Phoenician Amphora Production and Distribution in the Southern Levant: A multi-disciplinary investigation into carinated-shoulder amphorae of the Persian period (539-332 BC) 9781841715506, 9781407325903

Table of contents :
Front Cover
Title Page
Copyright
Dedication
ABSTRACT
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF TABLES
LIST OF FIGURES
LIST OF PLATES ON CD
ABBREVIATIONS
Acknowledgements
Preface
CHAPTER 1. Towards fresh insights into Phoenician commerce in the homeland
CHAPTER 2. Data collection and analytical techniques
CHAPTER 3. Southern Phoenicia and the sites in this project
CHAPTER 4. Typology of carinated-shoulder amphora forms
CHAPTER 5. Carinated-shoulder amphora fabrics and their provenance
CHAPTER 6. Aspects of carinated-shoulder amphora production in Southern Phoenicia
CHAPTER 7. Aspects of carinated-shoulder amphora distribution in Southern Phoenicia
CHAPTER 8. Socio-economic perspectives on the principal research findings
APPENDICES
BIBLIOGRAPHY

Citation preview

B A R

l na tio ne di nli ad l o ith ria W ate m

BAR  S1183  2003   BETTLES   PHOENICIAN AMPHORA PRODUCTION & DISTRIBUTION IN THE SOUTHERN LEVANT

9 781841 715506

Phoenician Amphora Production and Distribution in the Southern Levant A multi-disciplinary investigation into carinated-shoulder amphorae of the Persian period (539-332 BC)

Elizabeth A. Bettles

BAR International Series 1183 2003

Published in 2016 by BAR Publishing, Oxford BAR International Series 1183 Phoenician Amphora Production and Distribution in the Southern Levant © E A Bettles and the Publisher 2003 The author's moral rights under the 1988 UK Copyright, Designs and Patents Act are hereby expressly asserted.

All rights reserved. No part of this work may be copied, reproduced, stored, sold, distributed, scanned, saved in any form of digital format or transmitted in any form digitally, without the written permission of the Publisher.

ISBN 9781841715506 paperback ISBN 9781407325903 e-format DOI https://doi.org/10.30861/9781841715506 A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library BAR Publishing is the trading name of British Archaeological Reports (Oxford) Ltd. British Archaeological Reports was first incorporated in 197 4 to publish the BAR Series, International and British. In 1992 Hadrian Books Ltd became part of the BAR group. This volume was originally published by Archaeopress in conjunction with British Archaeological Reports (Oxford) Ltd/ Hadrian Books Ltd, the Series principal publisher, in 2003. This present volume is published by BAR Publishing, 2016.

BAR

PUBLISHING BAR titles are available from:

EMAIL PHONE FAX

BAR Publishing 122 Banbury Rd, Oxford, OX2 7BP, UK [email protected] +44 (0)1865 310 431 +44 (0)1865 316 9 16 www.barpublishing.com

To my brother, Nigel, with many grateful thanks

ABSTRACT

The first aim of this project is to use one commodity type, the carinated-shoulder amphora, to investigate the level of centralisation and modes of production and distribution in southern Phoenicia (i.e. the city-states of Tyre and Sidon) when the region was under Persian (Achaemenid) imperial hegemony (539-332 BC). The second is to set the research findings into a broader socio-cultural context, viewing the amphorae as containers of wine, and the impact on the production and distribution of these amphorae as Persian imperial attitudes towards, and patterns of consumption of, wine. To determine whether these amphorae may be of southern Phoenician manufacture I analyse petrographically the fabric of 307 amphorae gathered from 21 sites in the coastal areas of southern Lebanon and Israel. I assess to what extent the raw materials in the fabrics may be consistent with the geological formations in this region. I present a typology of carinated-shoulder amphorae of proposed southern Phoenician manufacture using an innovative technique, the ‘envelope’ method. This technique produces a typology which is repeatable and verifiable. An intra-regional analysis of the manufacture of these amphorae is conducted, assessing through the application of theoretical models to what extent production was centralised at this period. I examine data which indicates the presence on a particularly significant amphora manufacturing centre in the region. I then attempt to identify the mechanism whereby amphorae were dispersed throughout the region, whether it was attached, independent, or whether both mechanisms could have existed simultaneously. Again, by applying theoretical models, I attempt to determine to what degree amphora distribution was regionally integrated, and whether nodes of distribution existed which facilitated their dispersal. Finally, I investigate from epigraphic and documentary sources, the role of wine in Persian culture, the quantities in which it was consumed and the wine preferences of the Persian elite. I explore what impact these factors may have had on the production and distribution of carinated-shoulder amphorae.

