusing on the amphorae, it is not worthwhile to establish behaviours by sectors since no exceptional concentration was detected. Therefore, if they are analysed from a global point of view (quantified by NMIp), it can be said that the vast majority of productions may be dated from the third to first century BCE, especially Punic–Ebusitan (33.74 per cent), Republican (27.07 per cent), Tarraconense (21.44 per cent), Iberian (12.48 per cent), Punic from the central Mediterranean (2.46 per cent), Tripolitan and the lower Guadalquivir valley (both with 0.88 per cent). Only 1.05 per cent could be productions dating after the first century BCE. When dealing with surface materials, it should call to mind that these percentages must be valued when taking into account the mix of productions whose importance varies throughout the three centuries referred to above. But even so, the importance of the PunicEbusitan productions leaves no doubt about the nature of the trade that affected Menorca during this period. Typologically, the represented forms correspond to T–8.1.2.1 (Fig. 4: a–c), T–8.1.3.1 (Fig. 4: d–f), T–8.1.3.2 (Fig. 4: g–i) and T–8.1.3.3 (Fig. 4: j). The absence of T–8.1.1.1 is one of the arguments in favour of considering that the bulk of the material starts from the third century BCE, although it seems unlikely that this absence is related to an eventual 9

 Adroher et al. 2015a.  Arcelin and Tuffreau-Libre 1998.

10

PUNIC AMPHORAE IN POST-TALAYOTIC MENORCA

Fig. 4. Set of Punic-Ebusitan amphora rims from Torrellafuda (© Proyecto Modular).

329

330

H. JIMÉNEZ

– F.

PRADOS

– J. C.

DE NICOLÁS

– A. M.

ADROHER

abandonment of the town. This amphora, characteristic of the fourth century BCE, is present on the island, although never in large proportions. Castrillo already pointed out in 2005 that, although it represented the beginning of the Punic-Ebusitan commerce in Menorca, the T–8.1.1.1 only represented six per cent of the total fragments of rims known until that moment. However, the other series of the T–8.1 totalled more than 80 per cent.11 In the case of Torrellafuda, the typologies of other Phoenician-Punic productions could not be determined, since the material was much altered both by erosion and by previous collections. The other site on which the project focused is Son Catlar, located just 5 km southwest of Torrellafuda. This town, one of the largest of the island, seems to have been founded in the Bronze Age, although most of the currently visible wall structure is related to the fifth to fourth century BCE. It presents some characteristic rectangular towers built with a PunicHellenistic system of dry ashlars in header-and-stretcher masonry. In the first decade of this century, a single rescue excavation was carried out at the entrance to the site. Although it gave very remarkable results, they have barely been published and the material is still not fully studied.12 Our team decided to intervene directly on this site in 2016 and 2017 with two excavation campaigns.13 During the 2016 campaign, the intervention focused on two towers situated on a complementary flank located to the north of the site. Both structures seemed to have been built at the same time; however, they were destroyed in two different phases that were very distant in time. The most eastern one was dismantled around the middle of the first century BCE, as demonstrated by the existence of a garbage level whose material offered such a chronology. Once again, SIRA was used to document and analyse the material. Focusing on the Punic amphorae, the first thing that was observed was the large number of handles that could be found, many of which were carefully polished on the wall of the amphora. Occasionally, they could present some marks inside the handle, which has led several researchers to assume that they were reused as loom weights (Fig. 5).14 The reuse of certain fragments for different functions is well attested in general with discoidal pieces, whose function even today escapes us (some researchers have proposed that they were used as covers and game tokens, as well as counting systems). However, ceramic fragments were also used as muddlers (handles of Etruscan amphorae along the French Mediterranean coast), construction debris for litters of stone courses (amphorae of Marseilles in the Gulf of Lyon in general) or pillar support (cylindrical amphora necks) among many others. As for the Punic-Ebusitan productions, it can be observed that all types appear from T–8.1.1.1 (Fig. 6: a–c), T–8.1.1.2 (Fig. 6: d–e), T–8.1.2.1 (Fig. 6: f–h), T–8.1.3.1 (Fig. 6: i–j), T–8.1.3.2 (Fig. 6: k–m) and T–8.1.3.3 (Fig. 6: n–p), which suggests that there is a continuity of settlements from the Talayotic to Roman times. However, given that the campaign focused on some specific areas, these hardly allowed for the stratigraphic developments of almost two centuries, basically between the end of the third century to the beginning of the second century BCE and the mid-first century BCE. Therefore, all the stratigraphic units 11

 Castrillo 2005.  Juan et al. 1998. 13  The focus will be on the first campaign since the material from the second has not yet been fully studied. 14  Ferrer and Riudavets 2015, pp. 167–170; De Nicolás 2016, pp. 52–54. 12

PUNIC AMPHORAE IN POST-TALAYOTIC MENORCA

Fig. 5. Set of Punic-Ebusitan amphora handles from Son Catlar (© Proyecto Modular).

Fig. 6. Set of Punic-Ebusitan amphora rims from Son Catlar (© Proyecto Modular).

331

332

H. JIMÉNEZ

– F.

PRADOS

– J. C.

DE NICOLÁS

– A. M.

ADROHER

Fig. 7. Number of fragments and individuals of the amphorae from Son Catlar. Second century BCE on the left, first century BCE on the right (made with SIRA).

were grouped into two large groups according to their chronology: those related to the third to second century and those related to the first century BCE. In the set of the amphorae of the late third and second centuries BCE, there are a total of 298 fragments distributed in 26 NMIp belonging to Punic-Ebusitan productions (38.46 per cent of NMIp), followed by Republican (19.23 per cent), Punic from the central Mediterranean (15.38 per cent), Tarraconense (11.54 per cent), Iberian and the lower Guadalquivir valley (3.85 per cent) although this last group is undoubtedly intrusive. Of the items, 7.69 per cent could not be classified (Fig. 7: a). The scarce representation of Iberian productions should be highlighted, which decline during the progression of the second century, until they were replaced by the Tarraconense throughout the first century BCE. During the first century BCE (Fig. 7: b), it can be observed that the amphorae of PunicEbusitan origin are still the best represented, but their percentage decreases noticeably to 26.98 per cent. This is followed by the Tarraconense and the Republican productions with 17.46 per cent and a significant reduction of those from the central Mediterranean (7.94 per cent). On the other hand, the amphorae from Iberia and the Guadalquivir valley increase, but very slightly, which may not have statistical value at the moment. In general, it is evident that the Punic productions, not Ebusitan, have a very small role. Only some isolated fragments of T–7.4.2.2 of Tunisian origin have been detected during the excavations which fits well into the chronology towards the end of the third to second century BCE. In contrast, the frequency of series such as T–8.1.2.1 and T–8.1.3.1, especially in the contexts of the first phase of Son Catlar, suggests that these were the amphorae that would serve as index fossil for the determination of the contexts related to the surroundings of the Second Punic War and its effects in Menorca. It is possible that, in this case, the materials that are present in the last moments of the third century and beginnings of the second century BCE could be related to the reconstruction of the town walls. This can be seen even in the changes in the elevation systems of the walls, where there are clearly noticeable differences between, at least, two construction phases.

PUNIC AMPHORAE IN POST-TALAYOTIC MENORCA

OTHER

333

ARCHAEOLOGICAL DOCUMENTS

As previously mentioned, although the fundamental basis of the project is the ceramic phase designed from the works in Torrellafuda and Son Catlar, material from other sources is also considered, such as other excavations and findings which are more or less contextually identified. First, the importance and quantity of potential marine ports in Menorca, where a preRoman presence has been detected at some sites, should be noted (Fig. 8). Normally, this presence has been documented sporadically and sometimes even out of context. It is necessary to wait for future excavations in the two main harbours of Ciutadella/Ciudadela and Maó/Mahón. Without a doubt, Carthaginian levels should be located in situ at both sites with a material that could well explain how Menorca was integrated into the commercial and possibly administrative networks of the Carthaginian state. The information coming from wrecks is richer, with a recent overview.15 For the moment, and for what is relevant here, the oldest is that of Llucalari, which is dated between the end of the fifth century and the beginning of the fourth century BCE. Discovered on the wreck was a facies associated with the workshop of Ibiza AE–7 and with a copy of T–8.1.1.1 of the very first phase.16 The rest of the material is closely associated with Punic-Ebusitan productions, such as mortars and vessels in general. These undoubtedly indicate the origin of the ship, which can be associated with the first moments of the Ebusitan trade with Menorca and the opening of this to the commercial maritime networks of the period. Better known is the wreck of Binisafúller of the second quarter of the fourth century BCE17 which is the most complete and best published to date. Ninety seven per cent of the cargo consists of Iberian amphorae, although its exact origin is not yet clear. Some Punic-Ebusitan amphorae appeared in a very low percentage, specifically a PE–22 and a T–8.1.1.1. There is also a North African amphora T–4.2.1.2 and a T–12.1.1.1 produced in the coast of Cádiz. Undoubtedly, the Andalusian, African and Ebusitan productions were not the main cargo of the ship. It is expected that there will be further publications to complete the excavated area and to establish more approximate criteria about the actual estimate of the load. Within the fourth century BCE, but with less precise dates, are two wrecks in the north of the island, at Sanitja II and Cala Torta. The first of them presents, as in the previous case, a single Punic-Ebusitan specimen of T–8.1.1.1, to which are added some North African pieces of T–4.2.1.2 and T–4.1.1.3, and a Sardinian T–4.2.1.10. A small amount of cargo was documented at Cala Torta, with a single example of a Punic-Ebusitan amphora, once again a T–8.1.1.1. As in the previous case, it was discovered alongside amphorae of diverse provenance, in this case of Iberian origin, approaching the facies of Binisafúller.18 The lack of a more complete document that includes an adequate quantification seems to be logical, taking into account the nature of the findings, as well as the probable pillage, and it remains a problem in the case of these wrecks. It is hoped that, in the future, more interesting data can be provided in this regard. 15

 Ramon 2017, pp. 44–56.  Aguelo et al. 2016. 17  Aguelo et al. 2013. 18  Talavera and Contreras 2015. 16

334

H. JIMÉNEZ

– F.

PRADOS

– J. C.

DE NICOLÁS

– A. M.

ADROHER

Fig. 8. Pre-Roman Shipwrecks and harbours in Menorca (© Proyecto Modular).

Fig. 9. Menorcan sites where Phoenician-Punic amphorae have been found (© Proyecto Modular).

PUNIC AMPHORAE IN POST-TALAYOTIC MENORCA

335

Fig. 10. Menorcan sites where stamps on Phoenician-Punic amphorae have been found (© Proyecto Modular).

However, an attempt of quantification, though simple, was made in Calescoves, an interesting context dated to the middle of the second century BCE. Here, the results are not far from what appears at Son Catlar. Punic-Ebusitan represents the main amphora group with 52.20 per cent, well ahead of Punic productions from the central Mediterranean (22.50 per cent), the Greco-Italic (20 per cent) and finally, the Iberian amphoras, with only five per cent.19 Even more, this illustrates, the important descent to which the peninsular productions are subjected to, from the second century BCE against what seems to happen in previous contexts, as Binisafúller shows at the beginning of fourth century BCE. Apart from wrecks and harbours, there are numerous other settlements with traces of Punic materials, although not always in sufficiently representative contexts or completely published. One of the best known is the case of Biniparratx Petit, where there is a complete amphora T–8.1.3.2. Apart from the potential of the Punic-Ebusitan productions, there is an important epigraphic set that was made known in 1979 with 12 stamps located without context at ten sites spread throughout the island.20 The stamps were found on the necks of T–7.4.2.1 amphorae of the second century BCE (two of them), which were produced in Carthage or its surroundings. Stamps were also found on fragments of handles of indeterminate amphorae of the family of the T–5, probably dating to the second half of the third century BCE, 19

 Juan et al. 2004, graphs 2 and 3.  De Nicolás 1979, pp. 13–21.

20

H. JIMÉNEZ

336

– F.

PRADOS

– J. C.

DE NICOLÁS

– A. M.

ADROHER

also Tunisian. These stamps were gathered in the list of J. Ramon.21 However, as time elapsed, there are now new records which are still pending study, increasing the repertoire of stamps on Punic Menorcan amphorae with 13 units, in addition to three graffiti, increasing the number of sites involved up to 17. The new inscriptions, currently under review, follow the pattern of the first group, basically of the S–5 group, with a few copies of the S–7. The graffiti are detected only on the Punic-Ebusitan amphorae in which, as is well known, the stamps are exceptional. The chronological panorama is perfectly defined between the second half of the third century and the second century BCE and confirms the significant presence of central Mediterranean products.

CONCLUSIONS In general terms, it can be said that during the fourth and third century BCE, the Ebusitan commerce is almost exclusive on the island. This period allows Menorca to become part of the ports that commercialise materials of a diverse nature in the western Mediterranean. However, given the almost exclusive origin of the amphorae from Ibiza, it is possible that Menorca, at this time, after some period of isolation, became part of the commercial systems that Ibosim-Ebussus developed among various points, especially towards the eastern coasts of the Iberian Peninsula. Most likely, this was aimed at accessing markets in the environment of Emporion, that is, towards the coasts of Catalonia and north of the Valencian region, perhaps less accessible from the Majorcan harbours. David Asensio22 points out precisely that the imports of Punic-Ebusitan amphorae in the Catalan area began to be important from the middle of the fifth century BCE.This is different from Emporion where those of Punic-Iberian origin are the majority, while in deposits such as Mas Castellar de Pontós during that same period the Punic-Ebusitan are the best represented amphorae. It is from the fourth century BCE when these percentages are generalised along the coast of the northeastern quadrant of the Iberian Peninsula. This direct connection with the Catalan area will continue to be active for several centuries. And not only in the northern direction, but as a two-way communication, since in Menorca, from the first century BCE, numerous fragments of Tarraconense amphorae have been found. To the point that in the contexts of the island, they completely replace the Ebusitan wine at that time, something that does not seem to happen in the previous century. Although the Republican amphorae are frequent (basically Greco-Italic amphorae, Dressel 1A and, far behind, Lamboglia 2), it continues to dominate the Ebusitan imports. The phenomenon has a clear precedent in the outstanding arrival of Iberian ceramics of gray paste, especially the famous biconical jars that are abundantly detected in various deposits and also in cult and funerary areas of the third and second century BCE. Although, in this work, the focus has been on the amphorae of Punic-Ebusitan origin, it should be recognised that there are more provenances that have not been treated in depth, due to their almost total absence in the contexts that have presented the axis of this study. 21

 Ramon 1995, figs. 215–234.  Asensio 2010.

22

PUNIC AMPHORAE IN POST-TALAYOTIC MENORCA

337

Fig. 11. Examples of stamps (© Proyecto Modular).

However, the various authors mention provenances of Punic amphorae from the Sardinian, North African and even Andalusian regions. But, in this order, copies are scarce, and, among others, the total absence of some very specific productions such as T–9.1.1.1, made essentially in the coasts of Cádiz and Málaga, is noteworthy.23 Having seen the many different 23  It seems that Punic-Ebusitan imitations of those productions have been identified but they have not been detected in Menorca so far.

338

H. JIMÉNEZ

– F.

PRADOS

– J. C.

DE NICOLÁS

– A. M.

ADROHER

contexts that have been studied corresponding to the third to first century BCE, it seems that the current sample could be considered sufficiently representative to ensure that they will never appear in ample quantities to indicate that the marketing of their packaged products had a specific weight in the Menorcan consumer economy during this period. Finally, it should be emphasised that it is a well-known fact that there are numerous Punic types of amphorae on the island, at least since the fifth century, until the first century BCE. Although it is necessary to establish quantification protocols, at a glance, it is possible to identify certain homogeneous behaviors in the amphoric facies from the different territories of Menorca. What was the mechanism of this trade, and what were the products and how were they consumed is something that we hope to understand more satisfactorily with the passage of time. To conclude, it is necessary to note that there is an important gap between the beginning of the Phoenician colonisation and the fifth century BCE, in which there are no materials that clearly appear associated with appropriate contexts. It is hoped that in the future we will be able to better understand these processes and the scope that the acquisition of these products, and their consequences among cultural interactions, had among the indigenous communities, especially if it is taken into account that many of the raw materials came from abroad, particularly metals, in whose transfer it is likely that the Phoenicians played a prominent role. BIBLIOGRAPHY ADROHER AUROUX, A. M., CARRERAS MONFORT, C., DE ALMEIDA, R., FERNÁNDEZ FERNÁNDEZ, A., MOLINA VIDAL, J. and VIEGAS, C. 2015a “Registro para la cuantificación de cerámica arqueológica y una nueva propuesta. El Protocolo de Sevilla (PRCS/14),” Zephyrus 78: 87–110. ADROHER AUROUX, A. M., SÁNCHEZ MORENO, A. and DE LA TORRE CASTELLANO, I. 2015b “Cuantificación en cerámica, ¿ejercicio especulativo o ejercicio hipotético? Las cerámicas ibéricas y púnicas en la Iliberri del siglo IV a.C. procedentes del depósito de la calle Zacatín (Granada),” Archivo Español de Arqueología 88: 39–65. AGUELO, X., GUAL, J., PLANTALAMOR, L., PONS, O. and RAMON, J. 2016 “Les troballes del derelicte de Llucalari,” Ámbit 39: 10. AGUELO, X., PONS, O., DE JUAN, C., RAMON, J., MATA, C., SORIA, L., PIQUÉ, R. and ANTOLÍN, F. 2013 “El pecio de Binisafúller. Estado de las investigaciones,” in I Congreso de Arqueología Náutica y Subacuática española, Cartagena, 2013, edited by X. Nieto, A. Ramírez and P. Recio, pp. 67–85. Cádiz: Universidad de Cádiz. ARCELIN, P. and TUFFREAU-LIBRE, M. (eds.) 1998 La quantification des céramiques: conditions et protocole: actes de la table ronde du Centre archéologique européen du Mont-Beuvray, Glux-en-Glenne (Bibactre 2). Glux-enGlenne: Centre archéologique européen du Mont Beuvray. ASENSIO, D. 2010 “Evidencias arqueológicas de la evidencia púnica en el mundo ibérico septentrional (siglos VI–III a.C.). Estado de la cuestión y nuevos enfoques,” Mainake 32/2: 705–734. CASTRILLO, M. 2005 “Fenicis i punics a Menorca: Vint-i-cinq anys d’investigació i noves dades aportades per les àmfores feniciopúniques a l’illa,” Fonaments 12: 149–168. DE NICOLÁS, J. C. 1979 “Epigrafía anforaria en Menorca,” Revista de Menorca LXX: 5–80. 2016 “Tejidos y telares en la protohistoria menorquina,” in Textiles, Basketry and Dyes in the Ancient Mediterranean World. Purpurae Vestes, edited by J. Ortiz, C. Alfaro, L. Turell and M. J. Martínez, pp. 49–56. Valencia: Universitat de València.

PUNIC AMPHORAE IN POST-TALAYOTIC MENORCA

339

FERRER, A. and RIUDAVETS, I. 2015 “Les fusaioles i els pesos de teler del cercler 7 de Torre d’en Galmés; un exemple de la producción de teixits a Menorca durant la Segona Edat del Ferro,” in L’entreteixit del temps. Miuscel·lània d’estudis en homenatge a Lluís Plantalamor Massanet, edited by C. Andreu, C. Ferrando and O. Pons, pp. 163–173. Palma: Govern de les Illes Balears. GUERRERO AYUSO, V. 1994 “Formación social indígena y relaciones coloniales en la protohistoria balear,” Gerión 12: 155–195. JIMÉNEZ VIALÁS, H., PRADOS, F., DE NICOLÁS, J. C., ADROHER, A. M., TORRES, O., MARTÍNEZ, J. J., GARCÍA, I., LÓPEZ, D., EXPÓSITO, D. and CARBONELL, S. 2017 “Prospección arqueológica en Torrellafuda. Al encuentro de la Menorca púnica,” in Menorca entre fenicis i púnics. Menorca entre fenicios y púnicos (Monografías del CEPOAT 2), edited by F. Prados Martínez, H. Jiménez Vialás and J. J. García Martínez, pp. 181–200. Murcia: Centro de Estudios del Próximo Oriente y la Antigüedad Tardía. JUAN, G., DE NICOLÁS, J. C. and PONS, O. 2004 “Menorca, segle IV–II aC., un mercat per al comerç ebusità,” in La circulació d’àmfores al Mediterrani occidental durant la Protohistòria (segles VIII–III aC.): aspectes quantitatius i anàlisi de continguts (Arqueomediterrània 8), edited by J. Sanmartí, D. Ugolini, J. Ramon and D. Asensio, pp. 261–264. Barcelona: Universitat de Barcelona. JUAN, R., PONS, O. and JUAN, Q. 1998 Poblat de Son Catlar. Memòria de la campanya Juny–Setembre de 1995. Ciutadella: Associació d’Amics del Poblat de Son Catlar. RAMON, J. 1995 Las ánforas fenicio-púnicas del Mediterráneo central y occidental (Col·lecció Instrumenta 2). Barcelona: Universitat de Barcelona. 2017 “Pecios y ¿colonias? Materiales púnicos en las Islas Baleares,” in Menorca entre fenicios y púnicos (Monografias del CEPOAT 2), edited by F. Prados, H. Jiménez and J. J. Martínez, pp. 41–84. Murcia: Centro de Estudios del Próximo Oriente y la Antigüedad Tardía. TALAVERA MONTES, A. J. and CONTRERAS RODRIGO, F. 2015 “Dos naves púnicas en el Norte de Menorca en el siglo IV a.C. (Puerto de Sanitja, Es Mercadal),” @rqueología y territorio 12: 105–119.

Helena JIMÉNEZ VIALÁS Prehistory, Archaeology, Ancient History, Medieval History and Historiographical Science University of Murcia Spain

Fernando PRADOS MARTÍNEZ Department of Prehistory, Archaeology, Ancient History, Greek and Latin University of Alicante Spain

Joan Carles

DE

NICOLÁS MASCARÓ

Institut Menorquí d’Estudis Spain

Andrés María ADROHER AUROUX Prehistory and Archaeology Department University of Granada Spain

PUNIC AMPHORAE IN THE PLA DEL REY (VALLDEMOSSA, MALLORCA, SPAIN) Guy DE MULDER ABSTRACT The Pla del Rey is located in the northern mountains, the Tramuntana, on Mallorca. The site of Son Ferrandell Oleza was a settlement with a long occupation history. The neighbouring site of Son Mas had a religious function and also an area, the so-called ‘Agora’, where economic activities where located. In this contribution, the results from a living area close to Talayot 1 in Son Ferrandell Oleza and the finds from the Agora at Son Mas will be presented. Amphorae from Ibiza dominate the imported goods, but there are slight differences between both sites. The differences in the importation of Punic amphorae seem to reflect the occupation period of both sites. In the excavated area at Son Ferrandell Oleza, fragments of Punic amphorae of a central Mediterranean origin were discovered which are lacking at the Agora at Son Mas.

INTRODUCTION Valldemossa is located in the northern mountainous area of Mallorca, the so-called Tramuntana, above Palma de Mallorca (Fig. 1). The Pla del Rey is a rich fertile area around Valldemossa which contains many prehistoric archaeological sites. During the previous century, Dr. W. Waldren, former director of Deia Archaeological Museum and Research Centre, excavated two sites in this area. Both sites, Son Ferrandell Oleza and Son Mas, are located in the same area, but they have different functions. The site of Son Ferrandell Oleza was a settlement with a long occupation history which starts during the Final Neolithic period until the end of the Late Talayotic-Early Roman period. During the Iron Age, four talayots, tower like structures, were constructed in this area. Around these talayots, different settlement structures were built during the long period of occupation at the site. The amphorae discussed in this paper come from a habitation area located 20 m to the south of Talayot 1. The remnants of the walls of a house were unearthed in addition to a layer with human rubbish containing ceramics and many animal bones (Fig. 2).1 The neighbouring site of Son Mas had a religious function and an area where economic activities took place. The oldest indications of religious activities go back to ca. 2200 BCE. Around 800 BCE, a horseshoe-shaped sanctuary was erected. Close to this religious monument, a naviform building and different walls were constructed later, which were referred to as the so-called ‘Agora’ by the excavator (Fig. 3). In this area, a workshop of lead cast ornaments has been discovered, which are normally only found in burials.2 The amphorae 1 2

 Waldren 2001; Van Strydonck 2014.  Van Strydonck 2014.

342

G. DE MULDER

Fig. 1. Localisation of Valldemossa (Pla del Rey) and the excavated sites: 1) Son Mas; 2) Son Ferrandell Oleza; 4) Valldemossa (after Van Strydonck et al. 1998).

Fig. 2. The excavated area at Son Ferrandell Oleza.

PUNIC AMPHORAE IN THE PLA DEL REY

343

Fig. 3. The so-called ‘agora’ at Son Mas (after Van Strydonck et al. 1998).

presented in this paper were discovered in the habitation area at Son Ferrandell Oleza and in the Agora at Son Mas.

SON FERRANDELL OLEZA Local handmade pottery dominated the ceramics in the excavated living area of Son Ferrandell Oleza. Imports from other Mediterranean regions were rather scarce compared with other sites. Eighty five amphora fragments were discovered, representing at least 59 vessels. Other imported cooking and tableware were rare among the finds from this area. Punic-Ibiza amphorae were dominant in the find spectrum. In addition, two other Punic amphorae were recognised. Furthermore, some Iberian and Italic amphorae were ascertained among the imported wares in addition to a so-called Tarraconesis amphora. Rather exceptional was the presence of amphorae from Marseille, identified as belonging to the type A-MAS BD 8 and A-MAS BD11 which are less documented among the imported amphorae on Mallorca.3 The Punic amphorae from Ibiza represent the largest group with 78 per cent (Fig. 4). The Punic-Ibiza amphorae cover a long period from the fifth century BCE until the end of the first century BCE to the beginning of the first century CE. Among the oldest finds are two 3

 De Mulder 2017, pp. 202–213.

G. DE MULDER

344

Fig. 4. Overview of the different Punic amphora types on Son Ferrandell Oleza (SFO) and Son Mas.

amphorae of the type T–1.3.2.3/PE 13, which are traditionally dated to the second half of the fifth century BCE (Fig. 5: 1–2).4 The largest group present on the site belongs to the forms T–8.1.1.1/PE 14 and T–8.1.2.1/PE 15 with ten and 14 examples respectively. The amphora T–8.1.1.1/PE 14 is dated to the fourth century BCE (Fig. 5: 3–6).5 The type T–8.1.2.1/PE 15 is more recent and represents the evolution of the first mentioned type with a larger body (Fig. 5: 7–11).6 Together with both these types is also the amphora PE 22 which was produced in the workshops at Ibiza (Fig. 6: 5–7). This amphora was inspired by examples produced in Magna Graecia and Marseille. Chronologically, the PE 22 amphora dates to 375/350–225/200 BCE, the second half of the fourth century till the end of third century.7 Although the PE 22 amphora circulates at the same period as the forms T– 8.1.1.1/ PE 14 and T–8.1.2.1/PE 15, there were only three individuals recognised in the excavated sector of the area. From the second half of the third century BCE until the beginning of the second century BCE, the type T–8.1.3.1/PE 16 was beginning to replace the former PunicIbiza amphorae. Only three individuals were found at Son Ferrandell Oleza (Fig. 5: 12). The same number was ascertained for the type T–8.1.3.2/PE 17, which dates to the second century BCE (Fig. 6: 1–2).8 Another Ibiza product from this period is the amphora PE 24 4

 Ramon  Ramon 6  Ramon 7  Ramon 8  Ramon 5

1995, 1995, 1995, 1991, 1995,

p. 172. pp. 220–222. pp. 222–223. pp. 116–117. pp. 223–224.

PUNIC AMPHORAE IN THE PLA DEL REY

345

Fig. 5. Punic-Ibiza amphora types (T–1.3.2.3/PE 13; T–8.1.1.1/PE 14; T–8.1.2.1/PE 15 and T–8.1.3.1/PE 16).

which copies the Graeco-italic amphorae.9 Three amphorae of this type have been recorded at the site. Two were typical bottom fragments (Fig. 6: 8–10). The latest Punic-Ibiza amphora type is the T–8.1.3.3/PE 18, which succeeds the older T–8.1.3.2/PE 17 (Fig. 6: 3–4). It was produced and distributed over a long period, from around 120/100 BCE until 50–75 CE.10 At Son Ferrandell Oleza, it is the best represented Punic-Ibiza import with seven ascertained finds. 9

 Ramon 1991, pp. 118–119.  Ramon 1995, pp. 224–225.

10

G. DE MULDER

346

Fig. 6. Punic-Ibiza amphora types (T–8.1.3.2/PE 17; T–8.1.3.3/PE 18; PE 22 and PE 24).

Other Punic amphorae were scarce on the site of Son Ferrandell Oleza. Two examples of type T–7.4.2.1, the former Mañá C2, were discovered in this sector (Fig. 7). These were produced in modern Tunisia and the Strait of Gibraltar. In this case, both finds can be ascribed to the production from the group Cartago-Túnez. They mostly circulated during the first half of the second century BCE.11 11

 Ramon 1995, pp. 20–21.

PUNIC AMPHORAE IN THE PLA DEL REY

347

Fig. 7. Punic amphorae from North Africa.

SON MAS: THE ‘AGORA’ The so-called ‘Agora’ is only a part of the Son Mas site. The imported ceramics from the sanctuary area were studied earlier, but a published report has not yet appeared. These finds are now preserved in the Museum of Palma (Mallorca). The ceramic finds in the Agora area are also dominated by local handmade pottery. However, a wide range of imported ceramics were also discovered. This area shows traces of human presence from at least 800 BCE until the first century CE, however, some finds do not exclude human activities until the second century CE.12 Punic-Ibiza amphorae are again dominant in the archaeological spectrum next to one other Punic example (Fig. 4), but other imported containers are also present. These include Iberic, Graeco-Italic and Italic amphorae; also Late Republican to Early Imperial types including Pascual 1 and Dressel 2–4 from the Catalonian area, as well as Baetican amphorae such as the Haltern 70 and Dressel 20.13 At Son Mas, imported cooking vessels and tableware are present in larger numbers compared to the site of Son Ferrandell Oleza. 12

 Van Strydonck et al. 1998; De Mulder et al. 2007.  De Mulder et al. 2007, p. 363.

13

348

G. DE MULDER

Fig. 8. Punic-Ibiza amphorae from Son Mas.

At 79 per cent the Punic-Ibiza amphorae represent the same percentage of containers as at Son Ferrandell Oleza. Four type T–1.3.2.3/PE 13 are present in this sector of the site (Fig. 8: 1). With 19 examples, the type T–8.1.1.1/PE 14 is the best documented container in the Agora. Type T–8.1.2.1/PE 15 has only seven known individuals (Fig. 8: 2). There are also some finds from the contemporary PE 22 amphora (Fig. 8: 3–4). Missing in this area is the type T–8.1.3.1/PE 16. The more recent type T–8.1.3.2/PE 17 is represented by five amphorae in the area, as well as an example from both contemporary PE 23 and PE 24 containers (Fig. 8: 5). From the end of the second century BCE onwards, the number of Punic-Ibiza amphorae decreases. Only five T–8.1.3.3/PE 18 are recorded (Fig. 8: 9–10). Some Punic-Ibiza amphorae from the Late Republican to Early Imperial period imitating Roman types are also among the finds from this area. Fragments of PE 25 (Fig. 8: 6–7),

PUNIC AMPHORAE IN THE PLA DEL REY

349

which was inspired by Dressel 1 Italic and PE 26 (Fig. 8: 8), typologically related to Pascual 1, were discovered among the ceramic repertory in the Agora. Only one example of a Punic amphora from another Punic production centre has been recorded. As at son Ferrandell Oleza, it was a North African T–7.4.2.1 amphora.

CONCLUSION Punic-Ibiza productions dominate the importation of amphorae at the sites of Son Mas and Son Ferrandell Oleza. This fact is also ascertained at other Mallorcan sites such as Ses Païsses14 and Puig de Sa Morisca,15 but also at Menorca, for example at Torre d’en Galmes.16 Although both sites have different functions, their assemblage of Punic-Ibiza amphorae is very similar to each other with limited differences. The oldest amphorae are the type T–1.3.2.3/ PE 13, which are not frequently found on Mallorcan sites of the fifth century BCE. Only four other settlements delivered proof of the import of this amphora type on the island: Puig de Sa Morisca, Puig des Moros, Túmul de Son Ferrer and Ses Païsses.17 The more recent amphorae types are present at both sites, but sometimes with differences in the total numbers. The fourth century amphora T–8.1.1.1/PE 14 is also very well documented at Son Mas with 19 individuals. Late Republican and Early Imperial Punic-Ibiza amphorae, such as the PE 23, PE 25 and PE 26, are absent from the excavated area at Son Ferrandell Oleza because it seems to be less occupied during this period. However, in the neighbouring Talayot 4 there was a clear occupation until the first century CE.18 Unfortunately, the ceramic finds from this area have not been published by the excavators. A chronological distribution by century shows a similar picture for Son Mas and Son Ferrandell Oleza (Fig. 9). There is a rather equal distribution of imported Punic amphorae until the second century BCE. The Punic amphorae are more documented at Son Ferrandell Oleza during the second century BCE until the Early Imperial period; but, at Son Mas, imports from other Mediterranean regions were discovered in larger numbers including Graeco-italic amphorae, Haltern 70 and others.19 This has also been recorded at Son Fornes where, from the second century BCE, amphorae from regions other than Ibiza are appearing in larger numbers than before.20 In the last third quarter of the second century BCE, the Punic trading post at Na Guardis was also abandoned by its population.21 During this period, the Romans occupy the island definitively. This shows that the Punic merchants have more competition from other Mediterranean traders on Mallorca.

14

 Quintana 2006.  Guerrero 1998; Guerrero 1999; Quintana and Guerrero 2004. 16  Carbonell Salom et al. 2015. 17  Hernández-Gasch and Quintana 2013, pp. 318–319. 18  Chapman et al. 1992; Chapman and Grant 1995. 19  De Mulder et al. 2007, p. 363. 20  Fayas 2010; Gelabert Batllori 2014. 21  Guerrero 1999, p. 113. 15

G. DE MULDER

350

Fig. 9. Distribution of the imported Punic amphorae at Son Ferrandell Oleza (SFO) and Son Mas by century.

BIBLIOGRAPHY CARBONELL SALOM, M., CORRAL GARCIA, B. and DE SALORT GIMÉNEZ, C. 2015 “Estudi i context de les àmfores púnicoebusitanes del Cercle 7 de Torre d’en Galmés (Alaior, Menorca),” in L’entreteixit del temps. Miscel·lània d’estudis en homenatge a Lluís Plantalamor Massanet, edited by C. Andreu Adame, C. Ferrando, and O. Pons Machado, pp. 97–110. Palma: Govern de les Illes Balears. CHAPMAN, R. and GRANT, A. 1995 “Talayot 4, Son Ferrandell Oleza: problemas de los procesos de formación, función y subsistencia,” Revista d’Arqueologia de Ponent 5: 7–52. CHAPMAN, R., VAN STRYDONCK, M. and WALDREN, W. 1993 “Radiocarbon dating and talayots: The example of Son Ferrandell Oleza,” Antiquity 67/254: 108–116. DE MULDER, G. 2017 “La importación de ánforas en el yacimiento de Son Ferrandell Oleza,” in VII Jornades d’Arqueologia de les Illes Balears, Maó, 2016, edited by M. Anglada Fontestad, M. Riera Rullan and A. Martinez Ortega, pp. 207–216. Maó: Consell Insular de Menorca. DE MULDER, G., DESCHIETER, J. and VAN STRYDONCK, M. 2007 “La céramique romaine du site cultuel de Son Mas (Majorque, Espagne),” in Société Française d’Étude de la Céramique Antique en Gaule (Actes du congrès de Langres, 2007), pp. 353–366. Marseille: Société Française d’Étude de la Céramique Antique en Gaule. FAYAS RICO, B. 2010 Las ánforas de Son Fornés. Su estudio tipológico y contextualización histórica (Memoria de investigación). Palma: Universitat de les Illes Balears. GELABERT BATLLORI, L. 2014 “La dinámica de consum de vi al poblat de Son Fornés: inicis i finals d’una nova mercadería,” Bolletí de la Societat Arqueològica Lulliana 70: 75–93. GUERRERO, V. M. 1998 “Las importaciones cerámicas en la protohistoria de Mallorca,” in Les fàcies ceràmiques d’importació a la costa ibérica, les Balears i les Pitiüses durant el segle III aC i la primera meitat del segle III aC (Arqueo Mediterràna 4), edited by J. Ramon Torres, J. Sanmartí

PUNIC AMPHORAE IN THE PLA DEL REY

351

Grego, D. Asensio Vilaró and J. Principal Ponce, pp. 175–191. Barcelona: Universitat de Barcelona. 1999 La Cerámica Protohistórica a Torno de Mallorca (s. VI–I a.C.) (British Archaeological Reports International Series 770). Oxford: Archaeopress. HERNÁNDEZ-GASCH, J. and QUINTANA, C. 2013 “Cuando el vino impregnó la isla de Mallorca: el comercio púnico-ebusitano y las comunidades locales durante la segunda mitad del siglo V y el siglo IV a. C.,” Trabajos de Prehistoria 70/2: 315–331. QUINTANA, C. 2006 “Comerç en el món talaiòtic: el conjunt amfòric del poblat de ses Païsses (Artà, Mallorca),” Pyrenae 37/2: 47–69. QUINTANA, C. and GUERRERO, V. 2004 “Las ánforas del Puig de Sa Morisca (Mallorca): los contextos del siglo IV a.C.,” in La circulació d’àmfores al Mediterrani occidental durant la Protohistòria (segles VIII–III aC): aspectos quatitatius i anàlisi de continguts (Arqueo Mediterràna 8), edited by J. Sanmartí, D. Ugolini, J. Ramon and D. Asensio, pp. 253–260. Barcelona: Universitat de Barcelona. RAMON, J. 1991 Las ánforas púnicas de Ibiza (Trabajos del Museo arqueológico de Ibiza 23). Eivissa: Museo Arquéologico de Ibiza. 1995 Las ánforas fenicio-púnicas del Mediterráneo central y occidental (Col·leció Instrumenta 2). Barcelona: Universitat de Barcelona. VAN STRYDONCK, M. 2014 From Myotragus to Metellus. A Journey through the Pre- and Early History of Majorca and Minorca. Hochwald: LIBRUM. VAN STRYDONCK, M., WALDREN, W. and HENDRIX, V. 1998 “The 14C chronology of the Son Mas Sanctuary Site (Valdemossa, Mallorca, Spain) after 10 yr. of excavating,” Radiocarbon 40/2: 735–748. WALDREN, W. 2001 “A new megalithic dolmen from the Balearic Island of Mallorca: its radiocarbon dating and artefacts,” Oxford Journal of Archaeology 20/3: 241–262.

Guy DE MULDER Department of Archaeology Ghent University Belgium

THE AMPHORAE FROM BARIA (VILLARICOS, SPAIN) José Luis LÓPEZ CASTRO, Carmen Ana PARDO BARRIONUEVO and Laura MOYA COBOS ABSTRACT This paper presents a preliminary study on the amphora production of the Phoenician city of Baria, modern Villaricos in southeast Iberia. Baria produced five types of amphorae according to the Ramon 1995 classification: T–1.2.1.3, T–1.2.2.1, T–1.3.1.1, T–1.3.1.3 and T–1.3.2.4. Modern rescue excavations have recorded stratified fragments from the mid-sixth to the midsecond centuries BCE. Despite being confused with local Iberian amphorae, it is possible to follow the distribution of the amphorae from Baria during the fifth and fourth centuries BCE along the Iberian Peninsula, the South of France, the Balearic Islands and Motya in Sicily.1

INTRODUCTION Amphorae studies are hugely important for the study of Phoenician and Carthaginian societies. In particular, the publication of the Joan Ramon work in 1995 on the PhoenicianPunic amphorae in the central and western Mediterranean,2 has led to an advance in this area of study. Previously, of course, there had been local and regional precedents in the study of Phoenician-Punic amphorae that contributed to the development of the study of such pottery containers,3 but without the same aims and results. Only this publication was able to differentiate important types and variants, such as the amphora productions from Baria, which are the object of this paper. Before Ramon’s typology, the Barian amphorae were included into the general type Mañá A. Presented here is a preliminary study of the amphorae produced in the western Phoenician city of Baria, mentioned by classical sources,4 which is situated in modern Villaricos in southeast Spain in the province of Almería. During ancient times, Baria occupied an important strategic and geographical position (Fig. 1: a). The site is located at the mouth of the Almanzora River, which was a natural communication route between the internal southeastern areas of Iberia and the coast. Baria was the last town and the last harbour before Cabo de Gata, the ancient Charibdemo Promontory, before sailing to the Straights of Gibraltar and Gadir, or going on to the central Mediterranean routes coming from the west.5 1  This paper is the result of the Research Project HUM2674 Los inicios de la presencia fenicia en el Sur de la Península Ibérica y en el Norte de África which was financed by the Council for Innovation, Science and Employment of the Government of Andalucía. This is part of the activity of the Research Group HUM741, belonging to the CEI-Mar and the research centre Comunicación y Sociedad of the University of Almería. 2  Ramon 1995. 3  Mañá 1951; Pascual 1974; Sagona 1982; Guerrero 1986; Bartoloni 1988; Rodero 1995. 4  Plin. Nat. His. III, 19; Ptol. II, 4, 9; Aul. Gel. VI, 1, 8–11; Val. Max. III, 7, 1a; Plut. Apoth. Scip. Mai. 3; Moralia V; Cic. ad Att. XVI, 4, 2. 5  For ancient Phoenician maritime routes, see Díes Cusí 1994; Guerrero and Medas 2013; Mauro 2014.

J. L. LÓPEZ CASTRO

354

– C. A. PARDO – L.

MOYA

The site of Baria was excavated from 1890 by Louis Siret y Cells, a Belgian mining engineer who lived in southeastern Spain until his death in 1935. He was one of the pioneers of modern archaeology in Spain.6 For 20 years, from 1890 to 1910, he excavated around 1500 PhoenicianPunic graves at the necropolis of Villaricos. Only general reports were published,7 and the collection was donated to the Spanish state by Siret on his death, including the materials from Villaricos, which are conserved in the Museo Arqueológico Nacional of Madrid.

RAMON

TYPOLOGY OF

BARIAN AMPHORAE

There are different reasons why, except for a small number of archaeological pieces, the enormous collection of material from this necropolis still remains unpublished. Around 30, from the hundreds of complete amphorae found by Siret at the Villaricos necropolis,8 are kept at the local museum of Almeria and three at the Museo nacional de Arqueología Submarina of Cartagena. Based on this group, Ramon established the first typology of the Barian amphorae,9 which consist of five types: T–1.2.1.3, T–1.2.2.1, T–1.3.1.1, T–1.3.1.3 and T–1.3.2.4 (Fig. 1: b). The main features of these amphorae are the ovoid bodies, with a central tapering or inflection in the middle of the body in three of the types: T–1.2.1.3, T–1.2.2.1 and T–1.3.1.3. They do not present necks and the shoulders are simple and transition directly from the rims. Shoulders are not pronounced except in type T–1.2.2.1, which is slightly carinated. Type T–1.3.1.1 is different, with an ovoid shape that is straight from the shoulder to the maximum diameter of the last third of the body. Type T–1.3.1.3 is very close to T–1.3.2.4, but the first is shorter and the latter does not present the characteristic body inflection.10 The materials described by Ramon show a medium firing in shades of yellow-pink, pale yellow, pale brown, very pale brown, brown-orange and red-brown. The texture is sometimes scaly and friable and the clay presents inclusions of white crushed quartzite, schist and mica.11 Regarding the chronology, Ramon proposed dating these productions to the sixth and fifth centuries BCE, according to the scarce data available.12 In general, this chronology is correct, but there is new data which now extends the time span of these productions.

NEW DATA

ON

BARIAN AMPHORAE

The protection of the site of Villaricos from 1987 onwards allowed for archaeological surveying and rescue excavations, particularly from 1987 to 2003.13 We now have a better understanding 6

 On Siret’s contribution, see López Castro 2004.  Siret 1908; Astruc 1951. 8  Most of them from the inhumation graves group C: Astruc 1951, pp. 29–30, pl. XIV: 6–7. 9  Ramon 1987–1988, pp. 191–194; 1995, pp. 73–74, 168–170, 172–173. 10  Ramon 1995, p. 170. 11  Ramon 1995, p. 257. 12  Ramon 1995, p. 74. 13  López Castro et al. 2004; 2010; 2011. 7

THE AMPHORAE FROM BARIA

Fig. 1: a) Localisation of Baria, modern Villaricos (Almería) and distribution of Barian amphorae; b) The typology of amphorae from Baria.

355

356

J. L. LÓPEZ CASTRO

– C. A. PARDO – L.

MOYA

of the ancient topography of the Phoenician and Roman town of Baria from the late seventh century BCE to the seventh century CE.14 The study of the results the rescue excavations of 1987, 1997 and 2003 have supplied almost 100 rim fragments of Barian amphorae, many of them well stratified. During the excavations of 1997 and 2003 in La Central Street, a good sample of Barian amphorae, from the mid-sixth to late third centuries BCE, were collected from well-stratified deposits from an urban context with domestic and workshop areas. When working with fragments, using only rims, it is easy to fail in the classification, as there is no complete body; this is the first problem that arises when attempting to identify the amphora types defined by Joan Ramon. The second main problem is that, in appearance, southern Iberian amphorae are very similiar to Barian amphorae, as Ramon pointed out.15 The consequence is that both productions can be confused and Barian amphorae may not be successfully recognised in many archaeological sites. In fact, the diffusion of Barian amphorae was a mystery until a decade ago. But after an examination and comparison between Iberian and Barian amphorae, there are clear differences. Not only are the clays and materials very different, but the size too, as the Iberian amphorae are longer and wider in the walls of the body and larger in the rim diameters than the Barian amphorae. The rescue excavation in 1987 provided the most ancient stratified examples of Barian amphorae, with a couple of rim fragments belonging to Ramon amphora type T–1.2.1.3 recovered from a stratigraphic unit dating from the mid-sixth century BCE.16 Another rim fragment belonging to the type T–1.2.1.3 and dating from the middle of the second century BCE currently represents the most recent fragment of a stratified Barian amphora.17 X-Ray Diffraction analysis revealed local clay production in samples from T–1.2.1.2 amphorae of the sixth and fifth centuries BCE by comparing them with other pottery samples taken from local tableware and cooking pots. Each presented the same composition of material including quartz, calcite and muscovite. The addition of ferric oxid to the clay as a degreasing agent is one particular feature of some of these amphorae.18 Currently, no content analysis has been undertaken as only rim fragments are attested. The walls, lower sides of the body and bottoms of the Barian amphorae, which have a higher probability of conserving identifiable residue, unfortunately do not present significant typological differences between them to provide conclusive information to attribute the contents to amphora types.

PRELIMINARY OBSERVATIONS REGARDING THE DISTRIBUTION OF BARIAN AMPHORAE

CHRONOLOGICAL AND GEOGRAPHICAL

In a general overview of the production of amphorae in Phoenician Baria, based on the partial results of the current state of the research, attention should be drawn to some 14

 López Castro 2007a; López Castro and Martínez Hahnmüller 2012.  Ramon 1987–1988, p. 192. See, for instance, the Iberian amphorae from Baria in López Castro et al. 2011, pp. 88–89. 16  López Castro et al. 2011, p. 73, fig. 24. 17  López Castro et al. 2011, pp. 145 and 163, fig. 54. 18  Romerosa 2011, pp. 153–155. 15

THE AMPHORAE FROM BARIA

357

Fig. 2. Distribution of Barian amphora types and representation of amphora rims in the sixth century BCE.

significant data: Type T–1.2.1.3 is the oldest and, as we have seen before, it had a constant production up until the mid-second century BCE. Type T–1.2.2.1 is present in a low percentage only during the fifth century BCE, whilst type T–1.3.2.4 is the most widely produced (Figs. 2–5). The amphora production of sixth century BCE lacks type T–1.2.2.1 and the other types are more or less balanced in quantity (Fig. 2). During the fifth century BCE, all the five types are present, but type T–1.2.2.1 is only present at six per cent. Type T–1.3.2.4 increased to 33 per cent and the other two diminished to 11 per cent (Fig. 3). During the fourth century BCE, type T–1.3.2.4 increases considerably up to 63 per cent and type T–1.2.2.1 disappears. On the other hand, types T–1.3.1.1 and T–1.3.1.3 diminished to eight per cent (Fig. 4). The production of the third century BCE (Fig. 5) is characterised by type T–1.3.2.4 retaining a high percentage, rising to 56 per cent and remaining the main type produced. Type T–1.2.1.3 production is high and type T–1.3.1.3 diminished to two per cent, whilst type T–1.3.1.1 is not represented. As previously stated, the distribution of Barian amphorae remained unknown until ten years ago. The publication of Ramon’s monograph allowed for the recognition of the types in several excavations. But some of them have been published as ‘Punic’ amphorae, without any precision or were clearly confused with ‘Iberian amphorae’. There are five known types of Barian amphorae but only three had an overseas distribution: types T–1.2.1.3, T–1.3.1.3

358

J. L. LÓPEZ CASTRO

– C. A. PARDO – L.

MOYA

Fig. 3. Distribution of Barian amphora types and representation of amphora rims in the fifth century BCE.

Fig. 4. Distribution of Barian amphora types and representation of amphora rims in the fourth century BCE.

THE AMPHORAE FROM BARIA

359

Fig. 5. Distribution of Barian amphora types and representation of amphora rims in the third century BCE.

and T–1.3.2.4 arrived mainly in the fifth and fourth centuries BCE in southeastern Spain,19 the western Atlantic side of the Iberian Peninsula,20 the South of France, the Balearic Islands and Sicily. In ancient Tagilit, the Iberian city and later Carthaginian colonial establishment of the Barcid era, located upstream along the Almanzora River, not far from Baria, finds of these amphorae have been collected.21 In the Gadir area, Barian amphorae T–1.3.2.4 have been recorded in Cerro del Castillo in Chiclana.22 In the Mediterranean area, fragments of amphorae type T–1.2.1.3 have been recorded in Ibiza, in the necrópolis of Can’Eloi.23 In the South of France, some fragments of type T–1.3.2.4 have been recognised in Lattes24 and in La Monediére, where fragments of types T–1.2.1.3 and T–1.3.2.4 were found. 25 In Marseille, there is a possible rim fragment of type T–1.2.1.3.26 To conclude, the distribution, the most 19

 For the distribution of Barian amphorae see Pardo 2015; López Castro 2014.  In modern Portugal, fragments were found, attributed initially to the type T–1.3.2.4, at Castro Marim, Moinhos da Atalaia, Santarém and Lisbone, and type T–1.3.1.3 in Castro Marim and Santarém: see Arruda 2002, pp. 43–44, 125, 131, 208, figs. 142: 3–4, 143: 5; Pimenta et al. 2005, p. 324. Type T–1.2.1.3. has been recognised in Santarém and Abul B: Arruda (2002, p. 208); Mayet and Tavares (2000, p. 185), but these fragments could belong to a new type of western amphora production from the Lusitanian region. We are grateful to Dr Elisa Sousa for the information. So as not to rely solely on the shape, clay analysis could confirm whether they are Barian amphorae. 21  Alfaro 1993; Pellicer and Acosta 1974, pp. 161, 169; Pardo 2008, pp. 347–349. 22  Bueno and Cerpa 2008, p. 193. 23  Ramón 2001, p. 96. 24  Py et al. 2001, pp. 242–243. 25  Nickels 1976, pp. 115–116. 26  Sourisseau 2004, p. 331, fig. 10 no. 1. 20

360

J. L. LÓPEZ CASTRO

– C. A. PARDO – L.

MOYA

easterly findings of Barian amphorae are four fragments from Motya which belong to the three types distributed abroad from Baria.27 The analysis of the areas of dissemination of Barian amphorae and the areas of origin of the amphorae found in Baria, mainly during the fifth century BCE, indicates that they correspond to trading areas such as Motya in Sicily and of Massalia in the Gulf of Leon, which perhaps could have traded directly with the Phoenician settlement. The amphora series S–10, the most common western Phoenician amphorae produced in many of the colonial sites in the western Phoenician territory from the eighth to the sixth centuries BCE, disappeared from Baria during the sixth century BCE and was substituted by a local production. This substitution coincides, not by chance, with the process of the founding of western Phoenician towns in the south of Iberia by the late seventh and early sixth century BCE,28 and was probably a consequence of the new political framework. Baria, like Gadir or Iboshim had a production of its own amphora types. But for the moment, no types of amphora production have been identified in Malaka, Abdera or Sexs, the other main western Phoenician towns in southern Spain. So, Baria, like Gadir and Iboshim, was one of the cities which were able to define, produce and maintain their own amphora types as a trade mark throughout the centuries. The main argument in explaining why only these cities produced their own amphora types could be that they controlled and exploited a larger territory than the other western Phoenician towns, providing agricultural products to be exported in the amphorae, as well as a salted fish production, which were both recorded in the territory of Baria.29 The main amphora types produced at Baria are T–1.3.2.4 and T–1.2.1.3. Type T–1.2.1.3 is present from the mid-sixth century BCE to the late second century BCE, but for the moment, the formal evolution of the type is difficult to follow. The same situation occurs with the other types as complete amphorae were not recorded at the excavations. To conclude, Baria was a very important city, much more than was expected before modern research began. When Scipio, the future Africanus, sieged and conquered Baria in 209 BCE during the Second Punic War,30 just after the conquest of Qart Hadasht, he knew very well the severe consequences for Carthaginian interests in the Iberian Peninsula by capturing this city.

BIBLIOGRAPHY ALFARO ASINS, C. 1993 ARRUDA, A. M. 2002

27

“Un nueva ciudad púnica en Hispania: TGLYT Res Publica Agilitana, Tíjola (Almería),” Archivo Español de Arqueología 6: 229–243. Los fenicios en Portugal. Fenicios y mundo indígena en el centro y sur de Portugal (Siglos VIII–VI a.C.) (Cuadernos de Arqueología Mediterránea 5–6). Barcelona: Edicions Bellaterra.

 Toti 2002, p. 284, pl. 8; Nigro et al. 2007, pp. 242–243, pl. XL no. 1279, no. 1281.  López Castro 2003. 29  See López Castro 2003b; 2007b; López Castro et al. 2007; Pardo Barrionuevo 2008. 30  Martínez Hahnmüller 2012. 28

THE AMPHORAE FROM BARIA

ASTRUC, M. 1951 BARTOLONI, P. 1988

361

La Necrópolis de Villaricos (Informes y Memorias 10). Madrid: Ministerio de Educacion.