1

CONTENTS page Abtract…………………………………………………………………………………………… Contents………………………………………………………………………………………….. List of Tables…………………………………………………………………………………….. List of Figures……………………………………………………………………………………. List of Plates on CD*……………..……………………………………………………………… Abbreviations…………………………………………………………………………………….. Acknowledgements………………………………………………………………………………. Preface……………………………………………………………………………………………. CHAPTER 1

1 2 6 8 13 17 19 21

Towards new insights into Phoenician commerce in the homeland

1.1 Introduction………………………………………………………………………………… 1.2 The principal research aims and focus ……………………………………………………... 1.2.1 A Phoenician commodity through provenance analysis………………………… 1.2.2 The commodity selected as the research focus…………………………………… 1.2.3 The modes of production and distribution under discussion……………………… 1.2.3.1 Centralised control of production ……………………………………. 1.2.3.2 Other aspects of production studied……………………………………. 1.2.3.3 Phoenician city-state manufacturing specialisation…………………… 1.2.3.4 Modes of intra-regional distribution…………………………………… 1.2.3.5 Other aspects of distribution studied…………………………………. 1.2.4 Imperial impact on the Phoenician economy in the homeland…………………… 1.3 The amphora as the research focus…………………………………………………………… 1.3.1 The choice of amphora type ……………………………………………………… 1.3.2 Implications of choosing an amphora as the research focus……………………… 1.4 Phoenician economic strategies in the homeland……………………………………………. 1.4.1 Control of the Phoenician economy……………………………………………….. 1.4.2 Centralisation of production in Phoenicia and the Eastern Mediterranean………. 1.4.3 Other aspects of production in Phoenicia………………………………………… 1.4.4 Phoenician commodity distribution in the homeland region…………………….. 1.5 Foreign hegemony and Phoenician commerce in the homeland…………………………….. 1.5.1 Overview of some recent studies…………………………………………………. 1.5.2 The impact of the Persian empire on Phoenician commerce and liquid foodstuffs production………………………………………………………………………… 1.6 The research data……………………………………………………………………………... 1.6.1 Artefactual data…………………………………………………………………… 1.6.2 Site data…………………………………………………………………………… 1.6.3 The principal historical sources…………………………………………………… 1.6.4 Spatial and temporal analysis of the data…………………………………………. 1.6.5 Omission of data from the capital cities of Tyre and Sidon……………………….

25 27 28 29 29 29 31 33 33 34 35 35 35 37 38 38 40 41 42 43 43 45 47 47 48 48 51 52

CHAPTER 2 Data collection and analytical techniques 2.1 Introduction…………………………………………………………………………………… 53 2.2 Sampling strategies……………………………………………………………………………. 53 2.2.1 Sampling of sites…………………………………………………………………… 55 2.2.1.1 Regional spread of sites………………………………………………… 55 2.2.1.2 Phoenician city-state affiliation of sites………………………..………. 55 2.2.1.3 Site size………………………………………………………...………. 55 2.2.1.4 Contexts of deposition…………………………………………………. 56 2.2.2 Sampling of amphorae……………………………………………………………… 56

2

page 2.2.2.1 Formal variability………………………………………………..………. 56 2.2.2.2 Fabric variability……………………………………………….……… 57 2.2.2.3 Sampling for chemical analysis…………………………………………. 57 2.3 Creating a formal typology by the ‘envelope’ technique……………………………………… 57 2.4 Ceramic fabric characterisation……………………………………………………………….. 61 2.4.1 Macroscopic fabric characterisation……………………………………………… 61 2.4.2 Petrographic analysis……………………………………………………………… 64 2.4.2.1 Ceramic characterisation by optical microscopy………………………. 65 2.4.2.2 Proposing provenance through petrography……………………………. 69 2.4.3 Chemical analysis…………………………………………………………………. 70 2.4.3.1 Ceramic characterisation by chemical analysis………………………… 70 2.4.3.2 Analysis in ICP-AES and ICP-MS……………………………………… 70 2.5 The application of theoretical models…………………………………………………………. 72 CHAPTER 3

Southern Phoenicia and the sites in this project

3.1 Introduction…………………………………………………………………………………… 3.2 Defining the territory of southern Phoenicia in the Persian period…………………………… 3.2.1 Phoenicia – a region of city-states………………………………………………… 3.2.2 The documentary sources…………………………………………………………. 3.2.3 The archaeological and artefactual evidence……………………………………… 3.3 Descriptions of the sites in this project………………………………………………………. 3.4 City-state affiliation of the sampled sites…………………………………………………….. CHAPTER 4