Le anfore fenicie e puniche di Sardegna (Studia Punica 4). Roma: Università degli studi di Roma. BUENO, P. and CERPA, J. A. 2008 “Un nuevo enclave fenicio descubierto en la bahía de Cádiz: el Cerro del Castillo, Chiclana,” Spal 17: 169–206. DÍES CUSÍ, E. 1994 “Aspectos técnicos de las rutas comerciales fenicias en el Mediterráneo Occidental (S. IX–VII a.C.),” Archivo de Prehistoria Levantina XXVI: 311–336. GUERRERO AYUSO, V. 1986 “Una aportación al estudio de las ánforas púnicas Mañá C,” Archaeonautica 6: 147–186. GUERRERO AYUSO, V. and MEDAS, S. 2013 “Navigazioni e direttrici commerciali tra Iol-Caesarea, la Penisola Iberica e le Baleari,” in Iside punica. Alla scoperta dell’antica Iol-Caesarea attraverso le sue monete, edited by L. I. Manfredi and A. Mezzolani Andreose, pp. 237–247. Bologna: BraDypUs. LÓPEZ CASTRO, J. L. 2003a “La formación de las ciudades fenicias occidentales,” Byrsa. Rivista di archeologia, arte, e cultura punica 2: 69–120. 2003b “Baria y la agricultura fenicia en el Extremo Occidente (Villaricos),” in Ecohistoria del paisaje agrario. La agricultura fenicio-púnica en el Mediterráneo, edited by C. Gómez Bellard, pp. 93–110. Valencia: Universidad de Valencia. 2004 “Luis Siret y los inicios de la Arqueología en el Sureste de España,” Mus-A. Revista de los Museos de Andalucía 4: 168–175. 2007a “La ciudad fenicia de Baria. Investigaciones 1987–2003,” in Actas de las Jornadas sobre la Zona Arqueológica de Villaricos (Almería 2005), pp. 19–39. Sevilla: Junta de Andalucía. 2007b “El territorio de Baria,” in Sítios e paisagens rurais no Mediterrâneo púnico, edited by A. M. Arruda, C. Gómez Bellard and P. van Dommelen, pp. 105–117. Lisboa: Universidade de Lisboa. 2014 “El comercio en Baria durante el siglo V a.C. a través del registro anfórico,” in In amicitia. Miscellània d’Estudis en Homenatge a Jordi H. Fernández, edited by C. Ferrando and B. Costa, pp. 343–352. Ibiza: Museo Arqueológico de Ibiza y Formentera. LÓPEZ CASTRO, J. L. and MARTÍNEZ HAHNMÜLLER, V. 2012 “De la Baria fenicia a la Baria romana,” in La etapa neopúnica en Hispania y el Mediterráneo centro occidental: identidades compartidas, edited by B. Mora Serrano and G. Cruz Andreotti, pp. 331–360. Sevilla: Universidad de Sevilla. LÓPEZ CASTRO, J. L., ALCARAZ HERNÁNDEZ, F., MARTÍNEZ HAHNMÜLLER, V., MOYA COBOS, L. and SANTOS PAYÁN, A. 2007 “Una factoría fenicio-púnica de salazones de pescado en Baria (Villaricos, Almería, España),” Byrsa. Rivista di archeologia, arte, e cultura púnica 6: 9–31. LÓPEZ CASTRO, J. L., ALCARAZ HERNÁNDEZ, F., ORTIZ SOLER, D., SANTOS PAYÁN, A. and MARTÍNEZ HAHNMÜLLER, V. 2004 “Informe preliminar de la excavación arqueológica de urgencia en el solar situado en calle la Central esquina a calle La Balsa (Villaricos, Almería),” Anuario Arqueológico de Andalucía 2006: 49–61. LÓPEZ CASTRO, J. L., MARTÍNEZ HAHNMÜLLER, V., MOYA COBOS, L. and PARDO BARRIONUEVO, C. 2011 Baria I. Excavaciones arqueológicas en Villaricos. La excavación de urgencia de 1987. Almería: Editorial Universidad de Almería.

362

J. L. LÓPEZ CASTRO

– C. A. PARDO – L.

MOYA

LÓPEZ CASTRO, J. L., MARTÍNEZ HAHNMÜLLER, V. and PARDO BARRIONUEVO, C. 2010 “La ciudad de Baria y su territorio,” Mainake 32/1: 109–132. MAÑÁ DE ANGULO, J. M. 1951 “Sobre la tipología de las ánforas púnicas,” in VI Congreso Arqueológico del Sureste de España (Alcoy 1950), pp. 203–210. Cartagena: Institución Fernando el Católico. MARTÍNEZ HAHNMÜLLER, V. 2012 Baria II. La conquista romana de Baria. Almería: Editorial Universidad de Almería. MAURO, C. M. 2014 “Las rutas fenicias por el Mediterráneo en el periodo arcaico (IX–VII siglo a.C.),” ArqueoWeb 15: 33–55. MAYET, F. and TAVARES DA SILVA, C. 2000 L’établissement phénicien d’Abul. Paris: De Boccard. NICKELS, A. 1976 “Les maisons à abside d’époque grecque archaïque de La Monédière, à Bessan (Hérault),” Gallia 34: 95–128. NIGRO, L., CALTABIANO, A., SPAGNOLI, F. and ROCCO, G. 2007 “Zona d. Le pendicioccidentali dell’acropoli: La casa del sacello domestico e il basamento meridionale,” in Mozia–XII. Zona D. La Casa del sacello domestico, il Basamento meridionale e il Sondaggio stratigrafico I (Quaderni di Archeologia Fenicio-Punica 3), edited by L. Nigro, pp. 9–77. Roma: Università degli Studi di Roma La Sapienza. PARDO BARRIONUEVO, C. A. 2008 Poblamiento rural y explotación de los recursos agrícolas entre los fenicios occidentales durante el I milenio a. C. Un caso de estudio: el territorio de Baria. Unpublished MA diss., Universidad de Granada. 2015 Economía y sociedad rural fenicia en el Mediterráneo Occidental. Sevilla: Editorial Universidad de Sevilla. PASCUAL GUASCH, R. 1974 “Tipología de las ánforas púnicas,” Información Arqueológica 14: 38–46. PELLICER CATALÁN, M. and ACOSTA, P. 1974 “Prospecciones Arqueológicas en el Alto Valle del Almanzora (Almería),” Zephyrus 25: 155–176. PIMENTA, J. M., CALADO, M. and LEITÃO, J. 2005 “Novos dados sobre a ocupação préromana da cidade da Lisboa: con ánforas da sondagem nº 2 da Rua da São João da Praça,” Revista Portuguesa de Arqueologia 8/2: 313–334. PY, M., ADROHER, A. and SÁNCHEZ, C. 2001 Dicocer 2. Corpus des céramiques de l’Âge du Fer de Lattes (fouilles 1963-1999) (Lattara 14), Lattes: Association pour la Recherche Archéologique en Languedoc Oriental. RAMON TORRES, J. 1987–1988 “Sobre los tipos antiguos de las ánforas púnicas Mañá A,” Cuadernos de Prehistoria y Arqueología castellonenses 13: 181–204. 1995 Las ánforas fenicio-púnicas del Mediterráneo central y occidental (Col·lecció Instrumenta 2). Barcelona: Universidad de Barcelona. 2001 “El asentamiento rural y los asentamientos púnicos de Can’Eloi (Santa Eulària des Riu. Eivissa),” Rivista di Studi Fenici XXIX/1: 53–101. RODERO RIAZA, A. 1995 Las Ánforas prerromanas en Andalucía. Faenza: Fratellilega. ROMEROSA NIEVAS, A. 2011 “Evaluación de muestras de pastas cerámicas fenicias de Villaricos mediante Difracción de Rayos X de polvo en capilar,” in J. L. López Castro, V. Martínez Hahnmüller, L. Moya Cobos and C. A. Pardo Barrionuevo, Baria I. Excavaciones

THE AMPHORAE FROM BARIA

SAGONA, A. 1982 SIRET, L. 1908 TOTI, M. P. 2002

363

Arqueológicas en Villaricos. La Excavación de urgencia de 1987, pp. 151–156. Almería: Universidad de Almería. “Levantine storage jars of the 13th to 4th century B.C.,” Opuscula Atheniensia 14: 73–110. Villaricos y Herrerías. Antigüedades púnicas, romanas, visigóticas y árabes. Madrid: Real Academia de la Historia. “Anfore fenicie e puniche,” in Mozia. Gli scavi nella “Zona A” dell’abitato, edited by M. L. Famà, pp. 275–304. Bari: Edipuglia.

José Luis LÓPEZ CASTRO Department of Geography, History and Humanities University of Almería Spain

Carmen Ana PARDO BARRIONUEVO Department of Geography, History and Humanities University of Almería Spain

Laura MOYA COBOS Department of Geography, History and Humanities University of Almería Spain

AMPHORA PRODUCTION IN PUNIC AND LATE PUNIC MALAKA (MÁLAGA, SPAIN). NEW EVIDENCE FROM THE CARRANQUE – JUAN XXIII AREA1 Cristina CHACÓN, Ana ARANCIBIA, Antonio M. SÁEZ ROMERO and Bartolomé MORA SERRANO ABSTRACT This article focuses on the examination of the architectural remains and pottery discovered by salvage excavations in the eastern area of present day Málaga. The site (Juan XXIII St.) revealed a Punic phase (sixth to third century BCE) with no remains of structures; also, it uncovered some buildings and evidence of pottery production dating from the second century BCE to the Roman Imperial period. The production of amphorae, found in massive quantities, was the main activity throughout the consecutive stages. This paper provides an overview of the successive and overlapping phases, characterised by simple buildings and deposits (pits filled with potters’ debris), in addition to a preliminary examination of the production of amphorae and red slip tablewares during the second to first century BCE. This new data allows for some initial hypotheses about the local land planning and its evolution during pre-Augustan times, in addition to the role that the Juan XXIII workshop played in the maritime oriented economy of Malaka and the Strait of Gibraltar region.

INTRODUCTION Until recently, there was much uncertainty regarding the urban topography, the management and planning of the surrounding territory and the post-archaic pottery production of pre-Roman Málaga. It was only known that the ceramics were produced in an enormous magnitude.2 With respect to these questions, in some previous works, key questions were asked about the evolution of the coastline during Antiquity, the relation of the city with the valleys of the Guadalmedina and Guadalhorce rivers,3 the location of residential nuclei or the necropolis,4 and regarding the possible existence of some rural and artisanal settlements located around the main walled habitat as part of a suburban production belt of Malaka.5 1

 This paper is the result of the ongoing project ““Malaka, Maenoba, Rusaddir: una historia de tres ciudades fenicio-púnicas en el Mar de Alborán” (PID2020-11482GB-100), funded by the National Research Plan of the Spanish Government, and is headed by Prof. Bartolomé Mora Serrano. Also, the research presented in these pages can be considered part of the results of the Project “La Ruta de las Estrímnides. Comercio Mediterráneo e Interculturalidad en el Noroeste de Iberia” (HAR2016–68310–P), directed by Profs. Eduardo Ferrer Albelda and Juan Jesús Martín (University of Seville). 2  Aubet 1997. 3  Suárez et al. 2007. 4  Recio 1988; Corrales 2005; Mayorga et al. 2005; Arancibia and Escalante 2006a, 2006b; Martín Ruiz 2009; Arancibia and Mora 2017. 5  Mora and Corrales 1997; Rambla and Mayorga 1997; Beltrán and Loza 1997.

366

C. CHACÓN

– A.

ARANCIBIA

– A. M. SÁEZ – B.

MORA

Fig. 1. Location of Malaga area (in box) and of the main sites of the eastern side of Malaga Bay mentioned in the text.

In relation to the Punic and Late Punic pottery production, capital issues were then raised as a result of the scarcity of published information.6 On one hand, is the question as to whether there was a local production of red slip finewares (similar to the so-called ‘Kuass ware’); on the other hand, is the question as to whether, as in the case of the Bay of Cádiz, there had been a powerful fish salting industry7 that, in turn, would have generated a massive local production of T–11.2.1.3 amphorae and other Punic and Late Punic types (such as the Mañá C2b/T–7.4.3.3). Even in this initial stage of the research, the same authors underlined the decisive role that the discoveries recorded at the excavations of Juan XXIII Street, already under way in 2010, could play as the foundation for finding solid answers to these key historical questions in the near future. New insights published over the following years8 made it possible to clarify this setting in relation to the exploitation pattern of the territory, also providing the first evidence on the location of the pottery workshops of the pre-Augustan period and about the typology of the Punic or Late Punic amphorae.9 The preliminary results of the study of the pottery workshop, excavated in Juan XXIII Avenue, presented in this paper intends to further advance research 6

 Mora and Arancibia 2010, pp. 829–830.  López Castro 1993; García and Ferrer 2001. 8  Arancibia and Mora 2011; Corrales and Corrales 2012; see also several papers in García Alfonso 2012. 9  Pérez-Malumbres 2012; for the Punic and Roman amphorae produced in the area, see Mateo 2015a, 2015b. 7

AMPHORA PRODUCTION IN PUNIC AND LATE PUNIC MALAKA

367

in this direction, contributing the first data regarding local amphora production and on the evolution of the settlement pattern in the territory of Malaka/Malaca between the sixth century BCE and the first century CE. The findings recorded in the area will help to refine the current vision of local amphora production, and to raise some hypotheses about the ‘Romanisation’ of amphorae types and the local economy since the early second century BCE.

AMPHORA PRODUCTION IN

PRE-AUGUSTAN

MÁLAGA. A BRIEF STATE OF THE

ART

It is a recurrent topic of the local historiography to refer to the importance that the manufacture and the commercialisation of salted fish and fish sauces had in the economic strategy of the city from Phoenician times until Late Antiquity. In the last decades, salvage excavations have unearthed many examples of fish processing facilities dating since the first century CE onwards (and especially from the third century CE to Late Antiquity); the artisanal installations of previous periods, however, remain completely unknown to date.10 A similar situation can be described concerning the production of amphorae. Since the discovery of the workshops of Puente Carranque and Haza Honda in the 1960s and 1970s, the list of Roman kiln sites excavated or known along the periphery of the city, dating to Late Republican or Imperial Roman times, has gradually increased (very little evidence has been published with reference to the pre-Augustan pottery workshops). In relation to the examination of the new findings recorded at Juan XXIII Avenue, it is important to take into account the remains attributed to the so-called ‘Puente Carranque pottery workshop,’ located at the intersection of the Intermediate Round and the MálagaCórdoba railway line, northeast to the Juan XXIII area. The amphora series likely produced in the workshop included Dressel 7/11 and Dressel 17, as well as Beltrán II, so it would have been in function between the mid-first century BCE and the first century CE.11 Also, it was proposed that Dressel 2–3 and Mañá C2b (or Dressel 18) amphorae, hitherto unknown as possible local productions, would have been manufactured in the workshop. This virtual production of Mañá C2b at Carranque raised, as it has fittingly been remarked,12 the option of setting back the first stage of this industrial sector of Malaka to the Republican period. Subsequent findings in various locations east of Carranque (Cerrojo, Carretería or Granada streets, and very recently in the Martiricos area) confirmed the existence of a large group of pottery workshops whose activity is mostly dated to the first and second centuries CE.13 Pre-Roman amphora production, given the persistent lack of specific findings, has received less attention in the last decades. Consequently, at present, no solid evolutionary scheme is available for the sixth to first century BCE local amphorae. Nor, of course, has there been an analysis of the transformations in the local economic model based on this evidence (whose ‘archaeological invisibility’ has resulted in their scarce identification outside the local

10

 Corrales 1994, 2013; Corrales et al. 2011.  Mora and Corrales 1997; Rambla and Mayorga 1997; Beltrán and Loza 1997. 12  Beltrán and Loza 1997. 13  Serrano Ramos 2004. 11

368

C. CHACÓN

– A.

ARANCIBIA

– A. M. SÁEZ – B.

MORA

milieu).14 The oldest evidence of ceramic production in the area has been documented at Cerro del Villar15 and also at Malaka’s old town,16 where some Phoenician kilns that produced T–10.1.2.1 vessels have been excavated. This archaic amphora production is part of a broader archaeological set of evidence which supports that the coastal settlements, located between the Guadalhorce river and Chorreras, would have played a central role in the economy of the region, with its amphora-borne products considerably impacting both maritime and inland routes.17 During the fifth century BCE, the importance of local amphora production seems to have continued, although the availability of archaeological data is considerably lower. More kilns excavated at Cerro del Villar are the most remarkable evidence,18 which date from the fifth century BCE and are linked to the production of T–11.2.1.3 amphorae. On the other side, no traces of kilns or pits filled with discarded pottery dating to the Punic period have been uncovered near Málaga so far. For the period between the fourth and the beginning of the second century BCE, the scarcity of information is even more pronounced, since production in Cerro del Villar seems to have ceased and archaeological indicators at Málaga itself have not been found. Undoubtedly, this is one of the most pressing problems of the archaeology of the pre-Roman city. In turn, this has led to the development of a fragile statistical basis, concerning the archaeological data, which prevents a full assessment of the evolution of the economy of ancient Málaga and its real connection with the legendary fish salting trade. Recently, the re-examination of several stratigraphies of the old town and the development of archaeometric analyses have led D. Mateo to propose that the local amphora production for this dark period included the types T–12.1.1.1, T–8.2.2.1, T–8.2.1.1 and T–9.1.1.1 in addition to some imitations of series from Ibiza, Turdetania and the Punic central Mediterranean.19 The results of an excavation in Calle Granada 57–61 have also recently been published. In that area, traces of pottery production dating back to the second century BCE (until the first century CE) have been uncovered:20 a few fragments of discarded T–7.4.3.3, T–9.1.1.1, Dressel 1A–1C and Dressel 14 (to which we must add another one attributed to the type Pellicer D from the nearby site of Calle Granada 67). Both contributions have complemented the little previous information available regarding the amphora production of the Late Punic and Roman Republican periods of the city. The city was a main regional port hub that, already at that time, should have achieved a remarkable commercial and maritime influence at least in the context of the Alboran Sea21 and towards Ibiza and the coast of Algeria. 14

 Recently, the review of some shipwrecks, found off the coast of southern Gaul and Corsica, revealed that two were carrying amphora shipments that included both T–7.4.3.3 and Dressel 1C vessels produced in Gades and Malaka. See Luaces 2020, and also Luaces and Sáez 2019. 15  Aubet et al. 1999; Delgado 2011. 16  Arancibia and Escalante 2006a, 2006b. 17  Ramon 2006. 18  Arribas and Arteaga 1975; Aubet et al. 1999, pp. 79–80 and 128–135. 19  Mateo 2015a, 2015b. 20  Pérez-Malumbres 2012; Mateo 2015a, pp. 184–187. 21  López and Mora 2002; Corrales 2008; Corrales and Corrales 2012; Mateo 2016.

AMPHORA PRODUCTION IN PUNIC AND LATE PUNIC MALAKA

369

Thus, the results of the 2009–2010 excavations in the area of Juan XXIII – Santa Marta22 provide very valuable information to order part of this sequence of amphora types, providing consistent evidence for the second to first century BCE and the first century CE. The discovery of this kiln site also adds an interesting indication for the analysis of the evolution of the exploitation patterns of the suburban territory of ancient Málaga between the sixth century BCE and the fifth century CE.

THE

CITY AND THE RIVERS.

LAND PLANNING IN PRE-AUGUSTAN MÁLAGA

In the last decade, the uninterrupted discoveries made both in the urban district of Málaga and in the mouth of the Guadalhorce have shaken up the long established vision of the Phoenician settlement model in the area. In a relatively small area, the existence of at least three Phoenician nuclei (Málaga, Cerro del Villar and La Rebanadilla), three necropolis (San Isidro, Cortijo de Montáñez and some sites near Malaka), several minor settlements and some ‘indigenous villages,’ all of which date to the same period (ninth to sixth century BCE),23 configures a complex puzzle that largely resembles other major western scenarios of Phoenician colonisation such as the coast of Vélez-Málaga/Algarrobo24 or the Bay of Cádiz.25 In any case, there is little room for doubt that Málaga must have been, during the whole period, a focal point with a capacity to found secondary colonies and establish commercial links with the central and the eastern Mediterranean. Leaving aside this Archaic mosaic, in relation to the remains uncovered in the area of Juan XXIII, it should be noted that major transformations occurred in the settlement pattern and the urban plan during the sixth century BCE. At least since the second half of the century, the surroundings of the Guadalmedina River and of Alcazaba Hill played a more relevant role, as evidenced by the presence of artisanal facilities (kilns), residential areas and, above all, an urban sanctuary.26 The design of this cult building, the use of pavements made with shells and, especially, the presence of oxhide-shaped altars are clearly connected with a prosperous Phoenician settlement. Changes are not only evident for the urban environment. The Phoenician settlement patterns in the Bay of Málaga demonstrate a clear turning point during the sixth century BCE.27 The abandonment of the sanctuary at the beginning of this century coincides with the emergence of strong defensive walls, a proper urban plan and the creation of various necropolis, including monumental tombs containing sumptuous grave goods.28 Malaka then probably emerged as one of the main Phoenician cities of the Mediterranean side of the region, playing a hegemonic role in the bay, where the Guadalhorce and Guadalmedina plains continued to maintain geostrategic and economic importance. 22

 Arancibia et al. 2012.  Suáez et al. 2007; Arancibia et al. 2011; Mora and Arancibia 2010. 24  Again, see several papers in García Alfonso 2012. 25  Botto 2014. 26  Arancibia and Escalante 2006a, 2006b; García Alfonso 2012. 27  Arancibia and Mora 2011. 28  Martín Ruiz 2009; García González et al. 2013. 23

370

C. CHACÓN

– A.

ARANCIBIA

– A. M. SÁEZ – B.

MORA

On the one hand, the Guadalhorce, whose mouth would now be an artisanal (kilns), agricultural and fishing area, was also the gateway to a fluvial-terrestrial route towards Ronda and the depression of Antequera, a major route that continued well into Roman times. Two sites stand out in this area: the first, a rural sanctuary linked to Malaka, the Cerro de la Tortuga, which was possibly a symbolic milestone that marked the western end of the ‘chora’ of the Punic and Late Punic city;29 the second, the indigenous oppidum of Cártama (Cartima),30 which should have been the main liaison with the interior of the valley and the routes to inland Andalusia, possibly functioning in an analogous way to Spal or Caura in the mouth of the Guadalquivir with respect to Gadir.31 On the other hand, regarding the Guadalmedina basin, its contribution to the economic scheme of a flourishing port such as Malaka must have been related to the exploitation of agricultural and clay resources. On the basis of recent finds in areas relatively far from the Punic urban area, it can be noticed that, perhaps with more intensity and continuity than in the Guadalhorce valley, this entire sector must have been populated by secondary agricultural and artisanal settlements. This is the case of Martiricos, on the right bank of the Guadalmedina River (still unpublished), along with other sites already known such as El Ejido32 (also to the north of the ancient city) or even Juan XXIII – Santa Marta itself33 (located to the west of the river and the city). In brief, an ensemble of rural sites existed that suggest that, since at least the sixth century BCE, the city took direct control over the exploitation of its adjacent milieu, developing a territorial planning model that likely remained unmodified until the Roman conquest at the end of the Second Punic War. The case of Juan XXIII – Santa Marta allows us to verify the evolution of this territorial model in the sector located between the two main rivers. Additionally, it also provides important data on the transformations which occured within the model throughout the second to first century BCE during the ‘first Romanisation’ of the local economy and the land planning. I. RESULTS OF THE

EXCAVATIONS AT JUAN

XXIII – SANTA MARTA AREA

The construction of Line 2 of the local subway caused a salvage excavation along the Juan XXIII Avenue during 2009–2010, an area in which previous work had already brought to light some evidence linked to a Punic and Roman settlement which was located nearby a Roman kiln site (named in historiography as ‘Carranque’ or ‘Puente Carranque’).34 The site is located not far from the economic core of ancient Malaca (characterised by the port, 35 cetariae36 and other pottery ateliers),37 next to the former coastline in Antiquity, and can be 29

 Mora and Arancibia 2014.  Melero 2012. 31  Ferrer Albelda et al. 2010. 32  Mayorga and Rambla 1999. 33  Mora and Arancibia 2010; Arancibia et al. 2012. 34  Beltrán and Loza 1997; Mora and Corrales 1997; Serrano Ramos 2004. 35  Mayorga et al. 2005; Corrales 2005; Corrales and Corrales 2012. 36  Corrales 1994, 2013; Corrales et al. 2011. 37  Serrano Ramos 2004; Mateo 2015a, 2015b. 30

AMPHORA PRODUCTION IN PUNIC AND LATE PUNIC MALAKA

371

Fig. 2. Remains of buildings and amphora walls of Period IIa (left), IIb (centre) and III (right) unearthed at the Juan XXIII area.

linked to the commercial expansion of the city after the Roman conquest. However, the earliest evidence from the site dates back to the sixth to third centuries BCE, probably not connected to pottery production but to a rural settlement. Main phases and context overview The excavations between 2009 and 2010 had to fit into the layout of the new metro line and were, therefore, constrained to a relatively small and long trench located along Juan XXIII Avenue. Consequently, it is seems very likely that a significant part of the site excavated in this trench has remained unexplored under the surrounding constructions. Among these unknown structures, it must be underlined that actual kilns have not been excavated but, undoubtedly, must have been located in the vicinity. Four sections of this trench were excavated (sectors A, B, C and D). In almost all the excavated areas, remains of buildings or deposits were documented dating from the sixth century BCE to the fifth century CE. The thorough study of the finds, since 2014, has made it possible to specify the chronology of these structures and phases of activity,38 which may be summarised in five main periods or phases (Fig. 2):39 I) Layers not associated with structures, although there are abundant ceramic sherds. Among these there are not only local T–10.1.2.1, T–11.2.1.3 and T–12.1.1.1 amphorae or 38  Some preliminary data were already published in a previous paper that also included the coin findings (mostly bronzes of the Malaka mint); see Arancibia et al. 2012. 39  Periods IV and V have been dated to the second to fifth century CE and will be not considered in this paper (no evidence of pottery production for those periods was uncovered as the site most likely was transformed into a farm). A final publication of the whole sequence is currently in progress.

372

C. CHACÓN

– A.

ARANCIBIA

– A. M. SÁEZ – B.

MORA

Ebusitan imports, but also a large number of painted and red slip tablewares, mostly of local production. The pottery, dated between the sixth and third century BCE, was found dispersed in Sectors A–B as well as in D, always at the lowest layers of the stratigraphy and in contact with the clayey geological substratum of the area. Additionally, it should be noted that, along with ceramics, evidence of minor metalworking activities was recovered, perhaps corresponding to an iron forge linked to the production of agricultural tools for the settlement itself.40 In summary, the material of this phase most likely represents the vestiges of a rural settlement dependent on the city, without any evidence of ceramic production in this initial phase (Fig. 3). IIa) The Punic settlement was overlapped by another with conspicuous industrial features, dated between the mid-second and possibly mid first century BCE. Several structures and landfills belong to this stage with clear connections between them: a building partially explored in Sector A–B and another rectangular structure of smaller dimensions located in Sector D, both made using similar construction techniques but demonstrating a different orientation. The portion of the building excavated in Sector A–B included three walls, built using large masonry (80 cm wide) and plastered with clay and gravel, which delineate a rectangular room of sizeable dimensions with an access on its eastern side (a maximum elevation of about 50 cm was preserved). Initially it was identified as a warehouse, given the abundance of amphorae found inside. In any case, there is no doubt that both this building and the one located in Sector D were spaces linked to the management of the nearby pottery workshop. The amphorae production of Phase IIa included massive amounts of T–7.4.3.3, but also local versions of T–9.1.1.1 and Dressel 1A and 1C. IIb) In a successive stage, during the first century BCE, probably during the middle third of the century, the northern building was abandoned and the southern one (Sector D) was completely renovated. The new rectangular structure had walls of medium size, built with local stone and bricks and plastered with clay, with a thickness of approximately 50 cm and a preserved elevation that exceeded 60 cm. A bay located at the western side of the building was documented. Significantly, in the inside remnants of cocciopesto pavements were partially preserved. This structure in Sector D, which probably was enlarged towards the west, was built over the previous deposits and buildings and, although it lies on a larger area, it was planned with the same axis of symmetry and orientation. In the northwest area of Sector D, outside the building and extending about 10 m to the north, a ramned clay floor was documented. At the eastern end of this paved space a group of T–7.4.3.3 amphorae were reused as part of a drainage system, fitted by connecting the rims and the bases. Another set of T–7.4.3.3 amphorae was also identified in the vicinity (also piled up horizontally), next to a third group of amphorae, a small wall built using six T–7.4.3.3 individuals placed in a vertical position. To the southeast of these areas were the remains of a small part of another quadrangular building similar to that already described in terms of construction techniques, but with a different orientation.

40

 Our gratitude to Dr. M. Hunt Ortiz (University of Seville), who kindly examined the fragments and identified one of the largest as clear evidence of iron forging. A more detailed study is underway.

AMPHORA PRODUCTION IN PUNIC AND LATE PUNIC MALAKA

373

Fig. 3. Local Punic pottery linked to Period I of the site: Amphora T–11.2.1.3 (1–6), red slip plates (7–9), pithos (10), and plain and painted bowls (16–17) and large bowls (11–15).

In addition to these buildings and structures, several pits with discarded material were found in their vicinity suggesting that pottery kilns were located very close to this section of the site excavated in 2009 and 2010. Therefore, it seems likely that the buildings belonging to this phase can be identified as workspaces of the atelier, perhaps warehouses or production areas, etc. Pits were filled with a lot of discarded or melted ceramics, refused pieces, potter’s tools, mudbricks and bricks, fragments of Roman hydraulic plaster (cocciopesto) and ashes

374

C. CHACÓN

– A.

ARANCIBIA

– A. M. SÁEZ – B.

MORA

from the cyclic cleaning of the kilns. The production of amphorae in Period IIb was a clear continuation of the previous phase, with the T–7.4.3.3 and Dressel 1C types as the main output. It also included an abundant series of tablewares and household plain wares as well as the production of Dressel 21–22 amphorae and possibly of Dressel 12 local variants (like those discovered in the 57–61 Granada Street excavation).41 III) From the Augustan period onwards, the settlement seems to have gone through a new phase of reorganisation. The pits and structures made with amphorae of the previous phase were abandoned, and although the building of sector D seems to remain active, new spaces were added to the northwest (in both cases, with unspecified functionalities). During the first century CE, the reorganisation of the outdoor spaces around the building can be seen, as it resulted in the construction of a long wall made with Dressel 14 amphorae arranged vertically to the south of Sector D. The melted refused fragments of Dressel 7/11 and, chiefly, of Dressel 14 amphorae are clear evidence that the production of transport vessels continued in the area possibly until the final decades of the first century CE. The presence of Dressel 20 and Beltrán IIA with local fabrics is abundant during this phase and the successive one, so perhaps they were also produced in Juan XXIII or in nearby pottery kiln sites such as Carranque or Haza Honda. Amphora production in the Juan XXIII area The production of amphorae in this area began sometime during the second century BCE, probably the second half, given the chronology of the materials connected with the construction of the buildings and the type of ceramics manufactured during this phase of the workshop. From its earliest moments, the manufacture of amphorae was the main activity, but red slip tablewares were also manufactured (similar to the so-called ‘Kuass type’, or local versions of the Italic fine wares of this period), as well as an assorted variety of plain and cooking wares. In a significant part of the repertoire, the previous local Punic tradition is noticeable, but also the quick adoption and adaptation of the Italic influences, both concerning transport containers and tableware, cooking or storage wares, building materials, etc. For period IIa–IIb, dated between the late second and the first century BCE, the finds both in the buildings and those from inside the potters’ dumping areas underline the role of the amphorae linked to maritime trade, potentially of local salted fish products and wine, as the primary output of the workshop (Fig. 4). Most of these can be identified as local variants of type T–7.4.3.342 in addition to other forms such as imitations of Italic types (Dressel 1A, but mostly 1C). Both of these groups were most abundantly produced at least 41

 Pérez-Malumbres 2012.  The local production of the type was assumed from the 1970s after the excavation of a Roman kiln site in Carretería Street, not far from Juan XXIII (Rambla and Mayorga 1997), and the local fabrics observed among the abundant T–7.4.3.3 discovered in the Roman theater area (Gran Aymerich 1991; Mora and Corrales 1997). Other authors also suggested a local production of the type at kiln sites such as Carranque (Beltrán and Loza 1997, pp. 109–110) and Calle Cerrojo (Suárez et al. 2001, p. 468). More recently, a melted and discarded rim from a salvage excavation in Granada Street led to propose again its local production in Republican times in workshops located in the suburban belt not far from the Alcazaba hill (Mora and Arancibia 2010). Nevertheless, the new evidence from the Juan XXIII area can be considered as the first conclusive proof to support that previously presumed local production. 42

AMPHORA PRODUCTION IN PUNIC AND LATE PUNIC MALAKA

375

Fig. 4. Amphorae linked to Period IIa of the site: Local T–9.1.1.1 (1–3), Dressel 1A (4–5) and local T–7.4.3.3 (8–11).

376

C. CHACÓN

– A.

ARANCIBIA

– A. M. SÁEZ – B.

MORA

until the mid first century BCE. Also, other discarded sherds found in the same contexts provide clues of a more complex picture of the local amphora production of this period. On the one hand, discards and wasters of the type T–9.1.1.1, which finally confirm that the series was imitated in Malaka’s kiln sites.43 On the other hand, there is the first clear evidence concerning the local versions of probable Dressel 21–22 vessels, which are considered a typically Sicilian and southern Tyrrhenian series used for the commercialisation of fish preserves.44 The production of local versions of Dressel 21–22 amphorae (Fig. 5) can be considered as a substantial novelty, given that this is the first evidence for the case of Málaga. It also provides support for the production at El Rinconcillo kiln site (located in Algeciras Bay, next to Carteia) and for a regional consumption attested in some contexts at Baelo Claudia. Both sites suggest a chronological setting for the western production of Dressel 21–22 in the central third or two quarters of the first century BCE, a date that coincides with the one proposed for the individuals found at Juan XXIII. The manufacture of Dressel 21–22 at Malaka also highlights the close connection of the local amphora series with the trade of fish by-products, and also suggests some sort of connection with the southern Italic sphere (perhaps as a result of maritime routes linking the region with Naples Bay, or of the commercial clash of the two areas during the first century BCE). Either way, more research is needed to clarify whether the Italic Dressel 21–22 of the Late Republican and Early Imperial stage were inspired in Hispanic prototypes of the early first century BCE. Local production of red slip fine wares has been verified among the production wasters dating to the late second and early first century BCE. For decades, there was an open discussion on the lack of evidence concerning the consumption and production of fine wares at Malaka during the Late Punic period45 which contrasted with the abundant information available for the so-called ‘Kuass ware’ production in the Bay of Cádiz46 (imitating first the Greek wares, and then the Italic Black Gloss wares). The excavation at the Juan XXIII site closes that debate for Málaga and opens another chapter regarding the production of this local version of the Hellenised red slip fine wares during the fourth and third centuries BCE, for which there is no evidence at the Juan XXIII site. It is worth noting that massive quantities of bowls (Lamboglia 31/33), plates (Lamboglia 36 and 6) and small jugs (Niveau XIII) have been found here. Other buildings and pits dating from the Roman Late Republican and Imperial period overlapped the earlier phases. During Phase III, the workshop continued producing T–7.4.3.3 amphorae (possible even in the early years of the first century CE), but mostly the local variants of well-known regional series of the Augustan and Early Imperial times: Dressel 7/11 and predominantly Dressel 14, possibly Dressel 20 and Beltrán II, all of all of which were 43

 As was first proposed by Recio and Martín (2006), just on the basis of observation of fabrics from consumption sites in Málaga province. 44  Botte 2009, 2012. Botte proposes a Late Republican date for the beginning of the Italian production of the type, and divides the series in four typological groups, coming from northwestern Sicily (1a–b), Calabria (2) and Campania (3). The prototypes unearthed at the Juan XXIII site are closer to Botte’s types 1b and 2, and to some discarded pieces found at El Rinconcillo, see Mateo 2015b. 45  Mora and Arancibia 2010, p. 830. 46  An updated overview in Niveau and Sáez 2016

AMPHORA PRODUCTION IN PUNIC AND LATE PUNIC MALAKA

377

Fig. 5. Local amphorae of Periods IIb (1–5) and III (6–10): T–7.4.3.3 (1–2 and 6), Dressel 1C (3–4), Dressel 21–22 (5), Dressel 14 (7–8), Beltrán IIA (9) and Dressel 7/11 (10).

378

C. CHACÓN

– A.

ARANCIBIA

– A. M. SÁEZ – B.

MORA

types already identified as local products in Haza Honda, Carranque, Carretería and other nearby Roman kiln sites.47

II. CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE

RESEARCH

The excavations carried out for the construction of the subway between 2009 and 2010 have yielded essential unpublished information that allows for the assessment of, not only the existence of kiln sites in Málaga’s suburban belt, but also the evolution of the settlement pattern of the adjacent territory in its extension towards the west (as far as, at least, the Guadalhorce basin). The remains uncovered dating to the oldest phases detected in the area of Juan XXIII – Santa Marta support the existence of one or several rural establishments in this district which were probably linked to the agricultural exploitation of the territory located between the kilns of Cerro del Villar and the urban centre located next to the northern slope of the Alcazaba Hill. The inventory of the ceramic record, as well as other unpublished indicators, suggest that those secondary settlements (or perhaps scattered ‘villages’) could have also played a role concerning trade through the neighbouring fluvial waterways, and that they probably developed artisanal activities on a small scale, such as metallurgy and pottery production. The pottery assemblages found in the lower levels of the stratigraphy at the Juan XXIII site (Phase I) date the earliest occupation to the sixth century BCE. The most recent material, local and imported, suggests that the settlement would have been populated until the end of the Punic period or the early second century BCE.48 Comparable evidence, although with functional nuances, has been provided by findings in the vicinity of the airport/San Julián Hill,49 the so-called ‘Punic phase’ of Cerro del Villar (with a clear link to pottery production) and other recent discoveries recorded in urban salvage excavations on the suburbs of modern Málaga.50 The aforementioned discoveries of the last decades concerning the settlement process of the bay from the ninth to the sixth century BCE, combined with this new archaeological evidence, describe an Archaic multi-nucleate pattern similar to that of the valleys of Vélez-Algarrobo. However, from the mid sixth century BCE, this land planning system would lead to the consolidation of a single urban centre, Malaka, and of a dependent consolidated and well organised territory.51 This pattern vividly recalls, with some nuances, the transformation processes in other major Phoenician cities of southern Iberia, such as Baria52 and Gadir.53 . 47

 Serrano Ramos 2004; Mateo 2015a, 2015b.  A similar tendency has been proposed for the Late Punic rural sites at the Bay of Cádiz, see Sáez Romero 2008a, 2008b. 49  Aubet et al. 1999. 50  In particular, the excavations conducted in the Martiricos area, where beneath the impressive remains of a Roman kiln site and rural settlement, a few walls and pottery finds suggest that a small residential area or trading post was established during the Phoenician period next to the river. The site continued to remain active at least until the fifth to fourth century BCE. 51  Arancibia and Mora 2011. 52  López Castro 2008; López Castro et al. 2010. 53  Sáez Romero 2008a, 2008b; Botto 2014. 48

AMPHORA PRODUCTION IN PUNIC AND LATE PUNIC MALAKA

379

Thus, the remains of Period I, documented in the area of the Juan XXIII Avenue, can be identified as a farm. The farm represents one of the many that probably existed in the area of Malaka, following a well-known settlement pattern studied through sites such as La Pancha, Los Algarrobeños, Casa de la Viña, Los Lunares, or Los Pinares, in relation to the territories of Cerro del Mar and Morro de Mezquitilla.54 In the near future, it will be necessary to study and publish the sites already excavated in the surroundings of Málaga, especially those located in the fertile valleys of the Guadalmedina and Guadalhorce rivers. Unfortunately, the excavations conducted at the Juan XXIII – Santa Marta sites have not provided any new information about the development of amphorae production in the area between the sixth and third century BCE. In the same way, there is a complete lack of data regarding the location and characteristics of the fish salting facilities, which undoubtedly had to be part of this economic network of suburban secondary settlements dependent on the city. Alternatively, it is possible to presume, both for pottery workshops and fish processing plants, that they could have also been located in artisanal quarters in the port area inside the urban area itself, following a completely divergent model to the one identified in the Bay of Cádiz.55 However, the pottery kilns of the fifth century BCE excavated at Cerro del Villar, that produced T–11.2.1.0 amphorae (as those documented on the Juan XXIII site), and that probably had been included in Malaka’s territory, suggest that these pottery workshops and fish processing facilities could have been located in the vicinity of the coast and the near mouths of the two main rivers. In any case, it is undoubtedly another of the pending subjects of the local archaeology to be addressed in the next future. It represents an unexplained topic, that impedes important debates such as those concerning the importance of the fish salting business in the local economy or the competition with other regional maritime powers such as Gadir.56 The buildings, pits with potter’s debris and ceramic assemblages uncovered at the Juan XXIII site clearly show that during the second century BCE the land planning pattern and the exploitation of the suburban territory of Malaka were meaningfully modified, giving rise to a large industrial hub in which the pottery workshops must have been abundant. Although the kilns have unfortunately not been excavated, there is no doubt that on the Juan XXIII site, during the second and first century BCE and most of the first century CE, the production of transport amphorae was a constant factor. During the successive stages of activity, renovations of the main buildings and their surroundings were developed on several occasions, although generally following the pattern set during the Early Republican period. This second period or ‘archaeological phase’ of the site is dated between the height of the second century and the final decades of the first century BCE. It can be described as at least two consecutive phases of evolution of the buildings and pits, keeping clear connections 54

 Martín Córdoba et al. 2006.  Sáez Romero 2008a, 2008b. 56  Concerning the latter, see Sáez Romero 2020. A remarkable quantity of T–11.2.1.0 amphorae produced at kiln sites located on the coast of Málaga has been attested among the remains of the Punic Amphora Building at Corinth (Greece). This verifies that the city and other secondary settlements in the Mediterranean region were involved in the very profitable long-distance maritime trade routes during the fifth century BCE. How the ‘crisis’ impacted upon this lucrative business with Corinth and the Greek sphere c. 400 BCE and impacted on the local economy remains unexplained (even unanswered) for the case of Malaka. 55

C. CHACÓN

380

– A.

ARANCIBIA

– A. M. SÁEZ – B.

MORA

between them: a first period (Phase IIa) with a building in Sector A–B and another small rectangular structure in Sector D, with dissimilar architectural axis; and a second period in which the northern building was abandoned and the southern one was extended and included a cocciopesto floor (Phase IIb), as well as drainages made by reusing T–7.4.3.3 amphorae (also several pits were located nearby this building and another only partially excavated to the southeast of Sector D). This stage is characterised by the mass production of local versions of types T–7.4.3.3 and Dressel 1C and the significant presence of Italic (Black Gloss fine ware, Dressel 1) and Ebusitan imports (T–8.1.3.2/3). The local versions of type Dressel 21–22 are associated with the potter’s debris of this period, describing a production setting similar to workshops located in the bay of Algeciras such as El Rinconcillo.57 The workshop continued to operate throughout the Late Republican and the Early Imperial period (Phase III), as is suggested by the stratigraphy of the main building in Sector D which seems to expand at this time. Additionally, a long wall was built using local Dressel 14 amphorae to the south of the building. Although there is no evidence of pottery production for Periods IV and V, it is evident that at some point, perhaps during the first half of the second century CE, a profound remodelling of the area took place, extending the edifice and changing the axis of the building plan. Although the study of this phase of the settlement (Periods IV and V) exceeds the chronological framework set for this paper, it should be noted that the former artisanal facilities were then possibly transformed into an agricultural settlement, or even in an annex of a villa or suburban vicus dependent on Malaka (consequently returning to the model developed during the Early Punic period). In any case, the data and hypotheses delivered in this paper are only a preview of the future publication of the assemblages and contexts which will allow for the progression of the understanding of the land planning patterns of ancient Málaga and in the definition of the local ceramic repertoires of each one of the phases from the Late Phoenician period to the Late Roman Imperial times. In particular, the study of the contexts of the second to first century BCE and the first century CE will make it possible to complete the initial proposals raised in recent years after the examination of consumption contexts,58 providing key information of an important area for the local ceramic production through the exhaustive study of the contents of the potter’s debris.

BIBLIOGRAPHY ARANCIBIA ROMÁN, A. and ESCALANTE AGUILAR, M. M. 2006a “Génesis y consolidación de la ciudad de Malaka,” in Memoria arqueológica del Museo Picasso Málaga, desde los orígenes hasta el siglo V d.C., edited by B. Laniado-Romero, pp. 41–78. Málaga: Museo Picasso de Málaga. 2006b “La Málaga fenicio-púnica a la luz de los últimos hallazgos,” Mainake 28: 333–360. ARANCIBIA ROMÁN, A. and MORA SERRANO, B. 2011 “Malaka de enclave colonial a las puertas del Estrecho a polis fenicia occidental en el sudeste de Iberia,” in Gadir y el Circulo del Estrecho revisados propuestas de la arqueología 57

 Mateo 2015b.  Pérez-Malumbres 2012; Mateo 2015a, 2015b.

58

AMPHORA PRODUCTION IN PUNIC AND LATE PUNIC MALAKA

381

dese un enfoque social, edited by J. C. Domínguez Pérez, pp. 175–186. Cádiz: Universidad de Cádiz. 2017 “La etapa neopúnica en Malaca (Málaga): la aportación de las necrópolis,” Folia Phoenicia. An International Journal 1: 357–360. ARANCIBIA ROMÁN, A., CHACÓN MOHEDANO, C. and MORA SERRANO, B. 2012 “Nuevos datos sobre la producción anfórica tardopúnica en Malaca: el sector alfarero de la margen derecha del río Guadalmedina (Avda. Juan XXIII),” in La etapa neopúnica en Hispania y el Mediterráneo centro occidental: identidades compartidas, edited by B. Mora and G. Cruz, pp. 391–412. Sevilla: Secretariado de Publicaciones de la Universidad de Sevilla. ARANCIBIA ROMÁN, A., GALINDO, L., JUZGADO, M., DUMAS, M. and SÁNCHEZ, V. M. 2011 “Aportaciones de las últimas intervenciones a la arqueología fenicia de la Bahía de Málaga,” in Fenicios en Tartessos: nuevas perspectivas (British Archaeological Reports International Series 2245), edited by M. Álvarez Martí-Aguilar, pp. 129–149. Oxford: Archaeopress. ARRIBAS, A. and ARTEAGA, O. 1975 El yacimiento fenicio de la desembocadura del río Guadalhorce (Málaga) (Cuadernos de Prehistoria de la Universidad de Granada, Serie monográfica nº 2). Granada: Secretariado de Publicaciones de la Universidad de Granada. AUBET, M. E. (ed.) 1997 Los fenicios en Málaga. Málaga: Servicio de Publicaciones y Divulgación Científica de la Universidad de Málaga. AUBET, M. E., CARMONA, P., CURIÀ, E., DELGADO, A., FERNÁNDEZ, A. and PÁRRAGA, M. 1999 Cerro del Villar, I. El asentamiento fenicio en la desembocadura del río Guadalhorce y su interacción con el hinterland. Sevilla: Consejería de Cultura de la Junta de Andalucía. BELTRÁN FORTES, J. and LOZA AZUAGA, M. L. 1997 “Producción anfórica y paisaje costero en el ámbito de la Málaga romana durante el Alto Imperio,” in Figlinae malacitanae. La producción de cerámica romana en los territorios malacitanos, pp. 127–129. Málaga: Universidad de Málaga. BOTTE, E. 2009 “Le Dressel 21–22: anfore da pesce tirreniche dell’Alto Impero,” in Olio e pesce in epoca romana. Produzione e commercio nelle regioni dell’alto Adriatico, edited by S. Pesavento Mattioli and M.-B. Carre, pp. 149–171. Roma: Edizioni Quasar. 2012 “L’exportation du thon sicilien à l’époque tardo-républicaine,” Mélanges de l’École française de Rome Antiquité 142/2, https://doi.org/10.4000/mefra.887 (16 March 2021). BOTTO, M. 2014 “Los fenicios en la Bahía de Cádiz: estrategias de poblamiento y de aprovechamiento del territorio, relaciones con el mundo indígena, comercio (siglo IX – finales del siglo VII/inicios del VI a.C.),” in Los Fenicios en la Bahía de Cádiz. Nuevas investigaciones (Collezione di Studi Fenici 46), edited by M. Botto, pp. 265–281. Pisa-Roma: Fabrizio Serra Editore. CORRALES AGUILAR, P. 1994 “Salazones en la provincia de Málaga: una aproximación a su estudio,” Mainake 15–16: 245–259. 2005 “Aportaciones de la arqueología urbana para el conocimiento de la Málaga romana,” Mainake 27: 113–140. 2008 “El litoral malacitano y el Mar de Alborán, una intensa relación económica en época romana,” Mainake 30: 157–180. 2013 “Salsamentum sur-hispano: apuntes para su estudio,” Onoba 1: 205–218. CORRALES AGUILAR, P. and CORRALES AGUILAR, M. 2012 “Malaca: de los textos literarios a la evidencia arqueológica,” in Hispaniae Urbes. Investigaciones arqueológicas en ciudades históricas, edited by J. Beltrán and O. Gutiérrez, pp. 361–400. Sevilla: Servicio de Publicaciones de la Universidad de Sevilla.

382

C. CHACÓN

– A.

ARANCIBIA

– A. M. SÁEZ – B.

MORA

CORRALES AGUILAR, P., COMPAÑA PRIETO, J. M., CORRALES, M. and SUÁREZ, J. 2011 “Salsamenta malacitano. Avances de un proyecto de investigación,” Italica 1: 29–50. DELGADO HERVÁS, A. 2011 “La producción de cerámica fenicia en el extremo occidente: hornos de alfar, talleres e industrias domésticas en los enclaves coloniales de la Andalucía mediterránea (siglos VIII–VI a.C.),” in YÕSERIM: la producción alfarera fenicio-púnica en Occidente. XXV Jornadas de Arqueología fenicio-púnica (Ibiza, 2010) (Treballs del Museu Arqueològic d’Eivissa i Formentera 66), edited by B. Costa and J. H. Fernández, pp. 165–221. Ibiza: Museo Arqueológico de Ibiza y Formentera. GARCÍA ALFONSO, E. (ed.) 2012 Diez años de arqueología fenicia en la provincia de Málaga (2001–2010) (Colección Arqueología). Málaga: Consejería de Cultura de la Junta de Andalucía. GARCÍA GONZÁLEZ, D., LÓPEZ, S., CUMPIÁN, A. and SÁNCHEZ, P. J. 2013 “La tumba del guerrero. Un hallazgo de época protohistórica en Málaga,” Mainake 34: 277–292. GARCÍA VARGAS, E. and FERRER ALBELDA, E. 2001 “Producción y comercio de salazones y salsas saladas de pescado de la costa malagueña en épocas púnica y romana republicana,” in II Congreso de Historia Antigua de Málaga. Comercio y comerciantes en la Historia Antigua de Málaga (siglo VIII a.C. – año 711 d.C.), edited by F. Wulff, G. Cruz and C. Martínez, pp. 547–572. Málaga: Diputación de Málaga. GRAN AYMERICH, J. 1985 “Málaga, fenicia y púnica,” Aula Orientalis 3: 127–147. 1991 Málaga phénicienne et punique: recherches franco-espagnoles, 1981–1988. Paris: Éditions Recherche sur les civilisations. LÓPEZ CASTRO, J. L. 2008 “El poblamiento rural fenicio en el sur de la Península Ibérica entre los siglos VI a III a.C.,” Gerión 26: 149–182. LÓPEZ CASTRO, J. L. and MORA SERRANO, B. 2002 “Malaka y las ciudades fenicias en el occidente mediterráneo. Siglos VI a.C. – I d.C.,” Mainake 24: 181–214. LÓPEZ CASTRO, J. L., MARTÍNEZ HAHNMÜLLER, V. and PARDO BARRIONUEVO, C. A. 2010 “La ciudad de Baria y su territorio,” Mainake 32: 109–132. LUACES, M. and SÁEZ ROMERO, A. M. 2019 “Late Punic amphorae in «Roman» shipwrecks of southern Gaul: The evidence of a trading route from the Atlantic and the Strait of Gibraltar region to the Tyrrhenian Sea,” in Daily Life in a Cosmopolitan World: Pottery and Culture during the Hellenistic Period. Proceedings of the 2nd Conference of the International Association for Research on Pottery of the Hellenistic Period (University of Lyon 2, 5th–8th November 2015), edited by A. Peignard-Giros, pp. 143–157. Vienna: Phoibos Verlag. MARTÍN CÓRDOBA, E., RAMÍREZ SÁNCHEZ, J. and RECIO RUIZ, A., 2006 “Producción alfarera fenicio-púnica en la costa de Vélez–Málaga (siglos VIII–V a.C.),” Mainake 27: 257–287. MARTÍN RUIZ, J. A. 2009 “La muerte en una colonia fenicia de Occidente: Las necrópolis fenicias de Malaca,” Madrider Mitteilungen 50: 149–157. MATEO CORREDOR, D. 2015a “Producción anfórica en la costa malacitana desde la época púnica hasta el periodo julioclaudio,” Lucentum 34: 183–206. 2015b Comercio anfórico y relaciones mercantiles en Hispania Ulterior (siglos II a.C.–II d.C.) (Col·lecció Instrumenta 52). Barcelona: Universidad de Barcelona. 2016 “Tráfico portuario y comercio anfórico entre Malaca y la cuenca cordobesa en el período tardorrepublicano,” in III Congreso Internacional de la SECAH – Ex Officina Hispana «Amphorae ex Hispania. Paisajes de producción y consumo» (Universitat

AMPHORA PRODUCTION IN PUNIC AND LATE PUNIC MALAKA

383

Rovira i Virgili, Tarragona, 10–13 diciembre 2014), edited by R. Járrega and P. Berni, pp. 376–388. Tarragona: Institut Català d’Arqueologia Clàssica. MAYORGA, J. F. and RAMBLA, A. 1999 “Memoria del Sondeo Arqueológico realizado en el Ejido (Málaga),” Anuario Arqueológico de Andalucía 1994: 315–324. MAYORGA, J., ESCALANTE, M. M. and CISNEROS, M. I. 2005 “Evolución urbana de la Málaga romana. Desde sus inicios hasta el siglo III d.C.,” Mainake 27: 141–168. MELERO GARCÍA, F. 2012 “Una primera aproximación a la dimensión urbana de la Cártama prerromana,” in Diez años de arqueología fenicia en la provincia de Málaga (2001–2010) (Colección Arqueología), edited by E. García Alfonso, pp. 171–192. Sevilla: Consejería de Educación, Cultura y Deporte de la Junta de Andalucía. MORA SERRANO, B. and ARANCIBIA ROMÁN, A. 2010 “La bahía de Málaga en los periodos púnico y romano-republicano: viejos problemas y nuevos datos,” Mainake 32/2: 813–836. 2014 “Pebeteros en forma de cabeza femenina procedentes de los territorios malacitanos,” in Imagen y culto en la Iberia prerromana II: Nuevas lecturas sobre los pebeteros en forma de cabeza femenina, edited by M. C. Marín Ceballos and A. M. Jiménez Flórez, pp. 35–59. Sevilla: Universidad de Sevilla. MORA SERRANO, B. and CORRALES AGUILAR, P. 1997 “Establecimientos salsarios y producciones anfóricas en los territorios malacitanos,” in Figlinae malacitanae. La producción de cerámica romana en los territorios malacitanos, pp. 27–59. Málaga: Universidad de Málaga. NIVEAU DE VILLEDARY, A. M. and SÁEZ ROMERO, A. M. 2016 “The red slip tableware of Punic and Early Roman Gadir/Gades (4th–1st c. BCE): An updated assessment of the so-called Kuass Ware,” in Traditions and Innovations: Tracking the Development of Pottery from the Late Classical to the Early Imperial Periods. IARPotHP First International Conference (Berlin, 7–10 November 2013), edited by S. Japp and P. Kögler, pp. 55–68. Vienna: Phoibos Verlag. PÉREZ-MALUMBRES LANDA, A. M. 2012 “Contextos comerciales de la transición de la Malaka fenicia a la romana en los solares de calle Granada 57–61,” in La etapa neopúnica en Hispania y el Mediterráneo centro occidental: identidades compartidas, edited by B. Mora and G. Cruz, pp. 361–390. Sevilla: Servicio de Publicaciones de la Universidad de Sevilla. RAMBLA, J. A. and MAYORGA, J. 1997 “Hornos de época altoimperial en calle Carretería, Málaga,” in Figlinae Malacitanae. La producción de cerámica romana en los territorios malacitanos, pp. 61–78. Málaga: Universidad de Málaga. RAMON TORRES, J. 2006 “La proyección comercial mediterránea y atlántica de los centros fenicios malagueños en época arcaica,” Mainake 28: 189–212. RECIO RUIZ, A. 1988 “Consideraciones acerca del urbanismo de Malaka fenicio-punica,” Mainake 10: 75– 82. RECIO RUIZ, A. and MARTÍN CÓRDOBA, E. 2006 “Ánforas tipo Campamentos Numantinos en la provincia de Málaga,” Mainake 28: 485– 499. SÁEZ ROMERO, A. M. 2008a La producción cerámica en Gadir en época tardopúnica (siglos –III/–I) (British Archaeological Reports International Series 1812), 2 vols. Oxford: John and Erica Hedges Limited. 2008b “El sistema alfarero-salazonero de Gadir/Gades. Notas sobre sus procesos de transformación y adaptación en época helenística,” Saguntum 40: 141–159.