Typology of carinated-shoulder amphora forms

4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4

Introduction…………………………………………………………………………………… Perspectives on this formal typology………………………………………………………… The carinated-shoulder as an amphora attribute……………………………………………… Types and subtypes of carinated-shoulder amphorae of the Persian period………………….. 4.4.1 Types of carinated-shoulder amphorae……………………………………………. 4.4.2 Subtypes of carinated-shoulder amphorae………………………………………… 4.4.2.1 Subtypes of Type A amphorae…………………………………………. 4.4.2.2 Subtypes of Type B amphorae…………………………………………. 4.4.2.3 Subtypes of Type C amphorae…………………………………………. 4.4.2.4 Other possible subtypes………………………………………………… 4.5 Correlating typologies of carinated-shoulder amphorae……………………………………… 4.6 Assessment of the ‘envelope’ technique……………………………………………………… CHAPTER 5

73 73 73 75 77 80 98

101 102 102 104 104 107 108 116 119 122 123 124

Carinated-shoulder amphora fabrics and their provenance

5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4

Introduction……………………………………………………………………………………. Comments regarding the fabric and provenance analyses……………………………………. The geology of the Eastern Mediterranean in summary……………………………………… Sediment transport in the Eastern Mediterranean…………………………………………….. 5.4.1 Transportation by marine long-shore drift………………………………………… 5.4.2 Transportation by river systems…………………………………………………… 5.4.3 Transportation by wind…………………………………………………………… 5.5 Amphora fabrics and the provenance of their raw materials…………………………………. 5.5.1 Fabric Class 1……………………………………………………………………… 5.5.1.1 Fabric Class 1A (FC 1A)………………………………………………. 5.5.1.2 Fabric Class 1B (FC 1B)……………………………………………….

3

128 129 130 136 137 137 137 138 139 139 152

page 5.5.1.3 Fabric Class 1C (FC 1C)………………………………………………. 158 5.5.1.4 Fabric Class 1D (FC 1D)………………………………………………. 164 5.5.2 Fabric Class 2……………………………………………………………………… 169 5.5.2.1 Fabric Class 2A (FC 2A)………………………………………………… 169 5.5.2.2 Fabric Class 2B (FC 2B)………………………………………………… 176 5.5.2.3 Fabric Class 2C (FC 2C)………………………………………………… 181 5.5.2.4 Fabric Class 2D (FC 2D)………………………………………………… 186 5.6 Concluding comments…………………………………………………………………………. 190 5.6.1 The provenance of carinated-shoulder amphorae………………………………….. 190 5.6.2 Temper and its texture in the eight amphora fabrics………………………………. 191 CHAPTER 6

Aspects of carinated-shoulder amphora production in southern Phoenicia

6.1 Introduction…………………………………………………………………………………….. 197 6.2 Centralisation of production……………………………………………………………………. 201 6.2.1 Factors affecting centralisation of production……………………………………….201 6.2.2 Assessing the number of manufacturing centres…………………………………… 201 6.2.3 Settlement concentration in Persian period southern Phoenicia……………………. 203 6.3 Sarepta, the manufacturing centre of FC 1A amphorae……………………………………….. 204 6.3.1 The archaeological remains and ceramic assemblage……………………………… 204 6.3.2 The forming sequence of FC 1A amphorae………………………………………… 206 6.4 Comparing modes of production at manufacturing centres in southern Phoenicia…………….. 207 6.4.1 Product diversity and specialisation………………………………………………… 207 6.4.2 Scale of amphora production……………………………………………………… 210 6.4.3 Product uniformity………………………………………………………………… 211 6.4.4 Product imitations between manufacturing centres………………………………… 214 6.5 Modes of amphora production in a region of two polities………………………………………217 6.5.1 Mode 1: High levels of centralised control of production…………………………. 218 6.5.2 Mode 2: Low levels of centralised control ………………………………………… 220 6.5.3 Mode 3: Partially centralised control of production ……………………………… 221 6.5.4 The mode of carinated-shoulder amphora production and Tyrian manufacturing specialisation…………………………………………………………………………222 6.6 Concluding comments …………………………………………………………………………..224 6.6.1 Highlighting a significant manufacturing centre in southern Phoenicia……………..224 6.6.2 Production at Sarepta – was it attached or independent?............................................ 225 6.6.3 The time-span of carinated-shoulder amphora production in the Persian period…... 226 CHAPTER 7 Aspects of carinated-shoulder amphora distribution in southern Phoenicia 7.1 Introduction…………………………………………………………………………………….. 227 7.2 Comments on the distribution analysis………………………………………………………… 228 7.3 Characterising the regional distribution of carinated-shoulder amphorae……………………… 229 7.3.1 The regional distribution of FC 1A amphorae……………………………………… 230 7.3.2 The regional distribution of FC 1B/1C amphorae………………………………….. 231 7.3.3 The regional distribution of FC 1D amphorae……………………………………… 233 7.3.4 The regional distribution of FC 2A amphorae……………………………………….234 7.3.5 The regional distribution of FC 2B amphorae……………………………………….235 7.3.6 The regional distribution of FC 2C amphorae……………………………………… 236 7.3.7 The regional distribution of FC 2D amphorae……………………………………… 237 7.4 Distribution mechanisms for carinated-shoulder amphorae……………………………………. 237 7.5 Significant sites in the distribution of carinated-shoulder amphorae ………………………….. 239 7.5.1 Ashkelon as a node of amphora distribution……………………………………… 239