C. CHACÓN

384

– A.

ARANCIBIA

– A. M. SÁEZ – B.

MORA

2011

“Alfarería en el Extremo Occidente fenicio: del renacer tardoarcaico a las transformaciones helenísticas,” in YÕSERIM: la producción alfarera fenicio-púnica en Occidente. XXV Jornadas de Arqueología fenicio-púnica (Ibiza, 2010) (Treballs del Museu Arqueològic d’Eivissa i Formentera 66), edited by B. Costa and J. H. Fernández, pp. 49–106. Ibiza: Museo Arqueológico de Ibiza y Formentera. SERRANO RAMOS, E. 2004 “Alfares y producciones cerámicas en la provincia de Málaga: balances y perspectivas,” in Talleres Alfareros y producciones cerámicas en la Bética romana (ss. II a.C.–VII d.C.). Actas del Congreso Internacional Figlinae Baeticae 2003, Cadiz (British Archaeological Reports International Series 1266), edited by L. Lagóstena and D. Bernal, pp. 161–194. Oxford: Archaeopress. SUÁREZ, J., ESCALANTE, M. D., CISNEROS, M. I., MAYORGA, J. and FERNÁNDEZ, L. E. 2007 “Territorio y urbanismo fenicio-púnico en la Bahía de Málaga, siglos VIII–V a.C.,” in Las ciudades fenicio-púnicas en el Mediterráneo Occidental, edited by J. L. López Castro, pp. 209–232. Almería: Universidad de Almería. SUÁREZ, J., FERNÁNDEZ, L. E., MAYORGA, J., NAVARRO, I., RAMBLA, A. and SALADO, J. B. 2001 “Intervención arqueológica de urgencia en C/ Almansa esquina C/ Cerrojo (Málaga). Arrabal de Tabbanin,” Anuario Arqueológico de Andalucía 1998/III: 465–472.

Cristina CHACÓN Taller de Investigaciones Arqueológicas, S. L. Spain

Ana ARANCIBIA Taller de Investigaciones Arqueológicas, S. L. Spain

Antonio M. SÁEZ ROMERO Prehistory and Archaeology Department University of Seville Spain

Bartolomé MORA SERRANO Department of Historical Sciences University of Málaga Spain

THE LOCAL PRODUCTION OF AMPHORAE IN TURDETANIA DURING THE SECOND IRON AGE: A TYPOLOGICAL, COMPOSITIONAL AND COMMERCIAL ANALYSIS OF MANUFACTURE AND DISTRIBUTION Francisco José GARCÍA FERNÁNDEZ, Violeta MORENO MEGÍAS and Eduardo FERRER ALBELDA ABSTRACT Turdetania (southwest Iberian Peninsula) was strategically located between the Atlantic and Mediterranean commercial routes. The region underwent a spectacular period of economic growth during the Second Iron Age. This period of prosperity lasted from the economic takeoff in the fifth century BCE until the Romans took effective control. In this context, the area that embraced the middle and lower courses of the Guadalquivir River and its tributaries, as well as the coastal zone that links the river with the straits, witnessed the phenomenon of agricultural colonisation and the associated development of ceramic industries which provided the necessary containers for the commercialisation of agricultural surplus. This paper analyses the production and commercialisation of amphora containers in the Turdetania region, considering its evolution from Phoenician models towards a new typology which lasted until the Roman conquest. These amphorae have traditionally been classified as types Pellicer B, C and D after the archaeological excavation of Cerro Macareno (Seville), although their relation to the coeval Punic productions is still being explored. In addition to the morpho-typological approach, preliminary compositional and technological studies are presented in order to analyse the production structure and the commercial diffusion of agricultural surplus in this area.

INTRODUCTION Nearly 40 years ago, excavations carried out at the site of Cerro Macareno (La Rinconada, Seville) revealed that amphorae were manufactured in the Guadalquivir Valley during the Second Iron Age. Neither the discovery of a set of kilns, in association with burnt ‘globular’ amphora fragments,1 nor the analysis undertaken by Manuel Pellicer2 on the numerous stratigraphically contextualised remains from the site were exempt from controversy, but it should be emphasised that these allowed for the elaboration of an initial classification which is still in use today. These are the types known as Macareno and Pellicer B/C and D – nomenclature which has been generally accepted but which is currently being revised.3 Later excavations, and the dominant presence (when compared with other coeval typologies from neighbouring regions) of these types at other sites within the region, led to the idea that these were genuinely local types. However, the debate about their possible connection with Phoenician-Punic types is still ongoing.4 In fact, the cultural filiation of these types is still unclear, and expressions such as ‘amphorae with Punic connections’, ‘Iberopunic amphorae’, 1

 Fernández Gómez et al. 1979.  Pellicer 1978, 1982. 3  Typology based on Pellicer 1982. 4  Ferrer and García 2008, p. 211. 2

386

F. J. GARCÍA FERNÁNDEZ

– V.

MORENO MEGÍAS

– E.

FERRER ALBELDA

‘Turdetanian-Punic amphorae’ and even ‘Iberoturdetanian amphorae’ are also present in the literature.5 These expressions attempt to underline the relationship between the technological development of these shapes and the geographical and cultural context in which they emerged. The use of the term ‘Iberian’, as a way to refer to the cultural roots of the communities that lived in the Lower Guadalquivir Valley during pre-Roman times, is progressively being abandoned. However, it exemplifies the confusion surrounding the interpretation of the evidence provided by the Classical sources and the archaeological evidence in such an ethnically complex and fluid region as Turdetania.6 This caveat also applies to the term ‘Turdetanian’, used recently to characterise the Pellicer B/C and D types.7 Although they may have been produced and distributed in the region, we should not forget that the area was inhabited by other groups, especially Punic communities whose boundaries cannot be clearly outlined on the basis of the information currently available.8 Even when used in a strictly geographical sense, the term ‘Turdetanian’ is riddled with problems. In this regard, it is worth pointing out that other amphora types, for example the Ramon T–8.1.1.2,9 produced in inland Turdetania (probably in the vicinity of Jerez de la Frontera) are generally considered Punic containers.10 Consequently, shapes akin to the Pellicer B/C and D types were, in all certainty, manufactured in the periphery of historical Turdetania, such as the Upper Guadalquivir Valley, the coast of Málaga, the middle course of the Guadiana River or the estuary of the Tagus.11 That the local production of amphora types evolved from the Phoenician globular types is, therefore, an issue that transcends the regional and traditional geographical, chronological and cultural boundaries. The real scale of the phenomenon has been recognised only recently. These difficulties are in addition to the problems associated with the definition of the origin, chronology of manufacture and chronology of use of these types. These issues are a direct result of the lack of clear production contexts and well-stratified complete specimens, without which a reliable typological sequence continues to be a great challenge.12 Similarly, because of the absence of production contexts, any speculation concerning their distribution channels must be limited to the enumeration of the sites at which the types have been found. The scarcity of compositional and content analysis completes this picture. The limitations that this context creates for the study of the economic projection of these types is clear; little can be ascertained regarding the types of produce that were stored in these containers, let alone matters of supply and demand. Their analysis to date has, therefore, been limited to typological examinations, which have exploited the relative value of amphorae as chronological markers. In recent years, an attempt has been made to fill some of the gaps using a multidisciplinary approach which combines formal aspects with systematic archaeometric analyses of clays and organic residues, with the expectation that this will shed some light on issues such as provenance and content. In addition, stratigraphic sequences are being revised, especially in consumption contexts in the Guadalquivir Valley.13 5

 Belén 2006, p. 218.  García Fernández 2007, 2012. 7  Belén 2006. 8  Ferrer 1998. 9  Ramon 1995. 10  Carretero 2004. 11  García and Sáez forthcoming. 12  Moreno 2016, pp. 687–689. 13  Moreno 2016; García Fernández et al. 2016; Ferrer et al. 2010. 6

THE LOCAL PRODUCTION OF AMPHORAE IN TURDETANIA

387

In the context of the present paper, these amphorae are important because of the close links between Turdetanian amphorae and western Punic productions in terms of both shape and distribution. Morphologically, Turdetanian amphorae were clearly dependent on Archaic Phoenician prototypes. Concerning distribution, Turdetanian and Phoenician amphorae are largely found in the same areas in the region of the Strait of Gibraltar; they are present in the same consumption contexts in Gadir and nearby settlements, as well as at North African sites such as Lixus and Kuass.

TURDETANIAN AMPHORAE: ORIGIN,

CHARACTERISATION AND DEVELOPMENT

The earlier types to appear are the Pellicer B/C types (Fig. 1). They were seemingly derived directly from Archaic Phoenician containers (Ramon T–10.1.2.1). This is demonstrated not only by their morphology, but also by the presence of transitional examples dating at some sites to the late sixth century BCE, although these examples are not always easy to characterise. A similar process seems to have taken place during this same period with the Mañá-Pascual A4 types (MP-A4 from now on), which were manufactured on the coast of Málaga and Cádiz and used to store salted products.14 These and other types, for example the Cancho Roano types, appear to stem from the same Phoenician prototype.15 The B type (Fig. 1: a) is either cylindrical or truncated cone in shape, and it has underdeveloped shoulders, out-turned rims and a conical base; this is the type that most resembles the Orientalising prototype. The smaller C type (Fig. 1: b) tends to be fusiform in shape and also has out-turned rims,16 but its relationship with its suggested predecessor is unclear. It is difficult to trace the evolution of the type, which is not standardised and includes varieties which differ notably. Although all these varieties share a similar general outline, there are substantial differences in terms of size and shape. This is probably due to the origin of these productions, from a common prototype produced in disperse production centres. Their production was a response to the ad hoc need to commercialise agricultural surplus in the inland regions of the Guadalquivir Valley during the transition between the First and the Second Iron Age. Provisionally, Pellicer17 defined four variants as B type (B1 to B4) and three as C type (C1 to C3) on the basis of the specimens found in Cerro Macareno (Fig. 2: a). However, the limited number of complete specimens found in this context and the similarity of the rims has led to the collation of both groups into one. The B/C types are based largely on the evolution of the rims, with three variants present (B/C1 to B/C3). These types have become, not without controversy, the main chronological marker of the type, starting with the types that mark the transition between Phoenician amphorae and the earliest B/C specimens: the earlier B/C1 was characterised by solid, square-sectioned rims whereas the later B/C2 (dated to the fifth century BCE) had rounded rims and an angular profile. From that moment onwards, amphorae tend to present a more horizontal section with a rounded, oval,

14

 Ferrer and García 2008, p. 211.  Guerrero 1991. 16  Pellicer 1982, p. 390. 17  Pellicer 1982. 15

388

F. J. GARCÍA FERNÁNDEZ

– V.

MORENO MEGÍAS

– E.

FERRER ALBELDA

Fig. 1. a) Prototype of Pellicer B type amphora (authors’ drawing after Pellicer’s 1982 original drawing); b) prototype of Pellicer C type, and specimen from Cerro Macareno, Seville (authors’ drawing after Pellicer’s 1982 original drawing and photograph provided by Museo Arqueológico Provincial de Sevilla); c) variant similar to the Florido V2 type, from Villamartín, Cádiz (photograph provided by Museo Histórico Municipal de Villamartín).

rectangular or elevated profile that progressively becomes less clearly separated from the neck until, from the fourth century onwards, the rim is flush with the neck (B/C3). Despite this, it is still possible to distinguish, among the better preserved specimens of the shape, a type with (varying) marked shoulders and a curved bottom (B2 and B3), which predominate in earlier contexts, and a type with rounded shoulders and a pointed bottom (B4). Both types appear in the same contexts up to the fifth century BCE, but the B4 type becomes much more numerous towards the end of the century.18 M. Belén19 has already pointed out this fact, as well as noting a similar trend among other Late Archaic productions which are likewise related to globular Orientalising amphorae, such as the earliest versions of MP-A4 types from Cádiz or the Cancho Roano types from the middle course of the Guadiana. This trait is important for the formal evolution of the type and for the relationship between different variants (it could even point to the existence of two different types, which have been barely recognised to date). Similarly, the relationship between the standard B/C types and a variety characterised by a fusiform shape (but tending towards the cylindrical), high and curved shoulders, well-marked rim and a pointed bottom is still to be analysed (Fig. 2: c). The latter type was identified by Florido within the V2 type.20 18

 Pellicer 1982, p. 390, fig. 11.  Belén 2006. 20  Florido 1984, p. 424, fig. 1. 19

THE LOCAL PRODUCTION OF AMPHORAE IN TURDETANIA

389

Fig. 2. a) Typological evolution of the Pellicer B/C amphora types (after Pellicer 1982); b) different marks on Pellicer B/C amphora types from Cerro Macareno, Montemolín and Carmona, Seville (author’s sequence, after Fernández Gómez et al. 1979, Bandera and Ferrer 2002 and Belén et al. 1997).

During the third century BCE, the Pellicer B/C types were progressively replaced by the Pellicer D type (Fig. 3: a). This transition is not always easy to identify in the stratigraphic sequences, although from the late fourth century onwards the Pellicer B/C types become gradually rarer until they finally disappear during the late third century BCE. However, the evolution of Pellicer B/C types into the new type, in terms of shape, capacity and contents, is still unclear. There is no consensus on the origin of the new type. Although its production in the interior of the Guadalquivir Valley is generally accepted, the emergence of some examples in production contexts on both shores of the Strait of Gibraltar, the use of clays, which are similar to those used in the Bay of Cádiz and the mass distribution of this new type along the Atlantic coast of Andalusia, southern Portugal and north of Morocco has encouraged some researchers to suggest a Punic-Cádiz origin for the type.21 In fact, J. Ramon included it, albeit with reservations, in his catalogue of Phoenician-Punic amphorae in the Mediterranean under the label T–4.2.2.522 – an interpretation which he recanted at a later date.23 What seems clear is that these types were influenced by central Mediterranean prototypes, which played a prominent role in Western markets from the fourth century BCE onwards.24 21

 Niveau de Villedary 2002, p. 241.  Ramon 1995, p. 194. 23  Ramon 2004, p. 78. 24  Ramon 1995, p. 194. 22

390

F. J. GARCÍA FERNÁNDEZ

– V.

MORENO MEGÍAS

– E.

FERRER ALBELDA

Fig. 3.  a) prototype of Pellicer D type amphora and specimen from Puerto 19, Cádiz (authors’ drawing after Niveau de Villedary’s 2002 original drawing and photograph provided by A. M. Sáez Romero and J. M. Gutiérrez López); b) typological evolution of the Pellicer D type amphora (after Pellicer 1982); c) rim variants (according to Niveau de Villedary 2002).

This is when the type adopted its cylindrical profile, either via direct influence from the Mañá D type or through influence from Western shapes, such as the T–8.2.1.1 type that tends towards a cylindrical body.25 It is very likely that the different traditions converged in this type: local traditions, embodied by the evolved variants of the Pellicer B/C (more stylised and with slightly enlarged and infolding rims); and central Mediterranean traditions, which tended towards cylindrical shapes and adopted more horizontal rims.26 This convergence is also suggested by the standardisation of size, which perhaps occurred in response to an increasingly ‘globalised’ and integrated market. As previously noted, the new type is a cylindrical, almost tubular, container with high shoulders, no neck and horizontal infolding rims. It is marked only by a slight thickening, either on the interior or the exterior, and sometimes a small step.27 The base is pointed, as was the case in the preceding types, with a small button on the end. Pellicer distinguished between four variants based on the overall shape of the body (Fig. 3: b); the earliest productions are of oval shape (D1 and D2), but soon straight-bodied (in some cases these are slightly broader in the lower third of the body) became the norm (D3 and D4).28 Later, Niveau de Villedary attempted a classification based on the section of the rim and identified as many as eight variants (Fig. 3: c). However (as Niveau de Villedary admits), these 25

 Niveau de Villedary 2002, p. 242.  Ferrer 1995, p. 803. 27  Ferrer and García 2008, p. 211. 28  Pellicer 1982, pp. 390–392. 26

THE LOCAL PRODUCTION OF AMPHORAE IN TURDETANIA

391

classifications do not seem to follow a clear chronological pattern because examples with very different rim profiles have been found in the same contexts, which are often sealed strata with no intrusions.29 It follows that the seriations of the type that have been suggested to date may be too prolix.30 They can probably be limited to three types which follow a neat chronological sequence: enlarged rims (both outwards and inwards) separated by the exterior wall by a step of varying degrees; enlarged rims on the interior, which are flush with the exterior wall; and rims flush with both the interior and exterior walls. These features are associated with a tendency towards horizontal rims. These variants are clearly predominant in contexts of the first century BCE, when a new variety (Castro Marim 1) developed.31 This new variety has clearly defined shoulders and flat and horizontal rims flush with the walls.32 It is often found in the Guadalquivir and consumption centres on the Atlantic coast, especially in the Algarve, whose name it takes.33 The type, however, coexisted with the enlarged-rim type, not only in consumption contexts, for example in Seville,34 but also in production contexts, for instance the production wasters found in c/Dr. Fleming 13–15 in Carmona,35 where the presence of both types, alongside examples of the Haltern 70 type, leaves us with little doubt that some first century CE workshops were still producing some ‘old-fashioned’ types. As pointed out by Niveau de Villedary,36 this implies that this morphological attribute must only be used as a chronological marker for isolated examples with the utmost caution. If possible, these types should only be used as such if additional contextual information is available. In fact, these examples found in Carmona are the only specimens of the type known for this date; the type is otherwise absent from consumption contexts dating to the first century CE. Between the mid-first century BCE and the first century CE, Turdetanian amphorae coexisted with the first attempts at Roman-style containers in the region. These experiments resulted in the oval amphorae which were so widely distributed in the region in the late first century CE and which formed the basis for the classic Baetican types.37

THE

PROBLEM OF PROVENANCE: TECHNOLOGICAL AND COMPOSITIONAL CHARACTERISATION

Despite the fact that certain ceramic production contexts are known in Cerro Macareno, Italica, Seville and Carmona (Fig. 5), it is not easy to find secure evidence for the production of the types.38 Exceptions include the above-mentioned context of c/Dr Fleming 13–15 in Carmona, dating to approximately the late first century BCE,39 and in the industrial area of Cerro Macareno, which was in operation between the late fifth and the early fourth century BCE.40 29

 Niveau de Villedary 2002, p. 237.  García Vargas 2016. 31  Bargão and Arruda 2014. 32  Arruda 2001, pp. 76–77. 33  Arruda et al. 2006, p. 163. 34  García Vargas et al. 2011, p. 194. 35  Ortiz and Conlin forthcoming. 36  Niveau de Villedary 2002. 37  García Vargas et al. 2011. 38  See García Fernández and García Vargas 2012. 39  Ortiz and Conlin forthcoming. 40  Fernández Gómez et al. 1979; Ruiz Mata and Córdoba 1999; Moreno 2019. 30

392

F. J. GARCÍA FERNÁNDEZ

– V.

MORENO MEGÍAS

– E.

FERRER ALBELDA

Elsewhere, the evidence is limited to fragments of amphorae and other shapes; sometimes there are notable traces of fire, but no production wasters can be securely ascribed to the relevant types. This has made the identification of possible production areas and centres difficult, and has hampered attempts to reach conclusions concerning provenance and geographical distribution. These difficulties notwithstanding, the pre-eminence of the Pellicer B/C and D types at sites in the Lower Guadalquivir Valley, and the characteristics of their clay, point to local manufacture (at least this is the case for most of the known examples). It is not possible, on the basis of the available evidence and the current state of research, to associate these productions with specific areas or workshops, with the exception of the previously noted workshops in Carmona and Cerro Macareno. Furthermore, given the diversity of clays employed in their production, we should not disregard the simultaneous operation of several workshops in different regions: Guadalquivir Valley, Alcores, Campiña, the eastern shore of the ancient Lacus Ligustinus and even the Aljarafe/Guadiamar Valley. In terms of composition and technology, both types are characterised by a large variety of clays, which suggests atomised production, especially for the Pellicer B/C types. The differences in the most common clays used for the production of the Pellicer B/C and the D types are remarkable, at least at macroscopic level, which has frequently led researchers to argue that the provenance of the latter should be the Bay of Cádiz. However, this difference may plausibly be explained by the incorporation of new workshops during the period in which the type was taking its characteristic shape in an economic context which favoured the “emergence of new production points, unknown to date, located in the coast or in the ancient mouth of the Guadalete and Iro Rivers”.41 The most notable change in fabrics occurred during the third century BCE, when the number of types of clay in use decreased. In contrast, concerning the Castro Marim 1 types, it has been suggested that they were produced in the interior of the Guadalquivir Valley. This is due to the similarity between the clays used for these types and also the clay for types used in this region, as well as the higher concentration of specimens in riverside settlements.42 Recently, attempts have been made to define the main production areas, including the identification, classification and analysis of the main macroscopic clay types present in the Lower Guadalquivir Valley. A comparison with available analyses of known archaeological and geological samples is also being undertaken.43 Petrographic studies have revealed a relatively homogeneous production, in which several clay groups may be identified; each of these groups represent a single clay processing technology and discrete local sources of raw materials. This classification will be complemented by the results of ongoing archaeometric (chemical and mineralogical) analyses. This will also assist in the examination of the technological processes involved in their manufacture. To date, several major groups have been identified. The most common fabrics are characterised by rounded biogenic limestone fragments associated with aeolian quartz sand, while these vary considerably in terms of the biogenic fossiliferous component (Fig. 4: 1). There are also rare, very altered feldspar and white mica, which probably come from metamorphic rocks. The fabrics were likely formed by a process of mixing of red and calcareous clay, even if the mixing is not perceptible. Other sherds present, in contrast to the previous group, grey veins on the interior, and the size of clasts and pores are visibly larger (Fig. 4: 2). This 41

 Sáez and Niveau de Villedary 2016.  Arruda et al. 2006; Bargão and Arruda 2014. 43  Moreno 2016. 42

THE LOCAL PRODUCTION OF AMPHORAE IN TURDETANIA

393

Fig. 4. Some common types of fabric found in association with the Pellicer B/C amphora types (1–2) and the Pellicer D-type (3–5), in their different variants (author’s photographs).

394

F. J. GARCÍA FERNÁNDEZ

– V.

MORENO MEGÍAS

– E.

FERRER ALBELDA

suggests that the kneading and firing of the clay differed according to type. Finally, other fabrics are characterised by the presence of large numbers of microfossils, which are generally only visible under the microscope, along with quartz and calcareous elements (Fig. 4: 3). The percentage of inclusions is very high. The fabrics of other, less characteristic specimens are totally lacking in microfossils which were replaced by fragments of metamorphic rock, as well as abundant muscovite mica (Fig. 4: 4), or a very fine clay with abundant calcareous and small quartz inclusions, in addition to larger organic calcareous elements (Fig. 4: 5). All of these inclusions are homogeneous in size and rounded in shape. Studying the geographical distribution of these petrographic groups will improve the understanding of the routes of dissemination of certain types. The two former kinds of fabric are common among the Pellicer B/C types, while the latter are often found in association with the Pellicer D type. The abundance of microfossils implies a specific geographical origin. This abundance continued over time and is present in various morphological types, which are always found in connection with Carmona, including the evolved Pellicer D found in c/Dr. Fleming 13–15. The macroscopic study of the fabrics suggests conscious control of the high temperature firing conditions from the earliest phases of production, with alternation between oxidising and reducing atmospheres. This voluntary process was homogeneous and controlled during the whole evolution of the production. The few analyses of amphorae contents undertaken to date, confirm the initial hypothesis that these containers were used to store very different kinds of produce, mostly agricultural and animal by-products, although a secondary use for the storage of other foodstuffs cannot be disregarded. The recent study carried out on a wide sample of fragments found in Alcalá del Río (ancient Ilipa Magna), a river emporium located on the banks of the Guadalquivir, and Vico (Marchena), a mid-sized oppidum located in the midst of the valley farmlands in Seville,44 has yielded interesting results. In the case of Alcalá del Río, all samples presented residues of fatty acids compatible with vegetal fats, probably olive oil. In the case of Vico, the specimens of the Pellicer B/C and D types analysed presented residues of animal fats, which have been interpreted as the remains of salted or spiced meat and of dairy products (cheese, ricotta-style cheese). This should come as no surprise, given that the economy of this region was partly based on animal husbandry from the Orientalising period onwards, if not earlier,45 and the resulting by-products may have been stored in locally produced amphorae. In any case, this is not an unprecedented practice in the Phoenician-Punic context, as the use of amphorae for the storage and commercialisation of processed meat is attested in the central Mediterranean during the First and Second Iron Ages.46 The few marks known to date only appear on the Pellicer B/C types and are, therefore, of little use (Fig. 2: b). The marks are generally simple, sometimes made with a finger or a blunt tool, and feature on the rim or the top of the handles. Other marks consist of incisions made before firing. The incisions are anepigraphic or, less often, epigraphic.47 In any case, they do not seem to relate to specific provenances beyond being more common at some sites (production centres?) such as Carmona and Cerro Macareno. They are probably little more than potters’ marks and were likely related to production control. The most recognisable and widespread epigraphic mark, however, could provide some insight into the function of 44

 García Fernández et al. 2016.  Ferrer et al. 2011. 46  Ramon 1995, p. 264. 47  Mata and Soria 1997. 45

THE LOCAL PRODUCTION OF AMPHORAE IN TURDETANIA

395

the container. The mark consists of three converging strokes: a straight one flanked by two curvy ones, resembling a spear-point.48 This mark has been recently identified as the Phoenician shin, similar to those written in the sixth century.49 This mark may refer to the contents of the amphora, as is the case for some amphorae from Tell Miqne-Ekron (Palestine), found in a seventh century industrial complex.50 This industrial complex is related to the production of olive oil, as clearly suggested by the presence of the word “šmn” (‘oil’) and a triple š incision (perhaps an abbreviation of šmn).51 This interpretation is supported by the residue analyses carried out on several Pellicer B/C specimens.52

A FEW COMMENTS

ON DISTRIBUTION

It may be suggested that Turdetanian amphorae were largely locally distributed, although they are also relatively common outside the historical boundaries of Turdetania. The distribution of these amphorae corresponds with those of other products which were also distributed from the harbour of Gadir and its immediate area of influence. Therefore, Pellicer B/C amphorae are mostly concentrated in Lower Andalusia (Fig. 5), which includes not only the Guadalquivir Valley and the shores of the Lacus Ligustinus, but also the interior farmlands, the Guadalete Valley, the valleys of the Tinto and Odiel rivers and the interior of the current provinces of Huelva and Seville right up to the lower slopes of Sierra Morena. Beyond this central area, these types are common in the Bay of Cádiz, both within the city and in its economic hinterland, around Jerez and Medina Sidonia. They are also often found on the coast of the Algarve, the Lower Guadiana Valley and the Alentejo. Although in this case, the typical Guadalquivir clays seem to coexist with local variants, for example in Faro,53 and other productions which are as of yet unidentified but were presumably also manufactured in Lower Andalusia. Finally, some examples have been identified in the estuary of the Tagus, specifically in Lisbon.54 Consequently, their distribution, even if only sporadically, further north on the Atlantic coast cannot be disregarded.55 For their part, the production of the Pellicer D type amphorae coincided with the maximum expansion of Cádiz trade and, later, with Roman conquest, which facilitated the commercialisation of these productions, both concerning quantity and the distribution radius. Their presence was great in Lower Andalusia (Fig. 5), where they became the most common container, but also on the coast of Cádiz, which has led some researchers to suggest that they were manufactured there. They were also found on the southern coast of the Strait of Gibraltar, based on the examples found in Kiln III in Kuass.56 In the farmlands of the Guadalquivir and Guadalete rivers, they penetrated further than previous types and probably inspired the manufacture of local versions, e.g., a type that has been recently found in the 48

 Fernández Gómez et al. 1979, p. 72, figs. 42–43; Belén et al. 1997, p. 84, fig. 9: 1; Bandera and Ferrer 2002, p. 135, fig. 11: 9. 49  Ruiz Cabrero and Mederos 2002, pp. 97–98. 50  Ruiz Cabrero 2014, p. 745. 51  Ruiz Cabrero and Mederos 2002, pp. 112–113. 52  García Fernández et al. 2016, p. 71. 53  Arruda et al. 2005. 54  Sousa 2014. 55  García Fernández 2019. 56  Kbiri 2007.

396

F. J. GARCÍA FERNÁNDEZ

– V.

MORENO MEGÍAS

– E.

FERRER ALBELDA

Fig. 5. Map of the Lower Guadalquivir with the location of production centres attested in the Late Iron Age and the Roman Republican period (above); map of west Andalusia, with a distribution of Pellicer B/C and D amphorae, based on specimens found in the course of archaeological excavation (below) (authors’ drawing).

THE LOCAL PRODUCTION OF AMPHORAE IN TURDETANIA

397

Upper Guadalquivir Valley,57 the Guadalhorce Valley and on the coast of Málaga.58 They were also frequent in the Algarve and the Lower Guadiana River, where these amphorae constitute the most commonly found types along with Punic types. Together, these were distributed between the third (T–8.1.1.2, T–8.2.1.1 and T–12.1.1.1) and the first centuries BCE (T–9.1.1.1, T–7.4.3.3, Cádiz Dressel 1). Concerning the Atlantic coast, they are attested in the main estuaries: Mira, Sado and Tagus.59 Thence, they penetrated the interior and travelled north to the Galician rias, where they began to arrive during the Lusitanian Wars.60 In fact, sea and river transport during this period complemented the land routes, which delineated the evolution of the Roman army and their supply lines. Military camps were the main recipients of these foodstuffs. Unfortunately, distribution channels and mechanisms are, to date, little known, and such examinations have not progressed beyond the inferences that may be deduced from the presence of these amphora types in production, distribution and consumption centres of varying sizes. The urban centres in the interior of the Guadalquivir Valley seem to have played all these roles at once, although the primary commercialisation of amphorae largely revolved around the settlements located on the river banks, such as Ilipa Magna, Cerro Macareno and Spal. However, the exportation of these containers abroad is generally associated with Cádiz, owing to the prominent role played by this centre in western Mediterranean trade and the frequent discovery of Turdetanian amphorae in the bay, as well as in harbour contexts61 that cannot be related either to their production or direct consumption.62 Therefore, during the Late Iron Age, Cádiz became the main or only entrepot between Turdetania and the Atlantic and Mediterranean markets.63 Similarly, the discovery of Turdetanian types alongside Punic ceramic productions suggests that all these products shared the same distribution channels, and even that they may have been commercialised together, at least in the more distant consumption centres. The variety of clays found in the well-known contexts, such as Castro Marim, Faro and Tavira,64 especially with regard to the Pellicer B/C, but also the D types, reveal the existence of multiple (endogenous) supply centres and very dynamic (exogenous) commercial flows, which are still to be more precisely characterised.

REFERENCES ALONSO VILLALOBOS, C., FLORIDO NAVARRO, M. C. and MUÑOZ VICENTE, Á. 1991 “Aproximación a la tipología anfórica de la Punta del Nao (Cádiz, España),” in Atti del II Congresso Internazionale di Studi Fenici e Punici, Vol. II, edited by E. Acquaro, pp. 601–616. Rome: Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche. ARRUDA, A. M. 2001 “Importações púnicas no Algarve: cronología e significado,” in Os púnicos no Extremo Ocidente, edited by A. Augusto Tavares, pp. 69–98. Lisbon: Universidade Aberta de Lisboa. 57

 Barba et al. 2016.  Recio 1982–1983, 2015–2016; Mateo 2015. 59  García Fernández 2019. 60  Ferrer et al. in this volume. 61  Alonso et al. 1991; Sáez and Higueras-Milena 2016. 62  Muñoz 1987; Niveau de Villedary 2002. 63  Ferrer et al. 2010, p. 84. 64  García Fernández 2019. 58

398

F. J. GARCÍA FERNÁNDEZ

– V.

MORENO MEGÍAS

– E.

FERRER ALBELDA

ARRUDA, A. M., BARGÃO, P. and SOUSA, E. 2005 “A ocupação pré-romana de Faro: alguns dados novos,” Revista Portuguesa de Arqueologia 8: 177–208. ARRUDA, A. M., VIEGAS, C., BARGÃO, P. and PEREIRA, R. 2006 “A importação de preparados de peixe em Castro Marim: da Idade do Ferro à Época Romana,” in Simposio Internacional Produção e Comércio de Preparados Piscícolas durante a Proto-história e a Época Romana no Ocidente da Península Ibérica. Homenagem a Françoise Mayet, Setúbal 2004 (Setúbal Arqueológica 13), edited by C. Tavares da Silva and J. Soares, pp. 153–176. Setúbal: Museu de Arqueologia e Etnografía do Distrito de Setúbal. DE LA BANDERA ROMERO, M. L. and FERRER ALBELDA, E. “Secuencia estratigráfica tartesia y turdetana de Vico (Marchena, Sevilla),” Spal 11: 2002 121–149. BARBA COLMENERO, V., FERNÁNDEZ ORDÓÑEZ, A. and TORRES SORIA, M. J. 2016 “Ánforas republicanas del almacén comercial del cerro de La Atalaya (La Higuera, Jaén),” Spal 25: 113–147. BARGÃO, P. and ARRUDA, A. M. 2014 “The Castro Marim 1 amphora type: A west Mediterranean production inspired by Carthaginian models,” Carthage Studies 8: 143–159. BELÉN DEAMOS, M. 2006 “Ánforas de los siglos VI–IV a.C. en Turdetania,” Spal 15: 217–246. BELÉN, M., ANGLADA, R., ESCACENA, J. L., JIMÉNEZ, A., LINEROS, R. and RODRÍGUEZ, I. 1997 Arqueología en Carmona (Sevilla). Excavaciones en la Casa-Palacio del Marqués de Saltillo. Seville: Junta de Andalucía. CARRETERO POBLETE, P. A. 2004 Las ánforas tipo “Tiñosa” y la explotación agrícola de la campiña gaditana entre los siglos V y III a. C. Unpublished PhD diss., Universidad Complutense de Madrid. FERNÁNDEZ GÓMEZ, F., CHASCO VILA, R. and OLIVA ALONSO, D. 1979 “Excavaciones en El Cerro Macareno. La Rinconada. Sevilla (Cortes E–F–G. Campaña 1974),” Noticiario Arqueológico Hispánico 7: 7–93. FERRER ALBELDA, E. 1995 Los púnicos en Iberia: Análisis historiográfico y arqueológico de la presencia púnica en el sur de la Península Ibérica. Unpublished PhD diss., Universidad de Sevilla. 1998 “Suplemento al mapa paleoetnológico de la Península Ibérica: los púnicos de Iberia,” Rivista di Studi Fenici XXVI/1: 31–54. FERRER ALBELDA, E. and GARCÍA FERNÁNDEZ, F. J. 2008 “La cerámica turdetana,” in Cerámicas hispanorromanas. Un estado de la Cuestión, edited by D. Bernal Casasola and A. Ribera i Lacomba, pp. 202–219. Cádiz: Universidad de Cádiz. FERRER ALBELDA, E., GARCÍA FERNÁNDEZ, F. J. and ESCACENA CARRASCO, J. L. 2010 “El tráfico comercial de productos púnicos en el antiguo estuario del Guadalquivir,” Mainake XXXII/I: 61–89. FERRER ALBELDA, E., GARCÍA FERNÁNDEZ, F. J. and SÁNCHEZ GÓMEZ, F. 2011 “De la aldea al oppidum. El paisaje rural en el valle del Corbones durante el Ier milenio a.C.,” in Carmona. 7000 años de historia rural. Actas del VII Congreso de Historia de Carmona, Carmona, 2009, edited by M. González Jiménez, pp. 75–109. Carmona: Editorial Universidad de Sevilla. FLORIDO NAVARRO, M. C. 1984 “Ánforas prerromanas sudibéricas,” Habis 15: 419–436. GARCÍA FERNÁNDEZ, F. J. 2007 “Etnología y etnias de la Turdetania en época prerromana,” Cuadernos de Prehistoria y Arqueología de la Universidad Autónoma de Madrid 33: 117–143. 2012 “Tartesios, túrdulos, turdetanos. Realidad y ficción de la homogeneidad étnica de la Bética romana,” in Romanización, fronteras y etnias en la Roma antigua: el

THE LOCAL PRODUCTION OF AMPHORAE IN TURDETANIA

399

caso hispano (Revisiones de Historia Antigua VII), edited by J. Santos Yanguas, G. Cruz Andreotti, M. Fernández Corral and L. Sánchez Voigt, pp. 691–734. Vitoria: Universidad del País Vasco. 2019 “Rumbo a Poniente: el comercio de ánforas turdetanas en la costa atlántica de la Península Ibérica,” Archivo Español de Arqueología 92: 119–153. GARCÍA FERNÁNDEZ, F. J. and GARCÍA VARGAS, E. 2012 “Los hornos alfareros de tradición fenicia en el valle del Guadalquivir y su perduración en época romana: aspectos tecnológicos y sociales,” Spal 21: 9–38. GARCÍA FERNÁNDEZ, F. J. and SÁEZ ROMERO, A. M. (eds.) forthcoming Las ánforas turdetanas: actualización tipológica y nuevas perspectivas (Spal Monografías). Sevilla: Editorial Universidad de Sevilla. GARCÍA, F. J., FERRER, E., ÁLVAREZ, P. and DURÁN, M. M. 2016 “Análisis de residuos orgánicos y posibles contenidos en ánforas púnicas y turdetanas procedentes del valle del Guadalquivir,” Saguntum 48: 43–71. GARCÍA VARGAS, E. 2016 “Pellicer D (Valle del Guadalquivir),” in Amphorae ex Hispania. Paisajes de producción y de consumo http://amphorae.icac.cat/amphora/pellicer-d-guadalquivirvalley (15 January 2020). GARCÍA VARGAS, E., ALMEIDA, R. R. and GONZÁLEZ CESTEROS, H. 2011 “Los tipos anfóricos del Guadalquivir en el marco de los envases hispanos del siglo I a.C. Un universo heterogéneo entre la imitación y la estandarización,” Spal 20: 185–283. GUERRERO AYUSO, V. M. “El palacio-santuario de Cancho Roano (Badajoz) y la comercialización de ánforas 1991 fenicias indígenas,” Rivista di Studi Fenici XIX/1: 49–82. KIBIRI ALAOUI, M. 2007 Revisando Kuass (Asilah, Marruecos). Talleres cerámicos en un enclave fenicio, púnico y mauritano (Saguntum Extra 7). Valencia: Universidad de Valencia. MATA PARREÑO, C. and SORIA COMBADIERA, L. 1997 “Marcas y epígrafes sobre contenedores de época ibérica,” Archivo de Prehistoria Levantina XXII: 297–374. MATEO CORREDOR, D. 2015 “Producción anfórica en la costa malacitana desde la época púnica hasta el periodo julioclaudio,” Lucentum XXXIV: 183–206. MORENO MEGÍAS, V. 2016 “Sobre la producción de ánforas turdetanas en la campiña sevillana durante la II Edad del Hierro y la caracterización de sus pastas. Estado de la cuestión y propuesta metodológica,” in Amphorae ex Hispania: paisajes de producción y consumo (Monografías Ex Officina Hispana III), edited by R. Járrega and P. Berni, pp. 687–698. Tarragona: Institut Català d’Arqueologia Clàssica. 2019 “Nuevos datos sobre la fabricación de ánforas turdetanas. Una revisión de las fases y manufacturas de producción de Cerro Macareno (La Rinconada, Sevilla),” Lucentum 38: 153–170. MUÑOZ VICENTE, A. 1987 “Las ánforas prerromanas de Cádiz (Informe Preliminar),” Anuario Arqueológico de Andalucía 1985/II: 471–478. NIVEAU DE VILLEDARY Y MARIÑAS, A. M. 2002 “Las ánforas turdetanas del tipo Pellicer–D. Ensayo de clasificación,” Spal 11: 233–252. ORTÍZ NAVARRETE, A. and CONLIN HAYES, E. forthcoming “Actividad arqueológica preventiva en c/Doctor Fleming 13–15 de Carmona (Sevilla),” Anuario Arqueológico de Andalucía 2007. PELLICER CATALÁN, M. 1978 “Tipología y cronología de las ánforas prerromanas del Guadalquivir, según el Cerro Macareno (Sevilla),” Habis 9: 365–400.

F. J. GARCÍA FERNÁNDEZ

400 1982

– V.

MORENO MEGÍAS

– E.

FERRER ALBELDA

“Las cerámicas del mundo fenicio en el Bajo Guadalquivir: evolución y cronología según el Cerro Macareno (Sevilla),” in Phönizier im Westen. Die Beiträge des Internationalen Symposiums über die phönizische Expansion im westlichen Mittelmeerraum, Köln, 24–27 April 1979 (Madrider Beiträge 8), edited by H. G. Niemeyer, pp. 371–406. Mainz am Rhein: Philip von Zabern.

RAMON TORRES, J. 1995 Las ánforas fenicio-púnicas del Mediterráneo central y occidental (Col·lecció Instrumenta 2). Barcelona: Universitat de Barcelona. 2004 “La producción anfórica gaditana en época fenicio-púnica,” in Las industrias alfareras y conserveras fenicio-púnicas de la Bahía de Cádiz: Actas de los XVI Encuentros de Historia y Arqueología, San Fernando, 2000, edited by A. M. Niveau de Villedary y Mariñas, pp. 63–100. Córdoba: CajaSur. RECIO RUIZ, A. 1982–1983 “Arroyo Hondo. Un alfar ibérico en Álora, provincia de Málaga,” Mainake IV–V: 133–172. 2015–2016 “El alfar ibérico de Arroyo Hondo (Álora, Málaga). Treinta años después,” Isla de Arriarán XLII–XLIII: 395–434. RUIZ CABRERO, L. A. 2014 “La pax Assyriaca y el aceite en Filistea. Tel Miqne-Ekron,” in Estudios sobre el Monte Testaccio (Roma). Vol. VI, edited by J. M. Blázquez Martínez and J. Remesal Rodríguez, pp. 727–749. Barcelona: Universidad de Barcelona. RUIZ CABRERO, L. A. and MEDEROS MARTÍN, A. 2002 “Comercio de ánforas, escritura y presencia fenicia en la Península Ibérica,” Studi Epigrafici e Linguistici sul Vicino Oriente Antico 19: 89–120. RUIZ MATA, D. and CÓRDOBA ALONSO, I. 1999 “Los hornos turdetanos del Cerro Macareno. Cortes H.I y H.II,” in XXIV Congreso Nacional de Arqueología, Cartagena, 1997. Vol. III, pp. 95–105. Cartagena: Gobierno de la Región de Murcia/Instituto de Patrimonio Histórico. SÁEZ ROMERO, A. M. and NIVEAU DE VILLEDARY Y MARIÑAS, A. M. 2016 “Pellicer D (Costa Bética Ulterior),” in Amphorae ex Hispania. Paisajes de producción y de consumo http://amphorae.icac.cat/amphora/pellicer-d-baetica-ulteriorcoast (15 January 2020). SÁEZ ROMERO, A. M. and HIGUERAS-MILENA CASTELLANO, A. 2016 “Nuevas investigaciones arqueológicas subacuáticas en el área de La Caleta (Cádiz, España). Estudio de las evidencias de época púnica (siglos VI–III a.C.),” Lucentum XXXV: 9–41. SOUSA, E. 2014 A ocupação pré-romana da foz do estuário do Tejo. Lisbon: Centro de Arqueologia da Universidade de Lisboa.

Francisco José GARCÍA FERNÁNDEZ Prehistory and Archaeology Department University of Seville Spain

Violeta MORENO MEGÍAS Prehistory and Archaeology Department University of Seville Spain

Eduardo FERRER ALBELDA Prehistory and Archaeology Department University of Seville Spain

AMPHORA PRODUCTION IN GADIR (CÁDIZ BAY, SPAIN): AN UPDATE Antonio M. SÁEZ ROMERO ABSTRACT Amphora production must be considered as a major archaeological indicator of the commercial evolution of a site in addition to a supplementary basis to counterweight the scarcity of literary sources and the great amount of unpublished salvage and systematic excavations. These pages provide a brief overview of the state of research on the production of amphorae in Phoenician and Punic Gadir, as well as a glimpse of some ongoing projects and recent developments. This ‘work in progress’ contribution discusses the first results of those current projects and new methodological approaches (quantifying, experimental archaeology, use of digital tools, etc.), which will shortly be applied to other major production areas of the Strait of Gibraltar region.

INTRODUCTION After several decades of continued research, including excavations of many pottery workshops, as well as typological seriation and archaeometric investigations, it is now possible to present an improved view of amphora production in the Bay of Cádiz during the first millennium BCE.1 The latest research provides the archaeological foundations which allow to trace the main groups, from the Phoenician period to the Late Republican decades, and describe this later transitional stage when most of the Punic types ceased to be produced and were replaced by ‘provincial’ series that were almost fully Romanised (in design and capacity standards). Also, new information on the distribution (consumption patterns), contents, quantitative approaches (kiln productivity), volume standards and stamps can be added to this renewed view, and this new available information may also be used to provide a more conclusive interpretation of social and economic aspects. Consequently, the main goals of this paper will be: 1) to offer a panoramic view of the pottery workshops in the Bay of Cádiz; 2) to examine the local amphora series and types from the Phoenician to Late Punic times, and introduce some unidentified variants; 3) to discuss the results of recent and ongoing archaeometric approaches and explore future research; 4) to analyse the stamps and their role in production processes; 5) to discuss the outcome of recent quantitative research and approaches to ancient contents and experimental archaeology; 6) to study the main tendencies of the distribution of the amphorae from Gadir, considering some significant case studies; and finally 7) to examine some preliminary data about the economic and social relevance of amphora trade and maritime activities in the Bay of Cádiz during the first millennium BCE. 1

 See Ramon (2004) and Sáez Romero (2010a) for a deeper approach to the local historiography of these topics.

402 I. AN OVERVIEW

A. M. SÁEZ ROMERO OF THE POTTERY WORKSHOPS

Before moving on to the detailed analysis of amphorae, it is imperative to offer a general overview on the available evidence for production sites and their evolution over time, not only in terms of technology but also in relation to the local town planning and management. Without the land planning perspective,2 the important role that these workshops played in the maritime economy of Gadir becomes much more difficult to understand. Unfortunately, there is still little evidence available for the kiln sites of the Phoenician period (early first millennium to mid-sixth century BCE). The location, number and features of amphora workshops during this period on both the continental coast (around Castillo de Doña Blanca3 and Chiclana)4 and the island of Gadir are uncertain. The only exception is the recent excavation in the Teatro Cómico, in the northern sector of the island, where the presence of several bone punches, a possible potter’s wheel base and several vases full of a red pigment could indicate the presence of a potter’s workshop.5 No wasters or kiln remains have, however, been found, so this interpretation should be accepted only with the utmost caution. Also, recent archaeometric research has supplemented the current state of research with new information on the earlier stages of local pottery production (on amphorae and on tableware), and provided a reliable blueprint for the identification of local ceramics of the first millennium BCE. Several studies,6 undertaken using materials found on both the wider continent and the island, have revealed that local clays were used from the seventh century BCE at the latest. These studies have also stressed continuity in terms of technology and the supply of raw materials between the Archaic and the Punic periods. The archaeometric results, at any rate, have not yielded convincing evidence with regard to the possible location of the workshops.Although some of the authors of these analyses have suggested a location on the continental coast,7 others have proposed the island based on the comparison with samples collected from some Punic kiln sites.8 Be that as it may, what seems to be beyond doubt is that, from mid-sixth century onwards, the settlement pattern around Cádiz Bay changed and the city seems to take direct control of a significant hinterland. Both the continental coast of the bay (particularly next to the Guadalete River mouth) and the insular area began to play a more prominent role than in the previous stage. As a result, a large number of secondary rural settlements emerged during this period (Fig. 1).9 A significant number of pottery workshops have been discovered and excavated in the insular hinterland of the city, mostly dating from the late sixth to the first century BCE, and these have provided key information on the evolution of artisanal techniques and production trends.10 Up to now, the presence of groups of kilns has just been 2

 See Sáez Romero (2008a, 2013) for a more detailed description.  Ruiz Mata and Pérez 1995. 4  Bueno Serrano 2014. 5  According to the partial information published in Gener et al. 2014a. 6  López et al. 2008; Behrendt and Mielke 2011; Johnston 2015. 7  López and Ruiz 2007. 8  Johnston 2015. 9  Sáez Romero 2013; Botto 2014. 10  See Sáez Romero (2008a, 2010a) for an overview of the general features of the process and the sites. 3

AMPHORA PRODUCTION IN GADIR

403

Fig. 1. Settlement pattern in Cádiz Bay from the late sixth to the late third century BCE.

verified in the southern area of the island of Cádiz, but the existence of even more in the surroundings of Castillo de Doña Blanca and Chiclana cannot be disregarded, at least for the Hellenistic period. These workshops, probably a few dozen locations in the most prosperous stages, were austere and simple facilities equipped with only a few kilns of different sizes. The kilns were located around a pit in which the stubble and timber (used as fuel) were handled. It was common for these kilns to be located in the vicinity of small cemeteries. No turning or storage buildings have hitherto been found, but the presence of some items (turning tools or large millstones) suggests that the workshops were permanent facilities inhabited at least most of the year, and that other economic activities (agriculture, fishing, salt mining) also took place in them. Probably, therefore, the workshops were used for multiple purposes, although it seems likely that the production of amphorae was the main activity. For one example, Luis Milena11 emphasises the close relationship that existed between these workshops 11

 Bernal et al. 2011.

404

A. M. SÁEZ ROMERO

Fig. 2. Recreation of kilns 1 and 5 and the surroundings of the Camposoto workshop during the fifth century BCE (3D digital model created by R. Belizón and A. M. Sáez).

and fish salting and purple extraction practices, although this relationship did not become widespread until the late third or early second century BCE at the earliest. Significant examples of these kinds of industrial facilities can be found in Camposoto (Fig. 2),12 Torre Alta,13 Pery Junquera14 and Villa Maruja-Janer,15 all of which have been excavated and published over the last two decades. This type of workshop survived the arrival of the Romans in the late third century BCE, and only started incorporating Roman construction techniques and new kiln types in the late second century BCE.16 For the first time, these workshops, especially Torre Alta, have yielded some tools that provide a better understanding of the technological process involved in amphora production. These potters’ tools include spatulas, burins and vases used for turning, decorating and varnishing the pottery (and even conch trumpets for sound signalling).17 12

 Ramon et al. 2007.  Perdigones and Muñoz 1990; Muñoz and Frutos 2006; Sáez Romero 2008a; Sáez Romero et al. 2016b. 14  González et al. 2002; Lagóstena and Bernal 2004. 15  Bernal et al. 2003; Bernal et al. 2005; Sáez Romero 2008a; Sáez and Belizón 2018. 16  Sáez Romero 2008a; Sáez Romero et al. 2016b; García Vargas and Sáez 2018. 17  Some examples can be found in Sáez Romero (2008a) and Sáez and Gutiérrez (2013). 13

AMPHORA PRODUCTION IN GADIR

405

Based on the data and the analysis of pottery finds from other sites located around the bay (such as Cádiz itself, Castillo de Doña Blanca and Chiclana), a massive production of transport vessels in the insular ateliers can be suggested; from the colonial stage, and particularly during the period spanning from the sixth century BCE to the first century CE, the huge number of amphorae were mostly linked to the commerce of salted fish (but also possibly to other secondary commodities such as wine).18 As shall be pointed out in more detail below, the available evidence for salting factories and pottery kilns has been used to provide a preliminary quantitative estimation of amphora production in Cádiz; these initial approaches19 suggest that the city was among the largest international producers of amphorae, at least in the Late Archaic period (first half of the fifth century BCE) and in the Late Republican period (last decades of the first century BCE).

II. LOCAL

AMPHORA SERIES FROM THE

PHOENICIAN TO LATE PUNIC

TIMES

The work carried out by Ángel Muñoz Vicente,20 Joan Ramon Torres21 and Enrique García Vargas22 in the 1980s and 1990s greatly contributed to the development of an initial typology for the local amphorae. However, the excavation of pottery workshops since the final years of the twentieth century have triggered the improvement of these initial approaches and have gradually introduced certain substantial novelties. These recent advances in the analysis of the typology of Gadir’s amphorae have made it possible to distinguish them, both in formal and chronological terms, from the rest of the amphorae manufactured elsewhere in the region of the Strait of Gibraltar (Fig. 3). On the basis of the new evidence, the morphological evolution of the local amphorae has been characterised in more detail, and it has been possible to associate them with specific economic activities. Five different series have been identified: three are genuinely Phoenician-Punic in shape, and the other two are typically western ‘imitations’ and can be considered versions of Punic and Graeo-Italian prototypes.23 This is also the case at other major Punic coastal sites, notably Ibiza.24 Within this general context, which may be considered reasonably well known, as it is based on reliable stratigraphies, there remain certain unresolved problems. The most pressing is the need to define the typology of the Phoenician Archaic amphorae and outline their evolution until the shapes that characterised the late sixth and the fifth century BCE were fully developed. Another substantial issue is the uncertainty concerning the beginning and 18

 A synthesis of the evolution of the regional production and distribution of salted fish in Sáez Romero 2014a. 19  Sáez and Moreno 2017; García Vargas and Sáez Romero 2018. 20  Muñoz Vicente 1987, 1993. 21  Ramon Torres 1995, 2004. 22  García Vargas 1996, 1998. 23  An overview of the local amphora series of the fifth to third centuries BCE can be found in Sáez Romero 2010b. For the Hellenistic and early Roman types, see Sáez Romero 2008a, 2008b and http://amphorae.icac. cat/amphorae. 24  Ramon Torres 1991.

406

A. M. SÁEZ ROMERO

Fig. 3. Main amphora types produced in Cádiz Bay between the sixth and the early first century BCE (after previous versions of the chart, see Sáez 2014a, 2018).

AMPHORA PRODUCTION IN GADIR

407

development of local imitations of Greek (‘Ionian’ and Corinthian) amphorae, which were first identified several years ago at the site of Camposoto.25 However, for these amphorae, there is still not a single complete profile, no comprehensive data about contents and very scarce information on the timing of production. A significant innovative aspect of this research is the identification of a typological change that affects the T–11.2.1.3 type, characteristic of the fifth century BCE. The new evidence suggests that the type became considerably longer around the mid-fifth century BCE, and gradually increased its capacity standard (from 53 to more than 60 litres). Also, new evidence has confirmed that the T–11.2.1.4 and T–11.2.1.5 types were the direct successors of the T–11.2.1.3 type in the late fifth century BCE, and that the T–11.2.1.6 type26 was not produced in the Cádiz area but in other coastal cities of the region (probably in Málaga and other Mediterranean towns). Another series that has been re-examined as a result of the new evidence available is the Ramon T–8.2.1.1, which can now be divided into at least two types or connected variants.27 This is not surprising as the type was produced for more than two centuries. The form seems to derive from a very poorly known series that can be dated to the late fifth century BCE and appears to have been inspired by the form T–1.3.2.3 from Ibiza. The parallels with Ibizan types goes far beyond the mere imitation of a profile or a capacity standard. A commercial clash between the two areas can be deduced, in particular if we take into account the creation, during the same period, of the T–8.1.1.2 in the countryside around Cádiz Bay28 which is also closely linked to the T–8.1.1.1 from Ibiza. The new evidence has also encouraged the revision of Late Punic types. For example, it has been confirmed that the T–9.1.1.1 could be a remote evolution of the fifth to fourth century BCE pithoi or other similar plain/painted ware jars.29 Also, the Ramon T–12.1.1.1 type seems to have undergone an independent evolution in Gadir, compared with other areas of the western region, where the same series show different typological features, sizes and chronological development.30 The evolution of the local T–11.2.1.0 group resulted in two different and successive types, one dating to the fourth century and the other to the third and part of the second century BCE. The new evidence has also increased our understanding of the local production of Graeco-Italic and Dressel 1A and 1C amphorae in addition the formal evolution of these imitations, as well as the sealing and commercial maritime distribution of these series.31 Finally, an issue that has been considered only very recently is the measurement of the capacity standards of each type, the evolution of the local capacity standard systems and their possible relation to previous Levantine systems of measurement. Experimental tests, undertaken both using archaeological replicas of amphorae and 3D digital techniques, have already

25

 Ramon et al. 2007; Sáez and Díaz 2007.  Ramon 1995, 2006. 27  Saez Romero 2016b. 28  Carretero 2007. 29  Some interesting data on the issue in Sáez Romero 2008a. 30  Sáez Romero 2008b. Earlier wake-up calls in the same direction in Sáez et al. 2005. 31  See Max Luaces’ contribution in this volume, and also Luaces and Sáez 2019. 26

A. M. SÁEZ ROMERO

408

provided promising results, especially with regard to the fifth to fourth century case studies, of which there is a relatively larger number of complete and contextualised individuals.32 III. PRESENT AND FUTURE

OF THE ARCHAEOMETRIC RESEARCH

The characterisation of the fabrics of the amphorae produced in the workshops uncovered in Cádiz Bay has not been a major priority to date. However, in recent years, a greater effort has been made and a solid database is progressively emerging, although the methodologies and the sampling strategies used have not been consistent.33 Materials dating from the fifth to the second centuries BCE from the sites of Camposoto,34 Villa Maruja35 and Torre Alta36 have been analysed to some extent, but no systematic research has been conducted on any of the kiln sites excavated in the last decades. More recently, multidisciplinary teams have extended the sampling not only to finished products, but also to possible sources of clays and tempers in the hinterland of the bay.37 These analyses are still ongoing. Significant preliminary results and conclusions of this fieldwork have been included in Philip Johnston’s PhD dissertation38 which included samples from Castillo de Doña Blanca and Camposoto (finished tablewares, misfired products and clay slag). Despite the aforementioned limitations, archaeometry has been particularly useful concerning the identification of the local production of amphorae and tablewares during the Phoenician period. As previously noted, no workshops have yet been found dating to this period, so archaeometric studies provide a pathway to counterweight the lack of archaeological evidence for kiln sites. Fortunately, it is currently a very active avenue of research, and a volume (APAC, Atlas de Pastas Cerámicas del Círculo del Estrecho), promoted by Casa de Velázquez and the University of Cádiz is currently in preparation.39 The volume will include the archaeological and archaeometric analysis of 50 of the most important Roman and pre-Roman pottery workshops in the region of the Strait of Gibraltar, and it is, therefore, set to become a reference for future regional studies (the publication is expected for 2021). IV. STAMPS: CHRONOLOGICAL,

ECONOMIC AND ADMINISTRATIVE FRAMEWORK

One of the topics that has progressed more over the last decade is the understanding of the iconographies, function and chronological evolution of stamps sealed on local amphorae. Not only has the number of motifs or dies attested increased exponentially, but also the 32  First results of this line of research can be found in Sáez and Moreno 2017 (for the case of T–11.2.1.3 amphorae) or in García Vargas and Sáez Romero 2018 (for a wider perspective, including kiln sites productivity). Also, a specific paper on the Levantine connections of Gadir’s capacity standards and the transition of the Phoenician patterns to the Roman system is currently in press (Sáez and Belizón forthcoming). 33  Johnston 2015. 34  Cau 2007; Johnston 2015. 35  Bernal et al. 2005. 36  Domínguez-Bella et al. 2004. 37  Behrendt and Mielke 2010; Fantuzzi et al. 2020. 38  Johnston 2015. 39  A brief summary of the scopes and methodology of the project was published in Bernal et al. 2016.

AMPHORA PRODUCTION IN GADIR

409

initial chronology and the evolution of the phenomenon, as well as the role that the stamps played in the local economic framework, are now much better known. After these stamps were first recognised during the excavations in Torre Alta, in the late 1980s,40 the number of known motifs remained very small until recently. The motifs were limited to late examples, generally to the early second century BCE.41 Also, a few epigraphic stamps sealed on local T–7.4.3.3 vessels were identified at the site of Gregorio Marañón and other places around the bay, dating from the first half of the first century BCE.42 Until very recently, this scenario did not change substantially. However, the excavation of local pottery workshops and the discovery of new stamps in different consumption contexts in the region and elsewhere in the Mediterranean have significantly increased the available data.43 The new evidence confirms that the local stamps on amphorae were mostly anepigraphic from the beginning, and were sealed on almost every type manufactured from early third to mid-second century BCE at local kiln sites. Abbreviations of personal names, probably of the local elites involved in the maritime trade and the amphora production, appear much more frequently in Latin and Neo-Punic characters on Romanised rectangular stamps of the very late second and the first half of the first century BCE.44 With the new information available, we can associate specific stamps and amphora shapes (as illustrated in Fig. 4). The beginning of local sealing cannot yet be dated with the desirable exactitude. Some contexts suggest that it may stretch back as far as the last decades of the fourth century BCE, perhaps in connection with morphological changes to some local amphora types and, more importantly, with far-reaching economic processes, such as the minting of the earliest coins in Cádiz. The motifs are varied, and they often depict pottery workshops, tunas, fishing or salting scenes (clearly with reference to the main economic activity of the local population). However, the catalogue also includes other significant iconographies such as horses,45 Nubian style heads, dolphins, the so-called ‘Tinnit symbol’, birds, etc.46 As for the Punic stamps of Carthage and the Central Mediterranean area,47 the function is hard to ascertain. The evidence from Torre Alta48 suggests that they were in some way connected to the control of production by the producers or even the potters, probably marking certain amphorae separate from the whole, they developed a better scheme of branding jars than the systematic administrative management driven by the city government. 40

 Perdigones and Muñoz 1990; Muñoz 1993.  Perdigones and Muñoz 1990; Muñoz 1993; Ramon 1995. 42  Muñoz 1993; García Vargas 1998; Ramon 2004, 2008. 43  Illuminating examples from the Torre Alta kiln area can be found in Sáez Romero (2005) and Sáez et al. (2016a). 44  For the Late Punic and Early Roman periods see Sáez Romero 2008a. 45  Gutiérrez López 2000. 46  Sáez Romero 2014a. The number of dies and motifs increases at great speed, and some unpublished materials from the Cádiz area and from consumptions contexts in Mertola (Portugal) will soon provide a more complex picture of the amphora stamps used in Gadir during the third and second century BCE. A significant example of this constant emergence of new information includes a Torre Alta stamp found on a T–9.1.1.1 in a late second century BCE context in Valencia (Sáez and Mánez 2009) or those found in La Caleta underwater sites (Higueras-Milena and Sáez 2018). 47  Zamora and Sáez 2019. 48  Unpublished contexts dating to the late third century BCE: a former clay quarry that was filled with thousands of fragments of a failed firing process which included a large number of T–9.1.1.1 stamped on the handles with the same die. 41

410

A. M. SÁEZ ROMERO

Fig. 4. Local stamped amphora types and stamps linked to each series, according to the published information available (many other unpublished dies will complete the current picture soon, including new epigraphic examples) (after Sáez Romero 2014a).

V. QUANTIFICATION,

CONTENTS AND EXPERIMENTAL ARCHAEOLOGY

As previously noted, the evidence collected in recent decades has been used to raise new hypotheses concerning the capacity standards of the amphorae produced in Gadir. One approach focused on the T–11.2.1.3 type,49 dating to the fifth century BCE, using complete vessels found at the Camposoto kiln site, replicas and 3D software. The capacity of the series has been established at approximately 53 litres. When full, these amphorae would have weighed about 60–67 kg (the average weight of an empty amphora is c. 12–14 kg). The experiments have since been extended to almost the whole local amphora repertoire, but unfortunately there are incomplete profiles for some of the types. The results of the calculations suggest that the amphorae produced in Gadir followed, from the Phoenician stage, a Levantine pattern (probably linked to the Ugaritic kad).50 Only during the early second century BCE did the repertoire change drastically to adapt capacities to the Roman standards. The process did not crystallise until the early first century BCE, when the T–7.4.3.3 and ovoid series were produced following the Roman amphora standard.51 49

 Sáez and Moreno 2017.  Zamora López 2002. 51  For an updated overview of the methodology and the results, see Sáez and Belizón (forthcoming). 50

AMPHORA PRODUCTION IN GADIR

411

Fig. 5. Comparative perspective of amphora kilns excavated in Cádiz Bay dating to the late sixth (A, Camposoto) and the third (B, Torre Alta) centuries BCE, and to the first century CE (C, Puente Melchor) (after Sáez and Moreno 2017; García and Sáez 2018). The evolution of kilns and amphora types shown in the figure clearly defines how the size/capacity of transport vessels were progressively reduced and the shape changed to a more cylindrical form. At the same time, kilns evolved to enlarged designs to produce more individuals during each firing process.

Also, quantitative methods and perspectives have been applied to the production infrastructures and to the evolution of the amphora production from the Punic to Roman times in the Cádiz Bay. Two and three dimensional recreations of potters’ kilns and vats have been developed, based on the well preserved and accurately dated remains found at Camposoto, Torre Alta or Puente Melchor (kilns) and Puerto–19 or Teatro Andalucía (fish processing sites).52 Theoretical estimations of the capacity of containers and the productivity of pottery workshops and salting factories have been combined, and the gathered data suggests that the annual production of Punic Gadir would have been between 25,000 and 35,000 amphorae and between 650,000 and 1,000,000 litres of salted fish products during the fifth century BCE. For the early Roman Imperial period, these figures increased exponentially due to the widespread changes in techniques used to build both kilns and fish processing facilities (Fig. 5). This avenue of research is, however, in its infancy, and these quantitative methods still need to be tested and refined addressing other economic contexts and historical periods. 52  A first draft on this issue has been recently published (García Vargas and Sáez Romero 2018), and some other fresh data were presented in a conference held at Oxford University on the exploitation of marine resources in the ancient Mediterranean (The Bountiful Sea. Fish Processing and Consumption in Mediterranean Antiquity. Oxford, September 6th–8th 2017).

412

A. M. SÁEZ ROMERO

Recent discoveries are also significant concerning the study of the contents of the massive quantity of amphorae produced in the Cádiz Bay. Unsurprisingly, most of the amphorae produced in Gadir were used to transport fish preserves, as suggested by the Classical and Hellenistic literary sources,53 by the discovery of amphorae in fish salting facilities54 and by the direct connection of amphorae and fish remains.55 A very clear piece of evidence was found in the Punic Amphora building at Corinth in a mid-fifth century BCE context. Punic T–11.2.1.3 amphorae from the western Mediterranean and tuna fish remains (scale packs, spines and bones) were found together among the debris used to build a few overlapping floors in the central courtyard of the establishment.56 The tàrichos, that is, fillets of salted tuna, must have been the main type of preserve produced in the western region, as there is no literary or archaeological evidence to support the manufacture of garos or other fish sauces. The scale packs found at Corinth have allowed us to estimate the size of these tuna slabs and also undertake experimental reproduction of the salting procedure. This research has, in turn, led to the quantitative evaluation of the proportion of different ingredients (salt and fish), the duration of the salting process, and the number of fillets that could be stored in a T–11.2.1.3 amphora, as well as the weight of the filled amphora.57 As previously noted, these experiments are part of a more ambitious project that is currently in progress. The aim of the project is to reconstruct kilns, vats and containers, as well as to carry out full-scale experiments based on case studies such as Corinth. Concerning the open discussion on ancient contents, it is worth noting that there is a significant lack of chemical residue analysis on Phoenician and Punic amphorae from the Bay of Cádiz. Nevertheless, residue testing, recently undertaken by Dr Alessandra Pecci, on several samples of T–7.4.3.3 and T–9.1.1.1 amphorae found at Pompeii58 confirmed that these Late Punic types of the second to first century BCE were used to transport fish products.59 However, it seems very unlikely that all amphora series manufactured in Cádiz over the centuries were exclusively used to carry salted fish or fish sauces. Particularly, Phoenician amphorae (eighth to sixth century BCE), as well as the amphorae manufactured imitating the Italic Dressel 1 series, which are common in local production contexts during the second and first century BCE, probably were used for alternative products besides fish preserves (mostly wine). The discovery of grape crushing facilities at the site of Castillo de Doña Blanca,60 on the eastern shore of the bay of Cádiz, points in that direction and suggests that, at least from the fourth century BCE, some local amphorae were very likely used to transport wine. Similarly, recently discovered evidence suggests that local versions of the T–10.1.2.1, dating to the seventh and sixth century BCE, were multifunctional containers used to transport wine, fish preserves and other products.61 53

 López Castro 1997; Ferrer Albelda 2007.  For example, in some suburban areas such as Teatro Andalucía and Plaza de Asdrúbal (Bernal et al. 2014a, 2014b). 55  Such as tuna and T–11.2.1.3 vessels found together at Camposoto, see Ramon et al. 2007. 56  Williams 1978, 1979, 1980; Maniatis et al. 1984; Zimmerman-Munn 2003. 57  Some preliminary results can be found in Sáez and Theodoropoulou 2021. 58  Excavations by P. Arthur in the area next to the forum during 1980–1981 (Impianto Elettrico; see Pecci 2019). 59  Significant evidence for the case of T–7.4.3.3 type was found also at Baelo Claudia, see Bernal et al. 2007. 60  Ruiz Mata 1995; López and Ruiz 2007. 61  Sáez Romero 2014a. 54

AMPHORA PRODUCTION IN GADIR

VI. THE DISTRIBUTION

OF THE AMPHORAE FROM

413

GADIR

The analysis of the distribution of Cádiz amphorae is among the most pressing pending issues. Since the publication of Ramon’s systematic catalogue in 1995, new evidence has been added somewhat unsystematically62 and rarely supported by archaeometric or reliable direct visual examination of the pieces. As a result, the amphorae from the region of the Strait of Gibraltar have been blended together into a common group, in which it is difficult to separate amphorae produced in Cádiz from those manufactured elsewhere in the west. This confusion means that all economic and historical interpretations are necessarily partial and provisional for each individual case (as all Punic coastal cities were independent states before the arrival of Rome).63 For the Archaic period, between the eighth century and the first half of the sixth century BCE, the aforementioned absence of excavated workshops must be added to these difficulties. Nevertheless, new evidence suggests that local amphorae travelled farther than hitherto believed, especially from the seventh century onwards, when the T–10.1.2.1 type began to be produced locally in large quantities. In the Bay of Cádiz, these productions seem to have coexisted with imports from the area of Málaga, although the local productions become significantly more numerous from mid-seventh century BCE onwards.64 Also, around this date, local pottery began appearing (and predominating) at all kinds of sites in the Cádiz Bay including domestic, funerary and artisanal contexts, and also indigenous sites located inland. However, the expansion of Gadir’s amphorae abroad mainly occurred in the late sixth century BCE, with the emergence of the city’s salted-fish industry and the related pottery workshops. The distribution of these products during the Late Archaic period reached the most distant corners, from the eastern Mediterranean to the Atlantic, penetrating inland into Turdetania,65 and sailing up the fluvial courses (Guadiana, Guadalquivir, Guadalete, etc). T–11.2.1.3 amphorae and their derivations, manufactured in Cádiz Bay in massive quantities, were successful in the southeast and the east of the Iberian Peninsula, and are to be found in large numbers in Emporion and Ibiza.66 Throughout the fifth century BCE, these amphora are also present, although not in such large numbers, at central Mediterranean sites in Sardinia, Tunisia, Sicily, southern Italy and on the Tyrrhenian coast, as well as at major eastern Mediterranean locations, such as Corinth, Olympia and Athens,67 and probably also on the southern shores of the Mediterranean (at Euesperides).68 This was a period of great commercial expansion for Gadir, but it is difficult to quantify this because, as previously noted, it is often hard to distinguish the amphorae produced in the bay from those manufactured elsewhere in the Strait of Gibraltar region. 62  For instance, see Ramon 2008. Also, a recent update for southern Gaul, see Luaces (in this volume) and for the case of Pompeii, see Bernal and Sáez 2019. 63  Something already remarked by Ramon (1981, 1995) and other recent work, see Sáez et al. (2005) and Sáez (2008b). 64  López et al. 2008; Torres et al. 2014; Johnston 2015. 65  Ferrer Albelda et al. 2010. 66  Ramon 1985, 1995. 67  Lawall 2006. 68  Göransson 2007.

414

A. M. SÁEZ ROMERO

An example that can be used to illustrate these issues is the aforementioned Punic Amphora building (PAB) at Corinth. During the mid-fifth century BCE, a retailer of Greek wine and western Punic salted fish products occupied the building and developed a flourishing business, probably a specialised tavern. The analysis of the site, as part of a recent project,69 provides an unique examination of the products from the area of the Strait of Gibraltar that were for sale in mainland Greece during the Classical period. The analysis of the amphorae has revealed a predominance of the T–11.2.1.3 amphorae from Gadir, but also the presence of significant quantities of variants manufactured in coastal towns of Málaga area and other secondary areas in the region connected to the fish salting industry.70 According to the evidence collected in the PAB, and also at other sites such as Olympia and the Athenian Agora, this relationship seems to come to an end during the last quarter of the fifth century BCE, and does not appear to be restored at a later date.71 Also, other material from a number of contexts in ancient Corinth suggest that the commercial links between the city and the Punic world continued between the fourth and the second centuries BCE, as did the import of fish preserves, indicated by the large number of amphorae manufactured in western Sicily and found in different quarters of the city. This is a clear demonstration of commercial competition conditioned by political and military events, which ultimately constrained the selling of salted fish from the Strait of Gibraltar to regional and Atlantic markets, while their former markets in the eastern and central Mediterranean were taken over by Sicilian and Carthaginian products.72 Indeed, during the fourth and third century BCE, the amphorae from Gadir seem to disappear from the major Mediterranean routes, and become more common in the Atlantic contexts as well as rising in the regional and Turdetanian markets. This adaptation was probably connected to the attested reorganisation of local economic strategies at the regional level, including changes in the pottery workshops, fish salting factories and funerary areas. During this period, in fact, commercialisation strategies themselves seem to change as indicated by the use of Turdetanian amphorae (Pellicer B–C and D, Tiñosa, etc.), as well as locally made containers, for exports shipped from Cádiz harbour. After a certain revitalisation during the Carthaginian occupation in the closing decades of the third century BCE, these Atlantic and regional towns were consolidated during the second century BCE. The amphorae from Gades only returned to the main Mediterranean routes after the Roman conquest of southern Iberia, particularly during the late second and early first century BCE, probably linked to the Roman maritime expansion beyond the Pillars of Heracles. During this period, the main markets for the local products were southern Gaul and the Tyrrhenian Italian coast.73 Our knowledge of the distribution of local amphorae 69

 Some preliminary data and conclusions in Sáez (forthcoming).  An archaeometric project is currently under way to determine the provenance of the main fabric groups observed among the PAB Punic amphorae, also including some Tunisian and Sicilian imports. The Fitch Laboratory of the British School at Athens developed the project during 2018–2020, comparing samples from Corinth with others collected in the excavated western Punic kiln sites, see Fantuzzi et al. 2020. 71  López Castro 1997. 72  See Docter and Bechtold (2013) and Sáez Romero (2018). On the origin and development of fish processing sites in Sicily during the Late Classical times, see Botte 2009. 73  See Max Luaces’ contribution in this volume. Also, Luaces and Sáez 2019. 70

AMPHORA PRODUCTION IN GADIR

415

during the first millennium BCE is only partial and provisional, owing to the lack of a specific project and, more importantly, the scarcity of excavated shipwrecks. Ships and cargoes are only known from a small number of exceptional examples, such as Tagomago 1 along the coast of Ibiza,74 and other evidence recently collected on the coasts of the area of the Straits of Gibraltar.75 This necessarily narrows our understanding of routes and commercialisation strategies. Our knowledge of ports and harbours is, also, frankly insufficient. Only a small amount of reliable evidence exists.76 Nevertheless, over the last few years, more attention has been paid to the issue in the Bay of Cádiz, providing interesting evidence concerning coastal erosion77 and the possible location of infrastructures such as ports78 or fish processing facilities.79 A significant example of this recent research can be found in the case of the coastal sector of La Caleta. Since 2008, research projects80 have involved the systematic examination of the geoarchaeological evolution of the sites and the available underwater81 and terrestrial82 archaeological evidence. The results of these projects suggest that most of the shallow waters northwest to modern Cádiz and the La Caleta channel would have been used as anchorages and main harbour from the time of the earliest Phoenician presence in the bay. Commercial and cult activities intensified from the seventh century BCE onwards. The use of the area was particularly important between the fifth and first century BCE. Archaeological surveys have yielded huge amounts of local and imported amphorae, illustrating that the bay played a major role as a port hub to connect the regional routes with the Mediterranean markets.83

VII. BEYOND THE SHERDS: THE ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL SIGNIFICANCE OF AMPHORA PRODUCTION AND TRADE IN THE BAY OF CÁDIZ DURING THE FIRST MILLENNIUM BCE As previously noted, even during the early Phoenician phase, the production of amphorae in the Cádiz Bay appears to be closely related to the export of foodstuffs and, in particular, fish preserves. Therefore, amphora production and fish salting seem to be both valid historical and archaeological indicators of the evolution of the economy of Cádiz during the first millennium BCE. Providing a very rough outline, we begin to emphasise that the role of Gadir as an exporter of amphorae and stored foodstuffs grew progressively during the seventh century BCE. By the first half of the sixth century BCE, the city was a major competitor in the regional and Atlantic markets. The distribution of T–11.2.1.3 amphorae during the late sixth and fifth century BCE, however, is indicative of a period of unprecedented 74

 Ramon 1985.  Sáez Romero 2014b. 76  Mostly for the Roman period, see Bernal 2012. 77  Sáez and Díaz 2012; Zamora and Sáez 2014. 78  Arteaga and Roos 2002; Alonso et al. 2009. 79  Sáez Romero and Belizón Aragón forthcoming. 80  Higueras-Milena and Sáez 2014. 81  Sáez et al. 2016a, 2016b; Sáez and Higueras-Milena 2016a, 2016b; Higueras-Milena and Sáez forthcoming. 82  Sáez and Belizón 2014, 2017; Maya et al. 2014. 83  A complete summary of the results for the pre-Roman period in Higueras-Milena and Sáez 2017. 75

416

A. M. SÁEZ ROMERO

economic splendour for the city and the region around the Strait of Gibraltar. Later, during the fourth and third century BCE, the city’s trade retracted again and focused on western markets, especially the Atlantic, reaching the southwest of the Iberian Peninsula, the Atlantic Portuguese and Moroccan coasts and the Galician Rías.84 The third century BCE, especially its second half, seems to be a period of certain revitalisation. Concerning local pottery production, the available evidence shows an increasing tendency to adopt Carthaginian models (not only concerning amphorae, but also fine and cooking wares,85 kiln design, etc.). Therefore, it seems clear that the Carthaginian occupation was beneficial to the Cádiz Bay in general terms. The city remained on the Carthaginian side until the end of the Second Punic War, when the Roman victory was inevitable and the city was forced to change sides. This clever strategy facilitated the incorporation into the Roman socio-economic structures and, especially, the beginning of a new expansionist phase that, during the first century BCE, brought again products from Gades to the main Republican Atlantic and Mediterranean maritime routes. The different economic phases that the city went through are also reflected in other aspects of the archaeological record, but the information available for the urban evolution of Castillo de Doña Blanca, Chiclana and the island of Cádiz is still limited, both for the Phoenician86 and the Punic87 periods. The funerary record is probably the most telling in this regard. The available data concerning the graveyards provide significant information concerning the evolution of the local economy and, consequently, on the promoters and beneficiaries of the city’s maritime trade (of which amphora production and fish processing were two major features). We know very little about the Archaic necropolis, but the small clusters of cremation burials found in the north of the Kotinoussa Island, dating to the second half of the seventh century BCE, may reflect the consolidation of the city.88 Offerings, which include ceramic vases alongside gold jewellery and imported items, indicate a growing degree of social inequality. The elites buried in these groups of tombs were probably pulling the strings behind maritime ventures and the occupation of the coastal hinterland for agricultural purposes (the later as the first phase of consolidation of a real ‘chora’ that was expanded out of the insular limits during the sixth century BCE). Despite the change in ritual (inhumations are the most common burial custom during the Late Archaic and Punic periods), this general trend continued during the fifth century BCE, when inequality almost certainly became even more heightened: tombs are more numerous and larger (some are distinctly monumental),89 regularly using stone slabs to build great groups of tombs90 (perhaps creating family burial grounds), and including at least two examples of imported anthropoid sarcophagi such as those used for the royal tombs at Sidon or 84

 For the case of northwestern Iberia see Ferrer Albelda et al. (in this volume). Also, González et al. 2010.  For the case of red slip tablewares, see Niveau and Sáez 2016. Other local pottery groups have been studied in Sáez Romero 2015, 2016. 86  Botto 2014. 87  Muñoz Vicente 1997; Ferrer Albelda 2007; Sáez Romero 2014a. 88  Muñoz Vicente 2008; Torres 2010; Sáez and Belizón 2014. 89  Such as the one unearthed at Casa del Obispo site, see Gener et al. 2014b. 90  Muñoz Vicente 1984. 85

AMPHORA PRODUCTION IN GADIR

417

Kition.91 Also, the grave goods are richer than in the previous phases, including golden and silver jewelry, aegyptiaca and occasionally local or Greek pottery vessels. A recently excavated intact group of tombs dating to mid-fifth century BCE has allowed for a detailed analysis of burial goods.92 The finds suggest that the individuals were part of the wealthy commercial elites of the city and reveal the economic consequences of the routes that linked the city with the Punic and Greek central Mediterranean and Corinth93 during the fifth century BCE. The difficulties that followed the closure of some of those routes are also reflected in the city’s necropolis. The architectural design of tombs became much poorer, as did the grave goods. During this period, pit tombs covered by simple stone slabs or reused amphora fragments, or not covered at all, were common, and offerings were often reduced to a modest ornament or a small pottery vessel.94 Tombs and offerings did not reach again the sixth to fifth century BCE levels of wealth until the Late Republican Roman period (first century BCE). However, as detected for the amphora production, signs of revitalisation and increasing wealth can be observed for the third and early second century BCE.95 The major changes developed in the urban plan at Castillo de Doña Blanca,96 and also the remodelling of the production infrastructures (abandonment of fifth century BCE buildings and kilns, and the construction of more austere structures),97 indicates that the transitional period first included a remarkable ‘crisis’ and then a fast local adaptation to the new international economic and political setting.

BIBLIOGRAPHY ALMAGRO GORBEA, M., LÓPEZ ROSENDO, M. E., MEDEROS MARTÍN, A. and TORRES ORTIZ, M. 2010 “Los sarcófagos antropoides de la necrópolis de Cádiz,” Mainake 32/I: 357–394. ALONSO, C., GRACIA, F. J. and BENAVENTE, J. 2009 “Evolución histórica de la línea de costa en el sector meridional de la Bahía de Cádiz,” Revista Atlántica-Mediterránea de Prehistoria y Arqueología Social 11: 13–37. ARTEAGA, O. and ROOS, A. M. 2002 “El puerto fenicio-púnico de Gadir. Una nueva visión desde la geoarqueología urbana de Cádiz,” Spal 11: 21–39. BEHRANDT, S. and MIELKE, D. P. 2011 “Provenienzuntersuchungen mittels Neutronenaktivierungs-analyse an phönizischer Keramik von der iberischen halbinsel und aus Marokko,” Madrider Mitteilungen 52: 139–237. BELIZÓN ARAGÓN, R. and SÁEZ ROMERO, A. M. “Peces Dorados. Un avance sobre recientes descubrimientos en la necrópolis fenicia 2016 y púnica de Gadir (Cádiz, España),” Arqueología Iberoamericana 32: 3–10.

91

 Blanco and Corzo 1981; Almagro et al. 2010.  Belizón and Sáez 2016. A multi-disciplinary study of the Phoenician and Punic tombs is currently under

92

way. 93

 Sáez et al. 2020.  Muñoz Vicente 2008; Sáez and Díaz 2010. 95  For example, taking into account the fillings of some wells and pits with the debris of dining ceremonies and offerings, see Niveau de Villedary 2009. 96  Ruiz Mata and Pérez 1995. 97  Sáez Romero 2008a, 2014a. 94

418

A. M. SÁEZ ROMERO

BERNAL CASASOLA, D. 2012 “El puerto romano de Gades. Novedades arqueológicas,” in Rome, Portus and the Mediterranean (Archaeological Monographs of the British School at Rome 21), edited by S. J. Keay, pp. 225–244. Rome: British School at Rome. BERNAL CASASOLA, D. and SÁEZ ROMERO, A. M. 2019 “Garum y salsamenta de la Hispania Ulterior. Primeras identificaciones de ánforas de producción púnico-gaditana en Pompeya,” in Scambi e commerci in area vesuviana. I dati delle anfore dai saggi stratigrafici I.E. (Impianto Elettrico) 1980–81 nel Foro di Pompei (Roman and Late Antique Mediterranean Pottery 14), edited by D. Bernal and D. Cottica, pp. 96–112. Oxford: Archaeopress. BERNAL CASASOLA, D., ARÉVALO, A., MORALES, A. and ROSELLÓ, E. 2007 “Un ejemplo de conservas de pescado baelonenses en el siglo II a.C.,” in Las cetariae de Baelo Claudia. Avance de las investigaciones arqueológicas en el barrio industrial (2000–2004) (Monografías de Arqueología), edited by A. Arévalo and D. Bernal, pp. 355–374. Sevilla: Junta de Andalucía. BERNAL, D., COBOS, L., MARLASCA, R., CANTILLO, J. J., VARGAS, J. M. and LARA, M. 2014a “De las fogatas profilácticas púnicas a las chancas romanas. Moluscos y escómbridos en el antiguo Teatro de Andalucía de Cádiz,” in Moluscos y púrpura en contextos arqueológicos atlántico-mediterráneos. Nuevos datos y reflexiones clave de proceso histórico, edited by J. Cantillo, D. Bernal and J. Ramos, pp. 179–203. Cádiz: Universidad de Cádiz. BERNAL CASASOLA, D., DÍAZ, J. J., EXPÓSITO, J. A., SÁEZ, A. M., LORENZO, L. and SÁEZ, A. 2003 Arqueología y Urbanismo. Avance de los hallazgos de época púnica y romana en las obras de la carretera de Camposoto (San Fernando, Cádiz). Jerez de la Frontera: Cajasur. BERNAL, D., KBIRI ALAOUI, M., SÁEZ ROMERO, A. M., DÍAZ, J. J., GARCÍA GIMÉNEZ, R. and LUACES, M. 2016 “El atlas de pastas cerámicas del Estrecho de Gibraltar. Una herramienta arqueológica y arqueométrica para la clasificación de talleres,” in III Congreso Internacional de la Sociedad de Estudios de la Cerámica Antigua en Hispania – Ex Officina Hispana «Amphorae ex Hispania. Paisajes de producción y consumo» (Universitat Rovira i Virgili, Tarragona, 10–13 diciembre 2014), edited by R. Járrega, pp. 362– 375. Tarragona: Institut Català d’Arqueologia Clàssica. BERNAL CASASOLA, D., MUÑOZ, A., MARLASCA, R., CANTILLO, J. J., VARGAS, J. M. and LARA, M. 2014b “Atunes ronqueados y conchas de la plaza de Asdrúbal. Novedades haliéuticas de los saladeros gadiritas,” in Moluscos y púrpura en contextos arqueológicos atlántico-mediterráneos. Nuevos datos y reflexiones clave de proceso histórico, edited by J. Cantillo, D. Bernal and J. Ramos, pp. 205–227. Cádiz: Universidad de Cádiz. BERNAL CASASOLA, D., SÁEZ ROMERO, A. M., DÍAZ, J. J., EXPÓSITO, J. A., LORENZO, L. and GARCÍA, R. 2005 “Gadir y la manufactura de máscaras y terracotas. Aportaciones del taller isleño de Villa Maruja (ss. V–IV a.C.),” Madrider Mitteilungen 46: 61–86. BERNAL CASASOLA, D., SÁEZ ROMERO, A. M. and BUSTAMANTE, M. 2011 “Entre la pesca y la púrpura en el Gadir tardopúnico. Actuación arqueológica en el conchero de la C/ Luis Milena de San Fernando,” in Purpureae Vestes III. Textiles and Dyes in Ancient Mediterranean World. Textiles y tintes en la ciudad Antigua, edited by C. Alfaro, J.-P. Wild and B. Costa, pp. 157–180. Valencia: Universidad de Valencia. BLANCO FREIJEIRO, A. and CORZO, R. 1981 “Der neue anthropoide Sarkophag von Cádiz,” Madrider Mitteilungen 22: 236– 243. BOTTE, E. 2009 Salaisons et sauces de poissons en Italie du Sud et en Sicilie durant l’Antiquité (Collection du Centre Jean Bérard 31). Naples: Centre J. Bérard. BOTTO, M. 2014 “Los fenicios en la Bahía de Cádiz: estrategias de poblamiento y de aprovechamiento del territorio, relaciones con el mundo indígena, comercio (siglo IX –

AMPHORA PRODUCTION IN GADIR

419

finales del siglo VII/inicios del VI a.C.),” in Los Fenicios en la Bahía de Cádiz. Nuevas investigaciones (Collezione di Studi Fenici 46), edited by M. Botto, pp. 265–281. Pisa-Roma: Fabrizio Serra Editore.

BUENO SERRANO, P. 2014 “Un asentamiento del Bronce Final – Hierro I en el Cerro del Castillo, Chiclana, Cádiz. Nuevos datos para la interpretación de Gadeira,” in Los Fenicios en la Bahía de Cádiz. Nuevas investigaciones (Collezione di Studi Fenici 46), edited by M. Botto, pp. 225–251. Pisa-Roma: Fabrizio Serra Editore. CARRETERO POBLETE, P. 2007 Agricultura y Comercio Púnico-Turdetano en el Bajo Guadalquivir. El inicio de las explotaciones oleícolas peninsulares (siglos IV–II a.C.) (British Archaeological Reports International Series 1703). Oxford: Archaeopress. CAU ONTIVEROS, M. A. 2007 “Caracterización mineralógica y petrográfica de los materiales anfóricos,” in El taller alfarero tardoarcaico de Camposoto (Monografías de Arqueología 26), edited by J. Ramon, A. Sáez, A. M. Sáez and A. Muñoz, pp. 269–281. Sevilla: Junta de Andalucía. DOCTER, R. F. and BECHTOLD, B. 2013 “Two forgotten amphorae from the Hamburg excavations at Carthage (Cyprus, and the Iberian Peninsula) and their contexts,” Carthage Studies 5: 91–128. DOMÍNGUEZ-BELLA, S., SÁNCHEZ, A., SÁNCHEZ, M. and DOMÍNGUEZ, J. C. 2004 “La producción cerámica en la Bahía de Cádiz en época púnica y romana. Análisis arqueométrico de las materias primas minerales y las producciones anfóricas,” in Avances en Arqueometría 2003, edited by M. J. Feliu Ortega, J. Martín Calleja and M. C. Edreira Sánchez, pp. 155–160. Cádiz: Universidad de Cádiz. FANTUZZI, L., KIRIATZI, E., SÁEZ ROMERO, A. M., MÜLLER, N. and WILLIAMS, C. K. 2020 “Punic amphorae found at Corinth: provenance analysis and implications for the study of long-distance salt fish trade in the Classical period,” Archaeological and Anthropological Sciences 12/8: 179–199. FERRER ALBELDA, E. 2007 “La bahía de Cádiz en el contexto del mundo púnico: aspectos étnicos y políticos,” Spal 15: 267–280. FERRER ALBELDA, E., GARCÍA FERNÁNDEZ, F. J. and ESCACENA, J. L. 2010 “El tráfico comercial de productos púnicos en el antiguo estuario del Guadalquivir,” Mainake XXXII/1: 61–89. GARCÍA VARGAS, E. 1996 “La producción anfórica en la Bahía de Cádiz durante la República como índice de romanización,” Habis 27: 49–57. 1998 La producción de ánforas en la Bahía de Cádiz en época romana (ss. II a.C.–IV d.C.). Écija: Editorial Gráficas Sol. GARCÍA VARGAS, E. and SÁEZ ROMERO, A. M. 2018 “Todo el pescado vendido. Una lectura cuantitativa de la producción púnica y romana de sal y salazones en la Bahía de Cádiz,” in Cuantificar las economías antiguas. Problemas y métodos (Col·lecció Instrumenta 60), edited by J. Remesal, V. Revilla and J. M. Bermúdez, pp. 161–214. Barcelona: Universitat de Barcelona. GENER BASALLOTE, J. M., JURADO FRESNADILLO, G., PAJUELO SÁEZ, J. M. and TORRES ORTIZ, M. 2014a “Arquitectura y urbanismo de la Gadir fenicia: el yacimiento del Teatro Cómico de Cádiz,” in Los Fenicios en la Bahía de Cádiz. Nuevas investigaciones (Collezione di Studi Fenici 46), edited by M. Botto, pp. 14–50. Pisa-Roma: Fabrizio Serra Editore. 2014b “El proceso de sacralización del espacio en Gadir: el yacimiento de la Casa del Obispo (Cádiz). Parte I,” in Los Fenicios en la Bahía de Cádiz. Nuevas investigaciones (Collezione di Studi Fenici 46), edited by M. Botto, pp. 123–155. Pisa-Roma: Fabrizio Serra Editore.

420

A. M. SÁEZ ROMERO

GONZÁLEZ RUIBAL, A., RODRÍGUEZ, R. and AYÁN, X. 2010 “Buscando a los púnicos en el noroeste,” Mainake XXXII/1: 577–600. GONZÁLEZ TORAYA, B., TORRES, J., LAGÓSTENA, L. and PRIETO, O. 2002 “Los inicios de la producción anfórica en la bahía gaditana en época republicana: la intervención de urgencia en Avda. Pery Junquera (San Fernando, Cádiz),” in Congreso Internacional Ex Baetica Amphorae, I, Sevilla–Écija, 1998, edited by G. Chic García, pp. 175–186. Écija: Editorial Gráficas Sol. GÖRANSSON, K. 2007 The Transport Amphorae from Euesperides. The Maritime Trade of a Cyrenaican City 400–250 B.C. (Acta Archaeologica Lundensia 25). Stockholm: Lunds Universitet. GUTIÉRREZ LÓPEZ, J. M. 2000 “Aportaciones a la producción de salazones de Gadir: la factoría púnico-gaditana Puerto 19,” Revista de Historia de El Puerto 24: 11–46. HIGUERAS-MILENA, A. and SÁEZ ROMERO, A. M. 2014 “Aplicación experimental de técnicas geofísicas para la localización, investigación y difusión del Patrimonio Arqueológico en la zona de La Caleta (Cádiz),” in I Congreso de Arqueología Náutica y Subacuática Española (ARQVA, Cartagena, 14–16 marzo 2013), edited by X. Nieto, A. Ramírez and P. Recio, pp. 992–1007. Madrid: Ministerio de Educación, Cultura y Deporte. 2018 “The Phoenicians and the ocean: Trade and worship at La Caleta, Cádiz, Spain,” International Journal of Nautical Archaeology 47/1: 81–102. forthcoming “La circulación de productos envasados en ánforas en la Gades republicana: nuevos datos procedentes de contextos subacuáticos de La Caleta (Cádiz),” in Congreso Internacional «Cultura material romana en la Hispania Republicana. Contextos privilegiados y estado de la cuestión» (Lezuza, Albacete, 22–24 de Abril de 2016). JOHNSTON, P. A. 2015 Pottery Production at the Phoenician Colony of El Castillo de Doña Blanca (El Puerto De Santa María, Spain) c. 750–550 BCE. Unpublished PhD diss., Harvard University. LAGÓSTENA, L. and BERNAL, D. 2004 “Alfares y producciones cerámicas en la provincia de Cádiz. Balance y perspectivas,” in Talleres Alfareros y producciones cerámicas en la Bética romana (ss. II a.C.– VII d.C.). Actas del Congreso Internacional Figlinae Baeticae 2003, Cadiz (British Archaeological Reports International Series 1266). Vol. I, edited by D. Bernal and L. Lagóstena, pp. 39–124. Oxford: Archaeopress. LAWALL, M. 2006 “Consuming the West in the East: Amphoras of the western Mediterranean in the Aegean before 86 BCE,” in Old pottery in a New Century. Innovating Perspectives on Roman Pottery Studies. Atti del Convegno Internazionale di Studi (Catania, 22–24 Aprile 2004) (Monografie Istituto per i Beni Archeologici e Monumentali 1), edited by D. Malfitana, J. Poblome and J. Lund, pp. 265–286. Catania: Consiglio nazionale delle ricerche. LÓPEZ AMADOR, J. J. and RUIZ GIL, J. A. 2007 “Arqueología de la Vid y el vino en El Puerto de Santa María,” Revista de Historia de El Puerto 38: 11–36. LÓPEZ AMADOR, J. J., RUIZ MATA, D. and RUIZ GIL, J. A. 2008 “El entorno de la Bahía de Cádiz a fines de la Edad del Bronce e inicios de la Edad del Hierro,” Revista atlántica-mediterránea de prehistoria y arqueología social 10: 215–236. LÓPEZ CASTRO, J. L. 1997 “Los fenicios occidentales y Grecia,” in II Reunión de Historiadores del Mundo Griego Antiguo. Homenaje al Profesor Fernando Gascó (Sevilla, 18–21 diciembre

AMPHORA PRODUCTION IN GADIR

421

1995), edited by F. J. Presedo, P. Guinea, J. M. Cortés and R. Urías, pp. 95–105. Sevilla: Scriptorium. LUACES, M. and SÁEZ ROMERO, A. M. 2019 “Late Punic amphorae in «Roman» shipwrecks of southern Gaul: The evidence of a trading route from the Atlantic and the Strait of Gibraltar region to the Tyrrhenian Sea,” in Daily Life in a Cosmopolitan World: Pottery and Culture during the Hellenistic Period. Proceedings of the 2nd Conference of the International Association for Research on Pottery of the Hellenistic Period (University of Lyon 2, 5th - 8th November 2015), edited by A. Peignard-Giros, pp. 143–157. Vienna: Phoibos Verlag. MANIATIS, Y., JONES, R. E., WHITBREAD, I. K., KOSTIKAS, A., SIMOPOULOS, A., KARAKALOS, C. and WILLIAMS II, C. K. 1984 “Punic amphoras found at Corinth, Greece: An investigation of their origin and technology,” Journal of Field Archaeology 11/2: 205–222. MAYA TORCELLY, R., JURADO FRESNADILLO, G., GENER BASALLOTE, J. M., LÓPEZ ROSENDO, E., TORRES ORTIZ, M. and ZAMORA, J. A. 2014 “Nuevos datos sobre la posible ubicación del Kronion de Gadir: las evidencias de época fenicia arcaica,” in Los Fenicios en La Bahía de Cádiz. Nuevas investigaciones (Collezione di Studi Fenici 46), edited by M. Botto, pp. 156–180. PisaRoma: Fabrizio Serra Editore. MUÑOZ VICENTE, A. 1984 “Aportaciones al estudio de las tumbas de sillería prerromanas de Cádiz,” Boletín del Museo de Cádiz IV/1983–1984: 47–54. 1987 “Las ánforas prerromanas de Cádiz (Informe Preliminar),” Anuario Arqueológico de Andalucía 1985/II: 472–478. 1993 “Las cerámicas fenicio-púnicas de origen submarino del área de la Caleta (Cádiz),” Cuadernos de Prehistoria y Arqueología Castellonenses 15/1990–1991: 287–333. 1997 “Secuencia histórica del asentamiento fenicio-púnico de Cádiz: un análisis crono–espacial tras quince años de investigación arqueológica,” Boletín del Museo de Cádiz VII/1995–1996: 77–105. 2008 “Topografía y ritual en la necrópolis fenicio-púnica de Cádiz,” in Vida y Muerte en la Historia de Cádiz, edited by F. J. Guzmán Armario and V. Castañeda, pp. 57–84. Cádiz: CEMABASA. MUÑOZ VICENTE, A. and FRUTOS REYES, G. 2006 “El complejo alfarero de Torre Alta en San Fernando (Cádiz). Campaña de excavaciones de 1988. Una aportación al estudio de la industria pesquera en la Bahía de Cádiz en época tardopúnica,” in I Conferencia Internacional Historia de la Pesca en el ámbito del Estrecho (1–5 junio de 2004, El Puerto de Santa María). Vol. II, pp. 705–803. Sevilla: Instituto de Investigación y Formación Agraria y Pesquera. NIVEAU DE VILLEDARY, A. M. 2009 Ofrendas, banquetes y libaciones. El ritual funerario en la necrópolis púnica de Cádiz (Spal Monografías XII). Sevilla: Secretariado de Publicaciones, Universidad de Sevilla. NIVEAU DE VILLEDARY, A. M. and SÁEZ ROMERO, A. M. 2016 “The red slip tableware of Punic and Early Roman Gadir/Gades (4th–1st c. BCE): An updated assessment of the so-called Kuass Ware,” in Traditions and Innovations: Tracking the Development of Pottery from the Late Classical to the Early Imperial periods. International Association for the Research on the Hellenistic Pottery First International Conference (Berlin, 7–10 November 2013), edited by S. Japp and P. Kögler, pp. 55–68. Vienna: Phoibos Verlag. PECCI, A. and GIORGI, G. 2019 “Le analisi dei residui organici e la determinazione del contenuto di alcune anfore del Progetto Impianto Elettrico,” in Scambi e commerci in area vesuviana.

422

A. M. SÁEZ ROMERO

I dati delle anfore dai saggi stratigrafici I.E. (Impianto Elettrico) 1980–81 nel Foro di Pompei (Roman and Late Antique Mediterranean Pottery 14), edited by D. Bernal and D. Cottica, pp. 157–164. Oxford: Archaeopress. PERDIGONES, L. and MUÑOZ VICENTE, A. 1990 “Excavaciones arqueológicas de urgencia en los hornos de Torre Alta. San Fernando, Cádiz,” Anuario Arqueológico de Andalucía 1988/III: 106–112. RAMON TORRES, J. 1981 Ibiza y la circulación de ánforas fenicias y púnicas en el Mediterráneo Occidental (Trabajos del Museo Arqueológico de Ibiza 5). Ibiza: Conselleria d’Educació i Cultura del Govern Balear. 1985 “Tagomago 1: un pecio fenicio del siglo V a.C. en aguas de Ibiza,” in VI Congreso Internacional de Arqueología Subacuática (Cartagena 1982), pp. 377–391. Madrid: Ministerio de Cultura, Dirección General de Bellas Artes y Archivos. 1991 Las ánforas púnicas de Ibiza (Trabajos del Museo Arqueológico de Ibiza 23). Ibiza: Govern Balear. 1995 Las ánforas fenicio-púnicas del Mediterráneo Central y Occidental (Col·lecció Instrumenta 2). Barcelona: Universitat de Barcelona. 2004 “La producción anfórica gaditana en época fenicio-púnica,” in Actas de los XVI Encuentros de Historia y Arqueología de San Fernando (San Fernando, noviembre de 2000), pp. 63–100. Córdoba: Fundación Municipal de Cultura. 2006 “Las ánforas fenicio-púnicas de Ceuta,” in Juan Bravo y la arqueología subacuática en Ceuta, edited by D. Bernal, pp. 95–106. Ceuta: Instituto de Estudios Ceutíes. 2008 “El comercio púnico en Occidente en época tardorrepublicana (siglos –II/–I): una perspectiva actual según el tráfico de productos envasados en ánforas,” in Iberia e Italia: modelos romanos de integración territorial. IV Congreso HistóricoArqueológico Hispano-Italiano (Murcia, 2006), edited by J. Uroz, J. Noguera and F. Coarelli, pp. 67–100. Murcia: Tabularium. RAMON TORRES, J., SÁEZ, A., SÁEZ ROMERO, A. M. and MUÑOZ, A. 2007 El taller alfarero tardoarcaico de Camposoto (Monografías de Arqueología 26). Sevilla: Junta de Andalucía. RUIZ MATA, D. 1995 “El vino en época prerromana en Andalucía Occidental,” in Arqueología del vino. Los orígenes del vino en Occidente, edited by S. Celestino, pp. 157–212. Jerez de la Frontera: Consejo Regulador de las denominaciones de origen Jerez-XeresSherry y Manzanilla. RUIZ MATA, D. and PÉREZ, C. J. 1995 El poblado fenicio del Castillo de Doña Blanca (El Puerto de Santa María, Cádiz) (Colección de Temas Portuenses 5). El Puerto de Santa María: Ayuntamiento de El Puerto de Santa María. SÁEZ ROMERO, A. M. 2007 “El fenómeno del estampillado anfórico en el alfar tardopúnico gadirita de Torre Alta. Balance historiográfico y novedades,” Vipasca. Arqueologia e História 2: 243–253. 2008a La producción cerámica en Gadir en época tardopúnica (siglos –III/–I) (British Archaeological Reports International Series 1812). Oxford: Archaeopress. 2008b “La producción de ánforas en el área del Estrecho en época tardopúnica (siglos III–I a.C.),” in Cerámicas hispanorromanas. Un estado de la cuestión, edited by D. Bernal and A. Ribera, pp. 635–660. Cádiz: Universidad de Cádiz, 2010a “La producción alfarera y la economía salazonera de Gadir: balance y novedades,” Mainake XXXII/II: 885–932. 2010b “Comercio, procesado y consumo. Análisis evolutivo de algunas familias cerámicas gadiritas de época púnica y tardopúnica,” in De la cuina a la taula. IV Reunió d’Economia en el Primer Mil·lenni a.C. (Saguntum Extra 9), edited by C. Mata, G. Pérez and J. Vives-Ferrándiz, pp. 303–312. Valencia: Universidad de Valencia.

AMPHORA PRODUCTION IN GADIR

2013

423

“Talleres cerámicos en Gadir en época postcolonial ¿un modelo alfarero excepcional?,” in Hornos, talleres y focos de producción alfarera en Hispania (Cádiz, 3–4 marzo 2011) (Monografías Ex Officina Hispana I). Vol. I, edited by D. Bernal, L. C. Juam, M. Bustamante, J. J. Díaz and A. Sáez, pp. 215–249. Madrid: Sociedad de Estudios de la Cerámica Antigua en Hispania. 2014a “Fish processing and salted-fish trade in the Punic West: New archaeological data and historical evolution,” in Fish & Ships: Production et commerce des salsamenta durant l’Antiquité (Actes de l’atelier doctoral, Rome 18–22 juin 2012) (Bibliothèque d’Archéologie Méditerranéenne et Africaine 17), edited by E. Botte and V. Leitch, pp. 159–174. Aix-en-Provence: Publications du Centre Camille Jullian. 2014b “Estudio de las ánforas de un pecio púnico inédito de la costa de Málaga,” in I Congreso de Arqueología Náutica y Subacuática Española (ARQVA, Cartagena, 14–16 marzo 2013), edited by X. Nieto, A. Ramírez and P. Recio, pp. 36–50. Madrid: Ministerio de Educación, Cultura y Deporte. 2015 “Imitaciones de vajillas de mesa en la Bahía de Cádiz desde la transición tardoarcaica hasta la época tardopúnica. Actualización de datos y nuevas propuestas,” in Comer a la moda. Imitaciones de vajilla de mesa en el Valle del Guadalquivir y sus vínculos atlánticos (s. VI a.C. – VI d.C.) (Col·lecció Instrumenta 46), edited by F. J. García Fernández and E. García Vargas, pp. 33–78. Barcelona: Universitat de Barcelona. 2016 “Grey wares of Late Punic Gadir (4th–3rd centuries BCE). Some features of the hellenization of local tablewares,” in Traditions and Innovations: Tracking the Development of Pottery from the Late Classical to the Early Imperial periods. International Association for the Research on the Hellenistic Pottery First International Conference (Berlin, 7–10 November 2013), edited by S. Japp and P. Kögler, pp. 43–54. Vienna: Phoibos Verlag. 2018 “Apuntes sobre las dinámicas comerciales de Gadir entre los siglos VI y III a.C.,” Gerión 36/1: 11–40. forthcoming “Wine and fish? A preliminary report on the Punic amphorae from a specialized tavern of the Classical Period at Corinth,” in Assemblages of Transport Amphoras: From Chronology to Economics and Society. 19th International Congress of Classical Archaeology Cologne/Bonn (Germany), 22–26 May 2018, edited by M. Lawall. Heidelberg: Propylaeum Books. SÁEZ ROMERO, A. M. and BELIZÓN ARAGÓN, R. 2017 “The archaic insular necropolis of Phoenician Gadir? Results of the excavation in Calle Hercules (Cádiz, Spain),” Folia Phoenicia. An International Journal 1: 205–212. 2018 “Amphora capacities and standardization in the Phoenician and Punic West. Gadir–Gades and southwestern Iberia as test-case,” in Regional Convergences: Mass Production and the Development of Roman and Byzantine Amphora Standardization, edited by H. González and J. Leidwanger. Vienna: Austrian Archaeological Institute. SÁEZ ROMERO, A. M. and DÍAZ RODRÍGUEZ, J. J. 2007 “La producción de ánforas de tipo griego y grecoitálico en Gadir y el área del Estrecho. Cuestiones tipológicas y de contenido,” Zephyrus LX: 195–208. 2010 “La otra necrópolis de Gadir/Gades. Enterramientos asociados a talleres alfareros en su hinterland insular,” in Las necrópolis de Cádiz. Apuntes de arqueología gaditana en homenaje a J. F. Sibón Olano, edited by A. M. Niveau and V. Gómez, pp. 251–337. Cádiz: Servicio de Publicaciones de la Universidad de Cádiz. 2012 “Entre tierra y mar, entre lo púnico y lo romano. Adaptaciones económicas y territoriales en un medio cambiante: algunas notas sobre paleogeografía y sistemas de explotación del hinterland insular de Gadir/Gades,” in La etapa neopúnica en Hispania y el Mediterráneo centro occidental: identidades compartidas (Serie

A. M. SÁEZ ROMERO

424

SÁEZ ROMERO, A. 2013

2014

SÁEZ ROMERO, A. 2016a 2016b 2016c SÁEZ ROMERO, A. 2009 SÁEZ ROMERO, A. 2017 SÁEZ ROMERO, A. 2019

SÁEZ ROMERO, A. 2005 SÁEZ ROMERO, A. 2016a SÁEZ ROMERO, A. 2016a SÁEZ ROMERO, A. 2020

2021

Historia y Geografía 246), edited by B. Mora and G. Cruz, pp. 259–300. Sevilla: Publicaciones de la Universidad de Sevilla. M. and GUTIÉRREZ, J. M. “Sounds for gods, sounds for humans: Triton shell horns in Phoenician and Punic contexts from the Western Mediterranean,” in Music and Ritual: Bridging Material and Living Cultures. Publications of the International Council of Traditional Music Study Group on Music Archaeology. Vol. 1, edited by R. Jiménez, R. Till and M. Howell, pp. 63–91. Berlin: Ekho Verlag. “Excavaciones en la Calle Hércules 12 de Cádiz. Avance de resultados y primeras propuestas acerca de la posible necrópolis fenicia insular de Gadir,” in Los Fenicios en la Bahía de Cádiz. Nuevas Investigaciones (Collezione di Studi Fenici), edited by M. Botto, pp. 181–201. Pisa-Roma: Fabrizio Serra Editore. M. and HIGUERAS-MILENA, A. “Cerámicas fenicias arcaicas de procedencia subacuática del área de La Caleta (Cádiz): ensayo de contextualización e interpretación histórica,” Cuadernos de Prehistoria y Arqueología de la Universidad Autónoma de Madrid 42: 119–142. “Ramon T–8.2.1.1 (Costa Betica Ulterior),” http://amphorae.icac.cat/amphora/ ramon-t-8211-baetica-ulterior-coast (30 April 2021). “Nuevas investigaciones arqueológicas subacuáticas en el área de La Caleta (Cádiz, España). Estudio de las evidencias de época púnica (siglos VI–III a.C),” Lucentum 36: 9–41. M. and MÁÑEZ, J. “Novedades sobre las estampillas anfóricas gaditanas,” Boletín de la Sociedad de Estudios de la Cerámica Antigua en Hispania – Ex Officina Hispana 1: 13–14. M. and MORENO, E. “Contando la historia. Experiencias de cuantificación y análisis volumétrico en centros artesanales púnicos de la Bahía de Cádiz,” Archivo Español de Arqueología 90: 219–246. M. and ZAMORA LÓPEZ, J. A. “Las importaciones anfóricas de tradición púnica procedentes del Mediterráneo Central,” in Scambi e commerci in area vesuviana. I dati delle anfore dai saggi stratigrafici I.E. (Impianto Elettrico) 1980–81 nel Foro di Pompei (Roman and Late Antique Mediterranean Pottery 14), edited by D. Bernal and D. Cottica, pp. 77–94. Oxford: Archaeopress. M., DÍAZ RODRÍGUEZ, J. J. and SÁEZ ESPLIGARES, A. “Nuevas aportaciones a la definición del Círculo del Estrecho: La cultura material a través de algunos centros alfareros,” Gerión 22/1: 31–60. M., GONZÁLEZ, H. and HIGUERAS-MILENA, A. “Una aportación al estudio del comercio marítimo antiguo gaditano a partir de un conjunto de ánforas halladas en aguas del área de La Caleta (Cádiz),” Onoba Revista de Arqueología y Antigüedad 4: 3–18. M., LUACES, M. and MORENO, E. “Late Punic or Early Roman? A 2nd Century BCE deposit from Gadir/Gades (Cádiz Bay, Spain),” HEROM – Journal on Hellenistic and Roman Material Culture 5/1: 27–77. M., THEODOROPOULOU, T. and BELIZÓN, R. “Atunes púnicos y vinos egeos en una taberna de la Grecia clásica. Desarrollo y resultados iniciales del Punic Amphora Building Project (Corinto),” in Un viaje entre el Oriente y el Occidente del Mediterráneo, IX Congreso Internacional de Estudios Fenicios y Púnicos (Monografías y Trabajos de Arqueología 5). Vol. 2, edited by S. Celestino Pérez and E. Rodríguez González, pp. 817–836. Mérida: Insituto de Arqueología de Mérida. “Salting and consuming fish in the Classical Mediterranean. A review of the archaeological evidence from the Punic Amphora Building (Corinth, Greece),”

AMPHORA PRODUCTION IN GADIR

425

in Proceedings of the Roman Amphora Contents International Interactive Conference (Cádiz 2015) (Roman and Late Antique Mediterranean Pottery Series 17), edited by D. Bernal, M. Bonifay, A. Pecci and V. Leitch, pp. 485–498. Oxford: Archaeopress.