4

page 7.5.2 Tell Abu Hawam as a transit station ……………………………………………… 241 7.5.3 Dor as a regional node of consumption…………………………………………… 242 7.6 Regional modes of carinated-shoulder amphora distribution………………………………… 243 7.6.1 Mode 1: Regionally widespread distribution networks…………………………… 244 7.6.2 Mode 2: Localised distribution networks………………………………………… 245 7.6.3 Mode 3: Overlapping distribution networks of varying spatial extent…………… 246 7.6.4 Mode 4: A combination of region-wide and localised distribution networks……… 247 7.6.5 Mode 5: A combination of overlapping and localised distribution networks……… 248 7.6.6 Mode 6: A combination of region-wide and overlapping distribution network…… 249 7.6.7 Mode 7: A combination of widespread, overlapping and localised networks………250 7.6.8 The mode of distribution of locally manufactured amphorae in southern Phoenicia 251 7.6.9 The mode of distribution networks of non-locally manufactured amphorae……… 252 7.7 Bulk transportation and carinated-shoulder amphorae………………………………………… 253 7.7.1 Documentary evidence………………………………………………………………253 7.7.2 Seabed and shipwreck evidence…………………………………………………… 255 7.8 Some concluding comments…………………………………………………………………… 256 7.8.1 Carinated-shoulder amphorae as maritime and inland transport and storage containers…………………………………………………………………………... 256 7.8.2 Carinated-shoulder amphora distribution and the city-states of Tyre and Sidon… 256 CHAPTER 8

Socio-economic perspectives on the principal research findings

8.1 Introduction…………………………………………………………………………………… 258 8.1.1 The carinated-shoulder amphora and its contents as a Phoenician commodity…… 258 8.1.2 A significant amphora manufacturing centre under Tyrian jurisdiction………… 260 8.1.3 Type A1 – a unique amphora in Persian period southern Phoenicia……………… 262 8.1.3.1 The characteristics of Type A1……………………………………… 262 8.1.3.2 Some functional and economic explanations for the significance of Type A1 amphorae……………………………………………………………… 263 8.1.3.3 Type A1 amphorae and the Persian period elite……………………… 265 8.2 Carinated-shoulder amphorae and the consumption of wine………………………………… 267 8.2.1 Wine consumption in the Persian period………………………………………… 267 8.2.2 The impact of wine consumption on amphora production and distribution in southern Phoenicia……………………………………………………………….. 269 8.3 Concluding comments………………………………………………………………………… 270 8.4 Further potentially valuable research projects………………………………………………… 272 APPENDICES Appendix I

The Sampled sites and data relating to their location, size and function; with bibliography……………………………………………………………………... 275 Appendix II Site data relating to the carinated-shoulder amphorae in the research sample….. 277 Appendix III Dimensions and volume of Persian period carinated-shoulder amphorae……… 284 Appendix IIIA Dimensions of selected features of rim/shoulder fragments in the research Sample (in cm)…………………………………………………………………… 286 Appendix IIIA Carinated-shoulder amphora dimensions according to formal subtype (in cm)…. 290 Appendix IV Petrographic fabric classes of amphorae in the research sample according to site… 292 Appendix V Microfossil analysis of selected Persian period amphorae sherds of Fabric Classes 1A, 1B and 1C……………………………………………………………………. 295 Appendix VI Sand grains and the provenance of coastal Levantine pottery…………………… 297 Appendix VII Chemical analysis of Fabric Classes 1 and 2………………………………………. 298 Bibliography………………………………………………………………………………………. 309 * Please note that the CD referred to above has now been replaced with a download available at www.barpublishing.com/additional-downloads.html 5