TORRES ORTIZ, M. 2010 “Sobre la cronologia de la necrópolis fenicia arcaica de Cádiz,” in Las necrópolis de Cádiz: Apuntes de arqueología gaditana en homenaje a J. F. Sibón Olano, edited by A. Mª Niveau and V. Gómez, pp. 31–67. Cádiz: Servicio de Publicaciones de la Universidad de Cádiz. TORRES ORTIZ, M., LÓPEZ, E., GENER, J. M., NAVARRO, M. A. and PAJUELO, J. M. 2014 “El material cerámico de los contextos fenicios del ‘Teatro Cómico’ de Cádiz: un análisis preliminar,” in Los Fenicios en la Bahía de Cádiz. Nuevas investigaciones (Colezzione di Studi Fenici), edited by M. Botto, pp. 51–82. Pisa-Roma: Fabrizio Serra Editore. WILLIAMS, C. H. K. 1978 “Corinth 1977: Forum Southwest,” Hesperia 47: 1–39. 1979 “Corinth 1978: Forum Southwest,” Hesperia 48: 105–144. 1980 “Corinth Excavations,” Hesperia 49: 107–134. ZAMORA LÓPEZ, J. A. 2002 “El ánfora cananea y las medidas de capacidad en el oriente mediterráneo de la edad del Bronce Final,” Spal 12: 231–257. ZAMORA LÓPEZ, J. A. and SÁEZ ROMERO, A. M. 2014 “The oceanfront of Phoenician Cádiz: A new epigraphic find and its palaeogeographical context,” in Los Fenicios en la Bahía de Cádiz. Nuevas Investigaciones (Collezione di Studi Fenici), edited by M. Botto, pp. 251–263. Pisa-Roma: Fabrizio Serra Editore. ZIMMERMAN-MUNN, M. L. 2003 “Corinthian trade with the Punic West in the Classical period,” in Corinth. The Centenary 1896–1996 (Corinth XX), edited by C. K. Williams II and N. Bookidis, pp. 195–217. Princeton: American School of Classical Studies at Athens.

Antonio M. SÁEZ ROMERO Prehistory and Archaeology Department University of Seville Spain

A STUDY ON THE LATE PUNIC AMPHORAE FROM THE CIRCLE OF THE STRAIT: FROM PRODUCTION TO DISTRIBUTION PATTERNS IN THE WESTERN MEDITERRANEAN Max LUACES ABSTRACT The goal of my contribution is to present and discuss new data regarding the production and distribution of various ancient containers which were connected to the Punic tradition but mostly produced during the Roman time. Some of these amphorae have recently been gathered and renamed as Late Punic amphorae.1 Most of them could have been manufactured in the Strait of Gibraltar area. Thus, the focus will be on this particular region, where many cities were founded by the Phoenicians around the beginning of the Iron Age. The data and arguments used in this paper come from the PhD thesis I have defended in 2017 on this subject.2 Nonetheless, this paper should not be seen as a mere abstract of this work. This paper takes the opportunity to consider the question of the economic contribution of the ‘Punic’ populations, in the whole diversity of this notion, to the Roman expansion of the Republican era.

INTRODUCTION Before getting into this discussion, it is important to present and define clearly these Late Punic containers, both from the typological and historical point of view. Such an exercise could have seemed simple but it turns out to be particularly difficult, even after several years of research. In fact, the terminological problems around these amphorae have monopolised a wide part of this research. Although this subject might seem incongruous, it is in reality a fundamental aspect. As a witness of the difficulties regarding the Punic containers during the Roman time, these terminological questions deserve to be discussed in a thorough way. From a semantic point of view, the adjective ‘Late Punic’ should refer to the last material produced with Punic traits. It is exactly the sense it carries in the case of the amphorae. Nevertheless, the last types with a Punic inspiration were manufactured during the Roman time. Some of the types of containers that will be discussed here, have been produced more than two centuries after the Roman conquest of their production area, possibly until the beginning of the Early Empire. Besides this long historic continuity, other forms associated with the Late Punic containers began to be made well before the Roman conquest. Finally, to add to the ambiguity of this situation, some Late Punic amphoric forms appeared in nonRoman contexts alongside amphorae of the territories recently conquered by Rome, in this case, without having any profound morphological evolution. In these conditions, we can 1 2

 Sáez Romero 2008; Ramon Torres 2008.  Luaces 2017.

428

M. LUACES

Fig. 1. Map of the situation and extension of the Circle of the Strait. The main cities of this cultural area seem to have been ancient Phoenician settlements. But other communities are also connected to this Circle of the Strait, both in its northern and southern shores.

perceive the ambiguity of the Late Punic adjective: is it a historical or typological indication, or both? Apart from the terminological difficulties, another issue is related to the sole qualifier of ‘Punic’ for these amphorae. The subject was already discussed elsewhere,3 but it is necessary to recall that this term is more a source of confusion than a congruent qualifier. Firstly, the homogeneous ‘Punic world’ that was sometimes described, has proved, in reality, to be much more heterogeneous than previously envisaged. Secondly, the Punic adjective represents an etic category, just like the ‘Phoenician’ one.4 They both imperfectly translate the political and social realities of the antique populations concerned.5 Without pushing too far the discussion on this point, it should be noted that some of the cities of the Strait of Gibraltar, originating from the Phoenician colonisation from the Levantine coast, represented a specific population within the so-called Punic world.6 Isolated at the end of the ancient world, the former Phoenician cities of Iberia and Mauritania were grouped together through various kinds of networks. They established a specific cultural group, around their Phoenician heritage and marine economic activities, that was identified by the paradigm of the ‘Circle of the Strait’ (Círculo del Estrecho in Spanish) (Fig. 1).7 This study exclusively concerns these populations of the Circle of the Strait, specified here as Phoenician of the Strait.8 Although 3

 López Castro 2007; Prag 2014.  Dundes 1962. 5  Ferrer Abelda 2011, pp. 194–200; Jigoulov 2014, pp. 14–16. 6  In spite of the limits evoked for the ‘Phoenician’ qualifier, the historiography and its use in the development of the academic research gave it a meaning widely understood, which has to be taken into account. It is difficult to discuss ‘Phoenician’ and ‘Punic’ amphorae without using both terms, but we should keep in mind the inherent contraints induced by them. 7  Bernal Casasola 2016; Callegarin 2008, 2016; Tarradell 1960. 8  Martín Ruiz 2010, pp. 9–13. 4

LATE PUNIC AMPHORAE FROM THE CIRCLE OF THE STRAIT

429

they were regularly attached to the Carthaginian ‘Empire,’ quite particularly during the first phases of the second Punic War (218–202 BCE), these cities of the Strait of Gibraltar were probably autonomous civic entities.9 Some of these communities did not hesitate to abandon the Carthaginian and then support Rome when their own interests have proved to be threatened. The history of the Phoenician of the Strait remained unexplored for a long time. The work of López Castro lifted the veil on the events which led to their incorporation by Rome.10 However, many uncertainties persist regarding the modalities and the circumstances of this integration, in particular on its connection to the commercial expansion of the Late Punic amphorae. To come back to the definition of these containers, it should be noted that various populations of the ‘Punic world’, in its traditional sense, did not disappear at the same moment, nor in the same circumstances. Some populations seem to have remained politically autonomous until the Early Empire, as was the case for certain cities of the western Mauritania.11 Others were conquered by Rome around the middle of the third century BCE, as was the case for some populations of western Sicily. This disparity implies all the more differences in the characterisation of the ‘Late Punic’ amphorae, as much chronologically as typologically or historically. It would be more relevant to associate a plurality of amphoric types with this identification. Despite focusing on the Late Punic amphorae from the Strait of Gibraltar region, the semiology of this term should not reduce it to this sole area.

I. TYPOLOGY AND PRODUCTION OF THE LATE PUNIC AMPHORAE FROM THE CIRCLE OF THE STRAIT From a typo-morphological point of view, five categories with various types of amphorae should be related to the group of the Late Punic amphorae from the Strait. Because of their connection with the ‘Phoenician-Punic’ culture, most of these categories are connected to the typology of Ramon Torres:12 SG–12.1.1.0, G–9.1.0.0, SG–8.2.1.0 and SG–7.4.3.0 (Fig. 2). But a more Roman type is also present as an adapted version of the Dressel 1 type. These categories were considered as Late Punic in some of the most recent contributions.13 However, some confusions remain when trying to define the precise types related to the categories mentioned above. Two conceptions prevail so far. The first concept jointly considers some types manufactured at the end of the Punic period and others produced during the Roman period as Late Punic. It is true that most of the forms associated with the above mentioned categories appeared during the third century BCE, well before the Roman presence in the Strait of Gibraltar. Thus, the first concept of the Late Punic material puts the accent on the development of the amphoric repertoires independently from the historical evolutions. The second notion considers the amphorae made during the Roman time as exclusively Late Punic. This 9

 Ferrer Abelda 2011, pp. 202–205; López Castro 2006, pp. 43–51; Niveau de Villedary 2015, pp. 234–238.  López Castro 1995. 11  Rhorfi 1999, 2008; Luaces 2017, pp. 309–315. 12  Ramon Torres 1995. 13  Sáez Romero 2008; Ramon Torres 2008. 10

430

M. LUACES

Fig. 2. General overview of the various categories composing the Late Punic group from the Strait of Gibraltar. Various types associated with each of the categories are depicted with their technical drawings and photograph for each type which demonstrate the general features of their respective category. Nonetheless, other types should be taken into account, like the T–7.4.3.2 for the SG–7.4.3.0 for example.

concept suggests associating the reading offered by the classification of the archaeological material with the analysis of their historic conditions. As one can imagine, these two concepts envisage different productions as ‘Late Punic.’ But it is necessary to underline that they both concern the same categories of ancient containers, such as the G–9.1.0.0 category and the evolved T–9.1.1.1 of the Roman period. The empirical data has confirmed the pursuit of the production of various types from the Strait long after the Roman conquest, except for the T–12.1.1.2, T–7.4.3.3 and the adapted Dressel 1 amphorae, three types which were exclusively produced during the Roman period.14 The T–7.4.3.3 class was an evolution of a truly Carthaginian production, but it was made in the workshops of the Strait after the fall of Carthage.15 This same type illustrates perfectly the various economic changes that the 14

 Luaces 2017, pp. 96–103 and 118–148.  Ramon Torres 1995, pp. 210–213. The fact that the workshops of Gadir and Malaka began to produce the really Punic form of the T–7.4.3.3 (in correspondence with the Mañá C2b type), while they were politically 15

LATE PUNIC AMPHORAE FROM THE CIRCLE OF THE STRAIT

431

Circle of the Strait underwent after the Roman conquest.16 To return to previous two concepts, it is not a question of judging their respective value, as both are complementary. Their interest lies in the various analytical frames which presuppose them, between a first typomorphological reading and a second, more historical and phenomenological one. It should be emphasised here that we will focus on the persistence of the ‘Punic’ culture during the Late Republican era, and that the second concept is favoured. From this point of view, the chronological time frame is centred on the Roman period. The recent revision of various Roman strata from the Gaditan workshop of Torre Alta (Cadiz, Spain) allowed for the identification of the first chronological milestone for the production of the Late Punic containers from the Strait.17 These strata have been dated around the years 180–160 BCE, thanks to the presence of various evolved forms of the G–9.1.0.0 and several fragments of the SG–12.1.1.0.18 The uncovered amphoric assemblage was clearly connected to the Roman period with Gadir having gone under the Roman rule after the signature of a foedus in 206 BCE.19 It shows evidence of a progressive transformation of the ceramic repertoires, ending in the appearance of the Late Punic containers (evolved T–9.1.1.1 and T–12.1.1.2). These transformations were also associated with a ‘Romanisation’ of the production techniques, indicated by the presence of Italic tools that were never present before in the Circle of the Strait.20 This information suggests that the beginning of the production of the Late Punic amphorae of the Strait began around the years 175–160 BCE. The end of this production is more complex to define as several types of the Late Punic group could have been produced until the end of Republican era, or even the Early Empire, as I mentioned.21 There is a significant amount of data related to the manufacture of Late Punic types in all the area of the Circle of the Strait, from Gadir to Malaka, passing by Kouass and Tamuda (Fig. 3). But the significant number of workshops which have produced these containers makes their study confusing. The bay of Cádiz offered the first productive contexts related to the Late Punic amphorae. Beside the Torre Alta figlina, various sites dated of the Republican era such as Pery Junquera, Avenida de Portugal or Gregorio Marañón, have provided an opportunity to assess the intensive production of these containers at Gadir.22 Each of the sites I mentioned have offered evidence of a link between the appearance of the Late Punic amphorae and the ‘Romanization’ of their production. Whether it is in the firing patterns (removable hob), the structures of production (new type of kiln with a Roman architecture) or even in the economic organisation, the contexts at Gadir demonstrate a correlation Roman for more than 50 years, should deserve more attention. The reasons for this ‘come back’ of a Punic form are difficult to arrest (upturn in the market bound to the form of packaging? Will to show its ‘punicity’? Immigration of people from Carthage and Utica in the cities of the Circle of the Strait?). It is however necessary to insist on the fact that the Punic prototype, the T–7.4.3.1 type (also in correspondence with the type Mañá C2b) appeared around the years 175–150 BCE, well before the fall of Carthage. 16  Luaces 2015, pp. 250–253; Sáez Romero 2008, p. 653. 17  Sáez Romero 2004. 18  Sáez Romero et al. 2016. 19  López Castro 1991. 20  Sáez Romero et al. 2016, pp. 51–53. 21  Sáez Romero 2008, pp. 647–648. 22  Bernal Casasola et al. 2004; Blanco Jiménez 1991; González Toraya et al. 2002.

M. LUACES

432

Fig. 3. Presentation of various technological ‘improvements’ of the amphoric production from the Circle of the Strait in connection with the evidence of manufacture related to the Late Punic amphorae. Each data is situated in the area of the Strait of Gibraltar. a) Republican kiln from the site of Pery Junquera (Cádiz, Spain), a form of kiln with lateral pillars never observed in the area of the Strait before the Roman time; b) removable hob from a non-discovered kiln in the Avenida de Portugal (Cádiz, Spain); c) various examples of Late Punic amphorae (T–7.4.3.3 and adapted Dressel 1) from the figlinae of ancient Málaga; d) firing waster of an amphora T–7.4.3.3 discovered at the site of Kouass (Morocco); e) another firing waster of the T–7.4.3.3 type, but from the region of Tamuda (Tétouan, Morocco) this time.

between the transformation of their activity and the mutation of the amphoric morphologies. Other Iberian cities associated with the Circle of the Strait offered similar data. It is the case for the contexts of Malaka (Málaga, Spain). Two ancient ceramic workshops of this ancient city have offered invaluable information: the sites of Calle Granada and Juan XXIII.23 These two figlinae entered service during the second half of the second century BCE. Their related amphoric repertoires show important similarity with the one observable in the contexts of Gadir for the same period: T–12.1.1.2, T–7.4.3.3, adapted Dressel 1, and probably evolved forms of the T–9.1.1.1. The archaeological documentation regarding Late Republican Málaga is more restricted than that of Gadir. Nevertheless, an examination of the amphoric industry, and the scale of the city, indicates that the industry had to contend with significant changes between 140 and 80 BCE.24 For example, new activity areas appear during this period in connection with the likely expansion of the production of fisheries and a ‘Romanisation’ of the material assemblage. Once more, the appearance of the Late Punic amphorae seems to have taken place in parallel with these economic transformations. Iberia was not the only region concerned with the manufacture of these containers. The southern shores of the Strait of Gibraltar, a territory associated with western Mauritania, also offered testimonies of the Late Punic production. The site of Kouass (Asilah, Morocco), one 23

 Arancibia Román et al. 2012; Pérez-Malumbres Landa 2012.  Corrales Aguilar 2003; Luaces 2017, pp. 281–287.

24

LATE PUNIC AMPHORAE FROM THE CIRCLE OF THE STRAIT

433

of the most symbolic sites of the pre-Roman ceramic production in Mauritania,25 demonstrates evidence of a local T–7.4.3.3 and T–12.1.1.2 manufacture.26 Besides the site of Kouass, contexts of the ancient city of Tamuda (Tétouan, Morocco) also brought indications concerning the manufacturing of certain Late Punic containers including a firing waster of T–7.4.3.3.27 But these Mauritanian discoveries pose serious questions concerning the end of the production of the containers. Contrary to Iberia, the southern shore of the Strait only became Roman during the Early Empire. Although the archaeological data is currently lacking, nothing prevents envisaging a production of the amphorae in Mauritania until the Claudian era. But a Mauritanian manufacturing of these Late Punic containers makes one wonder about their link with the deployment of a Romanised economic model. As previously mentioned, such a relation is well attested for the Iberian sites, in which case we can see a correspondence with the intensification of the Roman presence during the Republican era. But in the meantime, western Mauritania was an autonomous territory. Could it be proposed that a first ‘Romanisation’ of the amphoric production occurred before the Roman political control? In this case, what role Gadir was able to play, as it may have been the heart of the Circle of the Strait and an ally to Rome, in these phenomena? There are many questions without answers for the moment, which deserves more attention. The presented information concerns ancient cities with well certified evidence and indications of production. However, it should be noted that many other cities and territories of the Circle of the Strait could have contributed to the manufacturing of the Late Punic containers, such as the Guadalquivir valley for example.28 The production of our amphorae in the Strait seems to have been a regional phenomenon with also a level of production that also quickly reached high volumes. This last idea is illustrated by the expansion of their manufacturing in Malaka and Gadir. For the case of ancient Cádiz, at least thirty ‘new’ workshops, situated in sectors previously virgin of any ceramic activities, appeared during the Late Republican era, each dedicated to the fabrication of the Late Punic containers.29 The highlighting of a massive production of these amphorae leads one to wonder about the causes of this phenomenon, but more importantly about the destination of all these commodities. These questions will be answered by examining the maritime traffic of our containers of the Strait and the study of their distribution in the western Mediterranean.

II. MARITIME DISSEMINATION AND TRADE ROUTES OF THE LATE PUNIC AMPHORAE FROM THE STRAIT To analyse the importance of the trade of the Late Punic amphorae implies identifying the territories and ‘markets’ to which they were exported. An examination of the data from the underwater contexts and from various sites of consumption would be the best way to 25

 Bridoux 2008, p. 375.  Kbiri Alaoui and Milou 2007. 27  Bernal Casasola et al. 2014, p. 467. 28  García Vargas et al. 2011, pp. 198–200; Luaces 2017, pp. 361–366. 29  Lagóstena Barrios 1996. 26

434

M. LUACES

push forward on these topics. Methodologically, such a study is yet again confronted with difficulties. First of all, the containers from the Strait are easy to confuse with their typological ‘relatives’ regarding whether they are Punic or Roman. When confronted with an adapted Dressel 1, for example, petrographic studies of the fabric are the best way to confirm that the amphora is from the Strait of Gibraltar. Nevertheless, this kind of information began to be taken into account only recently. Accordingly, the identification of an adapted Dressel 1 cannot only be based on a bibliographical tabulation. Beyond this first constraint, many scholars have noted that the Punic material is often neglected,30 especially when it is present in levels chronologically and materially Roman. Such a situation, even if known for many decades, still persists and represents a real issue for the study of Phoenician and Punic amphorae. In these conditions, one can only offer a restricted image of the trade of the Late Punic containers. In spite of these limitations, the gathering of various data could allow for the development of an early picture of the circulation of the containers from the Circle of the Strait. In the course of my PhD field studies, I revised the cargo of various ancient shipwrecks with the help of Sáez Romero. Two of them, the ‘Chrétienne M2’ and the ‘Moines 2’, provided interesting data. These two underwater contexts have allowed for the identification of the ancient ship cargo mostly, if not exclusively, dedicated to the maritime transportation of Late Punic amphorae from the Strait. Their assemblages both consisted of T–7.4.3.3 and adapted Dressel 1.31 The wreck ‘Chrétienne M2’ was particularly interesting as the material associated with this context offered several epigraphic marks written with three idioms (Latin, Greek and neo-Punic). There is also an epigraph on the anchor tab, probably the name of the shipowner, mentioning a certain Abdamon (son of) Shilem.32 In many respects, this wreck could be seen as a representative of the situation of the Circle of the Strait during Late Republican period, as indicated in archaeology and history: it was a cosmopolitan area, profoundly integrated into the Roman commercial circuits in which the trade elites of the old Phoenician cities could have played a major economical role. The study of these underwater contexts was completed by an investigation on isolated amphorae from the current coasts of Portugal, Spain and France. Coupled with the data of various ancient harbor contexts, like the gulf of Fos-sur-Mer (France), this examination confirmed the wide distribution of the Late Punic containers from the Strait.33 Far from being limited to the Southern Iberia shores, as it was thought, these packaging underwent an ample and premature distribution. Recent discoveries in Tolosa (Toulouse, France), for example, have offered evidence of the dissemination of evolved T–9.1.1.1 amphorae from the period of 175/150 BCE.34 Regarding Gallia Transalpina in particular, there is ample documentation concerning the Late Punic amphorae of the Strait. From Tolosa to Olbia of Provence, via Narbo Martius, Lattara and the mining site of Lascours,35 a large number of sites allowed for the identification 30

 Empereur and Hesnard 1987, p. 24.  Joncheray and Joncheray 2002, pp. 57–62; Luaces 2017, pp. 391–413. 32  Briquel Chatonnet et al. 2004, pp. 195–197. 33  Luaces 2017, pp. 430–448. 34  Loughton 2016, pp. 118–119. 35  Gourdiole and Landes 2002; Sanchez 2009, pp. 127–141. 31

LATE PUNIC AMPHORAE FROM THE CIRCLE OF THE STRAIT

435

Fig. 4. General map of the maritime traffic of the Late Punic amphorae. The trade routes proposed for these types are based on a joint study of multiple data, both archaeological (shipwrecks, isolated amphorae and coastal evidences) and environmental (study of the ancient conditions of navigation). This map illustrates the extended distribution of the Late Punic amphorae.

of examples of these containers in significant numbers. The type T–7.4.3.3 was the most represented, but the distribution of the T–12.1.1.2, evolved T–9.1.1.1 and even adapted Dressel 1 to southern Gaul was also attested.36 With regard to this last type, I made archaeometric analyses to be sure of the origin of the amphorae potentially native of the region of the Strait of Gibraltar. In spite of some contradictory results and errors of assessment, these analyses attested that some of the Dressel 1 discovered in southern Gaul were coming from Gadir and Malaka.37 This data seems to confirm the Late Punic affiliation of the adapted Dressel 1, which corresponds with the information of their productive and sea transport contexts. However, its name is all the more ambiguous, as it is mainly considered as an Italic production for now. Between Galicia and Italy, via Portugal, Morocco and Southern Gaul, numerous evidences of a vast circulation of the Late Punic containers from the Strait were identified (Fig. 4). Besides the interest for the improvement of knowledge regarding the Late Republican economy, this information allows for hypotheses regarding the traffic lanes of our containers from the Strait. Well before the Roman period, the sailors of the Circle of the Strait regularly sailed the Atlantic Ocean and navigated throughout the Mediterranean Sea. Their skills could have contributed to the wide commercial dissemination of Late Punic amphorae. The 36

 Luaces 2016; 2017, pp. 633–657.  To assess the exact proportion of these adapted Dressel 1 from the Strait is however impossible for now because of my limited resources and the huge cost of the systematic study it would need. 37

436

M. LUACES

economical transformation noticed for the productive contexts, in connection with the integration of the Circle of the Strait to the Roman world, did not decrease the economical capacity of the region after the Roman conquest. On the contrary, it was noticed that this period saw an intensification of the exports of the ancient Phoenician cities of the Strait in correspondence with the expansion of their production activities. These observations suggest a re-evaluation of the role played by the area of Gibraltar in the Roman economic circuits of Republican era, which through the study of maritime packaging shows to have been more Punic than Roman.

III. ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION REGARDING THE THE STRAIT

TRADE OF THE

LATE PUNIC

AMPHORAE OF

Researchers insist regularly on the place taken by Hispania in the Roman economy since the Augustan era.38 Southern Iberia is sometimes presented as having begun its commercial assault on Gaul from the Imperial period, for example.39 The documentation shown here highlights that this ‘commercial conquest’ could have begun earlier, from the years 175/150 BCE to be precise. The fact that this trade was undertaken mostly with ‘Punic’ amphorae, which was not well known until recently, would have limited its visibility. Moreover, the study of the Late Punic amphorae has answered certain questions concerning the economy of ancient Cádiz at the beginning of the first century BCE.40 The study of these containers brought back evidences that this city was already a prospering economic centre during the years 150–100 BCE, just like Malaka and Tamuda, or even maybe Lixus and Sala. Altogether, these former Phoenician cities of the Strait seem to have participated in the supply of the Roman troops and to the exploitation of various mineral fields in Gaul and Iberia, while growing richer with the business, among others, of their famous fisheries products (Fig. 5). Roman provinces and territories outside the Italian Peninsula are sometimes envisaged as simple suppliers of resources during the Republican era. Non Italian populations would have been passive economically, commercial activities being exclusively in the hands of ‘real’ Roman. The information associated with the Late Punic containers questions this interpretation. As indicated by the assemblage of the wreck ‘Chrétienne M2’, the distribution of some of the commodities of the Circle of the Strait was undertaken by local actors, probably by Phoenicians of the Strait recently associated with the Roman elites. These locals took advantage of the opportunities Rome offered to them, and could have exported their goods even to Italy. Their participation in economical activities, in connection with their incorporation in the Roman world, did not harm the expansion of Rome, but quite the opposite.

38

 Des Boscs 2004.  Roman 2009, p. 255. 40  Des Boscs-Plateaux 1994, pp. 12–13. 39

LATE PUNIC AMPHORAE FROM THE CIRCLE OF THE STRAIT

437

Fig. 5. Updated overview of the distribution of different types of Late Punic amphorae in the western Mediterranean between 175 and 50 BCE. a) T–8.2.1.1 and T–12.1.1.2; b) T–7.4.3.3 and adapted Dressel 1; c) evolved T–9.1.1.1.

438

M. LUACES

The relationship between Rome and the other Mediterranean populations are regularly considered as strictly conflictual.41 Such an analysis only allows for an understanding of the ancient social, cultural and geopolitical relationships around the dichotomy of domination/ submission, a relationship which is not limited to Roman history. On the contrary, the Late Punic amphorae and their assemblage indicate the existence of cooperation and associations, between Rome and the local elites where each party had something to gain. Many people may have suffered from the Roman conquest and domination, but the expansion of the authority of the Urbs seems also to have developed due to its alliances rather than to its conquests. The case of Gadir is one of the best examples, as this city had not begun its association with Rome under direct violence and threats. Although subjected to the City, Gadir clearly underwent an economical expansion during the Late Republican era, becoming one of the richest communities during the Augustan time.42 It is likely that, just as ancient Cádiz, several cities of the Circle of the Strait benefited from their passage under Roman rule. The production of our Late Punic containers being a regional phenomenon, western Mauritania, for example, should be included in these ancient economic dynamics. Nonetheless, the contribution of these indigenous residents of the Strait to the supply of the Roman operations also testifies that Rome obtained many benefits from the cooperation, an aspect still little considered.

CONCLUSION Whether it is in the area of the Strait of Gibraltar or in the rest of North Africa,43 archaeological and historical data show a long persistence of Punic traditions during the Roman period. However, this continuity remains difficult to weigh up among early Roman contexts which sets a difficulty for its study. To improve our knowledge regarding the fate of the Punic economies shortly after the Roman conquest represents a real challenge, in particular when one is looking at the amphorae. But the analysis of the continuity of the ‘Punic culture’ is a field which deserves more attention. More precisely, it is the contribution of these Punic populations to the Roman economy, whether they were native of Tunisia, Spain or Morocco, that should be questioned. Beyond the destruction of Carthage, other cities from the ancient Punic territories collaborated with Rome in a way that was beneficial to both sides. The study of the distribution of the Late Punic amphorae may then allow to shed light on these economic ties. From this point of view, these containers could improve our knowledge on a Roman world which was much more heterogeneous and could have been far less Italiancentred than what we had thought in the case of the Republican era. That such situation may have contributed to the construction and longevity of the Roman Empire is also an idea that should be considered.

41

 For interesting perspectives on this topic, see MacMullen 2000; Le Roux 2004.  Des Boscs-Plateaux 1994, pp. 11–14; Luaces 2017, pp. 230–237. 43  Ben Jerbania 2012. 42

LATE PUNIC AMPHORAE FROM THE CIRCLE OF THE STRAIT

439

BIBLIOGRAPHY ARANCIBIA ROMÁN, A., CHACÓN MOHEDANO, C. and MORA SERRANO, B. 2012 “Nuevos datos sobre la producción anfórica tardopúnica en Malaca: el sector alfarero de la margen derecha del río Guadalmedina (Avda. Juan XXIII),” in La etapa neopúnica en Hispania y el Mediterráneo centro occidental: identidades compartidas, edited by B. Mora Serrano and G. Cruz Andreotti, pp. 391–411. Seville: Universidad de Sevilla. BEN JERBANIA, I. 2013 “Observations sur les amphores de tradition puniques d’après une nouvelle découverte près de Tunis,” Antiquités africaines 49: 179–192. BERNAL CASASOLA, D. 2016 “Le Cercle du Détroit, une région géohistorique sur la longue duré,” Karthago 29: 7–50. BERNAL CASASOLA, D., LORENZO MARTÍNEZ, L., EXPÓSITO ALVAREZ, J. A., SÁEZ ROMERO, A. M. and DÍAZ RODRÍGUEZ, J. J. 2004 “Las innovaciones tecnológicas itálicas en la alfarería gadirita (s. II a.C.): a propósito del taller anfórico de la Avda. de Portugal,” in Talleres Alfareros y producciones cerámicas en la Bética romana (ss. II a.C.–VII d.C.). Actas del Congreso Internacional Figlinae Baeticae 2003, Cadiz (British Archaeological Reports International Series 1266), edited by L. Lagóstena Barios and D. Bernal Casasola, pp. 621–632. Oxford: Archaeopress. BERNAL CASASOLA, D., RAISSOUNI, B., BUSTAMANTE ÁLVAREZ, M., LARA MEDINA, M., VARGAS GIRÓN, J. M., DÍAZ RODRÍGUEZ, J. J., SÁEZ ROMERO, A. M., PARODI, M., VERDUGO, J., GARCIA GIMÉNEZ, R., ZOUAK, M. and MOUJOUD, T. 2014 “Alfarería en la Tamuda mauritana y romana. Primeros resultados del proyecto marrocoespañol EAT,” in As produções cerâmicas de imitação na hispania. Vol. I, edited by R. Morais, A. Fernández and M. J. Sousa, pp. 463–481. Porto: Universidade do Porto. BLANCO JIMÉNEZ, F. J. 1991 “Excavaciones de urgencia en un solar de la calle Gregorio Marañón. Cádiz,” Anuario Arqueológico de Andalucía 1989/3: 8–81. BRIDOUX, V. 2008 “Les établissements de Maurétanie et de Numidie entre 201 et 33 av. J.-C. Synthèse des connaissances,” Mélanges de l’École Française de Rome 120/2: 369–426. BRIQUEL CHATONNET, F., HESNARD, A. and POLLET, C. 2004 “Abdamon (?), armateur du navire la Chrétienne M2 (Var), une inscription sur jas d’ancre en néopunique,” in Méditerranée occidentale antique: les échanges. Actes du IIIème séminaire Anciennes Routes Maritimes Méditerranéennes, Marseille, 2004, edited by R. Turchetti and A. Gallina Zevi, pp. 189–202. Soveria Manelli: Rubbettino. CALLEGARIN, L. 2008 “La côte maurétanienne et ses relations avec le littoral de la Bétique (fin du IIIe siècle a.C.– Ier siècle p.C.),” Mainake 30: 289–328. 2016 “L’efficience d’un paradigme d’antiquistes,” Karthago 29: 51–72. CORRALES AGUILAR, P. 2002 “La articulación del espacio en el sur de Hispania (de mediados del siglo II a.C. a mediados del siglo II d.C.),” Mainake 24: 443–456. DES BOSCS, F. 2004 “La richesse des aristocraties de Bétique et de Tarraconaise (50 av. J.-C. – fin du IIème siècle ap. J.-C.): essai de synthèse,” Gerión 2/1: 305–354. DES BOSCS-PLATEAUX, F. 1994 “L. Cornelius Balbus de Gadès: la carrière méconnue d’un Espagnol à l’époque des guerres civiles (Ier siècle av. J.-C.),” Mélanges de la Casa de Velázquez 30/1: 7–35. DUNDES, A. 1962 “From etic to emic units in the structural study of folktales,” Journal of American Folklore 75/296: 95–105.

440

M. LUACES

EMPEREUR, J. Y. and HESNARD, A. 1987 “Les amphores hellénistiques,” in Céramiques hellénistiques et romaines. Vol. II, edited by P. Lévêque and J.-P. Morel, pp. 9–71. Paris: Les Belles Lettres. FERRER ABELDA, E. 2011 “Unidad y diversidad de los fenicios en época postcolonial (I): la visión exoétnica,” in Fenicios en Tartessos: nuevas perspectivas, edited by M. Álvarez Martí-Aguilar, pp. 193– 212. Oxford: Archaeopress. GARCÍA VARGAS, E., DE ALMEIDA, R. and GONZÁLEZ CESTEROS, H. 2011 “Los tipos anfóricos del Guadalquivir en el marco de los envases hispanos del siglo I a.C. Un universo heterogéneo entre la imitación y la estandarización,” Spal 20: 185–284. GONZÁLEZ TORAYA, B., TORRES QUIRÓS, J., LAGÓSTENA BARRIOS, L. G. and PRIETO REINA, O. 2002 “Los inicios de la producción anfórica en la bahía gaditana en época republicana: la intervención de urgencia en Avda. Pery Junquera (San Fernando, Cádiz),” in Conservas, Aceite y Vino de la Bética en el Imperio Romano. Actas del Congreso Internacional Ex Baetica Amphorae, Ecija–Seville, 1998, edited by G. Chic Garcia, pp. 175–186. Ecija: Editorial Gráficas Sol. GOURDIOLE, R. and LANDES, C. 2002 “Lascours-Ceilhes-et-Rocozels (Hérault),” in Les agglomérations gallo-romaines du Languedoc-Roussillon (Monographies d’Archéologie Méditerranéenne 13–14), edited by J. L. Fiches, pp. 271–281. Lattes: Association pour la Recherche Archéologique en Languedoc-Roussillon. JIGOULOV, V. S. 2014 The Social History of Achaemenid Phoenicia. Being a Phoenician? Negotiating Empires. Abingdon: Taylor and Francis. JONCHERAY, A. and JONCHERAY, J. P. 2002 “Chrétienne M, trois épaves distinctes, entre le cinquième siècle avant et le premier siècle après Jésus-Christ,” Cahiers d’archéologie subaquatique 14: 57–130. KBIRI ALAOUI, M. and MILOU, B. 2007 “Producción de ánforas y actividad comercial,” in Revisando Kuass (Asilah, Marruecos). Talleres cerámicos en un enclave fenicio, púnico y mauritano (Saguntum Extra 7), edited by M. Kbiri Alaoui, pp. 65–110. Valencia: Universidad de Valencia. LAGÓSTENA BARRIOS, L. G. 1996 Alfarería romana en la bahía de Cádiz. Cádiz: Universidad de Cádiz. LE ROUX, P. 2004 “La romanisation en question,” Annales. Histoire, Sciences Sociales 59/2: 287–311. LÓPEZ CASTRO, J. L. 1991 “El Foedus de Gadir del 206 a.C.: una revisión,” Florentia Iliberritana 2: 269–280. 1995 Hispania Poena, los fenicios en la Hispania Romana (206 a.C.–96 d.C.). Barcelona: Crítica. 2006 “Los fenicios occidentales: de colonias a ciudades,” in De les comunitats locals als estats arcaics: la formació de les societats complexes a la costa del Mediterrani occidental. Actas de la III Reunió Internacional d’Arqueologia de Calafell, 2004, edited by C. Belarte and J. Sanmartí Grego, pp. 43–51. Barcelona: Institut Català d’Arqueologia Clàssica. 2007 “The western Phoenicians under the Roman Republic: Integration and persistence,” in Articulating local cultures. Power and identity under the expanding Roman Republic (Journal of Roman Archaeology Supplementary series 63), edited by P. van Dommelen and N. Terrenato, pp. 103–125. Portsmouth: Journal of Roman Archaeology. LOUGHTON, M. 2016 “Punic amphorae from Toulouse caserne Niel (Haute-Garonne, Fr.),” in Histoires matérielles: terre cuite, bois, métal et autres objets. Des pots et des potes: Mélanges offerts à Lucien Rivet, edited by D. Djaoui, pp. 431–437. Montagnac: Mergoil.

LATE PUNIC AMPHORAE FROM THE CIRCLE OF THE STRAIT

LUACES, M. 2015

441

“La relation entre le temps et la rationalité économique dans les contextes archéologiques de Gadir/Gadès (VIe–Ier s. av. J.-C.),” Pallas 99: 245–265. 2016 “Nuevos datos sobre la difusión de las ánforas tardopúnicas hispanas: algunos casos de estudio franceses,” in Amphorae ex Hispania: paisajes de produccion y consumo Ex Officina Hispana. Actas del III Congreso Internacional de la Sociedad de Estudios de la Ceramica Antigua, Tarragona, 2014, edited by R. Jarrega and P. Berni, pp. 699–712. Tarragona: Institut Català d’Arqueologia Clàssica. 2017 Production et diffusion des amphores tardo-puniques en Méditerranée occidentale. L’apport des contextes de la Gaule méridionale. Unpublished PhD diss., University of Lyon. MACMULLEN, R. 2000 Romanization in the Time of Augustus. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. MARTÍN RUIZ, J. A. 2010 “Los fenicios y el estrecho de Gibraltar,” Aljaranda 76: 4–13. NIVEAU DE VILLEDARY, A. M. 2015 “La estructuración del espacio urbano y productivo de Gadir durante la fase urbana clásica: cambios y perduraciones,” Complutum 26/1: 225–242. PÉREZ-MALUMBRES LANDA, A. 2012 “Contextos comerciales de la transición de la Malaka fenicia a la romana en los solares de calle Granada, 57–61,” in La etapa neopúnica en Hispania y el Mediterráneo centro occidental: identidades compartidas, edited by B. Mora Serrano and G. Cruz Andreotti, pp. 361–390. Seville: Universidad de Sevilla. PRAG, J. R. W. 2014 “Phoinix and Poenus: Usage in antiquity,” in The Punic Mediterranean. Identities and Identification from Phoenician Settlement to Roman Rule (British School at Rome Studies), edited by J. Crawley Quinn and N. C. Vella, pp. 11–23. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. RAMON TORRES, J. 1995 Las ánforas fenicio-púnicas del mediterráneo central y occidental (Col·lecció Instrumenta 2). Barcelona: Universitat de Barcelona. 2008 “El comercio púnico en occidente en época tardorrepublicana (siglos –II/–I): Una perspectiva actual según el tráfico de productos envasados en ánforas,” in Iberia e Italia: modelos romanos de integración territorial. IV Congreso Hispano-Italiano, Murcia, 2006, edited by J. Uroz Sáez, J. M. Noguera Celdrán and F. Coarelli, pp. 67–100. Murcia: Tabularium. RHORFI, A. 1999 Histoire préromaine et romanisation de la Maurétanie tingitane avant son annexion à l’empire romain. Lille: Atelier National de Reproduction des Thèses. 2008 “Le rang d’État-cité des villes maurétaniennes: le témoignage des monnaies,” in Le ricchezze dell’Africa. Risorse, produzioni, scambi. Atti del XVIII Convegno di studio L’Africa romana, 2006. Vol. III, edited by J. González, P. Ruggeri, C. Vismara and R. Zucca, pp. 2005–2016. Rome: Carocci. ROMAN, Y. 2009 “Entre Rome et les Gaules, le commerce, vecteur de romanisation,” Pallas 80: 245–277. SÁEZ ROMERO, A. M. 2004 “El alfar tardopúnico de Torre Alta: resultados de las excavaciones de 2002–03,” in Talleres Alfareros y producciones cerámicas en la Bética romana (ss. II a.C.–VII d.C.). Actas del Congreso Internacional Figlinae Baeticae 2003, Cadiz (British Archaeological Reports International Series 1266), edited by L. Lagóstena Barios and D. Bernal Casasola, pp. 699–712. Oxford: Archaeopress. 2008 La producción cerámica en Gadir en época tardopúnica (siglos –III/–I) (British Archaeological Reports International Series 1812). Oxford: Archaeopress. SÁEZ ROMERO, A. M., LUACES, M. and MORENO PULIDO, E. 2016 “Late Punic or Early Roman? A 2nd century BCE deposit from Gadir/Gades (Cadiz Bay, Spain),” Herom 5/1: 25–75.

442

M. LUACES

SANCHEZ, C. 2009 Narbonne à l’époque tardo-républicaine (IIe/Ier s. av. n. è.): Chronologies, commerce et artisanat céramique (Revue Archéologique de Narbonnaise Supplément 38). Montpellier: Éditions de l’Association de la Revue archéologique de Narbonnaise. TARRADELL MATEU, M. 1960 Historia de Marruecos: Marruecos púnico. Tetuan: Cremades.

Max LUACES Department of History, Geography and Philosophy University of Cádiz Spain

PUNIC AMPHORAE IN THE INTERIOR OF THE GUADALQUIVIR VALLEY: ORIGIN, DISTRIBUTION AND CONTENTS Eduardo FERRER ALBELDA, Francisco José GARCÍA FERNÁNDEZ and Violeta MORENO MEGÍAS ABSTRACT After the so-called ‘crisis of the sixth century BCE’, the Lower Guadalquivir Valley and, in general, the interior of Turdetania (southwestern Iberian Peninsula) are gradually integrated into the commercial circuits led by the city of Gadir. This two-way relationship, which also guarantees the distribution of the surplus produced in the countryside of the Guadalquivir towards foreign markets, intensifies from the fourth century BCE onwards. At this time, Gadir became the only trading partner of the Turdetanian cities and its products monopolised the main markets, especially the major port centres. This situation continued after the Roman conquest at least until the time of Augustus, when the economy of the new province of Baetica changed its strategic orientation and even scale. This contribution aims to analyse the trade of foodstuffs packaged in Punic amphorae in the Lower Guadalquivir throughout the Second Iron Age (fifth to second century BCE), as well as the mechanisms of exchange and consumption patterns among the populations of the region. To this purpose, there will be a detailed review of the imports recorded by excavations carried out in some of these centres, such as Ilipa (Alcalá del Río), *Spal (Seville) or Caura (Coria del Río).

INTRODUCTION The aim of this paper is to study the circulation of Punic products in the Lower Guadalquivir Valley between the fifth and second century BCE and to examine the associated exchange mechanisms and consumption patterns. The circulation and consumption of ceramic wares, which are, virtually, the only type that has survived in the archaeological record will be discussed. Additionally, this paper will also focus on amphorae and the products contained within them, as well as other common and table wares. Before going into further detail, there are three methodological and conceptual clarifications that must be made. First, it should be clarified that ‘Punic amphorae’ refer to amphorae produced in the former Phoenician colonies in Iberia, such as Gadir and Malaka, and not those from the central Mediterranean (Carthage, Sardinia, Sicily) which, incidentally, are almost totally absent from the area under analysis prior to the Second Punic War. A second important point that should be noted is the available sources, the classical authors, which refer to this period and geographical area are very scarce and make no reference to economic phenomena. The earliest useful account in this regard (Strabo) was not written until the first century BCE. Despite obvious anachronisms, Strabo is still a popular source for descriptions of pre-Roman Iberia.1 1

 Cf. Cruz Andreotti 2007.

444

E. FERRER ALBELDA

– F. J.

GARCÍA FERNÁNDEZ

– V.

MORENO MEGÍAS

Fig. 1. Map of the Lower Guadalquivir Valley with the main locations mentioned in the text (authors’ own).

Finally, the sample on which this study is based is made up of materials found in recent and reliable archaeological excavations undertaken in the cities of Ilipa (Alcalá del Río), Caura (Coria del Río), and *Spal (Seville), all of which survive as modern cities (Fig. 1). The material has been compared with finds from other stratigraphic sequences situated in the same area (Italica, Cerro de la Cabeza, Cerro Macareno and Carmona) as well as other coeval contexts on the Atlantic coast of Andalusia and the Algarve, which present very similar archaeological profiles. The sample is large enough for the purpose of this study, which is to point out certain general trends in the circulation of products, consumption habits and trade patterns, as well as the degree of integration of the cities located on the shores of the former estuary of the Baetis River into the economic mechanisms of the area around the Strait of Gibraltar. The sites were not chosen randomly: all three were important settlements during antiquity. They were situated at key points for navigating the river and acted as intermediaries between the river and the interior: Ilipa was a river harbour located at the end of the estuary, at the last point of which the tides can still be noted; *Spal was strategically located on a peninsula and was, during the last centuries BCE, the final port of call for large ships;2 Caura, for its part, controlled access to the estuary and the ancient Lacus Ligustinus from an elevated position (Fig. 1). 2

 Strabo 3.2.3.

PUNIC AMPHORAE IN THE INTERIOR OF THE GUADALQUIVIR VALLEY

445

ILIPA (ALCALÁ DEL RÍO) During the last decades, Alcalá del Río has witnessed a significant number of rescue excavations, which have provided substantial information about the protohistoric and Roman city. These excavations have proven to be especially informative with regard to the city wall and the Imperial forum, as well as the Tartessian necropolis of La Angorilla.3 Five of these excavations may be highlighted, owing to their size and to the discovery of well defined Turdetanian and Roman Republican contexts: c/La Cilla 4–6; 4 c/Pasaje Real 2–4;5 c/Antonino Reverte 26–28 (still pending publication); c/Antonino Reverte 80;6 and c/Santa Verania 22;7 the last three involved the excavation of the earliest city wall. During the excavation of c/La Cilla 4–6, a sequence of occupation was discovered, spanning the First Iron Age (seventh century BCE) to the earliest centuries CE, and after this, between the Middle Ages and today. Multiple soil and animal remains samples were taken, especially from the habitational contexts dating between the sixth and second centuries BCE. These samples are currently being analysed. The chemical composition of the clays and the contents of several types of amphorae, especially imported ones, have also been analysed.8 To date, this excavation has provided the earliest and most complete contexts dated to the Second Iron Age. The contexts include different fills which cover the latest First Iron Age structures (early fifth century BCE), and these would still have been visible at the beginning of the following construction phase, during the fourth century BCE.9 Almost all archaeological materials found in association with these contexts are local: wheel-made common wares and Pellicer B/C amphora types. Alongside these, some high quality imports are also attested, including Attic black glaze kylixes, ‘Castulo type’ cups and craters.10 However, during the mid-fourth century BCE, the importation of Greek wares began to wane and by the end of the century they had totally disappeared. In contrast, from the fourth century BCE onwards, amphora types used for storing fish preserves, which were manufactured in the area of the Strait, became common.11 The first to arrive were the Ramon T–11.2.1.3 and T–11.2.1.4 types, dated to the late fifth and early fourth century (Fig. 2: 1). Their production continued (as T–12.1.1.1 and T–12.1.1.1/2) during the third and second century BCE, at which time they coexisted with the earliest imitations of Graeco-Italic prototypes.12 During the late fourth century BCE, imports also included the T–8.1.1.2 type (Fig. 2: 2), which was used to store olive oil and was manufactured in the interior farmlands of the Cádiz area.13 This type is relatively frequent in preRoman contexts in Alcalá del Río, especially in the third century BCE. Another characteristic 3

 Ferrer et al. 2007.  Ferrer and García 2007. 5  Prados 2007. 6  Izquierdo 2007. 7  Cervera et al. 2007. 8  García Fernández et al. 2016. 9  Ferrer and García 2007, p. 124. 10  Ferrer and García 2007, p. 124. 11  Ferrer and García 2007, pp. 117–122. 12  Sáez 2008, pp. 640–641. 13  Carretero 2007a. 4

446

E. FERRER ALBELDA

– F. J.

GARCÍA FERNÁNDEZ

– V.

MORENO MEGÍAS

Fig. 2. Punic material from Ilipa Magna, dated to the late fourth and early third century BCE (a); and to the late third and second century BCE (b). Amphorae: T–11.2.1.4 (1), T–12.1.1.1 (4–5), T–8.1.1.2 (2), T–8.2.1.1 (3, 8–11), Pellicer D (12), undetermined (6-7). Kuass ware: fish-plate Form II (13, 15), low bowl Form IX (14).

PUNIC AMPHORAE IN THE INTERIOR OF THE GUADALQUIVIR VALLEY

447

container of the period is the T–8.2.1.1 type (Fig. 2: 3), which was manufactured in connection with the preserves factories in the Bay of Cádiz.14 However, the variability of the fabrics calls for caution and other provenances and functions should not be completely disregarded. All of these shapes coexisted with local productions, largely the evolved variants of the Pellicer B/C shapes, which were very common in all contexts until the Pellicer D type came to replace them during the third century BCE. The arrival of Kuass ware from Cádiz also took place during this period.15 These types, and their local imitations, continued to arrive throughout the third century and most of the second century (Fig. 2: 13–15), coexisting with burnished Campanian wares in many contexts; in some cases, their presence is attested as late as the first century BCE.16 Their final demise can likely be associated with the emergence of the earliest local imitations of sigillatas. The same cannot be said of kitchen wares inspired by the Cádiz-Punic tradition, as these are practically absent from the contexts under analysis. This is remarkable since the distribution channels were the same, at least partly, as those used for amphorae and Kuass ware. The arrival of the Cádiz-made T–12.1.1.1 (Fig. 2: 4–5) and T–8.2.1.1 (Fig. 2: 8–11) continued throughout the second century BCE and became the dominant types along with the Pellicer D type (Fig. 2: 12). The earliest imports of the new T–9.1.1.1 type also occurred during the second century and became progressively more common over time, until by the early first century they had completely replaced the T–8.2.1.1 type. Also during this time was the earliest arrival of the North African Mañá C2 types which were manufactured in the area of the Strait between the mid-second century and the first years of Augustus’ reign (T–7.4.3.3 type). They coexisted with Graeco-Italic amphorae and local imitations, and later with the Campanian Dressel 1 types, which were also imitated in Gadir, especially the Dressel 1C type.17 Both productions often appear in Republican contexts in Ilipa, especially in c/La Cilla 4–6 and c/Pasaje Real 2–4. The absence of central Mediterranean imports, which are present in *Spal and Caura, is to be noted.

*SPAL (SEVILLE) In Seville, a large number of archaeological excavations have provided abundant information about the period under consideration.18 In most cases, these excavations covered small areas and involved the examination of deep stratigraphic sequences which, in many cases, has not helped the identification and functional characterisation of the structures discovered. These excavations have, however, yielded a broad range of contextualised material which has permitted a broad characterisation of commercial activity in the city during the second half of the first millennium BCE.19 Representative excavations, in chronological order, are Cuesta 14

 Sáez et al. 2004, p. 113.  Ferrer and García 2007, p. 122. 16  Moreno 2016, pp. 131–133, fig. 68. 17  Sáez 2008, pp. 647–648. 18  García and González 2007; Escacena and García 2012. 19  García and Ferrer 2011. 15

448

E. FERRER ALBELDA

– F. J.

GARCÍA FERNÁNDEZ

– V.

MORENO MEGÍAS

Fig. 3. Punic material from *Spal, dated to the fourth century BCE (a); and the third century BCE (b). Amphorae: T–11.2.1.2? or amphoroid container (1), T–11.2.1.3 (3), T–11.2.1.4 (2), T–12.1.1.1 (4), T–8.1.1.2 (5–8), T–8.2.1.1 (9–12).

PUNIC AMPHORAE IN THE INTERIOR OF THE GUADALQUIVIR VALLEY

449

del Rosario,20 c/Argote de Molina 7,21 c/San Isidoro 21–23,22 c/Fabiola 8,23 c/Mármoles 9,24 c/Abades 41–43,25 Palacio Arzobispal26 and c/Alemanes 25 (unpublished). The earliest habitational contexts were documented in the lower strata at c/Abades 41–43 and in sounding II at Palacio Arzobispal which have been dated to the late fourth century BCE. In these contexts, the discovery of the earlier varieties of the Mañá-Pascual A4 types (Ramon’s T–11.2.1.3 and T–11.2.1.4), both in primary locations and as residual material in later contexts, can be related to the resumption of harbour activity during the late fifth century BCE (Fig. 3: 2–3). Based on a visual examination of the fabrics, the provenances of these amphorae can be discerned: the Bay of Cádiz and the Coast of Málaga. In the late fourth century BCE, these types were progressively replaced by the Cádiz-made variants of the T–12.1.1.1 type which became the predominant form in the region (Fig. 3: 4). This type coexisted with the local Pellicer B/C types, but these types are much less frequently found here than in other nearby sites, such as Cerro Macareno.27 The products of Cádiz farmlands started arriving in Seville also during the late fourth century BCE inside T–8.1.1.2 type amphorae. The T–8.1.1.2 (Fig. 3: 5–8) and T–8.2.1.1 (Fig. 3: 9–12) were the most common imports during the third century BCE. They constitute 43 per cent of all amphora fragments identified in domestic and abandonment contexts compared to 15 per cent of Pellicer B/C and 33 per cent of Pellicer D fragments. Although most of the imported amphorae have been found in contexts dating to the second half of the third century or the early second century BCE, the proportions indicate the intensity of trade between the city and the agricultural hinterland of Gadir.28 Apart from amphorae, the Sevillian harbour also received new kitchen wares which progressively became part of the domestic equipment of Turdetanian settlements. It is also important to note the Punic inspired GDR 3.1.1 mortar (Fig. 5: 1–7) which is frequently attested from the late fourth century BCE onwards.29 Some specimens may have been produced locally30 as suggested by the fabrics and by the identification of several examples decorated with red bands (Fig. 5: 3). However, lidded saucepans are not attested until the second century BCE. Although this type originates from the central Mediterranean, the only example found in Seville, in c/Abades 41–43,31 seems to be a Cádiz-made production (Fig. 5: 9); the shape (GDR 11.1.1) appears to have been enormously popular in Cádiz.32 In contrast, Kuass ware (Fig. 5: 10–11) is much less common in the city than in other contemporary urban centres.33

20

 Collantes de Terán 1977; Vera 1987.  Campos 1986. 22  Campos et al. 1988. 23  Escudero et al. 1990. 24  Escudero and Vera 1990. 25  Jiménez et al. 2006. 26  Mora and Romo 2006. 27  García and Ferrer 2011, pp. 359–360. 28  García and Ferrer 2011, pp. 361–362, figs. 13–14. 29  García and González 2007, p. 554. 30  García Fernández and García Vargas 2010, p. 155. 31  Jiménez et al. 2006, p. 299. 32  Sáez 2005, p. 163. 33  García Vargas and García Fernández 2009, p. 146; Moreno 2016, pp. 124–127. 21

450

E. FERRER ALBELDA

– F. J.

GARCÍA FERNÁNDEZ

– V.

MORENO MEGÍAS

Fig. 4. Punic material from *Spal dated to the late third century BCE. Amphorae: T–12.1.1.1/2 (12), T–8.1.1.2 (8–9), T–8.2.1.1 (1–7), T–9.1.1.1 (10–11), T–5.2.3.1 (14), T–7.2.1.1 (13), T–7.4.3.2 and T–7.4.3.3 (15–17).

PUNIC AMPHORAE IN THE INTERIOR OF THE GUADALQUIVIR VALLEY

451

Fig. 5. Punic material from *Spal dated to the third century BCE (a); and the late third and second century BCE (b). Kitchen wares: mortar, old variant (1–3), mortar, GDR 3.1.1 (4–7), pot, GDR 12.3.1 (8), pan, GDR 11.1.1 (9). Kuass ware: fish-plate Form II (11), low bowl Form IX (10).

452

E. FERRER ALBELDA

– F. J.

GARCÍA FERNÁNDEZ

– V.

MORENO MEGÍAS

During these transitional moments, marked by the presence of the Carthaginians and the first stages of the Roman conquest, the volume and pace of exports, including amphoraestored products, table ware and kitchen wares, was not only maintained, but effectively increased.34 The Pellicer D was still the most common type. The T–9.1.1.1 (Fig. 4: 10–11) began replacing the T–8.2.1.1 (Fig. 4: 1–7), which was present at least until the late second century BCE. This period also witnessed the arrival of a few isolated Mediterranean amphorae, Mañá C2 (T–7.2.1.1) and Mañá D type (T–5.2.3.1), which were found in the earliest Republican levels in c/Argote de Molina 7 (Fig. 4: 13–14). These are also attested in small numbers, as residual finds, in other contexts dating to the late second and early first century BCE.35 The turn of the first century BCE was characterised not only by the mass arrival of Italian Dressel 1 amphorae but also by the imitations produced in Gadir (Dressel 1C). These amphorae coexisted with the late variants of the Mañá C2b type (T–7.4.3.2 and T–7.4.3.3) as suggested by the deposits of amphorae attested in c/Alemanes 25, which date to the third quarter of the first century BCE (Fig. 4: 15–17). Finally, the demand for the T–9.1.1.1 type, which was used to store salted fish preserves, and the local Pellicer D type was to continue until the end of the first century BCE.36

CAURA (CORIA DEL RÍO) The Cerro de San Juan, in Coria del Río, is a knoll on the banks of the Guadalquivir which, during the 1990s, was subject to a number of archaeological excavations. One of these excavations (soundings CSJ–A and CSJ–B) recorded a sequence of First Iron Age structures that were interpreted as a sanctuary and a Phoenician mercantile district.37 Another excavation, closer to the river (sounding CAU/A), revealed a long sequence that began in the Chalcolithic when the occupation of the settlement became stable. The Turdetanian contexts documented during the course of this excavation correspond to an open area (a courtyard or a street), next to a set of houses.38 The levels dated to the Second Iron Age comprise of a succession of fills which were dumped during the construction of a series of walls. The buildings were probably domestic in nature and are dated to around the fourth century BCE. The earliest contexts at Cerro de San Juan are dated between the fifth and the mid-fourth century BCE during the Second Iron Age. During this early phase, the local Pellicer B/C types are predominant, but some imports are also attested such as a rim of a Corinthian amphora and an Archaic variant of the Ramon’s T–11.2.1.3 (Fig. 6: 1–2). By the turn of the third century, these Pellicer B/C types coexisted with the earliest series of the D type. The same trend can be detected among the amphorae for salted products. The earlier T–11.2.1.5 and T–11.2.1.6 (Fig. 6: 3–5), some of which are residual in character, were 34

 García and González 2007, pp. 557–558.  García and Ferrer 2011, pp. 364–365. 36  García and Ferrer 2011, p. 367. 37  Escacena and Izquierdo 2001. 38  Escacena and Izquierdo 1999. 35

PUNIC AMPHORAE IN THE INTERIOR OF THE GUADALQUIVIR VALLEY

453

Fig. 6. Punic material from Caura dated from the late fifth to third century BCE (a); from the late third and second century BCE (b); Kuass ware (c). Amphorae: Corinthian (2), T–11.2.1.3 (1, 8), T–11.2.1.5 (3, 5), T–11.2.1.6 (4), T–12.1.1.1 (6–7, 9–11), T–12.1.1.1/2 (12–13), T–8.1.1.2 (14), T–8.2.1.1 (15–18), T–9.1.1.1 (19). Kitchen ware: mortar, GDR 3.1.1 (20). Kuass ware: low bowl Form IX, fish-plate Form II, lamp Form XVI and undetermined base fragments (Forms VII, VIII or IX).

454

E. FERRER ALBELDA

– F. J.

GARCÍA FERNÁNDEZ

– V.

MORENO MEGÍAS

progressively replaced by the new variety (T–12.1.1.1) which is typical in Cádiz and which became widespread during the late fourth century BCE (Fig. 6: 6–7). The latter became the most common imported type during the third century BCE, overtaking such common containers in the region as the T–8.1.1.2 and T–8.2.1.1, which are barely represented in these contexts (Fig. 6: 14–18); only the local Pellicer B/C and, at a later date, Pellicer D types were more numerous. The repertoire of Kuass ware is surprisingly varied, especially during the following century, although most known examples have been found in mixed contexts from the top layer of the sequence (Fig. 6). The formal variety of both imported and local imitation wares has led to the inclusion of Caura in the primary distribution circles for table wares, as this was in close partnership with Cádiz. Archaeologists have speculated as to the presence of a production centre.39 The case for kitchen wares in the Punic tradition is very different; barely a couple of GDR 3.1.1 mortars, probably locally produced, have been recorded (Fig. 6: 20). During the second and early first century, the repertoire broadened with the mass arrival of productions from the area of the Strait: T–12.1.1.1 and T–12.1.1.1/2 (Fig. 6: 9–13), along with T–8.2.1.1 and its successors T–9.1.1.1 (Fig. 6: 19) and T–7.4.3.3 types. Pellicer D type amphorae were still common and during this period they began to feature the profile that characterised the later variants. Of note, albeit in residual amounts and only in the latest contexts, is the presence of the Pellicer B/C, T–11.2.1.3 and T–8.1.1.2. Some central Mediterranean imports have also been recorded, namely three specimens of the Mañá D type (T–5.2.3.1) (although all of them are residual in later contexts), as well as abundant specimens of Kuass ware.40 DISCUSSION Archaeological excavations carried out during recent decades have laid a more solid foundation for the study of trade in foodstuffs, especially in relation to the analysis of the containers in which these foodstuffs were transported as well as imports of kitchen and table wares between the fifth and second century BCE. The so-called ‘sixth century crisis’ or ‘Tartessian crisis’ led to the rearrangement of the socio-political and economic structures, the Lower Guadalquivir entered a period of demographic, productive and commercial recovery which affected the interior farmlands and, especially, urban centres near the river.41 In these centres, the renewal of commercial traffic between the Punic cities on the coast can be attested as early as the late fifth century BCE.42 However, in general, it can be noted that there is a point of inflexion during the fourth century BCE. Until that point, Mediterranean imports were present, but only in small quantities, and foodstuffs were commercialised in amphorae (Pellicer B/C types) which are assumed to have been locally produced or in amphorae manufactured in the region of the Strait (including the coast of Málaga) and were used to store preserves. 39

 Escacena and Moreno 2014.  Cf. García Fernández 2018. 41  Ferrer and García 2021. 42  Ferrer et al. 2008, p. 241. 40

PUNIC AMPHORAE IN THE INTERIOR OF THE GUADALQUIVIR VALLEY

455

From the fourth century BCE onwards, the proportion of amphorae made in Cádiz or in the Cádiz controlled continental farmlands increased exponentially. The high tide of this trend was the third century BCE. Most of the imported containers were manufactured in the workshops of Gadir, which turned into the main, and almost only, commercial intermediary for the riverside cities in the Baetis. Products from further afield started arriving only during the Second Punic War and after the Roman conquest. These products included the central Mediterranean T–5.2.3.1 and T–7.2.1.1 types and the Graeco-Italic amphorae of Campanian wine. In any case, these products arrived in Gadir which later redistributed these products elsewhere.43 Based on a study of the best known types of amphorae, it can be argued that fish products were in high demand in interior markets. No interruption of this trend can be attested between the late sixth or early fifth century BCE and the third century BCE (T–11.2.1.3, T–11.2.1.4 and T–12.1.1.1 types). The continuity of these exports is also confirmed by the presence of the T–8.2.1.1, T–9.1.1.1 and T–7.4.3.3, as their presence confirms the uninterrupted flow of preserves amphorae from Gadir between the fourth and first century BCE. The function of *Spal as a consumption, but mostly as a redistribution, centre of these products becomes clear when archaeological contexts are analysed from other nearby settlements. The Roman conquest seems to have had a significant impact in this regard. Based on the distribution data available, it can be noted that T–8.2.1.1 amphorae, characteristic of the fourth and third century BCE, were found at locations which are never more than 50 km from *Spal. Carmona and Vico, in the farmlands of Seville, are the most distant locations in which the type has been attested.44 For their part, the T–9.1.1.1 type, which is characteristic of the second century BCE, penetrated much further along the Guadalquivir Valley, reaching Corduba and sub-Baetica.45 That is, the distribution of the type becomes supra-regional in a context dominated by Rome’s conquest, and these vessels reached even remote regions in the Iberian Peninsula.46 Alongside salted fish and fish sauces, olive oil was also redistributed from Seville to other nearby centres such as Ilipa. Olive oil was transported in T–8.1.1.2 amphorae which are common in third century contexts. With all probability, the workshops were located in the Cádiz farmlands and the olive oil which these amphorae contained was produced in factories such as Cerro Naranja and similar ones located in the territories of Asta, Eboura and Asido.47 The role of *Spal as an emporium is, therefore, clear. The predominance of amphorae over other ceramic vessels in all contexts dating between the fourth and second century is indicative of the proliferation of buildings and dumps used for the storage and refuse of commercial containers. On the other hand, the origins of a significant proportion of the containers and table wares, such as the Attic black glazed and the punic Kuass types, underline the connection between *Spal and Gadir as well as the character of the former as a redistribution centre for both local and imported products.48 43

 García Fernández and García Vargas 2010.  Bandera and Ferrer 2002, p. 141, fig. 16: 8. 45  Ferrer and García 1994, pp. 46–52. 46  Carretero 2004. 47  Carretero 2007a, pp. 89–112; 2007b. 48  García and Ferrer 2011. 44

456

E. FERRER ALBELDA

– F. J.

GARCÍA FERNÁNDEZ

– V.

MORENO MEGÍAS

The composition of ceramic repertoires, especially amphorae, found in *Spal, Ilipa and Caura is not an exception: this is clear when we compare these repertoires with those at nearby sites. The similarities between pottery assemblages can be noted also at sites within the area of influence of the Strait of Gibraltar. This includes the valley of the Baetis and the Lacus Ligustinus, Gadir itself and other sites in the bay of Cádiz and the inland farmlands, the coast of Huelva, the north of Atlantic Morocco and the Portuguese Algarve. In the fourth and third centuries BCE, there was a communion of interests that linked Gadir, which received and redistributed imports from all over the Mediterranean, as well as its own products, and subaltern centres such as Onuba, Castro Marim, Mértola and *Spal, which redistributed these products within their own areas of influence, as well as consumption centres of foodstuffs produced in Cádiz (oil, wine?, salted fish). The regularities noted in the provenance and distribution of transport containers also extended, albeit to a lesser extent, to luxury and semi-luxury tableware, for example the Attic and the Kuass wares, as well as to some table and kitchen vessels, such as mortars, fish-plates, striped-rim pans and jars made in the Cádiz workshops. In any case, the assimilation of shapes, function and decoration, as well as the emergence of local imitations, indicates that Punic tableware had a considerable influence on local Turdetanian productions.49 The recovery of trade activity in *Spal during the fourth and third centuries BCE cannot be considered an isolated phenomenon, but rather a reflection of the economic revival of the Atlantic façade. Some authors draw a link between this revival, the growing Carthaginian presence and the subsequent arrival of North African colonists and restructuration of land ownership.50 However, other researchers suggest that this evidence indicates the economic and commercial apogee of Gadir.51 Revising the literary and archaeological evidence, at any rate, reveals that both interpretations are perfectly compatible in the sense that the intervention of the Carthaginians in the Iberian Peninsula could have contributed to improve Cádiz’s commercial projection.52 The archaeological record does not reflect the important role which Carthage played in the expansion of agricultural models in the farmlands near Cádiz53 and in the foundation, or re-foundation, of coastal settlements on the Atlantic Andalusian coast (La Tiñosa) and in the Algarve, such as Castro Marim and Tavira.54 These initiatives, which E. de Sousa and A. Arruda have recently defined as the ‘Gaditanisation’ of the southwestern coast, were fuelled by the transference of population and goods originating from the Bay of Cádiz.55 Both theories are not incompatible. It is, indeed, likely that the Carthaginian presence boosted this expansion by providing the terrestrial and naval forces needed to protect the new foundations. Therefore, it is not a coincidence that agricultural colonisation, based on Mediterranean models, happened at this precise moment (late fourth and early third

49

 García and Sáez 2014; Moreno et al. 2014.  López and Suárez 2002; Carretero 2007a, pp. 196–197. 51  Domínguez Monedero 1995; Ferrer 2000. 52  Ferrer 2007; Ferrer and Pliego 2010, 2013; Ferrer et al. 2017. 53  Carretero 2007b. 54  Arruda 2001, pp. 77–78; 2007. 55  Sousa and Arruda 2010. 50

PUNIC AMPHORAE IN THE INTERIOR OF THE GUADALQUIVIR VALLEY

457

century BCE) with oil amphorae spreading along the Atlantic coast and the Lower Guadalquivir Valley and evidence for the presence of Carthaginian troops starting to enter the archaeological record.56 What seems to be beyond doubt is that this commercial expansion was to determine Cádiz’s role after the Second Punic War when Cádiz became a crucial link in Rome’s Atlantic policy. The city not only played a fundamental role in the dissemination of goods, but also in building the traditions and consumption habits of the Mediterranean koiné.57

BIBLIOGRAPHY ARRUDA, A. M. 2001 “Importações púnicas no Algarve: cronología e significado,” in Os púnicos no Extremo Ocidente, edited by A. Augusto Tavares, pp. 69–98. Lisbon: Universidade Aberta de Lisboa. 2007 “A Idade do Ferro do sul de Portugal. Estado da investigação,” Madrider Mitteilungen 48: 114–139. DE LA BANDERA ROMERO, M. L. and FERRER ALBELDA, E. 2002 “Secuencia estratigráfica tartesia y turdetana de Vico (Marchena, Sevilla),” Spal 11: 121–149. CAMPOS CARRASCO, J. M. 1986 Excavaciones arqueológicas en la ciudad de Sevilla. El origen prerromano y la Hispalis romana (Colección Investigación 2). Sevilla: Monte de Piedad y Caja de Ahorros de Sevilla. CAMPOS CARRASCO, J. M., VERA REINA, M. and MONEO, M. T. 1988 Protohistoria de la ciudad de Sevilla. El corte estratigráfico 85–6 (Monografías de Arqueología Andaluza 1). Sevilla: Consejería de Cultura de la Junta de Andalucía. CARRETERO POBLETE, P. 2004 “Las producciones cerámicas de ánforas tipo ‘Campamentos Numantinos’ y su origen en San Fernando (Cádiz): los hornos de Pery Junquera,” in Talleres Alfareros y producciones cerámicas en la Bética romana (ss. II a.C.–VII d.C.). Actas del Congreso Internacional Figlinae Baeticae, Cadiz, 2003 (British Archaeological Reports International Series 1266), edited by L. Lagóstena Barios and D. Bernal Casasola, pp. 433–434. Oxford: Archaeopress. 2007a Agricultura y Comercio Púnico-Turdetano en el Bajo Guadalquivir. El inicio de las explotaciones oleícolas peninsulares (siglos IV–II a.C.) (British Archaeological Reports International Series 1703). Oxford: Archaeopress. 2007b “Las villas agrícolas púnico-turdetanas de la campiña gaditana (Cádiz–España),” in Las ciudades fenicio-púnicas en el Mediterráneo occidental, edited by J. L. López Castro, pp. 187–208. Almería: Universidad de Almería. CERVERA POZO, L., DOMÍNGUEZ BERENJENO, E. and GARCÍA VARGAS, E. 2007 “Estructuras de época romana en C/ Santa Verania nº 22,” in Ilipa Antiqva. De la Prehistoria a la época romana, edited by E. Ferrer Albelda, A. Fernández Flores, J. L. Escacena Carrasco and A. Rodríguez Azogue, pp. 295–310. Sevilla: Ayuntamiento de Alcalá del Río. CHIC GARCÍA, G. 1995 “Roma y el mar: del Mediterráneo al Atlántico,” in Guerra, exploraciones y navegación: del Mundo Antiguo a la Edad Moderna, edited by V. Alonso Troncoso, pp. 55–89. A Coruña: Universidade da Coruña. 56

 Pliego 2003, 2005; Ferrer 2007.  Chic 1995.

57

458

E. FERRER ALBELDA

– F. J.

GARCÍA FERNÁNDEZ

– V.

MORENO MEGÍAS

CRUZ ANDREOTTI, G. 2007 “Acerca de Estrabón y la Turdetania–Bética,” in La invención de una geografía de la Península Ibérica II. La época imperial, edited by G. Cruz Andreotti, P. Le Roux and P. Moret, pp. 251–270. Málaga-Madrid: CEDMA-Casa de Velázquez. COLLANTES DE TERÁN Y DELORME, F. 1977 Contribución al estudio de la topografía sevillana en la Antigüedad y en la Edad Media. Sevilla: Real Academia de Bellas Artes de Santa Isabel de Hungría. DOMÍNGUEZ MONEDERO, A. J. 1995 “Libios, libiofenicios, blastofenicios: elementos púnicos y africanos en la Iberia Bárquida y sus supervivencias,” Gerión 13: 223–239. ESCACENA CARRASCO, J. L. and GARCÍA FERNÁNDEZ, F. J. 2012 “La Sevilla protohistórica,” in Hispaniae Urbes. Intervenciones arqueológicas en ciudades históricas, edited by J. Beltrán Fortes and O. Rodríguez Gutiérrez, pp. 763–814. Sevilla: Universidad de Sevilla. ESCACENA CARRASCO, J. L. and IZQUIERDO DE MONTES, R. 1999 “Proyecto Estuario. Intervención Arqueológica de 1994,” Anuario Arqueológico de Andalucía 1994/II: 161–166. 2001 “Oriente en Occidente. Arquitectura civil y religiosa en un ‘barrio fenicio’ de la Caura tartésica,” in Arquitectura oriental y orientalizante en la Península Ibérica, edited by D. Ruiz Mata and S. Celestino Pérez, pp. 123–157. Madrid: Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas. ESCACENA CARRASCO, J. L. and MORENO MEGÍAS, V. 2014 “Cerámica de tipo Kuass procedente de Caura. ¿Testimonios de un nuevo centro de producción?,” Archivo Español de Arqueología 87: 75–90. ESCUDERO CUESTA, J. and VERA REINA, M. 1990 “Excavaciones arqueológicas en la calle Mármoles nº 9. La problemática del sector,” Anuario Arqueológico de Andalucía 1988/III: 407–410. ESCUDERO, J., LORENZO, J., VERA, M., MONEO, M. T. and CAMPOS, J. 1990 “Las intervenciones arqueológicas en la ciudad de Sevilla en 1987,” Anuario Arqueológico de Andalucía 1987/III: 522–525. FERRER ALBELDA, E. 2000 “Nam sunt feroces hoc libyphoenices loco: ¿libiofenicios en Iberia?,” Spal 9: 421–433. 2007 “Fenicios y cartagineses en el Tartessos postcolonial,” in El nacimiento de la ciudad: la Carmona protohistórica. Actas del V Congreso de Historia de Carmona, Carmona, 2005, edited by M. Bendala Galán and M. Belén Deamos, pp. 195–223. Carmona: Ayuntamiento de Carmona. FERRER ALBELDA, E. and GARCÍA FERNÁNDEZ, F. J. 2007 “Primeros datos sobre la Ilipa turdetana,” in Ilipa Antiqva. De la Prehistoria a la época romana, edited by E. Ferrer Albelda, A. Fernández Flores, J. L. Escacena Carrasco and A. Rodríguez Azogue, pp. 103–130. Sevilla: Ayuntamiento de Alcalá del Río. 2021 “Godless cities: The 5th-Century BC crisis in Turdetania,” in Il Mediterraneo Occidentale dalla fase fenicia all’egemonia cartaginese. Dinamiche insediative, forme rituali e cultura materiale nel V secolo a.C., edited by A. Roppa, M. Botto and P. van Dommelen, pp. 239–254. Roma: Edizioni Quasar. FERRER ALBELDA, E. and GARCÍA VARGAS, E. 1994 “Sobre un tipo anfórico púnico-gaditano documentado en el Cerro de la Cruz (Almedinilla, Córdoba),” Antiquitas 5: 46–52. FERRER ALBELDA, E. and PLIEGO VÁZQUEZ, R. 2010 “... Auxilium consanguineis karthaginiensis misere: un nuevo marco interpretativo de las relaciones entre Cartago y las comunidades púnicas de Iberia,” Mainake XXXII/I: 525–557. 2013 “Cartago e Iberia antes de los Barca,” in Fragor Hannibalis. Aníbal en Hispania, edited by M. Bendala Galán, pp. 106–133. Alcalá de Henares: Museo Arqueológico Regional de la Comunidad de Madrid.

PUNIC AMPHORAE IN THE INTERIOR OF THE GUADALQUIVIR VALLEY

459

FERRER, E., FERNÁNDEZ, A., ESCACENA, J. L. and RODRÍGUEZ, A. (eds.) 2007 Ilipa Antiqva. De la Prehistoria a la época romana. Sevilla: Ayuntamiento de Alcalá del Río. FERRER ALBELDA, E., GARCÍA FERNÁNDEZ, F. J. and ESCACENA CARRASCO, J. L. 2010 “El tráfico comercial de productos púnicos en el antiguo estuario del Guadalquivir,” Mainake XXXII/I: 61–89. FERRER ALBELDA, E., GARCÍA FERNÁNDEZ, F. J. and PLIEGO VÁZQUEZ, R. 2017 “Fuga a tres voces sobre la presencia cartaginesa prebárquida en la Península Ibérica,” in Entre los mundos: Homenaje a Pedro Barceló, edited by J. J. Ferrer Maestro, C. Kunst, D. Hernández de la Fuente and E. Faber, pp. 337–358. Besançon: Presses universitaires de Franche-Comté. FERRER ALBELDA, E., GARCÍA VARGAS, E. and GARCÍA FERNÁNDEZ, F. J. 2008 “Inter Aestuaria Baetis. Espacios naturales y territorios ciudadanos prerromanos en el Bajo Guadalquivir,” Mainake XXX: 217–246. GARCÍA FERNÁNDEZ, F. J. 2018 “El Bajo Guadalquivir en época turdetana: Caura y su entorno,” in CAURA. Arqueología en el Estuario del Guadalquivir, edited by J. L. Escacena Carrasco, A. Gómez Peña and L. G. Pérez Aguilar, pp. 97–127. Sevilla: Universidad de Sevilla. GARCÍA FERNÁNDEZ, F. J. and FERRER ALBELDA, E. 2011 “Das turdetanische Emporion Spal. Der punische Handelsverkehr im vorrömischen Sevilla (5.–2. Jh. v. Chr.),” Madrider Mitteilungen 52: 333–372. GARCÍA FERNÁNDEZ, F. J. and GARCÍA VARGAS, E. 2010 “Entre gaditanización y romanización: repertorios cerámicos, alimentación e integración cultural en Turdetania (siglos III–I a.C.),” in De la cuina a la taula. IV Reunió d’Economia en el Primer Mil·lenni a.C. (Saguntum Extra 9), edited by C. Mata Parreño, G. Pérez Jordà and J. Vives-Ferrándiz Sánchez, pp. 115–134. Valencia: Universidad de Valencia. GARCÍA FERNÁNDEZ, F. J. and GONZÁLEZ ACUÑA, D. 2007 “Secuencias estratigráficas y contextos culturales en la Sevilla prerromana,” in El nacimiento de la ciudad: la Carmona protohistórica. Actas del V Congreso de Historia de Carmona, Carmona, 2005, edited by M. Bendala Galán and M. Belén Deamos, pp. 525–566. Carmona: Ayuntamiento de Carmona. GARCÍA FERNÁNDEZ, F. J. and SÁEZ ROMERO, A. 2014 “Influencias de tradición helenística y centromediterránea en las producciones comunes del área turdetana,” in As produções cerâmicas de imitaçâo na Hispania. Actas del II Congreso Internacional de la SECAH – Ex Officina Hispana, Braga, 2013 (Monografías Ex Officina Hispania 2), edited by R. Morais, A. Fernández Fernández and M. J. Sousa, pp. 109–124. Porto: Universidade do Porto. GARCÍA, F. J., FERRER, E., ÁLVAREZ, P. and DURÁN, M. M. 2016 “Análisis de residuos orgánicos y posibles contenidos en ánforas púnicas y turdetanas procedentes del valle del Guadalquivir,” Saguntum 48: 43–71. GARCÍA VARGAS, E. and GARCÍA FERNÁNDEZ, F. J. 2009 “Romanización y consumo: cambios y continuidades en los contextos cerámicos de Hispalis en épocas turdetana y romano-republicana,” Spal 18: 121–155. IZQUIERDO DE MONTES, R. 2007 “Fortissimum oppidum. Investigaciones en la muralla romana de Alcalá del Río,” in Ilipa Antiqva. De la Prehistoria a la época romana, edited by E. Ferrer Albelda, A. Fernández Flores, J. L. Escacena Carrasco and A. Rodríguez Azogue, pp. 193–209. Sevilla: Ayuntamiento de Alcalá del Río. JIMÉNEZ, A., GARCÍA, E., GARCÍA, F. J. and FERRER, E. 2006 “Aportación al estudio de la Sevilla prerromana y romano-republicana. Repertorios cerámicos y secuencia edilicia en la estratigrafía de la calle Abades 41–43,” Spal 15: 281–312. LÓPEZ PARDO, F. and SUÁREZ PADILLA, J. 2002 “Traslados de población entre el Norte de África y el sur de la Península Ibérica en los contextos coloniales fenicio y púnico,” Gerión 20/1: 113–152.

460

E. FERRER ALBELDA

– F. J.

GARCÍA FERNÁNDEZ

– V.

MORENO MEGÍAS

MORA VICENTE, G. M. and ROMO SALA, A. 2006 “Intervención Arqueológica de Urgencia en el Palacio Arzobispal de Sevilla. Los sectores de Archivo y Tribunal. Primera fase de los trabajos. Sondeos I–II–IV. Aportaciones a la Sevilla republicana,” Anuario Arqueológico de Andalucía 2003/III-2: 179–196. MORENO MEGÍAS, V. 2016 La influencia púnica en las mesas turdetanas. Cerámica de tipo Kuass en el Bajo Valle del Guadalquivir. Sevilla: Diputación de Sevilla. MORENO MEGÍAS, V., NIVEAU DE VILLEDARY Y MARIÑAS, A. M. and GARCÍA FERNÁNDEZ, F. J. 2014 “Nuevas evidencias sobre imitaciones de cerámica de tipo Kuass en el valle del Guadalquivir,” in As produções cerâmicas de imitaçâo na Hispania. Actas del II Congreso Internacional de la SECAH – Ex Officina Hispana, Braga, 2013 (Monografías Ex Officina Hispania 2), edited by R. Morais, A. Fernández Fernández and M. J. Sousa, pp. 125–138. Porto: Universidade do Porto. PLIEGO VÁZQUEZ, R. 2003 “Sobre el reclutamiento de mercenarios turdetanos: el campamento cartaginés de El Gandul (Alcalá de Guadaira, Sevilla),” Habis 34: 39–56. 2005 “Un nuevo conjunto monetal cartaginés procedente de El Gandul (Alcalá de Guadaíra, Sevilla),” in Actas del XIII Congreso Internacional de Numismática, Madrid, 2003. Vol. I, edited by C. Alfaro Asins, C. Marcos Alonso and P. Otero Morán, pp. 531–533. Madrid: Ministerio de Cultura. PRADOS PÉREZ, E. 2007 “Intervención arqueológica en el sector este de Alcalá del Río. La muralla de la calle Pasaje Real 2–4,” in Ilipa Antiqva. De la Prehistoria a la época romana, edited by E. Ferrer Albelda, A. Fernández Flores, J. L. Escacena Carrasco and A. Rodríguez Azogue, pp. 267–282. Sevilla: Ayuntamiento de Alcalá del Río. SÁEZ ROMERO, A. M. 2005 “Aproximación a la tipología de la cerámica común púnico-gadirita de los ss. III–II,” Spal 14: 145–177. 2008 La producción cerámica en Gadir en época tardopúnica (siglos –III/–I) (British Archaeological Reports International Series 1812). Oxford: Archaeopress. SÁEZ ROMERO, A. M., DÍAZ RODRÍGUEZ, J. J. and MONTERO FERNÁNDEZ, R. 2004 “Acerca de un tipo de ánfora salazonera púnico-gadirita,” Habis 35: 109–133. SOUSA, E. and ARRUDA, A. M. 2010 “A gaditanização do Algarve,” Mainake XXXII/II: 951–974. VERA REINA, M. 1987 “Aportación al conocimiento de la Sevilla antigua. Revisión de la excavación de la Cuesta del Rosario,” Archivo Hispalense 215: 37–60.

Eduardo FERRER ALBELDA Prehistory and Archaeology Department University of Seville Spain

Francisco José GARCÍA FERNÁNDEZ Prehistory and Archaeology Department University of Seville Spain

Violeta MORENO MEGÍAS Prehistory and Archaeology Department University of Seville Spain

AMPHORA PRODUCTION DURING THE FIRST MILLENNIUM BCE ON THE LOWER TAGUS: THE SET FROM QUINTA DO ALMARAZ (CACILHAS, ALMADA, PORTUGAL) Ana OLAIO ABSTRACT Archaeological excavations carried out at Quinta do Almaraz between 1987 and 2001 unveilled a settlement whose occupation extends, at least, since the seventh century until the end of the fifth century BCE. From the vast set of artifacts collected, amphorae stand out as a relatively numerous and typologically diversified category. The study of the set showed the predominant presence of local/regional productions, particularly the Tagus types manufactured between the seventh and mid-fifth century BCE. On the other hand, the imports from the south of the Iberian Peninsula have a small representation in the set which highlights the strong productive capacity of the Tagus estuary during the first millennium BCE.

INTRODUCTION The Iron Age settlement of Quinta do Almaraz (Cacilhas, Almada, Portugal) is located on the south bank of the mouth of the Tagus River, along the opposite riverbank of Lisbon, on the southern facing slope of a long spur with an altitude of over 60 m above sea level that is bordered to the north by a cliff (Fig. 1). This location provides an ideal topography for defense, a great visual control over the mouth of the Tagus River and surrounding territories and a highly privileged position along the routes to the interior, Atlantic and Mediterranean spheres. Several archaeological interventions carried out between 1988 and 2001 revealed a dense occupation of the Iron Age period, specifically some housing and defensive structures contextualised between the seventh and the fifth century BCE. As for the housing structures, stone bases were identified exhibiting rectangular plants and clay floors.1 The defensive structure was made of a ditch that surrounded the settlement along the south side. The excavated sections of the Iron Age ditch vary between 3–3.80 m wide and 2–3 m deep,2 demonstrating some differences concerning the geometry, which features a V-shaped or U-shaped profile. Similarily, the nature of the bottom was demonstrated to either be flat, at an acute angle or with a gutter.3

1

 Barros 1998, p. 36.  Barros and Henriques 2002a, pp. 296–297. 3  Barros and Soares 2004, p. 399. 2

462

A. OLAIO

Fig. 1. Approximate location of Quinta do Almaraz in Portuguese territory (UNIARQ’s cartographic base) and the main archaeological sites of the first millennium BCE in the Tagus estuary (adapted from Sousa 2014 – Daveau’s cartographic base). 1) Quinta do Almaraz; 2) Lisboa; 3) Moinho da Atalaia Oeste; 4) Baútas; 5) Freiria; 6) Santa Eufémia; 7) Outorela I and II; 8) Santarém; 9) Espigão das Ruivas; 10) Muge; 11) Grutas do Poço Velho; 12) Castelo dos Mouros; 13) Chões de Alpompé; 14) Castro do Amaral; 15) Quinta da Marquesa II; 16) Pedrada/Rua Manuel Febrero; 17) Quinta do Facho; 18) Povoado de Santa Sofia.

AMPHORA PRODUCTION ON THE LOWER TAGUS

463

Archaeological excavations at Quinta do Almaraz yielded a large collection of artifacts dating from the first millennium BCE, but only a small part has been studied and published. Within this ensemble, the amphora collection promised great potential. In particular, these containers are of paramount importance in the developing study of amphora production in the Tagus estuary during the Iron Age, which has witnessed a major breakthrough in recent years. For this study, 929 amphora sherds were identified and selected, of which 501 are rims, 425 are handles, two are bases and one is a near complete vessel. There is a predominance of seventh to fifth century BCE amphora models coming from different contexts of the settlement. Most of the set (63.7 per cent) derives from the excavation of the ditch, 9.0 per cent from the housing area, 11.2 per cent from a dump context and 16.2 per cent result from surface finds and small surveys in various areas of the settlement. Taking into consideration the sortable sherds, the set resulted in a minimum number of 501 individuals (MNI), although only 463 were suitable for typological framing.

THE AMPHORA SET OF THE FIRST MILLENNIUM BCE FROM QUINTA DO ALMARAZ AMPHORAE OF LOCAL/REGIONAL ORIGIN: TYPOLOGY AND PRODUCTION The amphora production in the Tagus estuary was a varied and complex phenomenon with a wide chronological range. Despite the fact that the existence of regional amphora production centres has been previously suggested,4 the synthesis of these productions, usually called ‘Centro-Atlantic’, has only recently been carried out.5 This synthesis was implemented following the approach of the considerable ceramic set from Rua dos Correeiros dating between the fifth and the fourth century BCE.6 This synthesis was also largely based on other publications about ceramic sets from the first millennium BCE in the lower Tagus which facilitated identification and initiated a systematic characterisation of the productions of this area.7 The approach presented in this paper has prioritised the origin of manufacturing and subsequently the analysis based on morphological criteria. Despite the level of subjectivity involved in the fabric description, three manufacturing groups of presumed local/regional origin were distinguished, all with a very similar matrix consisting of homogeneous and non-limestone fabrics (Fig. 2). Manufacturing Group 1 is the best represented, corresponding to 93.6 per cent of the total set. This group seems to fit in the group that was defined for the productions of the Tagus estuary characteristic of the Lisbon/Almaraz area.8 Manufacturing Group 2 is represented in 2.2 per cent of the amphorae set. The differentiating characteristics relative to the previous group are the evidence of a comparatively high presence of non-plastic white elements, as 4

 Arruda 1999–2000, p. 211; Pimenta 2005, pp. 90–92.  Sousa and Pimenta 2014. 6  Sousa 2014, pp. 92–109. 7  Typologies used as reference in this paper: Sousa and Pimenta (2014) for the Tagus productions and Ramon Torres (1995) for the imports from the South of the Iberian Peninsula. 8  Sousa and Pimenta 2014, p. 269. 5

464

A. OLAIO

Fig. 2. Manufacturing Groups identified in the Quinta do Almaraz amphora set.

AMPHORA PRODUCTION ON THE LOWER TAGUS

465

well as its pink tonality. In certain fragments, many small-scale voids or fissures are also found. Manufacturing Group 3 is represented in 1.1 per cent of the studied ensemble. The differentiating characteristics are the colouring (with dark tones, brown or greyish) with the largest amount of non-plastic elements of various types and the coarsest characteristics of the fabric (i.e., very few visible inclusions). Given that 96.8 per cent of the total assemblage is of local/regional origin and the set was very fragmented, the challenges in identifying the shapes were several and the reconstruction of complete specimens was very difficult. Nevertheless, they were classified according to the recent typology developed for Tagus’ productions9 and five distinct types of amphorae were clearly identified. Furthermore, it was also possible to establish variants for the Tagus Type 1, the most represented amphorae type in the set of Quinta do Almaraz.

THE

TYPES REPRESENTED

Tagus Type 1 Tagus Type 1 is represented in Almaraz by 276 MNI. It is a model inspired by the prototypes T–10.1.1.1 and T–10.1.2.1 defined by Ramon Torres.10 Its production in the Tagus estuary appears to begin during an ancient phase, between the end of the eighth and the beginning of the seventh century BCE, as indicated by the presence of a similar specimen in Rua de São Mamede ao Caldas, Lisbon.11 The production of Tagus Type 1 continued for several centuries, remaining present in contexts of the fifth and beginnings of the fourth century BCE, as attested in Rua dos Correeiros.12 Unfortunately, there are not enough elements to frame the end of the production and commercialisation of this type. Morphologically, however, the shape underwent changes throughout the production period. In the amphora set of Quinta do Almaraz, it was possible to differentiate three variants of Tagus Type 1. The first variant (1.A) remarkably resembles Ramon Torres’ T–10.1.1.113 and it is represented in Almaraz by three specimens. This variant differs from the others by having thin-walled rims with a neck that is vertical or slightly concave, plain or framed and features a groove between the rim and the body (Fig. 3). The body extends horizontally from the rim, forming a well defined angle and forming an ovoid morphology. The variation in the diameters is minimal, between 12 cm and 13 cm. It is important to stress the identification of a parallel to this variant in one of the earliest contexts of Lisbon, in Rua de São Mamede ao Caldas.14 This is a good indicator of the beginning of the amphora production in the Tagus estuary since the aforementioned context was dated between the second half of the eighth and the first half of the sixth century BCE in the traditional chronology.15 9

 Sousa and Pimenta 2014.  Ramon Torres 1995, pp. 229–231; Sousa and Pimenta 2014, p. 305. 11  Pimenta et al. 2014, p. 729; Sousa and Pimenta 2014, p. 305. 12  Sousa 2014, pp. 97–99. 13  Ramon Torres 1995, pp. 229–230. 14  Pimenta et al. 2014, p. 729. 15  Pimenta et al. 2014, p. 729. 10

466

A. OLAIO

Fig. 3. Variants of the Tagus Type 1 – Specimens from Quinta do Almaraz.

AMPHORA PRODUCTION ON THE LOWER TAGUS

467

The second variant (1.B) is similar to the Ramon Torres’ T–10.1.2.1.16 It is differentiated from the previous variant by presenting a rim of variable thickness, with a profile that is generally triangular in shape (Fig. 3). The outer part of the rim develops vertically or slightly concave and plain, although in some cases it may appear framed. The diameters demonstrate more variability, between 10 cm and 18 cm. The body, as in the previous variant, develops horizontally from the rim, forming a well defined angle between both elements and displaying an overall ovoid morphology. The shoulder is well marked and located at the top of the container. It is represented at Quinta do Almaraz by 109 NMI and it is also present at several Iron Age sites in the Tagus estuary (e.g. Sé de Lisboa, Santarém, etc.). However, its absence is notable in contexts dated from the fifth century BCE onwards (as in Rua dos Correeiros) or at the archaeological sites of the surroundings of Lisbon whose occupational deposits fit within the second half of the millennium, such as Amadora and Sintra. This absence may be regarded as an indicator that the production of this variant does not surpass the end of the sixth century BCE. The third variant (1.C) resembles the previous one, but the body drops down almost vertically from the rim and the link between these elements does not feature a marked angle. The edges have generically triangular profiles which, one may note, develop in a less vertical way than the previous variants (Fig. 3). The outer part of the rim is usually concave and smooth, although it appears framed in some cases. The diameters vary between 10 cm and 20 cm. The shoulder of the container appears to be lower than in the previous variant and less marked, although it remains in the first third of the amphora. At Almaraz it is represented by 164 MNI and has parallels at several sites in the Tagus estuary, essentially in contexts of the fifth century BCE. However, the presence of some specimens in Sé de Lisboa17 can be considered an indicator that the variant began to develop during the late sixth century BCE. Tagus Type 2 Tagus Type 2 is a fusiform body container with a externally thickened sub-circular rim which is common among the repertoires of the estuary’s mouth, particularly in the Lisbon area from the fifth century BCE onwards.18 At Almaraz it is represented by only two MNI with diameters that are 11.5 cm and 14 cm (Fig. 4). However, limited representation of the shape at Almaraz is not unusual as the Tagus Type 2 always appears in small quantities at the Tagus archaeological sites.19 The absence of the shape in the set of Sé de Lisboa, whose chronology does not exceed the sixth century BCE, and its presence in Republican contexts of the second half of the second century BCE suggests that its production began during the fifth century BCE and continued for a long period of time.20

16

 Ramon Torres 1995, pp. 230–231.  Arruda 1999–2000, p. 124. 18  Sousa and Pimenta 2014, p. 306. 19  Sousa 2014, p. 95. 20  Sousa and Pimenta 2014, p. 306. 17

468

A. OLAIO

Tagus Type 3 Tagus Type 3 has a “short and relatively strangulated” neck and a rim that “features variable sections”,21 in a trapezoidal or sub-circular shape (Fig. 4). The development of the body appears to be more globular in some cases and more fusiform in others. At Almaraz, it is represented by 133 MNI with diameters varying between 10 cm and 22 cm. The beginning of the production of this type seems to have happened during the sixth century BCE as it demonstrates its presence in Sé de Lisboa.22 The production continues throughout the fifth century and the beginning of the fourth century BCE as demonstrated by its presence in Rua dos Correeiros.23 Tagus Type 4 This is a container that has an internally thickened rim which develops in a vertical tendency and is smooth on its external surface.24 At Almaraz it is represented by only 19 MNI with diameters varying between 12 cm and 20 cm (Fig. 4). It appears among several sites of the Tagus estuary such as Rua dos Correeiros in Lisbon as well as the settlements on the right bank of the estuary, particularly Amadora, Sintra,25 Oeiras26 and Cascais.27 Considering the contexts in which Tagus Type 4 appears, the fifth century BCE is featured as the starting point of its production which also seems to cease at the end of Iron Age.28 Tagus Type 7 Tagus Type 7 is characterised by its “troncoconic upper profile with rectilinear walls. The rim is, on the external surface, practically indistinguishable from the rest of the wall,”29 which develops in a vertical manner, demonstrating a cylindrical body (Fig. 4). At Almaraz only five individuals fit this category with diameters varying between 11 cm and 17.5 cm. As mentioned by the authors of the aforementioned typology, it is difficult to frame the moment of production of this shape.30 Although in the Lisbon area, most of fragments of Tagus Type 7 appear in Republican contexts.31 The beginning of their production may go back to the end of the Iron Age, specifically to the transition between the fourth and the third century BCE.32

21

 Sousa and Pimenta 2014, p. 306.  Arruda 1999–2000, pp. 123–125; Sousa and Pimenta 2014, p. 306. 23  Sousa 2014, p. 93. 24  Sousa and Pimenta 2014, p. 308. 25  Sousa 2014, pp. 386, 394 and 398–399. 26  Cardoso and Silva 2012, p. 382; Cardoso et al. 2014, pp. 402–403. 27  Cardoso and Encarnação 2013, p. 164. 28  Sousa and Pimenta 2014, p. 308. 29  Sousa and Pimenta 2014, p. 311. 30  Sousa and Pimenta 2014, p. 311. 31  Pimenta 2005, pp. 90–92; Pimenta et al. 2005, pp. 323–325. 32  Sousa and Pimenta 2014, p. 311. 22

AMPHORA PRODUCTION ON THE LOWER TAGUS

Fig. 4. Other amphora types represented in the set of Quinta do Almaraz (Tagus Types 2, 3, 4 and 7).

469

A. OLAIO

470 BASE

SHERDS

Since the material was very fragmented and did not allow for a clear differentiation of the elements, only two base sherds were identified (Fig. 5). One of the identified fragments presents a convex shape with an inverted ogive profile typical of several amphora models of the Iron Age period. The other presents a small conical bottom which is solid and filled with clay.

HANDLES A total of 425 amphora handles have been recognised which can be divided into two section types. The circular type, which is the most represented in the set, amounts to 401 single section fragments, nine with a central protrusion along the outside of the handle and only one with a central groove along the outer side (Fig. 5). The oval section has 14 specimens with a central groove along the outside of the handle and two specimens which, in addition to this central groove, have a partition in the inner part, recalling the bifid section handles. Considering the small representation of the oval handle with a central sulcus in the Almaraz complex, contrary to what was verified in Rua dos Correeiros,33 we could be witnessing a tradition that developed from the middle of the first millennium BCE onwards.

PRODUCTION,

CIRCULATION AND CONTENTS

Several questions persist about the period of production of each amphora type. This is because, objectively, the current data does not allow for certainty on this subject. Besides, there is not currently information about the production contexts which could provide consistent chronologies. For this reason, it is impossible to accurately frame the beginning of the production and marketing of each shape or their duration. However, the information available so far seems to confirm that the amphora production in the Tagus estuary began in an ancient phase of the Phoenician influence in the west of the Iberian Peninsula, specifically between the late eighth and/or the early seventh century BCE.34 From the sixth and, particularly, the fifth century BCE onwards, the amphora morphology began to diversify resulting in a very particular and unique evolution. This was probably a consequence of the regionalism that developed during the second half of the first millennium BCE.35 The production development is marked by similarities with the repertoires of Alta Andalusia and the Spanish Extremadura. One element stood out immediately as typical of the amphora production in the Tagus region throughout the Iron Age: the sets are not standardised and demonstrate a great amount of variability within a same model. One of the characteristics that demarcates this 33

 Sousa 2014, p. 104.  Sousa and Pimenta 2014, p. 305. 35  Sousa 2014, p. 107. 34

AMPHORA PRODUCTION ON THE LOWER TAGUS

Fig. 5. Bases and handles of imported amphora models represented in the set of Quinta do Almaraz.

471

472

A. OLAIO

lack of standardisation in the amphora productions is the large variability in diameters and the morphological variability of the rims within a single amphora model which had already been verified in the Rua dos Correeiros amphorae set.36 The same has been verified at Quinta do Almaraz whose assemblage has a wider chronological breadth. Although there is no information concerning the pottery centres that produced these containers, the lack of standardisation of the various types may indicate something about the organisation of this production as the level of standardisation is usually associated with the size of production, the degree of specialisation of the producers and/or their quantity.37 The smaller the number of producing centres and the greater the production of a given object within each one of these centres, the more standardised the result tends to be.38 In view of the data for the Tagus estuary, it is possible to extrapolate a productive model where various pottery workshops would have small-scale productions. These would presumably be located near the largest settlements (or even within). The data regarding the ceramic production in the Tagus estuary, although limited, contribute to this hypothesis. Quinta do Almaraz provides an interesting example where the identification of at least ten ceramic kiln separators can be interpreted as a hint to the existence of ceramic production areas in the settlement. On the opposite riverbank, in Lisbon, the supposed existence of pottery kilns on the hill of São Jorge’s castle39 and Rua dos Correeiros40 also contributes to this idea. This production pattern should, however, be found dispersed throughout the estuary and not just concentrated within the large settlements. As an example, there is the kiln of Miroiço41 as well as the kiln separators of Quinta da Marquesa which were collected in a survey in association with deformed amphora fragments.42 Other issues remain unanswered specifically regarding to the volume of production, the reach of the circulation of these containers and, of course, the transported content. As for the discussion on the reach of circulation, the data remains insufficient, although it has been assumed that the distribution circuits of these containers were regional in scale.43 The existence of morphological conformity between the types produced in the Tagus and some specimens from the Sado estuary, northwest of the Iberian Peninsula, and even from Alentejo has already been mentioned,44 but the origin of the manufacture of the specimens in question is still to be defined. On the other hand, with this approach, the resemblance of the amphora set of Quinta do Almaraz with the sites of the north shore of the estuary has also become clear, including fabrics. This highlights the close link between the two riverbanks, in particular between Almaraz and Lisbon, which has been stressed by others.45 36

 Sousa 2014, p. 106.  Costin 1991, p. 33. 38  Costin 1991, p. 33. 39  Arruda 2014, p. 525. 40  Sousa 2014, p. 85. 41  Cardoso and Encarnação 2013, p. 176. 42  Pimenta and Mendes 2010–2011, p. 606. 43  Sousa and Pimenta 2014, p. 313. 44  Sousa and Pimenta 2014, p. 313. 45  Arruda 1999–2000, p. 223; Sousa 2014, p. 309. 37

AMPHORA PRODUCTION ON THE LOWER TAGUS

473

The subject of contents has not seen an evident development. Not only is it rare to collect remnants of content within the containers, it has also been demonstrated that the same model of amphora may have transported different products.46 Particularly during the earlier productions, where there was a small variability in shapes, the possibility of the same model being used to transport different contents is fairly high.47 Although there are certain indicators, such as the presence of an interior resin coating, which may suggest the transportation of liquid products, such as olive oil, wine or fish sauce, this coating is rarely preserved48 and the amphorae of Almaraz were no exception. Also, it is possible that these containers were reused for other purposes. The primary function of an amphora ends at the time when the cargo reaches its destination49 after which these containers were abandoned or reused, for example, as storage containers, as a model for reproduction of forms or as a basis for processing raw materials.50 For all these reasons, it is difficult, if not impossible, to assert categorically what a certain shape contained merely from its form. It should be noted, however, as it has already been discussed for the amphorae of Cancho Roano, that these containers, taking into account their weight and fragility, would potentially only be used for the transportation of liquids since solid foodstuffs could be more easily transported in containers produced from lighter materials such as wicker or wood.51 In the case of the Tagus estuary amphora productions, there is no indication of what could be transported due of the lack of environmental studies. It is tempting to mention the results of pollen analyses which were carried out at Paul dos Patudos (Alpiarça) which demonstrated a significant change in the landscape in 2590 BP as the result of a deforestation process while vitis pollen reach values that are suggestive of an intentional cultivation.52 Regardless of this data, and even though the Tagus river and surrounding lands have provided diverse resources that could be transported in these containers, it is impossible to determine specific contents.

IMPORTED

AMPHORAE

Faced with the difficulty in identifying the origin of the various fabrics, and to avoid misunderstanding, only the identified productions will be macroscopically described. Since the provenance of each fabric cannot be determined, no point of origin can be ascertained, although it is considered that they should derive from other areas, namely the southern Iberian Peninsula (Cádiz or Málaga). The difference with respect to the local/regional fabrics is primarily the levigation and texture of the fabric as well as the type of inclusions that they feature (Fig. 2). Additionally, the identification of small-size black particles, which are considerably

46

 For example, Frutos et al. 1987; Ruiz Mata and Niveau de Villedary 1999.  Niveau de Villedary 2011, pp. 14–15. 48  Ramon Torres 1995, p. 265. 49  Risueño Olarte and Adroher Auroux 1990. 50  Aubet et al. 1999, p. 279; Mataloto 2004, p. 76. 51  Guerrero 1991, pp. 64–65. 52  Leeuwaarden and Janssen 1985 quoted by Arruda (2005, p. 54). 47

474

A. OLAIO

Fig. 6. Imported amphora models represented in the set of Quinta do Almaraz.

AMPHORA PRODUCTION ON THE LOWER TAGUS

475

frequent (in the case of MF–4, MF–5 and MF–6), and the yellowish colouration of the paste (in the case of MF–7 and MF–8) are also characteristics which do not occur in local/regional productions. However, the hypothesis of other origins cannot be disregarded and it is hoped that future archaeometric analysis will allow for more consistent conclusions. As for the amphora types represented, they are essentially specimens of the Series 10 of Ramon Torres. Two copies of T–10.1.1.1 of the aforementioned typology were recognised (Fig. 6), a model that was produced and marketed between mid or second quarter of the eighth century and the first half of the seventh century BCE.53 Also 26 specimens of the Ramon Torres T–10.1.2.1 were identified, a model produced and marketed widely between the seventh and the mid-sixth century BCE.54 The specimens of Almaraz present some variation in the profile of the rim, in particular, there are those which exhibit a more angular morphology (129 and 640). These have parallels in some settlements of the southern Iberian Peninsula and demonstrate a clear resemblance to the forms of strata IV and IIb of Cerro del Villar, which are dated between the second half of the seventh century and the sixth century BCE.55 This data may become relevant in recognition of their origin. There is also a fragment of a Pellicer D amphora, or T–4.2.2.5 of Ramon Torres (Fig. 6). This is a fairly later shape that, taking into consideration the existence of evidence relating to the Republican Roman period in Almaraz,56 and since the fragment's provenance layer was not recorded during excavation, it may no longer belong to an Iron Age context. However, the model was produced and marketed during the third and second century BCE,57 so it may have arrived during the pre-Roman phase.

CONCLUDING

REMARKS: RESEARCH PERSPECTIVES

This paper highlights several patterns and raises some important issues. The wide variety of local/regional production forms represented in the set, as well as the presence of imports, demonstrates that the settlement of Quinta do Almaraz was, at least between the seventh and fifth century BCE, an important commercial focus. The macroscopic analysis of the fabrics stressed the importance of regional trade in the Tagus estuary as the set is mostly composed of local/regional production amphorae. This aspect imposed some limitations on the approach, particularly due to the incomplete information available for the productions of the Tagus estuary. Given that many of the published amphorae are surface finds from old excavations or more recent ones carried out in an urban context, which also impose great limitations in understanding contexts due to the small excavation areas, there are still few contextual associations that would support secure chronologies. Quinta do Almaraz’s own case is also paradigmatic since, although it has been subject to systematic excavations between 1988 and 2001, and has not been affected by recent 53

 Ramon Torres 1995, pp. 229–230.  Ramon Torres 1995, pp. 230–231. 55  Aubet et al. 1999, p. 407. 56  Barros and Henriques 2002b. 57  Niveau de Villedary 2002, p. 240; García Vargas and García Fernández 2009, p. 148. 54

A. OLAIO

476

constructions, the absence of a record reflecting a full stratigraphic sequence, published in an enlightening manner, does not allow for specific chronological conclusions. Another challenge in identifying these productions is the fact that, in the published studies the morphological attribution overlaps with the analysis of the manufactures which may result in the incorrect identification of prototypes of the southern Peninsula which actually are local/regional productions. In the case of the Tagus estuary area, the resemblance of some forms of local/regional production with models from other areas of the southern Iberian Peninsula led, as has already been highlighted by other authors,58 to an indiscriminate use of the 1995 typology of Ramon Torres. As an example, there is a case of various amphorae classified as T–1.3.2.4 which is a very specific production of the Villaricos area that occurred during the fifth century BCE59 and corresponds, with great probability, to Tagus Type 4.60 As for Almaraz, a similar situation has occurred with the identification of the Ramon Torres T–2.1.1.1 and T–3.1.1.161 without an explanation regarding the manufacturing characteristics that have allowed for the recognition of such productions. This type of omission is not unusual. As stated by the authors of the Tagus amphora typological synthesis, “the data published so far on these containers do not, in most cases, clarify the macroscopic characteristics of manufacturing.”62 Currently, this translates into an obstacle when attempting to establishing parallels. It is therefore essential that the approaches to the study of amphora assemblages prioritise the productive criterion beyond the morphological one and that, in the near future, more archaeometric studies allow for a better understanding of the composition of the fabrics and their origins. Furthermore, taking into account the large frequency of amphorae of local/ regional production in the assemblages studied in the Tagus area, it is certain that there were production centres in the region, probably near the villages and the corresponding hinterland. As such, the identification of these centers and respective kilns is another relevant research line to develop. Notwithstanding all these issues, the data relating to the amphora production of the Tagus estuary reveals that this area has developed, from the first moments of Mediterranean influence, an economic autonomy and self-sufficiency, forming a consolidated economic structure that, in the face of the available data, became almost independent of the sphere of the Mediterranean trade.