LIST OF TABLES

page PREFACE i

Correlation of sites and their abbreviations used in this project………………………………

22

CHAPTER 1 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4

Chronological chart for the Ancient Near East, including terms employed in this study…… 27 Principal events concerning Phoenicia in the Persian period………………………………… 46 The target and sample population of carinated-shoulder Persian period amphorae…………… 49 Sampled carinated-shoulder amphorae - storage location, numbers selected and context date 50

CHAPTER 2 2.1 Classification of the sampled sites as major or secondary (excluding Ma’agen Mikhael)…… 2.2 Types of contexts of deposition at the sampled sites with carinated-shoulder amphorae…… 2.3 Frequency scale of aplastic inclusions as percentage of section volume………………… 2.4 Void descriptions…………………………………………………………………………… 2.5 Void size modifiers…………………………………………………………………………… 2.6 Porphyric-related distribution modifiers……………………………………………………… 2.7 Attributes of different birefringent fabrics…………………………………………………… 2.8 Size designations for aplastic inclusions (in mm)………………………………………… 2.9 Frequency terms for relative amounts of aplastic inclusions……………………………… 2.10 Thin-section collections studied for this research ……………………………………………

55 56 63 65 66 66 67 67 67 69

CHAPTER 3 3.1 Southern coastal Levantine cities mentioned in the 4th century BC text of the Periplus of Pseudo-Scylax………………………………………………………………………………… 76 3.2 The sampled sites: Phoenician contacts during the Persian period, as revealed in the archaeological and artefactual record and by documentary sources………………………… 99 CHAPTER 4 4.1 Table correlating terms used in formal typologies of Persian period carinated-shoulder amphorae created by various authors…………………………………………………………………… 123 CHAPTER 5 5.1 Abbreviated table of geological time units, including those mentioned in this work (after Harland et al. 1989)..……………………………………………………………………………130 5.2 Semi-quantitative summary of aplastic inclusions above silt-size; and estimated firing temperature of FC 1A sherds ………………………………………………………… 141-144 5.3 FC 1A: Data from ICP-AES and ICP-MS analyses…………………………………… 146 5.4 Mean and range of major and trace elements (unnormalised) of sherds of FC 1A from Sarepta, 4 from various sites in Israel and DR:77 (ppm unless otherwise stated)……………… 147 5.5 Table comparing FC 1A data from previously published analyses of pottery from Sarepta (in ppm unless otherwise stated)……………………………………………………………… 151

6

page 5.6 5.7 5.8 5.9 5.10 5.11 5.12 5.13 5.14 5.15 5.16 5.17 5.18 5.19 5.20 5.21 5.22

Semi-quantitative summary of aplastic inclusions above silt-size; and firing temperature of FC 1B sherds………………………………………………………………………………… 154 FC 1B: Data from ICP-AES and ICP-MS analyses ………………………………………… 156 Semi-quantitative summary of aplastic inclusions above silt-size; and estimated firing temperature of FC 1C sherds……………………………………………………………… 160 a) FC 1C: Data from ICP-AES and ICP-MS analyses; b) Table comparing the range of element concentrations in FC 1B and FC 1C (in ppm unless otherwise stated)……………… 162 Semi-quantitative summary of aplastic inclusions above silt-size and estimated firing temperature of FC 1D sherds………………………………………………………………… 166 FC 1D: Data from ICP-AES and ICP-MS analyses………………………………………… 168 Semi-quantitative summary of aplastic inclusions above silt-size; and estimated firing temperature of FC 2A sherds…………………………………………………………… 171-172 FC 2A: Data from ICP-AES and ICP-MS analyses……………………………………… 174 Table comparing concentrations of elements in FC 2A and sherds from Tel Megadim analysed previously by NAA………………………………………………………………… 176 Semi-quantitative summary of aplastic inclusions above silt-size; and estimated firing temperature of FC 2B sherds ………………………………………………………………… 178 FC 2B: Data from ICP-AES and ICP-MS analyses………………………………………… 179 Semi-quantitative summary of aplastic inclusions above silt-size; and estimated firing temperature of FC 2C sherds………………………………………………………………… 183 FC 2C: Data from ICP-AES and ICP-MS analyses………………………………………… 185 Semi-quantitative summary of aplastic inclusions above silt-size; and estimated firing temperature of FC 2D sherd………………………………………………………………… 187 Concentrations of major and trace elements and REEs in FC 2D (SR:27) (in ppm unless otherwise stated)……………………………………………………………………………… 188 Attributes of fabrics which are consistent with a provenance in the southern coastal Levant.. 191 Table of attributes of principal aplastic inclusions in each fabric which are regarded as temper………………………………………………………………………………………… 195