BIBLIOGRAPHY ARRUDA, A. M. 1999–2000

58

Los Fenicios en Portugal: Fenicios y Mundo Indígena en el Centro y Sur de Portugal (siglos VIII–VI a.C.) (Cuadernos de Arqueología Mediterránea 5–6). Barcelona: Universitat Pompeu Fabra.

 Sousa 2014, pp. 107–108.  Ramon Torres 1995, p. 172. 60  Sousa 2014, p. 108. 61  Barros and Soares 2004, p. 344. 62  Sousa and Pimenta 2014, p. 305. 59

AMPHORA PRODUCTION ON THE LOWER TAGUS

2005

477

“O 1º milénio a.n.e. no Centro e Sul de Portugal: Leituras possíveis no início de um novo século,” O Arqueólogo Português 4/5: 9–156. 2014 “A Oeste tudo de novo: novos dados e outros modelos interpretativos para a orientalização do território português,” in Fenícios e Púnicos, Por Terra e Mar. Vol. II, edited by A. M. Arruda, pp. 512–535. Lisbon: Univesidade de Lisboa. AUBET, M. E., CARMONA, P., CURIÁ, E., DELGADO, A., FERNÁNDEZ, A. and PÁRRAGA, M. 1999 Cerro del Villar – I. El asentamiento fenicio en la desembocadura del río Guadalhorce y su interacción com el hinterland. Seville: Junta de Andalucía. BARROS, L. 1998 Introdução à Pré e Proto História de Almada. Almada: Câmara municipal de Almada. BARROS, L. and HENRIQUES, F. 2002a “Almaraz, primeiro espaço urbano em Almada,” in Actas do 3º Encontro Nacional de Arqueologia Urbana, edited by F. Henriques, M. Santos and T. António, pp. 295–311. Almada: Museu Municipal de Almada. “A última fase de ocupação do Almaraz,” in Actas do 3º Encontro Nacional de Arque2002b ologia Urbana, edited by F. Henriques, M. Santos and T. António, pp. 97–107. Almada: Museu Municipal de Almada. BARROS, L. and SOARES, A. 2004 “Cronologia absoluta para a ocupação orientalizante da Quinta do Almaraz, no estuário do Tejo (Almada, Portugal),” O Arqueólogo Português 4/22: 333–352. CARDOSO, G. and ENCARNAÇÃO, J. 2013 “O povoamento pré-romano de Freiria – Cascais,” Cira Arqueologia 2: 133–180. CARDOSO, J. and SILVA, C. 2012 “O casal agrícola da Idade do Ferro de Gamelas 3 (Oeiras),” O Arqueólogo Português 5/2: 355–400. CARDOSO, J., ARRUDA, A. and SOUSA, E. 2014 “Outurela I e Outurela II, dois pequenos sítios da Idade do Ferro a Norte do Estuário do Tejo (Oeiras),” Estudos Arqueológicos de Oeiras 21: 393–428. COSTIN, C. 1991 “Craft specialization: Issues in defining, documenting and explaining the organization of production,” Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 3: 1–56. FRUTOS, G., CHIC, G. and BERRIATUA, N. “Las ánforas de la factoría prerromana de salazones de Las Redes (Puerto de S. Maria, 1987 Cádiz),” in Actas del I Congreso Peninsular de Historia Antigua (Santiago de Compostela, 1986), edited by G. Pereira Menaut, pp. 295–306. Santiago de Compostela: Universidad de Santiago de Compostela. GARCÍA VARGAS, E. and GARCÍA FERNÁNDEZ, F. 2009 “Romanización y consumo: câmbios y continuidades en los contextos cerâmicos de Hispalis en épocas Turdetana y Romano-Republicana,” Spal 18: 131–165. GUERRERO, V. 1991 “El Palacio-Sanctuario de Cancho Roano (Badajoz) y la Comercializacion de Ánforas Fenicias Indigenas,” Rivista di Studi Fenici XIX/1: 49–82. MATALOTO, R. 2004 Um “monte” da Idade do Ferro na Herdade da Sapatoa – ruralidade e povoamento no 1º milénio do Alentejo Central. Lisbon: Instituto Português de Arqueologia. NIVEAU DE VILLEDARY, A. M. 2002 “Las ánforas turdetanas del tipo Pellicer D. Ensayo de Clasificación,” Spal 11: 233–252. 2011 “El consumo de vino en la Bahía de Cádis en Época Púnica,” Revista de Historia de El Puerto 46: 9–50. PIMENTA, J. 2005 As ânforas romanas do Castelo de São Jorge (Lisboa). Lisbon: Instituto português de arqueologia.

478

A. OLAIO

PIMENTA, J. and MENDES, H. 2010–2011 “Novos dados sobre a presença fenícia no Vale do Tejo. As recentes descobertas na área de Vila Franca de Xira,” Estudos Arqueológicos de Oeiras 18: 591–618. PIMENTA, J., SILVA, R. and CALADO, M. 2014 “Sobre a ocupação pré-romana de Olisipo: a intervenção arqueológica urbana na Rua de São Mamede ao Caldas N.º 15,” in Fenícios e Púnicos, Por Terra e Mar. Vol. II, edited by A. M. Arruda, pp. 724–735. Lisbon: Univesidade de Lisboa. RAMON TORRES, J. 1995 Las ánforas fenicio-púnicas del Mediterráneo central y ocidental (Col·lecció Instrumenta 2). Barcelona: Universitat de Barcelona. RISUEÑO OLARTE, B. and ADROHER AUROUX, A. 1990 “La cerâmica de importación en el registro arqueológico,” Florentina Iliberitana 1: 373–387. RUIZ MATA, D. and NIVEAU DE VILLERARY, A. M. 1999 “La zona industrial de Las Cumbres y la cerâmica del s. III a.n.e. (Castillo de Doña Blanca – El Puerto de Santa Maria, Cádiz),” in XXIV Congreso Nacional de Arqueologia (Cartagena, 1997), edited by A. Gonzalez Blanco, J. Garcia del Toro, S. Ramallo Asensio, J. Mas Garcia, A. Beltran and M. Martinez Andreu, pp. 125–131. Murcia: Instituto de Patrimonio Histórico. SAÉZ ROMERO, A. “La producción de ánforas en la área del Estrecho en época tardopúnica 2012 (siglos –III a –I),” in Cerámicas hispanorromanas. Un estado de la cuestión, edited by D. Bernal Casasola and A. Ribera i Lacomba, pp. 492–515. Cádiz: Universidad de Cádiz. SOUSA, E. 2014 A ocupação pré-romana da foz do Estuário do Tejo. Lisbon: Centro de Arqueologia da Universidade de Lisboa. SOUSA, E. and PIMENTA, J. 2014 “A produção de ânforas no Estuário do Tejo durante a Idade do Ferro,” in As produções cerâmicas de imitação na Hispânia I, edited by R. Morais, A. Fernández and M. Sousa, pp. 267–279. Porto: Universidade do Porto. VAN LEEUWAARDEN, W. and JANSSEN, C. R. 1985 “A preliminary palynological study of a peat deposit near an oppidum in the lower Tagus valley, Portugal,” in Actas da I Reunião do Quatrernário Ibérico, pp. 225–235. Lisboa: Instituto Nacional de Investigação Científica.

Ana OLAIO Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia Centro de Arqueologia da Universidade de Lisboa Universidade de Lisboa Portugal

AMPHORA PRODUCTION AND TRADE IN WESTERN IBERIA: AN OVERVIEW Elisa DE SOUSA and Ana Margarida ARRUDA ABSTRACT Recent developments concerning the study of the Iron Age occupation of the Portuguese territory have provided a significant amount of new data related to amphora production and distribution along the western Iberian Atlantic front. This paper will present an updated overview related to the circles of distribution of the various types of amphorae identified across the Portuguese territory according to different cultural areas, particularly in Algarve and the estuaries of Tagus, Sado and Mondego. However, the most recent and interesting findings concerning this subject are related to the identification of a new production area, located in the mouth of the Tagus estuary, which operated throughout most of the first millennium BCE, but was apparently restricted to a regional scale. This specific case study is particularly significant as it provides interesting insights on the development of a regional production that operated outside the main distribution circles of southern Iberia.

INTRODUCTION The trade of food products was a common practise throughout Western Iberia during the Iron Age, even if this was a somewhat peripheral area in the framework of the main circles of amphora production and distribution. Its origin is traceable to the earliest phases of the Phoenician colonisation of the Portuguese territory which is dated, in the traditional chronology, between the late eighth and the early seventh century BCE.1 Nonetheless, its features, namely the points of origin, the intensity of trade routes and the variety of food products, assume different characteristics according to the multiple cultural areas that received these goods, as well as to the chronological phase in which they occurred. Unfortunately, the available data concerning the study of Iron Age amphora production and trade in the Portuguese territory is not entirely equal. Some cultural areas, such as the Southern region and the Tagus estuary, have been exhaustively analysed during the last few decades. However, the research of archaeological data uncovered in other areas, specifically in the interior and in the two other main estuaries, Mondego and Sado, still lack detailed and systematic studies that may enable a better understanding of this process. The objective of this paper is to provide an updated overview concerning the dynamics and rhythms of amphora production and trade in this Western region of the Iberian Peninsula. This will be based, not only in the analysis of archeological materials recovered from several

1

 Arruda 1999–2000.

480

E. DE SOUSA

– A. M.

ARRUDA

sites, but also in the available data already published by other researchers.2 This study is better understood within the context of the two main chronological phases of the western Iberian Iron Age, the ‘Orientalising period’ (late eighth to sixth century BCE) and the so-called ‘Second Iron Age’ (fifth to mid-second century BCE), as well as the different cultural areas identified across this region (Algarve, the southern interior and estuaries of Mondego, Tagus and Sado).

I. THE ORIENTALISING PERIOD (LATE EIGHTH

TO SIXTH CENTURY

BCE)

Algarve Throughout the entire Iron Age, the Southern region of Portugal, the Algarve, is undoubtedly the area that maintained the closest and most intense commercial contacts with the Phoenician centres located in the south coast of Andalusia. The main archaeological settlements occupied during this phase in the Algarve, Castro Marim and Tavira, have revealed significant quantities of Western Phoenician amphorae, mostly integrated as Ramon Torres’ T–10.1.1.1 and T–10.1.2.1. A closer analysis of these sets was only possible in the case of Castro Marim where archaeological fieldwork uncovered more than 140 rim fragments of these types of amphorae, mostly T–10.1.2.1, although T–10.1.1.1 is also well documented. A preliminary macroscopic analysis of these fragments indicates that a significant part of these containers were produced on the Málaga coast, although other Southern Iberian productions are also represented. From Tavira, the available data is, so far, scarce: only a T–10.1.2.1 amphora fragment that was recovered during the excavations at Palácio da Galeria.3 However, it is highly likely that future publications will reveal data similar to Castro Marim considering the great importance of this settlement.4 The Western Atlantic front: the Tagus, Mondego and Sado estuaries In this area, the presence of amphorae during the Iron Age is directly linked to the Phoenician colonisation that focused on the three main estuaries of the Portuguese shores: Mondego, Tagus and Sado. Probably due to the distance that separates these areas from the main Iberian Phoenician nucleus, located mostly in southern Andalusia, these Western Atlantic settlements were required to develop, early on, their own pottery productions including the fabric of amphorae. This situation is clearly perceptible in the Tagus region where the main settlements located near the mouth of the river’s estuary, Lisbon and Quinta do Almaraz, developed an intense

 In terms of typological references, the main work used in this paper is Las ánforas fenício-púnicas del Mediterráneo central e occidental (Ramon Torres 1995). In the specific case of the Tagus productions, the criteria defined in Sousa and Pimenta (2014) were used. 3  Maia 2003. 4  Arruda 1999–2000, 2005; Maia 2003. 2

AMPHORA PRODUCTION AND TRADE IN WESTERN IBERIA

481

c)

77 8

5

6

3 4 11 10 9

Castro Marim

Castro Marim

12

2

Alcácer do Sal (Travessa do Rato)

13 1

altitude over 400 m 0

200 Km

a)

Alcácer do Sal (Necrópole do Olival do Senhor dos Mártires)

Tavira

b)

Abul

Lisboa (Sé)

Alcáçova de Santarém

4 cm

Lisboa (Casa dos Bicos) 10 cm

Santa Olaia

Fig. 1. a) Distribution of amphora type Ramon T–10.1.1.1 and T–10.1.2.1 in the Portuguese territory (1 – Castro Marim; 2 – Tavira; 3 – Lisbon; 4 – Almaraz; 5 – Santarém; 6 – Porto do Sabugueiro; 7 – Santa Olaia; 8 – Conimbriga; 9 – Alcácer do Sal; 10 – Abul; 11 – Setúbal; 12 – São Gens; 13 - Mértola); b) T–10.1.2.1 amphora from Tavira (according to Maia 2003); c) T–10.1.1.1 and T–10.1.2.1 amphorae from Castro Marim, Alcácer do Sal (according to Frankenstein 1997 and Arruda et al. forthcoming), Abul (according to Mayet and Silva 2000), Santarém (according to Arruda 1999–2000; Sousa and Arruda 2018), Lisbon (according to Arruda 1999–2000; Pimenta et al. 2015) and Santa Olaia (according to Pereira 1997).

482

E. DE SOUSA

– A. M.

ARRUDA

pottery production since the late eighth to early seventh century BCE.5 Like most of the areas linked to the dynamic of the Western Phoenician colonisation, the first amphora productions in the Tagus estuary reproduced the prototypes of the so-called R1, exhibiting morphological features close to T–10.1.1.1 and T–10.1.2.1.6 This similarity can be easily explained if we consider the likely hypothesis that the agents responsible for these productions, as well as for the Phoenician colonisation of the western Portuguese Atlantic front, probably originated from Andalusia’s Phoenician settlements and, therefore, reproduced the types already fabricated in that area. These Tagus productions, recently labeled as regional type 1, nonetheless, exhibit some specific features such as the amplitude of the dimensions of the rim, which are considerably wider when compared to Southern productions: the medium diameter range of the Tagus productions is 16 cm, although in some cases it may even reach 19 cm.7 Even in terms of morphology, it is easy to distinguish some particular features, especially in the rim profile, that also indicate the strong regional character of these productions. The macroscopic characteristics of these productions, also clearly visible in the regional red slip, painted and common ware, particularly in the fabrics, which are assumed to have originated from the Lisbon/Almaraz area, are easily distinguished mainly by the presence of microfossil particles. In a significant number of cases, the exterior surfaces of these vases are covered by a whitish slip, although the use of red and brown tonalities is also documented. Another point of interest concerning these productions is related to their quantity. The available archeological data indicates that these local products dominate the inventories from the Tagus area throughout the Iron Age.8 It is still not clear if the dispersion of these productions is restricted to this regional area or if it spread across other regions. As stated previously, the lack of systematic analysis upon the material culture of nearby regions, such as the Mondego and Sado estuaries, is an obstacle that makes it difficult to assess whether the Tagus productions reached outside its primary regional circuit. As for content, there is currently no evidence that can pinpoint the products transported in these containers. However, if we consider the fact that palynological analyses undertaken in most inner area of the Tagus estuary, in Alpiarça, identified the cultivation of olive trees and the domestication of vines after the mid-seventh century BCE,9 an agricultural content is admissible. Even if the weight of the regional amphora production is overwhelming, they do coexist with some imports from southern Iberia. The data retrieved so far, even if based mainly upon macroscopic analyses, indicates that the majority of the amphora imports originated from southern Andalusia, specifically from the Málaga coast.10 So far, in Lisbon, it was possible to trace at least 15 fragments attributed to these productions. Archaeological evidence

5

 Sousa 2016.  Sousa and Pimenta 2014. 7  Sousa and Pimenta 2014. 8  Sousa 2014; Sousa and Pimenta 2014; Olaio 2015. 9  Leeuwaarden and Janssen 1985. 10  Arruda 1999–2000; Sousa and Pimenta 2014; Pimenta, Sousa and Amaro 2015; Calado et al. 2013; Fernandes et al. 2013. 6

AMPHORA PRODUCTION AND TRADE IN WESTERN IBERIA

483

c)

7 14

12 11 13 10

9 8 7

3

6 5 2

4 1

d) e) altitude over 400 m 0

200 Km

a)

10 cm

f)

b)

10 cm

Fig. 2. a) Distribution of Andalusian amphora imports during the fifth and fourth century BCE (1. Castro Marim; 2. Tavira; 3. Cerro da Rocha Branca; 4. Mértola; 5. Mesas do Castelinho; 6. Neves I and II; 7. Alcácer do Sal; 8. Abul; 9. Setúbal; 10. Lisbon; 11. Cabeço Guião; 12. Santarém; 13. Porto do Sabugueiro; 14. Crasto de Tavarede); b) Castro Marim – primary context from the late fifth century; c to f) Amphorae recovered in situ: Pellicer B/C (c), predecessors (?) of T–8.1.1.2 (d), small-size T–10.1.2.1 (e), T–11.2.1.3, T–11.2.1.4 and T–11.2.1.6 (f – from left to right).

484

E. DE SOUSA

– A. M.

ARRUDA

retrieved along the Tagus estuary’s innermost areas, mainly in Santarém11 and Porto do Sabugueiro,12 also revealed some of these Málaga productions. Other points of origin were also identified, in lower frequencies, and may be related to Cádiz productions or other areas of southern Andalusia. So far, it is not possible to assess if this scenario, identified in the Tagus area, particularly in the framework of the importance of the local productions, is also a reality in the Mondego and Sado estuaries. As previously mentioned, the lack of systematic studies concerning the material culture gathered at important ‘Orientalising’ sites, such as Santa Olaia or Alcácer do Sal, is a strong obstacle to any reading concerning amphora production and distribution. At Santa Olaia, in the Mondego estuary, occupied between the seventh and fourth century BCE, there are at least four amphorae, with a complete profile that seem to correspond to T–10.1.2.1, which were probably imported from southern Andalusia.13 As for other published fragments from this site,14 it is unclear if they are also importations or local/ regional productions. In the interior of the Mondego estuary, in Conimbriga, some T–10.1.2.1 amphora fragments were also recovered15 that may also correspond to Málaga productions.16 As for the Sado estuary, there are more than 43 amphorae that resemble Ramon Torres T–10.1.2.1 uncovered at the Phoenician site of Abul.17 A detailed analysis of their fabrics allowed the identification of four distinct groups. Unfortunately the data available at that time did not enable to develop further interpretations concerning their origin,18 although some of these groups revealed petrographic similarities with ceramic fragments recovered from Castillo de Doña Blanca. Other sites located in the Sado estuary, such as Alcácer do Sal or Setúbal,19 also revealed containers that recall this same type (T–10.1.2.1), although it is difficult to establish, based on the available data, if they were imported or manufactured in nearby regions. However, recent excavations that took place at Alcácer do Sal brought to light some interesting new data concerning the amphora circulation in this area with the identification of at least seven fragments of Ramon Torres T–10.1.2.1, produced along the Málaga coast and also in other Southern regions.20 Also interesting is the data collected from the site’s necropolis, Olival do Senhor dos Mártires, where two whole small-size amphorae were identified, no more than 30 cm high, both imported from Southern Iberia.21 Although there is, so far, no clear evidence that indicates that the Sado or the Mondego area produced amphorae during the Orientalising period, it is very likely that future studies will reveal a reality similar to the one recently identified at the Tagus estuary.

11

 Arruda 1999–2000; Sousa and Arruda 2018.  Pimenta and Mendes 2008; Pimenta et al. 2014; Sousa et al. 2020. 13  Rocha 1905–1908; Frankenstein 1997; Pereira 1997; Arruda 1999–2000. 14  Pereira 1997, p. 241. 15  Alarcão et al. 1976; Arruda 1999–2000. 16  Arruda 1999–2000, p. 249. 17  Mayet and Silva 2000. 18  Schmitt 2000. 19  Silva et al. 1980–1981; Soares and Silva 1986. 20  Arruda et al. forthcoming. 21  Frankenstein 1997; Arruda 1999–2000; Gomes 2016. 12

AMPHORA PRODUCTION AND TRADE IN WESTERN IBERIA b)

485

h)

c)

i) d)

7

j)

54

32

6 1

e)

altitude over 400 m 

f)

.P

a)

k) m)

g)

l) n)

o)

10 cm

Castro Marim

Faro

Monte Molião

p)

Numer of vessels

60 50 40 30 20 10 0

q)

Pellicer B/C

Pellicer D

Type Ramon Torres 12

8.1.1.2

8.2.1.1.

Amphora types

Fig. 3. a) Distribution of Andalusian amphorae imports during the late fourth and third century BCE (1. Castro Marim; 2. Tavira; 3. Faro; 4. Cerro da Rocha Branca; 5. Monte Molião; 6. Mértola; 7. Mesas do Castelinho); b to g) Amphorae from Monte Molião: T–12.1.1.1 (b), Pellicer B/C (c), Pellicer D (d), T–8.1.1.2 (f), T–8.2.1.1 (g); h to l) Amphorae from Faro: T–12.1.1.1 (h), Pellicer B/C (i), Pellicer D (j), T–8.1.1.2 (k), T–8.2.1.1 (l); m to p) Amphorae from Castro Marim: T–12.1.1.1 (m), Pellicer B/C (n), Pellicer D (o), T–8.1.1.2 (p); q) Distribution of amphorae during the late fourth to third century archaeological contexts from Castro Marim, Faro and Monte Molião.

E. DE SOUSA

486

– A. M.

ARRUDA

b)

Tagus Type 1

3 2

1

Tagus Type 5 Tagus Type 2

altitude over 400 m

Tagus Type 6

0

200 Km

a) Tagus Type 3

Tagus Type 7 10 cm

c)

10 cm

Local productions from Faro, inspired in Type Pellicer B/C d)

Tagus Type 4 10 cm

Local productions from Alcácer do Sal (?)

Fig. 4. a) Iron Age local amphora productions in the Portuguese territory (1. Faro; 2. Alcácer (?); 3. Lisbon); b) Tagus estuary productions; c) Faro’s productions; d) Alcácer do Sal (?) productions.

AMPHORA PRODUCTION AND TRADE IN WESTERN IBERIA

487

The Southern Interior (Alentejo) During the Orientalising period, the distribution of amphorae seems to be constricted to the areas directly affected by the Western Phoenician colonisation of the Atlantic Front. Its presence in innermost areas is, so far, almost inexistent with only two exceptions. On a remote site located in the interior, São Gens, occupied during the seventh and sixth century, two amphorae of Ramon Torres T–10.1.1.1 of foreign origin were identified.22 Considering the absence of archaeological data from this area during the Orientalising period, it is very difficult to determine if this element is related to a wider settlement pattern that remains to be properly identified or if it is an isolated case related to the Orientalising presence in the innermost areas of the Iberian Peninsula, specifically the Spanish Extremadura. It is, however, relevant to indicate that at even more interior settlements, such as Castro dos Ratinhos, fragments that seem to belong to amphorae produced in the Málaga area were identified in contexts dating from the second half of the eighth century BCE.23 In the southern area of Alentejo, along the inner course of Guadiana, fragments that could belong to T–10.1.2.1 were also recovered in Mértola,24 although there is no information related to its fabric. It is, however, highly likely that they also correspond to imports from southern Andalusia that reached the site through the Guadiana river, possibly with Castro Marim as an intermediary pivot.

DISCUSSION So far, the only area in the Portuguese territory that engaged in a systematic production of amphorae during the Orientalising period is the Tagus estuary which was responsible for the fabric of several hundreds of these vessels. Although it is clear that they were originally inspired by southern types (T–10.1.1.1 and mostly T–10.1.2.1), certain regional features quickly appeared, which may be related to the means of distribution and function of these vessels. So far, there is no data that allows for the assumption that these Tagus productions spread outside the primary region. This would imply that they were destined for a regional circuit in which fluvial networks would be almost exclusive. On the other hand, this limited scale of distribution may also imply that the primary function of these vessels may not have been limited to the transportation of food products, but also used as large-size containers for storage. This would explain not only the larger dimensions, particularly regarding rim diameter, but also the fact that they are often covered with whitish or reddish slips on their external surfaces.25 Another important aspect to highlight in what concerns the amphora imports throughout the entire Portuguese Coast, even if based almost exclusively upon macroscopic analyses, is the amount of containers which seem to have been produced in the Málaga area. As a matter of fact, these productions are very frequent in the Portuguese archaeological record, which 22

 Mataloto 2004a.  Berrocal-Rangel and Silva 2010, p. 285. 24  Hourcade et al. 2003, p. 197; Barros 2010, p. 421. 25  Sousa and Pimenta 2014. 23

488

E. DE SOUSA

– A. M.

ARRUDA

testifies to the commercial dynamic and importance of the food products from that area during the Orientalising period.

II. THE ‘SECOND IRON AGE’ (FIFTH

TO MID-SECOND CENTURY

BCE)

The middle of the first millennium BCE represents a moment of deep structural changes throughout the entire Iberian Peninsula. Due to both internal and external causes, the previous link that somehow unified a great number of different geographical areas under the influence of the western Phoenician colonial dynamic was radically altered.26 The period that followed the late sixth century BCE was mostly characterised, mainly in western Iberia, by a strong regionalisation visible in multiple aspects of the archaeological data, particularly in the ceramic repertoire, which may indicate a decrease of the frequency of contacts between the different geographic areas.27 From a strictly chronological point of view, this new period, which occurred between the fifth and the mid-second century BCE, could be integrated under the label ‘Punic’. However, this term also integrates a strong cultural meaning that is better applied to the dynamics that took place in the central Mediterranean region. Therefore, the term ‘Second Iron Age’ is preferred to define this chronological phase, even if in some of the analysed areas they relate to cultural features that are directly linked to the previous Phoenician traditions. The Algarve During this time, the southern region of the Portuguese territory remains deeply integrated in the commercial circuits of the Andalusia area. Data concerning the late fifth century BCE is especially well documented at Castro Marim, particularly in a unique primary archaeological context, a probable storage facility associated with a religious environment, in which several dozen amphorae were recovered in situ.28 This context, which is well dated by the association of several Greek vases, mainly inset lip cups, revealed an equal presence of amphora types made in the Guadalquivir valley, such as types Pellicer B/C and others from littoral areas (Cádiz bay, Iberian Mediterranean coast and maybe even western North African fabrics) such as Ramon T–11.2.1.3, T–11.2.1.4 and T–11.2.1.6. Also significant is the presence, in this same context, of some amphorae that seem to precede T–8.1.1.2 with fabrics that also recall the productions of the Cádiz ‘Campiña’. Apart from these containers, which constitute the majority of the amphorae recovered in this singular context, a single small-size T–10.1.2.1 was also recovered. After the late fourth century BCE, this Southern Portuguese region experienced a considerable enlargement of the settlement network. It is during this time that at least two new important sites are founded along the western coast, Faro and Monte Molião, that join others previously occupied such as Castro Marim, Tavira and Cerro da Rocha Branca. 26

 Aubet 1987; Arruda 2005; Martín Ruiz 2007.  Sousa 2014. 28  Arruda 2005; Arruda et al. 2007. 27

AMPHORA PRODUCTION AND TRADE IN WESTERN IBERIA

b)

489

c)

d)

3

2 1

10 cm altitude over 400 m 0

200 Km

a)

Fig. 5. a) Central and eastern Mediterranean imports in the Portuguese territory (1. Castro Marim; 2. Monte Beirão; 3. Lisbon); b) T–4.1.1.3 from Lisbon; c) Corinthian type B from Castro Marim; d) Samian amphorae from Monte Beirão.

The amphora imports during this period are significant and mainly originated, once more, from Andalusia: type Pellicer B/C is still present, although mostly from latter morphologies, amphora types from the Cádiz interior area (T–8.1.1.2) are also well documented as well as more littoral productions of Ramon T–12, T–8.2.1.1 and Pellicer type D.29 During the ‘Second Iron Age’, the only site in the Algarve that seems to have engaged a local amphora production is Faro. The identification of at least 41 fragments produced with local clay seems to indicate the existence of a local amphora production which reproduced the later variants of Pellicer’s type B/C.30 Amphorae with these features are, however, absent from the other sites in the Algarve indicating that it corresponds to a production intended for small local circuits.31 The Western Atlantic front: Tagus, Mondego and Sado estuaries As for the western Atlantic Front, there is a complex scenery in what concerns the ‘Second Iron Age’ regional productions. In the Tagus estuary, during the late sixth century, we witness the appearance of new amphorae morphologies characterised by thick and slightly everted rims, clearly distinguished along the outer surface, and oval-shaped bodies that were designated as regional type 3. It is 29

 Gomes 1993; Arruda 1999–2000, 2005; Sousa 2009; Sousa and Arruda 2010.  Arruda et al. 2005; Sousa 2009. 31  Sousa 2009; Sousa and Arruda 2010. 30

490

E. DE SOUSA

– A. M.

ARRUDA

still unclear if they are a local evolution of the previous types or if the genesis of this variant may have been influenced by contemporary southern productions, such as Pellicer type B/C. After the fifth century this regional type reaches its production peak and it is fabricated until the late third century, with over 300 fragments identified so far in the area. During the second half the first millennium, other amphora morphologies also appear in the regional repertoire:32 Tagus type 2, which was probably derived from the previous type 3, exhibits a peculiar fusiform profile, slightly carinated in its upper part; Tagus type 4, with oval-shaped containers with high vertical rims, thickened along the inside; Tagus type 5, the only one that seems to have been produced in the innermost areas of the Tagus estuary, characterised by an oval-shaped body, but with slightly thick inverted rims; Tagus type 6, with more horizontal shoulders, inverted thickened rims and a more cylindrical shaped body; and finally, Tagus type 7, with a superior frusto conical shape, rectilinear walls and rims thickened along the inside. Like in the previous phase, the distribution of these types seems to have spread only regionally and they are found, in considerable amounts, in the smaller settlements located either in the western area of Lisbon’s Peninsula or along the inner course of the estuary.33 Once more, it is still very difficult to determine if the emergence of these types should be attributed exclusively to an independent regional evolution of the amphorae produced in the Tagus area during the ‘Orientalizing period’, or if they might have also been inspired by southern prototypes, such as types Pellicer B/C, Ramon Torres variants of type 11 and even, in later times, by T–8.1.1.2. Although this last hypothesis is admissible, it faces a strong obstacle related to the rarity of amphorae imports during these latter times. Throughout the entire Tagus area, only a few fragments of imported amphorae have so far been identified: nine from type Pellicer B/C, produced in the Guadalquivir valley, one hypothetical Ramon Torres T–11.2.1.5, one evolved T–10.1.2.1 from the interior of Andalusia and, remarkably, a possible central Mediterranean import, from Sardinia, from Ramon Torres T–4.1.1.3, all of them dated to the fifth and fourth century BCE.34 So far, the typical southern productions from the third century (Ramon Torres T–12, T–8.1.1.2, T–8.2.1.1, Pellicer type D), which are so frequent in the Algarve area, have still not been identified in the Tagus region in preserved Iron Age contexts. Considering these factors, it seems that in the Tagus area, after the late sixth century BCE, we witness a similar process to that which took place in other Iberian regions, such as Andalusia or even the Spanish Extremadura, where the models inspired by previous western Phoenician types evolved with different ramifications including distinct reinterpretations and specific details that reflect their different regional origins, although they might have maintained some degree of contact with each other. A better understanding of this reality will, however, only be possible when further data is gathered concerning these productions such as the full profile of amphorae, content analysis and the location and characterisation of their production kilns. As for the other estuaries, Mondego and Sado, the dynamics that entailed the distribution of amphorae during this time remain unclear. 32

 Sousa and Pimenta 2014.  Cardoso and Encarnação 2013; Sousa 2014; Pimenta et al. 2014; Cardoso et al. 2014; Arruda et al. 2014; Arruda et al. 2017. 34  Sousa 2014, 2016; Sousa et al. 2020; García Fernández 2019. 33

AMPHORA PRODUCTION AND TRADE IN WESTERN IBERIA

491

From Mondego, only one container recovered from Castro de Tavarede seems to belong to T–11.2.1.3,35 but the absence of a detail graphical representation or description of its fabric makes it difficult to pinpoint a more specific point of origin. In the Sado region, at Alcácer do Sal, the materials recovered from different excavations testify to the existence of at least some amphora imports during the second half of the first millennium, particularly types Pellicer B/C and fragments that could be classified as Ramon Torres T-11.2.1.3 and T–11.2.1.4.36 Other fragments, that also seem to belong to amphorae, exhibit fabrics that could be related to a local or regional production. Normally they feature small circular shaped rims, sometimes thickened on the inner surface, and a pendulous shoulder.37 At Abul B, along with some fragments that still resemble Ramon Torres T–10.1.2.1, the mid-first millennium BCE was also characterised by the appearance of T–11.2.1.3 and T–11.2.1.4, probably produced in southern Andalusia, as well as more atypical morphologies that could be related either to the Post–Orientalising horizon of Spanish Extremadura38 or to local or regional productions. In the nearby region, the recent excavation of a small settlement at Santa Margarida do Sado 3 also provided some amphora fragments39 that resemble types Pellicer B/C and Ramon Torres T–11.2.1.3. However, the absence of any fabric description makes it difficult to establish if they are southern imports or regional productions that merely resemble these types. A similar problem occurs further south, in Miróbriga, where two fragments that strongly resemble Pellicer type B/C where identified, although the description of the fabrics seems to indicate a local or regional production.40 As for Setubal, archaeological contexts dated from this phase provided a few amphora fragments that could belong to Pellicer type B/C.41 Other sites in the Sado area have also provided amphorae that could be related to a preRoman chronology such as Chibanes,42 Pedrão43 and Lapa do Fumo.44 Their morphological features suggest a regional origin. It is, however, impossible at this moment to determine if they correspond to productions from the Sado area or if they could be related to the Tagus estuary and, therefore, revealing a wider and more complex scenery in the framework of the central western Iberian commercial circuits. The Southern Interior (Alentejo) Contrary to what occured during the Orientalising period, the second half of the first millennium was characterised, in southern Portugal’s innermost areas, by a considerable increase of amphora imports.

35

 Rocha 1908.  Silva et al. 1980–1981; Arruda 1999–2000; Arruda et al. forthcoming. 37  Arruda et al. forthcoming. 38  Mayet and Silva 2000, p. 186. 39  Moro Berraquero et al. 2015, p. 522. 40  Soares and Silva 1979. 41  Soares and Silva 1986, fig. 8: 8–9. 42  Silva and Soares 1997. 43  Soares and Silva 1973. 44  Arruda and Cardoso 2013. 36

492

E. DE SOUSA

– A. M.

ARRUDA

The main nucleus of its distribution was probably located along the course of the Guadiana River, in Mértola, even if the study of the Iron Age materials at the site lacks definition. In terms of published data, there are only a few fragments of types Pellicer B/C and D amphorae,45 although it is known that the imports at the site are much more abundant and diversified.46 It is probably through this settlement that the circulation of food products spread throughout the central area of Southern Alentejo, at sites such as Neves I and II, where at least five amphora imports were identified.These include a T–11.2.1.3, three Pellicer B/C and another that may correspond to the Cádiz ‘Campiña’ T–8.1.1.247 or to the Mesas do Castelinho, with 11 amphora fragments that belong mostly to T–8.2.1.1, although T–11.2.1.6 and T–8.1.1.2 were also identified.48 Following the course of Guadiana, but in northern areas, a different situation seems to occur. Although several sites located in the region revealed fragments of amphorae from the fifth and fourth centuries (Redondo, Espinhaço de Cão, Malhada das Taliscas 4, Chaminé 18, Gato, Monte da Estrada 2, Malhada dos Gagos),49 their features seem to be related almost exclusively to the post-orientalising productions of Spanish Extremadura, namely with the types Cancho Roano I and II identified by Guerrero,50 and not with Southern circuits. Central and Eastern Mediterranean imports One last aspect that should be highlighted is the rarity of Central and Eastern Mediterranean imports throughout the Iron Age in western Iberia with only a few fragments known from the entire area. From the Central Mediterranean there is the abovementioned fragment from Lisbon, recovered from an archaeological context dating from the late fifth to early fourth century, that seems to belong to Ramon Torres T–4.1.1.3 and to have been produced in Sardinia.51 A few other fragments were recovered from Castro Marim which are currently in study and will hopefully be published in the nearby future. Greek transport amphorae are also rare and were so far identified only at Castro Marim (three fragments of type ‘à la brosse,’ one fragment of type Corinthian B or type C of the El Sec shipwreck and a base of a Chian amphora) and in Southern Alentejo, on the surface of a site named Monte Beirão, which was classified as a possible Samian production with parallels to Type N of the El Sec shipwreck.52 The significance of these materials, due to their singularity, is still very difficult to interpret, although they may be related to secondary distribution routes that reached, exceptionally, these remote locations. The existence of amphorae produced in Ibiza are also extremely rare in the Portuguese archaeological data and are only documented by a single base fragment recovered from 45

 Rego et al. 1996.  Barros 2010. 47  Maia 1986; Maia and Maia 1986. 48  Fabião 1999; Estrela 2010; Filipe 2010. 49  Calado et al. 2007; Mataloto 2004b. 50  Guerrero 1991. 51  Sousa 2014. 52  Beirão 1986; Arruda 1997, p. 93; Arruda et al. 2020. 46

AMPHORA PRODUCTION AND TRADE IN WESTERN IBERIA

493

Mértola and classified as Ramon Torres T–8.1.3.1.53 Although this evidence was initially related to the site’s Iron Age latest phase, its only significant association was a fragment of an ‘imitation of Campanian ware’, which is very likely related to the productions known as ‘Kuass ware’, whose presence in the Southern Portuguese Roman Republican contexts is already widely documented.54 Therefore, the possibility that this evidences could be related to the earliest phases of the Roman presence should also be considered.

DISCUSSION In Western Iberia, the Second Iron Age is the period where both the distribution circuits and the production of amphorae reach their higher peak. In Algarve, the majority of the products imported during this time where produced in the Southern Andalusia, such as fish products commercialised in Ramon Torres T–11, T–12 and T–8.2.1.1, olive oil from the Cádiz ‘Campiña’ in T–8.1.1.2, and other unspecified food products that arrived from the Guadalquivir area and other regions in Pellicer types B/C and D amphorae. Local productions are practically inexistent, with the exception of the very localised phenomenon of Faro,55 which seems to have been associated with small local distribution circuits, and that does not even seem to reach other settlements located in the region. These centres in Algarve, and particularly Castro Marim, may have been strategic in the redistribution of Andalusian food products to innermost areas. In fact, it is only after the fifth century that the first amphorae seem to have a more significant expression in this region. The small amounts of these containers in the area, with only fifteen published artifacts to date, makes it difficult to assess tendencies in terms of the variety of imports, although the data retrieved in the several hundred metres of excavated area in Mesas do Castelinho, seems to indicate a preference for fish products during the fourth and third century BCE.56 Few of these products seem to have arrived to the Western Atlantic areas of the Portuguese territory, where we know, for certain, of only about 20 fragments that belong to Ramon Torres T–11, type Pellicer B/C and amphorae that seems to precede the T–8.1.1.2. Even stranger is, however, the complete absence, particularly in the Tagus area, where the archaeological data is already quite significant, of any contextualised import that could be accurately dated from the third century BCE.57 This shortage of imports is, nonetheless, balanced by the enormous quantities of regional amphora productions that will be fabricated until the arrival of the first Roman agents. Given that we have no content analyses, it is difficult to assess if their morphological variety may result from an association with distinct food products, with different kilns or even with a low standardisation of their production.

53

 Hourcade et al. 2003, p. 199.  Sousa 2009 and 2010. 55  Arruda et al. 2005; Sousa 2009; Sousa and Arruda 2010. 56  Fabião 1999; Filipe 2010; Estrela 2010. 57  Sousa 2014. 54

E. DE SOUSA

494

– A. M.

ARRUDA

Another pertinent issue to address is the evidence retrieved in the Northern areas of Portugal and Galiza. Excavations that took place in several castros have revealed amphorae imports that appear to be related with an upsurge of commercial trading routes during the second half of the first millennium BCE.58 However, this data from the Northwest still requires more profound and systematic studies concerning its specific chronological framing in order to understand their true meaning in the framework of the late first millennium BCE commercial circuits in Western Iberia.

III. CONCLUSION Our main objective in this work was to present an updated overview of the complexity of main circles of amphorae production and distribution in western Iberia, in order to provide a more detailed reading of this phenomenon. This new data allows to complete and update the distribution maps elaborated by Joan Ramon Torres59 in Las ánforas fenício-púnicas del Mediterraneo Central y Occidental, where the Portuguese territory findings were seldomly indicated, due to the lack of studies carried upon these type of containers prior to 1995. In fact, it was only after the turn of the century that the research concerning the Phoenician occupation of this area gained a stronger impetus, allowing us to understand how several regions of the west Atlantic Front were irreparably changed by the arrival of foreign groups who settled in these lands, particularly in terms of the material culture. Since the early Iron Age, the transaction and consumption of food products transported in amphorae in the Portuguese territory operated mostly in coastal areas. The origin and explanation of this phenomenon is easily traceable to the dynamics of early Phoenician colonial strategies that concentrated mostly in littoral areas and specifically in main estuaries that provided important links with the interior. Most of the imported products transacted during this time, with few exceptions, are geographically related with the Southern areas of the Peninsula, specifically in Andalusia, were the most important Iron Age settlements were located, both during the Orientalising period and the ‘Second Iron Age’. However, the recent identification of a new production area in the Tagus estuary should be emphasised. The amount of data recovered testifies to the importance of these manufactures, enabling their recognition and individualisation in the framework of Phoenician-Punic amphora productions. Even if its significance is only recognizable in regional circuits, it translates the importance of the Phoenician legacy in the central western Atlantic shores, enabling interesting new perspectives on the evolution of Phoenician amphorae in these remote locations. It is very likely that future studies will reveal similar situations in the other two main estuaries, Sado and Mondego, providing hence a better understanding of the complexity and diversity of amphora production and commerce in the Western Atlantic front.

58

 Silva 1986; González-Ruibal 2006; Sáez Romero et al. 2019.  Ramon 1995.

59

AMPHORA PRODUCTION AND TRADE IN WESTERN IBERIA

495

BIBLIOGRAPHY ALARCÃO, J., DELGADO, M., MAYET, F., ALARCÃO, A. and PONTE, S. 1976 Fouilles de Conimbriga VI. Céramiques divers et verres. Paris: De Boccard. ARRUDA, A. M. 1997 A cerâmica ática do Castelo de Castro Marim. Lisbon: Edições Colibri. 1999–2000 Los Fenícios en Portugal. Fenícios y mundo indígena en el centro y sur de Portugal (siglos VIII–VI a.C.) (Cuadernos de Arqueología Mediterránea 5/6). Barcelona: Carrera. 2005 “O 1º milénio a.n.e. no Centro e no Sul de Portugal: leituras possíveis no início de um novo século,” O Arqueólogo Português IV/23: 9–156. ARRUDA, A. M. and CARDOSO, J. L. 2013 “A ocupação da Idade do Ferro da Lapa do Fumo (Sesimbra),” Estudos Arqueológicos de Oeiras 20: 731–754. ARRUDA, A. M., BARGÃO, P. and SOUSA, E. 2005 “A ocupação pré-romana de Faro: alguns dados novos,” Revista Portuguesa de Arqueologia 8/1: 177–208. ARRUDA, A. M., FERREIRA, D. and SOUSA, E. 2020 A cerâmica grega do Castelo de Castro Marim. Lisboa: Uniarq. ARRUDA, A. M., FREITAS, V. and OLIVEIRA, C. 2007 “Os Fenícios e a urbanização no Extremo Ocidente: o caso de Castro Marim,” in Las ciudades fenicio-púnicas en el Mediterráneo Occidental, edited by J. L. López Castro, pp. 459–482. Almería: Universidad de Almería. ARRUDA, A. M., SOUSA, E., BATATA, C., BARRADAS, E. and SOARES, R. 2017 “O Cabeço Guião (Cartaxo): um sítio da Idade do Ferro do Vale do Tejo,” in Territorios comparados: los vales del Guadalquivir, el Guadiana y el Tajo en época tartesica, edited by S. Celestino Pérez and E. Rodríguez González, pp. 319–361. Madrid: Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas. ARRUDA, A. M., SOUSA, E., FERREIRA, M., LOURENÇO, P. and CARVALHO, A. forthcoming “Contributos para o conhecimento da Idade do Ferro de Alcácer do Sal: os dados da Travessa do Rato.” ARRUDA, A. M., SOUSA, E., PIMENTA, E., MENDES, H. and SOARES, R. 2014 “Alto do Castelo’s Iron Age occupation (Alpiarça, Portugal),” Zephyrus 74: 9–14. AUBET, M. E. 1987 Tiro y las colonias fenicias de occidente. Barcelona: Bellaterra. BARROS, P. 2010 “Mértola entre os séculos VI e III a.C.,” Mainake 32/II: 417–436. BEIRÃO, C. M. 1986 Une civilisation protohistorique du sud du Portugal (Ier Âge du Fer). Paris: De Boccard. BERROCAL-RANGEL, L. and SILVA, A. C. 2010 O Castro dos Ratinhos (Barragem do Alqueva, Moura). Excavaçoes num povoado proto-histórico do Gudiana, 2004–2007 (O arqueólogo portugués Suplemento 6). Lisbon: Museu Nacionale de Arqueologia. CALADO, M., ALMEIDA, L., LEITÃO, V. and LEITÃO, M. 2013 “Cronologias absolutas para a Iª Idade do Ferro em Olisipo – o exemplo de uma ocupação em ambiente cársico na actual Rua da Judearia em Alfama,” Cira Arqueologia 2: 118–132. CALADO, M., MATALOTO, R. and ROCHA, A. 2007 “Povoamento proto-histórico na margem direita do Regolfo de Alqueva (Alentejo, Portugal),” in Arqueología de la tierra. Paisajes rurales de la protohistoria peninsular (VI Cursos de Verano Internacionales de la Universidad de Extremadura, Castuera, 2005), edited by A. Rodríguez Díaz and I. Pavón Soldevila, pp. 129–179. Cáceres: Universidad de Extremadura.

496

E. DE SOUSA

– A. M.

ARRUDA

CARDOSO, G. and ENCARNAÇÃO, J. 2013 “O povoamento pré-romano de Freiria – Cascais,” Cira Arqueologia 2: 133–180. CARDOSO, J. L., ARRUDA, A. M., SOUSA, E. and REGO, M. 2014 “Outorela I e Outorela II, dois pequenos sítios da Idade do Ferro a norte do Estuário do Tejo (concelho de Oeiras),” Estudos Arqueológicos de Oeiras 21: 115– 151. ESTRELA, S. 2010 Os níveis fundacionais da Idade do Ferro de Mesas do Castelinho (Almodôvar). Os contextos arqueológicos na (re)construção do povoado. Unpublished MA diss., University of Lisbon. FABIÃO, C. 1999 O Mundo Indígena e a sua Romanização na área céltica do território hoje português. Unpublished PhD diss., University of Lisbon. FERNANDES, L., PIMENTA, J., CALADO, M. and FILIPE, V. 2013 “Ocupação sidérica na área envolvente do teatro romano de Lisboa: o Pátio do Aljube,” Revista Portuguesa de Arqueologia 16: 167–185. FERRERIRA DA SILVA, A. C. 1986 A cultura castreja no Noroeste de Portugal. Paços de Ferreira: Câmara Municipal de Paços de Ferreira. FILIPE, V. 2010 “As ânforas de tradição pré-romana de Mesas do Castelinho, Almodôvar,” Revista Portuguesa de Arqueologia 13: 57–88. FRANKENSTEIN, S. 1997 Arqueología del colonialismo. El impacto fenicio y griego en el sur de la Península Ibérica y el suroeste de Alemania. Barcelona: Crítica. GARCÍA FERNÁNDEZ, F. J. 2019 “Rumbo a poniente: el comercio de ánforas turdetanas en la costa atlántica de la península ibérica (siglos V–I a.C.),” Archivo Español de Arqueología 92: 119– 153. GOMES, F. 2016 Contactos culturais e discursos identitários na I Idade do Ferro do Sul de Portugal (séculos VIII – V a.n.e.): leituras a partir do registo funerário. Unpublished PhD diss., University of Lisbon. GOMES, M. V. 1993 “O estabelecimento fenício-púnico do Cerro da Rocha Branca (Silves),” Estudos Orientais IV: 73–107. GONZÁLEZ-RUIBAL, A. 2007 “Past the last outpost: Punic merchants in the Atlantic Ocean (5th–1st centuries BCE),” Journal of Mediterranean Archaeology 19: 121–150. GUERRERO, V. M. 1991 “El palacio-santuario de Cancho Roano (Badajoz) y la comercializacion de ánforas fenícias indígenas,” Rivista di Studi Fenici XIX/1: 49–81. HOURCADE, D., LOPES, V. and LABARTHE, J. M. 2003 “Mértola: la muraille de l’Âge du Fer,” Revista Portuguesa de Arqueologia 6/1: 175–210. LEEUWAARDEN, W. VAN and JANSSEN, C. R. 1985 “A preliminary palynological study of a peat deposit near an oppidum in the lower Tagus valley,” in Actas da I Reunião do Quaternário Ibérico. Vol. II, pp. 225–235. Lisbon: Instituto Nacional de Investigação Cientifica. MAIA, M. 1986 “Neves II e a «facies» cultural de Neves Corvo,” Arquivo de Beja 2–3: 23–42. “Fenícios em Tavira,” in Tavira. Território e poder, edited by M. Maia, 2003 C. Fernandes, M. Lopes and S. Cavaco, pp. 57–72. Tavira: Museu Nacional de Arqueologia.

AMPHORA PRODUCTION AND TRADE IN WESTERN IBERIA

497

MAIA, M. and MAIA, M. 1986 Arqueologia da área mineira de Neves-Corvo – Trabalhos realizados no triénio 1982–84. Castro Verde: Sociedade Mineira de Neves-Corvo. MARTÍN-RUIZ, J. A. 2007 La crisis del siglo VI a.C. en los asentamientos fenicios de Andalucía. Málaga: Diputación Provincial. MATALOTO, R. 2004 “Meio Mundo: o início da Idade do Ferro no cume da Serra d’Ossa (Redondo, Alentejo Central),” Revista Portuguesa de Arqueologia 7/2: 139–173. 2004b Um “monte” da Idade do Ferro na Herdade da Sapatoa – ruralidade e povoamento no Iº milénio a.C. do Alentejo Central (Trabalhos de Arqueologia 37). Lisbon: Instituto Português de Arqueologia. MAYET, F. and SILVA, C. T. 2000 Le site phénicien d’Abul (Portugal). Comptoir et sanctuaire. Paris: De Boccard. MORO BERRAQUERO, J., SIMÃO, I. and GODINHO, R. 2015 “Santa Margarida do Sado 3. La influencia fenicio-púnica al interior de la Cuenca del Río Sado,” in Actas del VII Encuentro de Arqueología del Suroeste Peninsular, edited by N. Medina Rosales, pp. 501–529. Aroche: Ayuntamiento de Aroche. OLAIO, A. 2015 Ânforas da Idade do Ferro na Quinta do Almaraz (Almada). Unpublished MA diss., University of Lisbon. PEREIRA, I. 1993 “Figueira da Foz. Santa Olaia,” Estudos Orientais IV: 285–304. 1997 “Santa Olaia et le commerce atlantique,” in Itineraires Lusitaniennes: Trente années de collaboration archéologiques luso-française, edited by R. Étienne and F. Mayet, pp. 209–253. Paris: De Boccard. PIMENTA, J. and MENDES, H. 2008 “Descoberta do povoado pré-romano de Porto do Sabugueiro (Muge),” Revista Portuguesa de Arqueologia 11/2: 171–194. PIMENTA, J., MENDES, H., ARRUDA, A. M., SOUSA, E. and SOARES, R. 2014 “Do pré-romano ao Império: a ocupação humana do Porto do Sabugueiro (Muge, Salvaterra de Magos),” Magos 1: 39–57. PIMENTA, J., SOUSA, E. and AMARO, C. 2015 “Sobre as mais antigas ocupações da Casa dos Bicos – Lisboa: da Olisipo préromana aos primeiros contactos com o mundo itálico,” Revista Portuguesa de Arqueologia 18: 161–180. RAMON TORRES, J. 1995 Las ánforas fenício-púnicas del Mediterráneo central e occidental (Col·lecció Instrumenta 2). Barcelona: Universitat de Barcelona. REGO, M., GUERRERO, O. and GÓMEZ, F. 1996 “Mértola: una ciudad mediterránea en el contexto de la Edad del Hierro del Bajo Guadiana,” in Actas de las I Jornadas Transfronterizas sobre la Contienda hispano-portuguesa, edited by E. Taller Contienda, pp. 119–132. Aroche: Escuela Taller Contienda. ROCHA, A. S. 1905–1908 “Memórias e explorações arqueológicas II. Estações pré-romanas da Idade do Ferro nas vizinhanças da Figueira,” Portugália 2: 301–359. SÁEZ ROMERO, A., GARCÍA FERNÁNDEZ, F. J., FERRER ALBELDA, E., RODRÍGUEZ-CORRAL, J. and CASTIÑEIRA REY, J. 2019 “Proyecto Estrímnides: resultados preliminares,” in La ruta de las Estrímnides Navegación y conocimiento del litoral atlántico de Iberia en la Antigüedad, edited by E. Ferrer Albelda, pp. 567–650. Alcalá de Henares: Servicio de Publicaciones-Editorial de la Universidad de Sevilla.

498

E. DE SOUSA

– A. M.

ARRUDA

SCHMITT, A. 2000

“Étude pétrographique des céramiques phéniciennes d’Abul,” in Le site phénicien d’Abul (Portugal). Comptoir et sanctuaire, edited by F. Mayet and C. T. Silva, pp. 265–279. Paris: De Boccard. SILVA, C. T. and SOARES, J. 1997 “Chibanes revisitado. Primeiros resultados da campanha de escavações de 1996,” Estudos Orientais VII: 33–66. SILVA, C. T., SOARES, J., BEIRÃO, C. M., DIAS, L. F. and COELHO-SOARES, A. 1980–1981 “Escavações arqueológicas no Castelo de Alcácer do Sal (campanha de 1979),” Setúbal Arqueológica 6–7: 149–218. SOARES, J. and SILVA, C. T. 1973 “Ocupação do Período Proto-Romano do Pedrão (Setúbal),” in Actas das II Jornadas Arqueológicas da Associação dos Arqueólogos Portugueses, pp. 245–305. Lisbon: Associação dos Arqueólogos Portugueses. 1986 “Ocupação pré-romana de Setúbal: Escavações arqueológicas na Travessa dos Apóstolos,” in Actas do I Encontro Nacional de Arqueologia Urbana, pp. 87–101. Lisbon: Ministério da Educaçao e Cultura. SOUSA, E. 2009 A cerâmica de tipo Kuass no Algarve: os casos de Castro Marim e Faro. Lisbon: Centro de Arqueologia da Universidade de Lisboa. 2010 “The use of «Kouass ware» during the Republican period in Algarve (Portugal),” Rei Cretariae Romanae Fautorum Acta 41: 523–528. 2014 A ocupação pré-romana da foz do Estuário do Tejo. Lisbon: Centro de Arqueologia da Universidade de Lisboa. 2016 “A Idade do Ferro em Lisboa: uma primeira aproximação a um faseamento cronológico e à evolução da cultura material,” Cuadernos de Prehistoria y Arqueología de la Universidad Autónoma de Madrid 42: 167–185. SOUSA, E. and ARRUDA, A. M. 2010 “A gaditanização do Algarve,” Mainake 32/II: 951–974. 2018 “A I Idade do Ferro na Alcáçova de Santarém (Portugal): os resultados da campanha de 2001,” Onuba 6: 57–95. SOUSA, E. and PIMENTA, J. 2014 “A produção de ânforas no Estuário do Tejo durante a Idade do Ferro,” in As Produções Cerâmicas de Imitação na Hispânia (Monografias Ex Officina Hispana II), edited by R. Morais, A. Fernández and M. J. Sousa, Vol. I, pp. 303–316. Porto: Facultade de Letras da Universidade do Porto. SOUSA, E., PIMENTA, J., SILVA, I., MENDES, H., ARRUDA, A. M. and DORADO-ALEJOS, A. 2020 “Ânforas da Idade do Ferro e de tradição pré-romana do Porto do Sabugueiro (Muge, Portugal),” Spal 29/1: 129–156.