CHAPTER 6 6.1 6.2 6.3 6.4 6.5

Table correlating formal subtypes of amphorae and proposed manufacturing centres in Persian period southern Phoenicia………………………………………………………… Number of examples of each carinated-shoulder amphora fabric sampled, according to site Mean, range, standard deviation and coefficient of variation of selected formal attribute dimensions and volume of amphora Type A1 of the foraminiferous marl, FC 1A (in cm)… Table correlating amphora types and manufacturing centres, highlighting those forms manufactured in more than fabric…………………………………………………………… Mean, range, and standard deviation of selected formal attribute dimensions and volume of Type A1 of the silty, ferruginous paste FC 2A (in cm)………………………………………

208 210 213 215 215

CHAPTER 8 8.1 Proposals of provenance for each amphora fabric……………………………………………… 259 8.2 Table correlating formal subtypes of amphorae with petrographically differentiated fabrics… 259

APPENDICES I

The sampled sites and data relating to their location, size and function; with bibliography…………………………………………………………………………….. 275-276 II Site data relating to the carinated-shoulder amphorae in the research sample………….. 277-283 IIIA Dimensions of selected features of rim/shoulder fragments in the research sample (in cm)…………………………………………………………………………………… 286-289 IIIB Carinated-shoulder amphora dimensions according to formal subtype (in cm)………… 290-291 IV Petrographic fabric classes of amphorae in the research sample according to site……… 292-294 VII.1 Data from ICP-AES and ICP-MS analyses of 30 amphora sherds (unnormalised)………… 300

7

LIST OF FIGURES

page CHAPTER 1 1.1 The homeland region of Phoenicia: the coastal Levant……………………………………… 24 1.2 The 21 sites in the southern coastal Levant in the research sample…………………………… 51

CHAPTER 2 2.1 Sites in the southern Levant where excavation reports indicate the presence of carinated-shoulder amphorae in Persian period strata………………………………………… 54 2.2 Differentiating amphora types by gross attributes of body profile: a) comparing Type A1 in bold and Type B1; b) comparing Type A1 in bold and Type C1… 59 2.3 Demonstrating how subtypes types are differentiated using the ‘envelope’ method: a) two subtypes of the biconical Type A (Type A1, in bold, and Type A4); and b) two subtypes of cylindrical Type C (Type C1, in bold, and Type C2)……………………………………… 59 2.4 Demonstrating how the ‘envelope’ of Type A1 amphorae was created: a) multi-layering of profiles of the 26 examples of the biconical amphora subtype Type A1 in this project; b) the ‘envelope’ of that subtype, where the outermost and innermost lines from Fig. 2.4a are drawn…………………………………………………………………………… 60 2.5 Demonstrating a) the tight ‘fit’ of a Type A3 amphora ‘envelope’; and b) the comparatively loose ‘fit’ of a Type B1 amphora ‘envelope’ (a) and b) are illustrated at the same scale)…… 60 63 2.6 Roundness and sphericity of non-plastic inclusions (after Barraclough 1992)……… 2.7 Sorting of aplastic inclusions (after Barraclough 1992)…………………………… 63 2.8 Different types of voids in ceramic thin-sections (after Kemp 1985)……………… 66

CHAPTER 3 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5 3.6 3.7 3.8 3.9 3.10 3.11 3.12 3.13

Persian period southern Phoenicia south of Tyre, proposing sectors of the coast which are under Tyrian or Sidonian jurisdiction ..……………………………………………………… 78 An example of a wall constructed of ashlar piers and rubble at Tel Mevorakh (after Stern 1994c, Fig. 14)………………………………………………………………………… 80 Plan of Persian period stratum II at Tell Abu Hawam (adapted from Hamilton, 1935, pl. I)….81 Map of excavated areas on the tell and coastal plain of Akko (after Dothan 1993, map on p. 18)………………………………………………………………………………… 82 Plan of Ashdod Fortress (after Porath 1974, Fig.2). (The ‘A’ denotes the rooms where carinated-shoulder amphorae were found)…………………………………………………… 83 Plan of excavated areas on the tell of Ashdod (after Dothan 1982, Plan 1). Sampled carinated-shoulder amphorae derive from Areas A, D and K……………………… 84 Plan of the Late Iron Age winery in Grid 38 on the tell of Ashkelon (after Stager 1996a, Fig. 1)………………………………………………………………………………… 85 Plan of the site of Atlit showing the location of Phoenician tombs (after Johns 1993, Fig. on p.112)………………………………………………………………………………… 85 Layout of bodies and their associated artefacts in Tomb L/16 at Atlit, showing the location of Type A3 and Type C2 carinated-shoulder amphorae (adapted from Johns 1932, Fig. 17)…… 86 Plan of Areas A and C, showing the orthogonal ground-plan (after Stern 1994b, Fig. 2).. 87 Excavated areas on the acropolis of Tel Dor (after Stern 1993, Fig. on p. 357)…………… 87 Plan of the excavated areas at Gil’am (adapted from Stern 1970, Figs. 1 and 2)………… 88 Simplified plan of Phase Vd, of early Persian period date, at Tell el-Hesi (after Bennett and Blakely 1989, Fig. 238)………………………………………………………… 89

8

page 3.14 Plan of excavated areas at Jokne’am (after Ben-Tor 1993, fig. on p. 806)………… 89 3.15 Plan of a large house (?) of Persian period date in Level 3b at Site B (after Briend and Humbert 1980, Fig. 32)……………………………………………………………………… 90 3.16 Plan of the ‘Residency’ at Lachish, the # denoting the find-spots of carinated-shoulder amphorae (adapted from Tufnell 1953, pl. 119)…………………………………………..… 91 3.17 Scarab with Phoenician motifs, including depiction of Astarte (adapted from Brandl 1991, Fig. 1)………………………………………………………………………………………… 91 3.18 Sketch of pit grave 15, with male occupant and single carinated-shoulder amphora in the cemetery at Lohamei Hageta’ot (after Messika 1996b, Fig. 2)……………………… 92 3.19 Plan of the Persian period settlement of Tel Megadim, showing orthogonal ground-plan (adapted from Broshi 1993, fig. on p. 1001)………………………………………………… 93 3.20 Map of Tel Mevorakh showing plan of excavated area (adapted from Stern 1994c, Fig. 3).. 93 3.21 The main tell and fortified remains of Stratum VIII (430-400) at Tel Michal (after Herzog et al. 1989, Fig.8.10)………………………………………………………………… 94 3.22 Plan of the site and excavation areas at Tel Qiri (adapted from Ben-Tor 1993, figure on p. 1228)……………………………………………………………………………………… 95 3.23 Plan of part of the workshop and kiln area at Sarepta, including Room 72/73 from where the clay sample was taken (adapted from Anderson 1989, Fig.3)……………………………… 96 3.24 Orthogonal ground-plan of the town (Stratum P) at Shiqmona dating to the early years of the Persian period (adapted from Elgavish 1994, Fig. 58)……………………………………… 98

CHAPTER 4 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.5 4.6 4.7 4.8 4.9 4.10 4.11 4.12 4.13 4.14 4.15 4.16 4.17 4.18 4.19

The eight biconical Type A forms differentiated in this project…………………………… 105 The three biconical-sack Type B forms and three cylindrical Type C forms differentiated in this project…………………………………………………………………………………… 106 A typical A1 amphora profile (AT:3); handle detail (viewed frontally) (AK:1); and typology of rim forms of Type A1 amphorae………………………………………………………… 108 A typical amphora profile (LH:1); typology of rim forms; and a handle detail (viewed frontally) (LH:1) of Type A2 amphorae………………………………………………………………… 109 A typical amphora profile (AT:10); typology of rim forms; and handle detail (viewed frontally) (AT:5) of Type A3 amphorae………………………………………………………………… 110 A typical amphora profile (KS:9); typology of rim forms; and handle detail (viewed frontally) (AK:3) of Type A4 amphorae………………………………………………………………… 111 A typical amphora profile (KS:7); typology of rim forms; and handle detail (viewed frontally) (KS:7) of Type A5 amphorae………………………………………………………………… 112 An amphora profile; rim form; and handle detail (viewed frontally) of a Type A6 amphora (SQ:6)…………………………………………………………………………………113 An amphora profile; rim form; and handle detail (viewed frontally) of a Type A7 amphora (QA:1)……………………………………………………………………………… 114 A typical profile (KS:14); typology of rim forms; and handle detail (viewed frontally - this handle is broken in several places) (KS:14) of Type A8 amphorae……………………………115 A typical profile (GL:5); typology of rim forms; and handle detail (viewed frontally) (GL:5) of Type B1 amphorae…………………………………………………………………………… 116 A typical profile (SQ:16); typology of rim forms; and handle detail (viewed frontally) (SQ:2) of Type B2 amphorae…………………………………………………………………………… 117 A typical profile (LH:7); typology of rim forms; and handle detail (viewed frontally) (JK:4) of Type B3 amphorae…………………………………………………………………………… 118 A typical profile (AT:7); typology of rim forms; and handle detail (viewed frontally) (AT:7) of Type C1 amphorae…………………………………………………………………………… 119 The profile; rim form; and handle detail (viewed frontally) of Type C2 (AT:1)…………… 120 The profile; rim form; and handle detail (viewed frontally) of a Type C3 amphora (DR:11)…121 a) Another subtype of A, with incomplete profile (4 examples overlapped); and two other subtypes of C amphorae with incomplete profile (b) = AT:17 and c) = AS:15)…………… 122 Differentiating A subtypes: comparing A1 with other members of Type A………………… 125 Differentiating subtypes of B and C: comparing B1 with other members of Type B; and C1 with other members of Type C……………………………………………………………… 126