Elisa DE SOUSA Centro de Arqueologia da Universidade de Lisboa Universidade de Lisboa Portugal

Ana Margarida ARRUDA Centro de Arqueologia da Universidade de Lisboa Universidade de Lisboa Portugal

PUNIC AMPHORAE IN NORTHWEST IBERIA: ORIGIN, DISTRIBUTION AND COMMERCIAL DYNAMICS Eduardo FERRER ALBELDA, Josefa REY CASTIÑEIRA, Javier RODRÍGUEZ-CORRAL, Antonio M. SÁEZ ROMERO and Francisco José GARCÍA FERNÁNDEZ ABSTRACT The main goals of the Estrímnides Project focus on the review of the accumulated archaeological evidence regarding the trade and consumption of Mediterranean products in the Galician ‘castros’. In this article, the results of the study of the material culture found at some selected sites and deposits (Punta do Muiño, Toralla, Chandebrito, A Lanzada, O Achadizo, Elviña, and Coruña Bay) are discussed. With these new data, the authors propose a revised periodisation for the distribution of these products towards the northwest of Iberia during the Late Iron Age, divided in three main phases: 1) end of the fifth century to the mid-second century BCE; 2) mid-second century BCE to the mid-first century BCE; 3) mid-first century BCE to the Early Imperial period. In addition, the discussion is extended to the type and provenance of the products transported and consumed (wine, olive oil, salted fish, glass unguentaria, quality ceramics) and as well to the intermediary role played by Gadir/Gades in this Atlantic maritime route.

INTRODUCTION Northwestern Iberia, much like other regions of the Atlantic façade such as Cornwall, Brittany or Wales, has traditionally been considered a finis terrae located in a remote part of the Atlantic geography. However, at the same time, these regions have been not regarded as completely disconnected from the circuits of social and commercial interaction in the Mediterranean area. Archaeologists, without reaching a consensus due to the lack of archaeological evidence, have taken into consideration these regions when speculating on the possible location of the Atlantic islands to which the classical writers refer and from which the Phoenicians obtained a basic mineral resource such as tin. The fact of the matter is that in the current state of research, the northwest of Iberia appears to be the only one among these areas that has provided hard evidence about processes of mobility, interaction and exchange between their local communities and agents of the Mediterranean area. The trade that Punic agents established with the northwestern communities of Iberia is a phenomenon that has only recently gained some visibility in the scientific literature, despite the relative frequent occurrence of products of Mediterranean or south Peninsula origin in archaeological contexts. The study of this region is of great importance if we take into account that it represents the most extreme Phoenician-Atlantic area of interaction of the entire European western façade. The Estrimnides project, ‘La ruta de las Estrímnides: Comercio mediterráneo e interculturalidad en el noroeste de Iberia’ (HAR2015–68310–P), which is currently undertaken by a team of researchers from different universities, aims to address

500

E. FERRER

– J.

REY

– J.

RODRÍGUEZ

– A. M.

SÁEZ

– F. J.

GARCÍA

the study of that region. The goal is to explore the imported materials resulting from excavations carried out in the northwest from the 1930s to the present day. Likewise, it pursues the construction of a methodology and an interpretive framework that allows us to understand, in an integrated manner, both the contexts of consumption, such as the social and economic processes in which these imports were involved as foreign products and the economic and commercial structure in which they were produced and distributed. This paper presents the preliminary results of the study conducted on the materials of some of the sites and contexts that are particularly representative. The results obtained allow some conclusions to be put forward about the interaction phases, their intensity, level of penetration and characteristic merchandise that circulated at that time, their origins and their distribution. The results also take into account, not only the commercial dynamics of Gadir (present-day Cádiz Bay), but also the political and social processes that happened in the region at this advanced stage of the ‘Castro Culture’.

THE

RESEARCH OF

PUNIC

PRESENCE IN NORTHWESTERN IBERIA IN HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE

The Atlantic façade of Iberia was not incorporated into the map of Phoenician colonisation until the end of the twentieth century. If at the beginning of the 1990s, the monograph coordinated by Tavares1 brought together works by various authors that showed the important Phoenician presence in central and southern Portugal, then the work of Arruda2 placed this territory as a key region in the current debate on this colonisation process. Nevertheless, both northern Portugal and Galicia remained outside of this reappraisal of the Iberian Atlantic area in Phoenician studies. There are several reasons for this. Although Mediterranean and southern imports had been found in the northwest since the 1930s, these were either not published or published in local journals and were difficult to access. This also happened at a time when research in the Iberian Peninsula was very regionalised. On the one hand, researchers focusing on the Phoenician world have never paid attention to the northwestern region since it was considered to be outside their field of study. On the other hand, archaeologists specialised in the northwest Iron Age have also generally tended to ignore these import materials, either because they lack the knowledge for their correct study or because they address completely different questions in their research, with some exceptions.3 While the tendency, until the early 1970s, was to interpret the local Iron Age communities of the northwest, the so-called ‘Castro Culture’, from a Celtic perspective, the archaeological discourse from the middle of that decade linked a drastic change to a Roman-centric phase. This turn, to a large extent, was a consequence of the efforts to develop a more scientific archaeology according to the paradigm of the moment.4 In this sense, New Archaeology adopted a functionalist perspective to the detriment of diffusionist approaches, fostering the idea of social formation in terms of internal development. Likewise, the contribution of the 1

 Tavares 1993.  Arruda 2002. 3  Naveiro 1991. 4  Gonzalez-Ruibal 2006–2007. 2

PUNIC AMPHORAE IN NORTHWEST IBERIA

501

ancient history scholars in the research of the Castro Culture encouraged this view to develop in a certain way. As in many other cases in Europe, the study of Iron Age communities through classical sources tends to exaggerate the integration phase of these communities to the Roman provincial system, minimising or ignoring the previous evolution of their culture. From that moment on, the Castro Culture was defined as an archaeological culture that arose around the fourth century BCE, maintaining very little development during the final phase of the Iron Age, which, only after a process of Romanisation, reached its maximum development at a social and material level during the Iulio-Claudian period.5 As the archaeological evidence available at that time did not provide an accurate picture of the earlier periods, scholars focused on the late stages of the Castro Culture with an emphasis on the processes of Roman acculturation in the line of the traditional Romanisation theory.6 Taking into account this background, it is easy to understand that despite the fact that findings of Phoenician or Greek materials were known since the 1930s, and that their number increased from the 1970s onwards,7 it was difficult to fit them into the prevailing discourses of the moment. Nevertheless, concurrent with this Roman-centric phase, a series of significant changes were produced which led to the emergence of an interest in relations with the southern Iberian Peninsula. Firstly, the systematic study of local ceramics allowed for the development of typological series which ultimately made it possible to verify the existence of a greater sequential evolution of the Castro Culture.8 Secondly, new excavations showed that the settlement model that gives its name to this archaeological culture, the castro (hillfort), finds its origin in the regional Late Bronze Age. Hillforts were only a generalised model from the early Iron Age when materials of Mediterranean provenance already appear, such as iron objects, glass beads, fibulae, necklaces or fragments of painted ceramics.9 At the same time, the new excavations showed that many of the previously consolidated assumptions were not correct. An illustrative example of this is the statement that the Romans introduced the round millstone into the northwest and, therefore, their presence at the castro sites would always be a clear indicator of Romanisation.10 However, the finding of this type of item associated with Punic materials reveals that its introduction into the region probably occurred through the Atlantic maritime route much earlier than previously considered.11 Also, it is worth noting that at the beginning of the 1990s the first systematic study was published on the ceramic material imported from the Northwest of Iberia.12 From the late 1990s, this tendency definitely changes. From that moment on, new excavations and findings provide evidence that allows us to consider the northwest region within 5

 Almeida 1974; Silva 1986; Calo 1993, 1994.  Hingley 1996. 7  Fariña 1975; Acuña 1976; Hidalgo 1978; Hidalgo and Costas 1979; Silva 1986; Alvárez 1986; Carballo 1987; Hidalgo and Rodríguez 1987; Ferreira et al. 1981; Peña 1987, 1991; Suárez and Fariña 1990; Carballo 1994. 8  Rey 1995, 1996, 2001. 9  Carballo 1987, 2002; Hidalgo 1987; Peña 1992; Rey 1999; Bettercourt 2000. 10  Silva 1986; Calo 1993. 11  Carballo et al. 2003. 12  Naveiro 1991. 6

502

E. FERRER

– J.

REY

– J.

RODRÍGUEZ

– A. M.

SÁEZ

– F. J.

GARCÍA

the Phoenician periphery. In other words, while the data previously known tended to create an image of the northwest as a region where objects only arrived sporadically from southern Iberia, the new data confirm a real Punic presence in the region as well as mobility and interaction dynamics with the local communities during the Iron Age. In parallel with the increase of studied materials and deposits, González-Ruibal13 tackled the issue, by reviewing some of old materials and new data from different works, which helped to revitalise the debate. Even so, and despite the fact that over the following years published works on the subject have continued,14 the northwestern region has remained outside of the international debate. The recent work edited by Dietler and López-Ruiz,15 ‘Colonial Encounters in Ancient Iberia’, illustrates quite well the state of affairs: although the south and centre of Portugal appear, the northwestern region of Iberia, north of Portugal and Galicia, is not included. While it is true that the interaction processes that fall into these two areas are different, and that we cannot speak for northwestern Iberia in terms of Phoenician colonisation, it is also true that the northwestern region is a deciding factor for the understanding of the processes of interaction and mobility of Phoenicians in the Atlantic façade.

SITUATING THE TIN ISLANDS Different classic writers narrate the interest that Greeks and Phoenicians had for the tin islands, known as the Cassiterides, lying somewhere off the Atlantic coast of Europe. Greek culture never possessed an exhaustive knowledge of the lands bathed by the ocean, although two Massilian seafarers, Euthymenes and Pytheas, navigated those waters, the first to the south of the Pillars of Hercules and the second towards the northern lands of Europe, where these islands are located. Pytheas is credited with, among other things, the verification of the peninsularity of Iberia, but the adventurer was discredited by other Greeks, such as Dicaearchus, Polybius and Strabo,16 and only Eratosthenes seems to have echoed his discoveries. Therefore, very little data has been preserved for the pre-Roman period and it seems very unlikely that the Greek culture had extensive knowledge of these lands, although the general idea was that of metal wealth, especially tin, hence their name. Herodotus,17 in the fifth century BCE, states that the tin used in the Mediterranean comes from the Cassiterides. While the Greek historian admits that he does not know its exact location, Strabo affirms that they are ten islands located near the port of the Artabroi. The navigation along the Atlantic façade of Iberia seems to have been controlled mainly by the Phoenicians of Gadir. According to the data provided by the Classical authors, it seems that the route leading to the tin islands remained under their control until Roman times. As Strabo18 points out in the first century CE, “formerly the Phoenicians alone carried on this traffic from Gades [to the Cassiterides], concealing the passage from every one; and when 13

 González-Ruibal 2004, 2006, 2006–2007.  Rodríguez-Corral 2009, pp. 135–164; González-Ruibal et al. 2010. 15  Dietler and López-Ruiz 2009. 16  Strabo 3.4.4. 17  Herodotus, Histories 3.115. 18  Strabo 3.5.11. 14

PUNIC AMPHORAE IN NORTHWEST IBERIA

503

the Romans followed a certain ship, that they also might find the market, the shipmaster of jealousy purposely ran his vessel upon a shoal, leading on those who followed him into the same disaster; he himself escaped by means of a fragment of the ship, and received from the state the value of the cargo he had lost. The Romans nevertheless by frequent efforts discovered the passage, and as soon as Publius Crassus, passing over to them, perceived that the metals were dug out at a little depth, and that the men were peaceably disposed, he declared it to those who already wished to traffic in this sea for profit.” Also, Avienus,19 at the end of Classical Antiquity, echoed the metal wealth, especially in lead, of the Estrimnides islands, usually identified with the Cassiterides of Strabo, Pliny the Elder20 and Diodorus.21 The commercial exploitation was assigned to Tartessos, to the settlers of Carthage, among them Himilco the Navigator, and to the people of the Pillars of Hercules region.22 While it seems clear that the islands of tin can be reached by navigating north along the Atlantic coast of Iberia, it has been more difficult for scholars to determine their exact location. The areas already mentioned above, such as southwestern Britain, Brittany and northwest Iberia, due to their geographical location and their wealth in tin, were traditionally considered as possible places where these islands were located.23 Even so, there is currently a number of reasons for locating these islands in the northwest of Iberia and, therefore, considering the Iron Age communities of this region as the tin communities with which the Mediterranean seafarers established relationships. Firstly, the northwest of Iberia is one of the Atlantic regions that has rich resources in tin. Unlike the rest of western Iberia, whose resources are found in the interior without direct and immediate access from the coast, in the northwest the stanniferous resources are located on the coast in the same environment as the castros and trading outposts. Secondly, there is clear evidence of exploitation and intensive use of tin by local communities which is well illustrated in the massive number of bronze axes in circulation during the Late Bronze Age.24 Likewise, recent work shows that, since the end of the Late Bronze Age and the beginning of the Iron Age, axes were accumulated in large deposits in the northwestern coastal areas, demonstrating a late recirculation towards the maritime areas of interaction.25 Third, the reiterative appearance of Phoenician or Greek items in northwestern Iberia reveals a clear relationship between that area and the Mediterranean commercial networks. Fourthly, the navigation of Mediterranean agents along the Atlantic coast to the northwest of Iberia is attested by the representation of Mediterranean vessels in petroglyphs located on the south coast of present-day Galicia.26 Fifth, this geographical interaction is made up of a set of islands and the promontory in the Rías Baixas de Galicia which fits quite well with Strabo’s description of the ‘Tin Islands’.27 And lastly, the archaeological evidence of the Phoenician presence in these types of islands  Avienus, Ora Maritima 113–119.  Pliny the Elder, Naturalis Historia 119.7–197. 21  Diodorus 5.38.1–5. 22  Alvar 1980, 1997; Millán 2000; Ramon 2008. 23  Smith 1863; Holmes 1907; Rickard 1927; Hawkes 1966; Murguía at al. 1979; Mitchell 1983; Muhly 1985; Campion 2001; Cunliffe 2001. 24  Rodríguez-Corral 2017. 25  Galán et al. 1996; Galán 2005. 26  Costas and Peña 2006. 27  Rodríguez-Corral 2009. 19 20

E. FERRER

504

– J.

REY

– J.

RODRÍGUEZ

– A. M.

SÁEZ

– F. J.

GARCÍA

Fig. 1. Map indicating the location of the main archaeological sites studied in 2016–2017 in the northwest Iberian Peninsula.

or promontories within the Rías Baixas definitely reinforces all the arguments that have been pointed out.28 Thus, if we take into account everything that has been listed above, and assume the fact that beyond the northwest of Iberia there is no evidence of any kind, apart from being areas rich in tin, that support contacts with the Phoenicians, it seems reasonable to place the ‘Tin Islands’ in the Galician rías (inlets).

THE

CERAMIC EVIDENCE: A PRELIMINARY APPROACH

The first phase the Estrimnides Project has included the study of diverse ceramic assemblages from various archaeological sites in northwestern Iberia (Fig. 1). One of these deposits is located in Punta do Muiño do Vento, a small peninsula of the Ría de Vigo, near the modern city, that was identified during the course of the construction of the Museo do Mar over the site. The rescue excavation carried out in 2003 discovered a coastal castro, a typical settlement of the Late Iron Age shaped by a high density of rounded structures made of stone. Also, 28

 A synthesis in González–Ruibal et al. 2010.

PUNIC AMPHORAE IN NORTHWEST IBERIA

505

beneath the Late Iron Age castro, a previous level was documented consisting of timber buildings and a rectangular structure in stone that was identified as an open area which could be interpreted as a Punic sanctuary. In the interior of this enclosure, four betyls of more than one metre in height were located. Only three of them were preserved in situ. A few metres away, a deposit of bronze axes (ingots?) was found.29 This makes it possible to see how both Punic and local groups related to tin are attested in the same space. The location of the sanctuary on this maritime promontory seems to follow well-known patterns and criteria typical of the Mediterranean Phoenician colonisation process.30 All available data suggests that the worship area was placed in a perfect locus for exchange with the local communities, adopting similar settlement patterns used by Phoenician in southern Iberia and the Mediterranean. At present, although there is little evidence available on the stratigraphy of the site, the typological and formal study of the ceramic material describes an extensive and complex sequence that seems to begin in the middle of the Iron Age during the fourth century BCE. The earliest imports include a wide repertoire of Punic amphorae manufactured at Gadir’s kiln sites, especially Ramon T–8.2.1.1 vessels, which are characterised by open mouths and outturned rims and are commonly linked to the trade of fish by-products. It is worth noting that some T–8.1.1.2 amphorae were also recorded, probably early examples of the consumption in the Galician area of olive oil from the Cádiz coastal countryside. The repertoire also includes some unclassifiable fragments and handles which can, though not without doubts, be associated with other shapes: Pellicer B/C type or variants of the Mañá Pascual A4 group (T–12.1.1.1). These materials were discovered alongside a wide selection of grey and mostly painted wares: bowls, jars, krater-like types (some of which appear to have been repaired) and two pithoi (Fig. 2). Fabrics from Gadir’s pottery workshops overwhelmingly predominate. The overall picture provided by this material set is entirely consistent with fourth and early third century deposits excavated in the Bay of Cádiz.31 A second phase of the settlement is represented by Roman Republican amphorae: T–7.4.3.3 from Gadir/Gades and Campanian Dressel 1A and 1C types, which were probably found alongside other common containers, and even Iberian wares including a fragment of a kalathos with a typical painted decoration of concentric circles. The study of the amphorae found at the site also allows for the definition of a third stage. The Republican era imports were followed by fully Romanised provincial items, including several examples of ovoid amphorae from Gades (fish) and Haltern 70 (wine containers), manufactured in the Guadalquivir Valley, dating to the second half of the first century BCE (Fig. 3). Due to the lack of stratigraphic information it is, however, difficult to determine if these imports define three consecutive and connected stages or if they belong to isolated phases of the site. In addition, some of the material dated in the Augustan period could also date sometime after the Roman conquest (such as some of the Dressel 7/11 fish amphorae). Materials from three other archaeological sites in southern Galicia have been also studied: Toralla (Vigo), A Lanzada (O Grove) and Chandebrito (Nigrán). Toralla is an Iron Age 29

 Caramés 2004.  Shaw 1989; Belén 1999; Ferrer 2002. 31  Sáez Romero 2010, 2014. 30

506

E. FERRER

– J.

REY

– J.

RODRÍGUEZ

– A. M.

SÁEZ

– F. J.

GARCÍA

Fig. 2. Finds from Punta do Muiño do Vento (Vigo, Spain) dating to the fourth to third century BCE (phase 1): T–8.2.1.1 amphorae (1–4 and 6, 12–14), T–12.1.1.1 amphora (5), Turdetanian Pellicer D amphora? (7), T–8.1.1.2/Tiñosa amphora (8), large storage jar (pseudo-krater, 9) and small jugs (10–11).

PUNIC AMPHORAE IN NORTHWEST IBERIA

507

Fig. 3. Pottery found at Punta do Muiño do Vento (Vigo, Spain) that can be linked to phases 2 (1–8) and 3 (9–13): T–7.4.3.3 amphorae (1–3), Graeco-Italic and Dressel 1 amphorae (4–7) and Iberian kalathos (8); Ovoid Gaditan amphora (9), Haltern 70 amphorae (10–12) and plain ware ‘Baetican’ jar (13).

508

E. FERRER

– J.

REY

– J.

RODRÍGUEZ

– A. M.

SÁEZ

– F. J.

GARCÍA

castro placed on the western part of an island located four kilometers far west to Punta do Muiño do Vento. This archaeological site has been destroyed in the last decades by the development of a residential area. During a salvage excavation carried out in 1998 in one of the plots, two punic betyls were discovered. While one was found in situ, the other one appeared reused as construction material in a building dating to a later stage. This seems to indicate that a second sanctuary was located in the Ría de Vigo on this island, probably as a result of the same interaction process and the exchange between Mediterranean seafarers and the local communities. The second site is Chandebrito. This settlement, while located in the same area as the island of Toralla and Punta do Muiño do Vento, five and seven kilometers away respectively, differs completely from them given that it is an inland hillfort located 376 metres above sea level in a steep and rocky mountainous area. They both have different functions: whereas the first group seem to constitute commercial facilities (with possible emporic altars), the latter (the castros) were the nodes that acted as the vertebrae of the main settlement patterns. These differences could be key to explaining the quantitative and qualitative differences in the imports recorded in the places located on the shores of the estuary and those situated slightly further inland. The Mediterranean cultural materials and features were probably filtered by this second group, according to local consumption patterns. The third site is the settlement of A Lanzada, located on a maritime promontory next to the peninsula of O Grove, at the mouth of the Ría de Arousa. From this archaeological area, abundant material is known but only partially published from old excavations carried out from the 1950s.32 Deficiencies in the methodology of old excavations and the lack of an updated publication of the materials have made difficult to develop a conclusive interpretation of the site. However, new excavations in recent years have tried to solve this problem. Square, oval and circular structures dating from the Late Iron Age to Roman times have been unearthed which confirm that there was a settlement in the Lanzada Peninsula at the end of the Iron Age.33 Whereas this settlement has traditionally been interpreted as a peculiar castro with an uncommon morphology far from the prevalent typologies,34 the most recent excavators have reinterpreted the place as a Late Punic settlement35 and a fish processing facility.36 So far, most of the material studied and published from these three archaeological sites can be dated to the Late Roman Republican periods, before the region turned into a Roman province. These materials predominantly consist of typologically Romanised amphorae from both the Bay of Cádiz and the Guadalquivir Valley. These especially include the Haltern 70/Ovoid 4 and early Dressel 7/11 types, which in some cases appear alongside Italian cooking wares (pots, pans and ‘Pompeian red slip’ baking trays), and, more often, plain wares largely from Gades (Cádiz Bay). The later are mostly jars and plates, but there are also some bowls and Italic-style mortars. An askos jar found in an unspecified underwater site in the Ría de Vigo, currently on exhibition in the Museo do Mar (Punta do Muiño site), could be linked to the Early Roman period based on its similarity to individuals identified in Torre Alta kiln

32

 Filgueira and Blanco 1956–1961.  González-Ruibal et al. 2010. 34  Suárez and Fariña 1990. 35  Gonzalez-Ruibal et al. 2010. 36  Rodríguez Martínez et al. 2011; González Gómez de Aguero et al. 2014. 33

PUNIC AMPHORAE IN NORTHWEST IBERIA

509

site in Cádiz Bay.37 The material discovered in A Lanzada includes somewhat earlier items such as Campanian Dressel 1C and T–7.4.3.3 amphorae from Gades, as well as Iberian ceramics (kalathoi). Additionally, there is also later material, for example one Dressel 2/4 wine amphora, Gaulish Terra Sigillata and African cooking and plain wares dating to the Early Imperial period. The Iberian kalathoi are common items linked to the rise of the Roman trade in the Atlantic façade of Hispania and the coast of the Ulterior province dating to the late second to early first century BCE (some significant finds in Baelo Claudia and Lisbon offer stratigraphic support).38 Finally, some Mediterranean items were identified and studied at two sites located in the northernmost coastal area of the Galicia region, around the port of the Artabroi. Specifically, the samples analysed come from the Castro of Elviña (next to the present-day city of A Coruña) and the bay of A Coruña itself. This settlement has yielded interesting material that can be dated to the Early Roman Republican period, including the rim of an Italian Dressel 1A amphora, the handle of a T–7.4.3.3 amphora, the rim of an askos jar and a fragment of a Campanian Black Gloss fine ware bowl. The most relevant information about trade, however, comes from the transport vessels found in underwater contexts.39 The studied amphorae have a wide chronological and geographical span and include some interesting finds such as a Punic Ramon T–12.1.1.1 amphora of the fourth or early third century BCE and a Rhodian wine amphora dating to the second century BCE, the first of this provenance attested in the Galician area (Fig. 4).

CONCLUSIONS The aforementioned results allow for an early picture of the ceramic types in circulation, as well as their origin. From a typological point of view, the analysed materials show a clear predominance of amphorae, followed by plain and painted pottery (Fig. 5). With regard to provenance, the imported materials documented at these archaeological sites would come from different areas which vary in the diverse periods defined. Concerning the Iberian Peninsula, examples are documented from the Lusitanian zone, but mainly from the southwestern sector, more specifically from the countryside and the Bay of Cádiz, the Guadalete area, Málaga and the Guadalquivir valley. In addition, some fragments from North Africa and the Italian Peninsula have been also identified (Figs. 6–7). These ceramics allow us to divide trade into three phases, according to the type of goods exchanged and their provenances, the density of contacts and target areas, in addition to an initial stage which is still underrepresented and which begins with the dawn of the Orientalising period. The first phase spans from the fourth to the early second century BCE. The T–12.1.1.1 amphora found in the harbour of A Coruña and the materials recorded in the earliest strata of Punta do Muiño do Vento are significant examples of the imported items characteristic of this period. At this site, not far from modern Vigo, the early variants of the 37

 Sáez Romero 2008; Sáez et al. 2016.  See Bernal et al. (2007) and Pimenta (2005). 39  Some supplementary data can be found in Naveiro 1991. 38

510

E. FERRER

– J.

REY

– J.

RODRÍGUEZ

– A. M.

SÁEZ

– F. J.

GARCÍA

Fig. 4. Significant pottery finds uncovered at Castro de Elviña (1–5) and underwater contexts at A Coruña Bay (Spain): painted Punic storage jar (1), Italic Dressel 1A (2) and Lamboglia 2? amphorae (3), Gaditan T–7.4.3.3 amphora (4) and ‘askos jar’ of the same provenance (5); Rhodian amphora handle (6) and Gaditan T–12.1.1.1 amphora (7).

PUNIC AMPHORAE IN NORTHWEST IBERIA

511

Fig. 5. Typology of the ceramic containers (Emilio Abad, CESGA).

amphora T–8.2.1.1 are especially numerous, probably linked to some plain and red slip wares. This is the case for a ‘Kuass ware’ red slip fish-plate, classified as Niveau’s type II, which is the northernmost recorded item of the series. The following stage probably developed from the mid-second century BCE when Gadir and the rest of the western side of the Ulterior were consolidated as part of the Roman world and major changes in the economic trends and infrastructures began to crystallise. Concerning the contacts with the northwest of Iberia and the use of the maritime ‘Atlantic route’, the peak of this phase could be placed during the second half of the second and the early decades of the first century BCE. This transitional period for the southern communities, gradually becoming ‘Roman’, is characterised by the predominance of Italian Dressel 1 (especially the Campanian 1C type) which were found in association with Gadir/Gades’ T–7.4.3.3 amphorae and black gloss tableware found in a very fragmentary state at some sites (such as Montealegre).40 Some plain wares, but of certain quality, could also be linked to this period as they are recurrently recorded in the analysed contexts. Among them, the krater-shaped vessels, the jugs and the askoid-jars stand out. Altogether, the available typological information suggests, as preliminary hypothesis, a special function for some of the imports in certain consumption contexts in which they were used associated with the rest of 40

 See González-Ruibal et al. 2007.

E. FERRER

512

– J.

REY

– J.

RODRÍGUEZ

– A. M.

SÁEZ

– F. J.

GARCÍA

Fig. 6. Provenance of amphorae found at Iron Age settlements of northwestern Iberia (Emilio Abad, CESGA).

the local handmade repertoire. The chronology of most of the items would be, in any case, subsequent to the foundation of Olisipo and Brutus’ expedition to Gallaecia and northern Portugal (around 139–136 BCE). The outline of the last phase is much clearer and its materials much more numerous. This is due to an increase in the local consumption of southern and Mediterranean salted fish, wine and olive oil, which is in agreement with the consolidation of the Roman provincial system in Hispania and the development of a much more powerful production infrastructure in Baetica.41 It is, however, hard to distinguish between those items that arrived before and those which arrived after the Augustan conquest and the first steps towards the formal territorial, urban and commercial Romanisation of the region. The material of this stage includes ovoid types from Cádiz and the Guadalquivir Valley which are indicative of the intensification of maritime traffic around the middle or third quarter of the first century BCE.42 However, as previously noted, most of the material corresponds to Haltern 70/Ovoid 4 and early Dressel 7/11 types along with mortars, jars and other Baetican plain wares that can be dated to the Augustan or Early Imperial period. 41

 For Cádiz Bay, see García and Sáez 2018.  See García Vargas et al. 2011.

42

PUNIC AMPHORAE IN NORTHWEST IBERIA

513

Fig. 7. Percentages of the origin of the ceramic containers found at Iron Age settlements of northwestern Iberia (Emilio Abad, CESGA).

BIBLIOGRAPHY ACUÑA CASTROVIEJO, F. 1976 “Excavaciones en el Castro de O Neixón,” Noticiario Arqueológico Hispánico. Prehistoria 5: 327–330. DE ALMEIDA, C. A. E 1974 Escavações no Monte Mozinho (1974). Penafiel: Centro Cultural Penafidelis. DE ALMEIDA, C. A. F., SOEIRO, T. and BAPTISTA, A. J. 1981 “Escavações arqueológicas em Santo Estêvão da Facha (Ponte de Lima),” Arquivo de Ponte de Lima 3: 3–90. ALVAR EZQUERRA, J. 1980 “El comercio del estaño atlántico durante el Período Orientalizante,” Memorias de Historia Antigua 4: 43–50. 1997 “Avieno, los fenicios y el Atlántico,” in Arqueólogos, historiadores y filólogos. Homenaje a Fernando Gascó (Kolaios 4), edited by A. J. de Miguel Zabala, J. San Bernardino Coronil and F. E. Álvarez Solano, pp. 21–37. Sevilla: Kolaios. ÁLVAREZ NÚÑEZ, A. 1986 Castro de Penalba. Campaña de 1983 (Arqueoloxía/Memorias 4). Santiago de Compostela: Xunta de Galicia. ARRUDA, A. M. 2002 Los fenicios en Portugal (Cuadernos de Arqueología Mediterránea 5–6). Barcelona: Universidad Pompeu Fabra de Barcelona.

514

E. FERRER

– J.

REY

– J.

RODRÍGUEZ

– A. M.

SÁEZ

– F. J.

GARCÍA

BELÉN DEAMOS, M. “Itinerarios arqueológicos por la geografía sagrada del extremo Occidente,” 1999 in Santuarios fenicio-púnicos en Iberia y su influencia en los cultos indígenas (XIV Jornadas de Arqueología Fenicio-Púnica), edited by B. Costa and J. H. Fernández, pp. 57–102. Ibiza: Museo Arqueólogico de Ibiza y Formentera. BERNAL, D., ARÉVALO, A. and SÁEZ, A. M. 2007 “VI. Nuevas evidencias de la ocupación en época republicana (ss. II–I a.C.),” in Las Cetariae de Baelo Claudia. Avance de las investigaciones arqueológicas en el barrio industrial (2000–2004), edited by A. Arévalo and D. Bernal, pp. 239–355. Cádiz: Universidad de Cádiz. BETTENCOURT, A. M. S. 2000 O povoado de São Julião, Vila Verde, norte de Portugal, nos finais da Idade do Bronce e na transição para a Idade do Ferro (Collection Cadernos de Arqueologia Monografia 10). Braga: Universidade do Minho. CALO LOURIDO, F. 1993 A Cultura Castrexa. Vigo: Edicións a Nosa Terra. 1994 A plástica da cultura castrexa Galego-Portuguesa. A Coruña: Fundación Pedro Barrié de la Maza. CARAMÉS MOREIRA, V. 2004 “Depósito de machados do castro de Alcabre,” in Até o confín do mundo: diálogos entre Galicia e o mar. Exhibition catalogue, edited by F. Singul and J. Suárez Otero, p. 34. Vigo: Museo do Mar de Galicia. CARBALLO ARCEO, X. 1987 Castro de Forca. Campaña de 1984 (Arqueoloxia/Memorias 8). Santiago de Compostela: Xunta de Galicia. 2002 A cultura Castrexa na comarca do Deza. Lalín: Seminario de Estudios do Deza. CARBALLO ARCEO, L. X. 1994 Catálogo dos materiais arqueológicos do museu do castro de Santa Trega. A Guarda: Diputación Provincial de Pontevedra. CARBALLO ARCEO, X., REY CASTIÑEIRAS, J. and CONCHEIRO, T. 2003 “A introducción do muiño circular en Galicia,” Brigantium 14: 97–108. CHAMPION, T. 2001 “The appropriation of the Phoenicians in British Imperial ideology,” Nations and Nationalism 7/4: 451–465. COSTAS GOBERNA, F. J. and DE LA PEÑA SANTOS, A. 2006 “Los barcos de los petroglifos de Oia. Los tesoros del hechicero y una nueva embarcación,” Glaucopis 12: 277–292. CUNLIFFE, B. 2001 Facing the Ocean: The Atlantic and Its Peoples 8000 BC–AD 1500. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DIETLER, M. and LÓPEZ-RUIZ, C. 2009 Colonial Encounters in Ancient Iberia: Phoenician, Greek, and Indigenous Relations. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. FARIÑA BUSTO, F. 1975 “Excavaciones de A Lanzada (Sanxenxo, Pontevedra). Informe preliminar de la campaña de 1974,” El Museo de Pontevedra 29: 165–173. FERRER ALBELDA, E. 2002 “Topografía sagrada del Extremo Occidente: santuarios, templos y lugares de culto de la Iberia púnica,” in Ex Oriente Lux: Las religiones orientales antiguas en la Península Ibérica, edited by E. Ferrer Albelda, pp. 185–207. Sevilla: Universidad de Sevilla. FILGUEIRA VALVERDE, J. and BLANCO FREIJEIRO, A. 1956–1961 “Excavaciones de La Lanzada,” Noticiario Arqueológico Hispánico 5: 137–151.

PUNIC AMPHORAE IN NORTHWEST IBERIA

515

GALÁN DOMINGO, E. 2005 “Evolución, adaptación y resistencia. En torno a las formas de intercambio de las comunidades atlánticas en contacto con el mundo orientalizante,” in El periodo orientalizante, Actas III Simposio Internacional de Arqueología de Mérida: Protohistoria del Mediterráneo Occidental (Anejos de Archivo Español de Arqueología XXXV), vol. I, edited by S. Celestino Pérez and J. Jiménez Ávila, pp. 467– 475. Madrid: Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas. GALÁN DOMINGO, E. and RUIZ-GÁLVEZ, M. 1996 “Divisa, dinero y moneda. Aproximación a los patrones metrológicos prehistóricos peninsulares,” in Homenaje al profesor Manuel Fernández-Miranda (Complutum Extra 6), edited by M. A. Querol and T. Chapa, pp. 191–215. Madrid: Universidad Complutense de Madrid. GARCÍA VARGAS, E. and SÁEZ ROMERO, A. M. 2018 “Todo el pescado vendido. Una lectura cuantitativa de la producción púnica y romana de ánforas, sal y salazones en la Bahía de Cádiz,” in Cuantificar las economías antiguas. Problemas y métodos (Col‧lecció Instrumenta 60), edited by J. Remesal, V. Revilla and J. M. Bermúdez, pp. 161–214. Barcelona: Universitat de Barcelona. GARCÍA VARGAS, E., ALMEIDA, R. R. and GONZÁLEZ CESTEROS, H. 2011 “Los tipos anfóricos del Guadalquivir en el marco de los envases hispanos del siglo I a.C. Un universo heterogéneo entre la imitación y la estandarización,” Spal 20: 185–283. GONZÁLEZ GÓMEZ DE AGUERO, E., BEJEGA GARCÍA, V., RODRÍGUEZ MARTÍNEZ, R. M., ÁLVAREZ GARCÍA, J. C. and FERNÁNDEZ RODRÍGUEZ, C. 2014 “Los moluscos del yacimiento de A Lanzada (Sanxenxo, Pontevedra): primeros resultados,” in Moluscos y púrpura en contextos arqueológicos atlántico-mediterráneos, edited by J. J. Cantillo Duarte, D. Bernal Casasola and J. Ramos, pp. 229–236. Cádiz: Universidad de Cádiz. GONZÁLEZ RUIBAL, A. 2004 “Facing two seas: Mediterranean and Atlantic contacts in the northwest of Iberia in the first millennium BCE,” Oxford Journal of Archaeology 23/3: 287–317. 2006 “Past the last outpost: Punic merchants in the Atlantic Ocean (5th–1st centuries BCE),” Journal of Mediterranean Archaeology 19/1: 121–150. 2006–2007 Galaicos. Poder y Comunidad en el Noroeste de la Península Ibérica (1200 a.C. – 50 d.C.) (Monográficos Brigantium 18–19). A Coruña: Museo Arqueolóxico e Histórico. GONZÁLEZ-RUIBAL, A., AYÁN VILA, X. and RODRÍGUEZ MARTÍNEZ, R. 2010 “Buscando los púnicos del Noroeste,” Mainake XXXII/I: 517–600. GONZÁLEZ-RUIBAL, A., RODRÍGUEZ, R., ABOAL, R. and CASTRO, V. 2007 “Comercio mediterráneo en el castro de Montealegre (Pontevedra, Galicia). Siglo II a.C. – inicios del siglo I d.C.,” Archivo Español de Arqueología 80: 43–74. HAWKES, C. 1966 Phytheas: Europe and the Greek Explorers. Oxford: Blackwell. HIDALGO CUÑARRO, J. M. and COSTAS GOBERNA, F. J. 1979 “El castro A Cidade de Caneiro, Fozara (Ponteareas),” El Museo de Pontevedra 33: 151–209. HIDALGO CUÑARRO, J. M. and RODRÍGUEZ PUENTES, E. 1987 Castro de Fozara. Campaña de 1984 (Arqueoloxía/Memorias 9). Santiago de Compostela: Xunta de Galicia. HINGLEY, R. 1996 “The ‘legacy’ of Rome: The rise, decline, and fall of the theory of Romanization,” in Roman Imperialism: Post-colonial Perspectives (Leicester Archaeology Monographs 3), edited by J. Webster and N. Cooper, pp. 35–48. Leicester: University of Leicester.

516

E. FERRER

HOLMES, T. R. 1907 MILLÁN LEÓN, J. 2000

MITCHELL, S. 1983 MUHLY, J. D. 1985

– J.

REY

– J.

RODRÍGUEZ

– A. M.

SÁEZ

– F. J.

GARCÍA

Ancient Britain and the Invasions of Julius Caesar. Oxford: Clarendon Press. “Las navegaciones atlánticas gadiritas en época arcaica (ss. VIII–VII a.C.): Cerne y las Cassitérides,” in Actas del IV Congreso Internacional de Estudios Fenicios y Púnicos. Vol. II, edited by M. E. Aubet and M. Barthelemy, pp. 859–867. Cádiz: Universidad de Cádiz. “Cornish tin, Iulius Caesar and the invasion of Britain,” in Studies in Latin Literature and Roman History 3 (Collection Latomus 180), edited by C. Deroux, pp. 80–99. Brussels: Latomus.

“Sources of tin and the beginning of Bronze Metallurgy,” American Journal of Archaeology 89: 287–288. MURGUIA, M. and VICETTO, B. 1979 Historia de Galicia. Bilbao: Editorial La Gran Enciclopedia Vasca. NAVEIRO LÓPEZ, J. 1991 El comercio antiguo en el NW Peninsular (Monografías Urxentes do Museu 5). A Coruña: Museu Arqueóloxico e Histórico. DE LA PEÑA SANTOS, A. 1987 “Castro de Santa Trega (A Guarda, Pontevedra). Campaña de excavaciones de 1987,” El Museo de Pontevedra 41: 129–143. 1991 “Castro de Santa Trega (A Guarda, Pontevedra). Campaña 1988,” in Arqueoloxía/Informes 2, pp. 67–70. Santiago de Compostela: Xunta de Galicia. 1992 Castro de Torroso (Mos, Pontevedra). Síntesis de las memorias de las campañas de excavaciones 1984–1990 (Arqueoloxía/Memorias 11). Santiago de Compostela: Xunta de Galicia. PIMENTA, J. 2005 As ânforas romanas do Castelo de São Jorge (Lisboa) (Trabalhos de Arqueologia 41). Lisbon: Instituto Português de Arqueologia. RAMON TORRES, J. 2008 “El comercio y el factor cartaginés en el Mediterráneo occidental y el Atlántico en época arcaica,” in Los Fenicios y el Atlántico, edited by R. González Antón, F. López Pardo and V. Peña Romo, pp. 233–258. Madrid: Centro de Estudios Fenicios y Púnicos. REY CASTIÑEIRAS, J. 1995 “Cuestiones de tipo territorial en la cultura castreña,” in XXII Congreso Nacional de Arqueología, Vigo 1993, edited by J. M. Hidalgo Cuñarro, pp. 165–171. Vigo: Xunta de Galicia. 1996 “Referencias de tempo na cultura material dos castros galegos,” in A Cultura castrexa galega a debate, edited by J. M. Hidalgo Cuñarro, pp. 159–206. Tui: Instituto de Estudios Tudenses. 1999 “Secuencia cronológica para el castreño meridional galaico: Los castros de Torroso, Forca y Trega,” Gallaecia 18: 157–178. 2001 “Apuntes para un encuadre de la Cultura Castreña en el marco peninsular,” in Proto-história da Península Ibérica, edited by L. Berrocal-Rangel and V. Oliveira Jorge, pp. 359–368. Porto: ADECAP. RICKARD, T. A. 1927 “The Cassiterides and the ancient trade in tin,” Journal of the Royal Institution of Cornwall 2/2: 201–251. RODRÍGUEZ-CORRAL, J. 2009 A Galicia Castrexa (Colección Excatedra). Santiago de Compostela: Lóstrego. 2017 “Entangled worlds: Materiality, mobility, archaeometry and MediterraneanAtlantic identities in western Iberia,” Mediterranean Archaeology and Archaeometry 17/1: 159–178.

PUNIC AMPHORAE IN NORTHWEST IBERIA

517

RODRÍGUEZ MARTÍNEZ, R. M., ABOAL FERNÁNDEZ, R., CASTRO HIERRO, V., CANCELA CEREIJO, C. and AYÁN VILA, X. 2011 “Una posible factoría prerromana en el noroeste: primeras valoraciones de la intervención en el campo de A Lanzada (Sanxenxo, Pontevedra),” in II Congreso Internacional de Arqueología de Vilalba (Férvedes 7), edited by E. Ramil Rego and C. Fernández Rodríguez, pp. 167–173. Vilalba: Museo de Prehistoria e Arqueoloxía de Vilalba. SÁEZ ROMERO, A. M. 2008 La producción cerámica en Gadir en época tardopúnica (siglos –III/–I) (British Archaeological Reports International Series 1812), 2 Vols. Oxford: Archaeopress. 2010 “Comercio, procesado y consumo. Análisis evolutivo de algunas familias cerámicas gadiritas de época púnica y tardopúnica,” in De la cuina a la taula, IV Reunió d’Economia en el Primer Mil‧lenni a.C. (Saguntum Extra 9), edited by C. Mata Parreño, G. Pérez Jordà and J. Vives-Ferrándiz Sánchez, pp. 303–312. Valencia: Universidad de Valencia. 2014 “Imitaciones en las vajillas de mesa en la Bahía de Cádiz desde la transición tardoarcaica hasta la época tardopúnica. Actualización de los datos y nuevas propuestas,” in Comer a la moda. Imitaciones de vajilla de mesa en Turdetania y la Bética ocidental durante la Antigüedad (s. VI a.C. – VI d.C.) (Col‧lecció Instrumenta 46), edited by F. J. García Fernandez and E. García Vargas, pp. 33–77. Barcelona: Universitat de Barcelona. SÁEZ, A. M., LUACES, M. and MORENO, E. “Late Punic or Early Roman? A 2nd century BCE deposit from Gadir/Gades (Cádiz 2016 Bay, Spain),” HEROM. Journal of Hellenistic and Material Culture 5/1: 27–77. SHAW, J. W. 1989 “Phoenicians in southern Crete,” American Journal of Archaeology 93/2: 165–183. DA SILVA, A. C. E. 1986 A Cultura Castrexa do Noroeste de Portugal. Paços de Ferreira: Câmara Municipal de Paços de Ferreira. SMITH, G. 1863 The Cassiterides: An Inquiry into the Commercial Operations of the Phoenicians in Western Europe with particular reference to the British Tin Trade. London: Longman, Green, Longman and Roberts. SUÁREZ OTERO, J. and FARIÑA BUSTO, F. 1990 “A Lanzada (Sanxenxo, Pontevedra), definición e interpretación de un yacimiento castreño atípico,” Madrider Mitteilungen 31: 309–337. TAVARES, A. A. (ed.) 1993 Os Fenicios no Território Portugués, Lisboa, 1992 (Estudos Orientais 4). Lisbon: Universidade Nova de Lisboa.

Eduardo FERRER ALBELDA Prehistory and Archaeology Department University of Seville Spain

Josefa REY CASTIÑEIRA GEPN-AAT, Department of History University of Santiago de Compostela Spain

Javier RODRÍGUEZ-CORRAL GEPN-AAT, Department of History University of Santiago de Compostela Spain

518

E. FERRER

– J.

REY

– J.

RODRÍGUEZ

– A. M.

SÁEZ

– F. J.

GARCÍA

Antonio M. SÁEZ ROMERO Prehistory and Archaeology Department University of Seville Spain

Francisco José GARCÍA FERNÁNDEZ Prehistory and Archaeology Department University of Seville Spain

ANCIENT NEAR EASTERN STUDIES (FORMERLY ABR-NAHRAIN) Supplement Series Series Editors: Andrew Jamieson & Claudia Sagona

 1. 2.  3. 4.  5.

6.  7.  8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13.

14.

15. 16. 17.

Mayer L.A., Bibliography of the Samaritans, 1964, 50 p. Bunnens G., Tell Ahmar, 1988 Season, 1990, 151 p. Muraoka T., Studies in Qumran Aramaic, 1992, 167 p. Muraoka T., Studies in Ancient Hebrew Semantics, 1995, VIII — 107 p. Bunnens G., Cultural Interaction in the Ancient Near East. Papers Read at a Symposium Held at the University of Melbourne, Department of Classics and Archaeology (29-30 September 1994), 1996, VIII — 155 p. Muraoka T., Semantics of Ancient Hebrew, 1998, 151 p. Bunnens G., Essays on Syria in the Iron Age, 2000, X — 557 p. Adamthwaite M.R., Late Hittite Emar. The Chronology, Synchronisms and SocioPolitical Aspects of a Late Bronze Age Fortress Town, 2001, XXIV — 294 p. Sagona C., The Archaeology of Punic Malta, 2002, XIV — 1165 p. Sagona C., Punic Antiquities of Malta and Other Ancient Artefacts Held in Ecclesiastic and Private Collections, 2003, XXII — 374 p. Hopkins L., Archaeology at the North-East Anatolian Frontier, VI. An Ethnoarchaeological Study of Sos Höyük and Yigittasi Village, 2003, XXVII — 184 p. Sagona A., A View from the Highlands: Archaeological Studies in Honour of Charles Burney, 2004, XX — 743 p. McConchie M., Archaeology at the North-East Anatolian Frontier, V. Iron Technology and Iron-making Communities of the First Millennium BC, 2004, XXIV — 393 p. Sagona A., Sagona C., Archaeology at the North-East Anatolian Frontier, I. An Historical Geography and a Field Survey of the Bayburt Province, 2004, XXIV — 600 p. Çilingiroğlu A., Derin Z., Abay E., Sağlamtimur H., Kayan İ., Ulucak Höyük. Excavations Conducted between 1995 and 2002, 2004, XII — 162 p. Payne M., Urartian Measures of Volume, 2005, XX — 387 p. Stoop-van Paridon P.W.T., The Song of Songs. A Philological Analysis of the the Hebrew Book jiriwe riw, 2005, XVI — 540 p.

30 EURO 38 EURO 45 EURO 35 EURO

40 EURO 35 EURO 105 EURO 70 EURO 160 EURO 105 EURO 90 EURO 120 EURO

90 EURO

110 EURO 60 EURO 95 EURO 90 EURO

18. Sagona C., Vella Gregory I., Bugeja A., Punic Antiquities of Malta and Other Ancient Artefacts Held in Private Collections, 2, 2006, XXII — 276 p. 77 EURO 19. Sagona A., Abramishvili M., Archaeology in Southern Caucasus: Perspectives from Georgia, 2008, VIII — 477 p. 94 EURO 20. Çilingiroğlu A., Sagona A., Anatolian Iron Ages 6: The Proceedings of the Sixth Anatolian Iron Ages Colloquium Held at Eskişehir, 16-20 August 2004, 2007, X — 348 p. 85 EURO 21. Azize J., Weeks N., Gilgameš and the World of Assyria. Proceedings of the Conference Held at the Mandelbaum House, The University of Sydney, 21-23 July 2004, 2007, VIII — 240 p. 84 EURO 22. Wightman G., Sacred Spaces. Religious Architecture in the Ancient World, 2007, XX — 1156 p. 120 EURO 23. Aitken J.K., The Semantics of Blessing and Cursing in Ancient Hebrew, 2007, XVI — 306 p. 85 EURO 24. Steiner M., van der Steen E.J., Sacred and Sweet. Studies on the Material Culture of Tell Deir ꜤAlla and Tell Abu Sarbut, 2008, VIII — 286 p. 85 EURO 25. Yagodin V.N., Betts A.V.G., Blau S., Ancient Nomads of the Aralo-Caspian Region. The Duana Archaeological Complex, 2007, VIII — 138 p. 65 EURO 26. McGeough K., Exchange Relationships at Ugarit, 2007, XVIII — 438 p. 95 EURO 27. Rubinson K.S., Sagona A., Ceramics in Transitions. Chalcolithic Through Iron Age in the Highlands of the Southern Caucasus and Anatolia, 2008, VI — 364 p. 90 EURO 28. Sagona C., Beyond the Homeland: Markers in Phoenician Chronology, 2008, VIII — 655 p. 98 EURO 29. Bienkowski P., Studies on Iron Age Moab and Neighbouring Areas in Honour of Michèle Daviau, 2009, XIV — 273 p. 87 EURO 30. Kuty R.J., Studies in the Syntax of Targums Jonathan to Samuel, 2010, XIV — 285 p. 85 EURO 31. Redford S., Ergin N., Perceptions of the Past in the Turkish Republic: Classical and Byzantine Periods, 2010, X — 236 p. 79 EURO 32. McGeough K., Smith M.S., Ugaritic Economic Tablets. Text, Translation and Notes, 2011, XXVI — 625 p. 98 EURO 33. Hartley J.E., The Semantics of Ancient Hebrew Colour Lexemes, 2010, XVI — 247 p. 78 EURO 34. Connor S.E., A Promethean Legacy: Late Quaternary Vegetation History of Southern Georgia, the Caucasus, 2011, XII — 419 p. 94 EURO 35. Jamieson A., Tell Ahmar III. Neo-Assyrian Pottery from Area C, 2012, XVIII — 385 p. 105 EURO 36. Sagona C., Ceramics of the Phoenician-Punic World: Collected Essays, 2011, X — 450 p. 95 EURO

37. Ergin N., Bathing Culture of Anatolian Civilizations: Architecture, History, and Imagination, 2011, X — 329 p. 38. Muraoka T., A Grammar of Qumran Aramaic, 2011, XLVI — 285 p. 39. Çilingiroğlu A., Sagona A., Anatolian Iron Ages 7: The Proceedings of the Seventh Anatolian Iron Ages Colloquium Held at Edirne, 19-24 April 2010, 2012, X — 332 p. 40. Redford S., Ergin N., Cities and Citadels in Turkey: From the Iron Age to the Seljuks, 2013, X — 346 p. 41. Summers G.D., Yanik Tepe, Northwestern Iran. The Early Trans-Caucasian Period. Stratigraphy and Architecture, 2013, XXXII — 217 p. 42. Yener K.A., Across the Border. Late Bronze-Iron Age Relations between Syria and Anatolia, 2013, VIII — 542 p. 43. Pappa E., Early Iron Age Exchange in the West: Phoenicians in the Mediterranean and the Atlantic, 2013, XX — 373 p. 44. De Cupere B., Linseele V., Hamilton-Dyer S., Archaeozoology of the Near East X: Proceedings of the Tenth International Symposium on the Archaeozoology of South-Western Asia and Adjacent Areas, 2013, X — 420 p. 45. Tebes J.M., Unearthing the Wilderness. Studies in the History and Archaeology of the Negev and Edom in the Iron Age, 2014, X — 306 p. 46. Kennedy M., The Late Third Millennium BCE in the Upper Orontes Valley, Syria. Ceramics, Chronology and Cultural Connections, 2015, XXII — 495 p. 47. Magdalino P., Ergin N., Istanbul and Water, 2015, X — 274 p. 48. Bonanno A., Vella N.C., Tas-Silġ, Marsaxlokk (Malta) I. Archaeological Excavations Conducted by the University of Malta, 1996-2005, 2015, XXXII — 496 p. 49. Bonanno A., Vella N.C., Tas-Silġ, Marsaxlokk (Malta) II. Archaeological Excavations Conducted by the University of Malta, 1996-2005, 2015, XXXII — 666 p. 50. Mizzi D., Vella N.C., Zammit M.R., “What Mean these Stones?” (Joshua 4:6, 21). Essays on Texts, Philology, and Archaeology in Honour of Anthony J. Frendo, 2017, VI — 286 p. 51. Thys-Şenocak, L., Of Vines and Wines. The Production and Consumption of Wine in Anatolian Civilizations through the Ages, 2017, VIII — 235 p. 52. Muraoka T., Jacob of Serugh’s Hexaemeron, 2018, XVI — 229 p. 53. Verduci J.A., Metal Jewellery of the Southern Levant and its Western Neighbours. Cross-Cultural Influences in the Early Iron Age Eastern Mediterranean, 2018, XVIII — 435 p. 54. Vella N.C., Frendo A.J., Vella H.C.R., The Lure of the Antique. Essays on Malta and Mediterranean Archaeology in Honour of Anthony Bonanno, 2018, VIII — 391 p.

84 EURO 70 EURO

87 EURO 86 EURO 89 EURO 98 EURO 98 EURO

105 EURO 90 EURO 110 EURO 95 EURO

105 EURO

120 EURO

115 EURO 98 EURO 98 EURO

130 EURO

110 EURO

55. Yener K.A., Ingman T., Alalakh and its Neighbours, 2020, VIII — 481 p. 56. Jasmin M., de Miroschedji P., Fouilles de Tel Yarmouth (1980-2009). Rapport final. Volume 1: Les fouilles sur l’acropole, 2020, XXXII — 582 p. 57. Jackson H., Jamieson A., Robinson A., Russell S., Heritage in Conflict, 2021, XXVI — 239 p. 58. d’Alfonso L., Rubinson, K.S., Borders in Archaeology. Anatolia and the South Caucasus ca. 3500–500 BCE, 2021, VIII — 357 p. 59. Paul J.W., Worked Animal Bone of the Neolithic North Aegean, 2022, XXIV — 239 p.

PRINTED ON PERMANENT PAPER

• IMPRIME

SUR PAPIER PERMANENT

N.V. PEETERS S.A., WAROTSTRAAT

• GEDRUKT

OP DUURZAAM PAPIER

50, B-3020 HERENT

- ISO 9706

120 EURO 160 EURO 105 EURO 112 EURO 128 EURO