9

page 4.20 Illustration which combines the three envelopes of Type A1 (solid line), Type A2 (dotted line) and Type A3 (dashed line)……………………………………………………………… 127

CHAPTER 5 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4

Geology of the northern section of the coastal Levant (adapted from Bartov 1994)………… 131 Geology of the central section of the coastal Levant (adapted from Bartov 1994)…………… 132 Geology of the southern section of the coastal Levant (adapted from Bartov 1994)..………… 133 Locations of carbonate-rich sand along the southern coastal Levant (generalised) (adapted from Gavish and Friedmen 1969, Fig. 2)…………………………………………………………… 134 5.5 Ridges of carbonated cemented sand dunes (kurkar) in: a) Western Galilee coast; b) Carmel and Sharon coast; and c) southern coastal plain (adapted from Horowitz 1979)……………… 135 5.6 Soil map of Israel (adapted from Horowitz 1979, Figure 2.32)……………………………… 138 5.7 Plot comparing concentrations of REE in FC 1D (GL:8; SQ:16) and in FC 1B (SR:18; MG:1; DR:9) (chondrite normalized)………………………………………………………………… 167 5.8 Plot comparing the mean concentrations of MgO (in %), Cr, Ni and Co (in ppm) in the eight amphora fabric classes (data normalized against the mean of the 5 sherds of FC 1A from Sarepta)………………………………………………………………………………………… 188 5.9 Illustrations of fabric texture and composition of aplastics in examples of Fabric Class 1, using a stereoscope and camera lucida (the initial drawings were made at x25 magnification)……… 193 5.10 Illustrations of fabric texture and composition of aplastics in examples of Fabric Class 2, using a stereoscope and camera lucida (the initial drawings were made at x25 magnification………. 194

CHAPTER 6 6.1 Plan of workshop of Room 63 and Kiln C-D at Sarepta, dated to the Persian period (redrawn from Anderson 1987, Fig. 9)…………………………………………………………………… 204 6.2 Histogram comparing quantities of rim sherds of SJ:13; SJ:15 and SJ:18 during the 1st millennium BC (data from Anderson 1988, Appendix C, Table 9a)……………………………205 6.3 Histogram comparing the number of rim sherds of open vessels and amphorae in Sounding X at Sarepta (data from Khalifeh 1988, Appendix E, Table 3A)………………………………… 205 6.4 Typology of rim shapes from the sampled amphorae from Sarepta, differentiating shapes according to fabrics…………………………………………………………………………… 206 6.5 Histogram illustrating production diversity of Persian period amphora forms at centres in southern Phoenicia (N = 20; including 14 different types, with 6 types manufactured in more than one fabric)………………………………………………………………………………… 208 6.6 Histogram showing quantities of each subtype of FC 1A in the research sample (N = 34)…… 209 6.7 The Type A1 amphorae shown as a ceramic diagnostic of Persian period levels at Lachish (after Tufnell 1953, 120, Pictorial summary of City Levels I-VI)…………………………… 209 6.8 Histogram showing the number of Persian period amphora sherds of southern Phoenician provenance in the research sample, according to proposed manufacturing centre (N = 293)… 211 6.9 ‘Envelopes’ illustrating levels of product uniformity at centres in southern Phoenicia: a) Type A1 amphorae of FC 1A (N=18); b) Type A3 amphorae of FC 1B/1C (N =5); c) Type B1 amphorae of FC 1D (N= 2); d) Type B2 amphorae of FC 1D (N= 4)…………212 6.10 Histogram showing rim height measurements of Type A1 amphorae of FC 1A (N = 18)… 213 6.11 ‘Envelopes’ enclosing amphora types of different fabrics: a) Type A1 amphorae of FC 1A and 2A (N = 26); b) Type A2 of FC 1A and 2A (N = 6); c) Type A3 of FC 1A and FC 1B/1C (N = 6); d) Type B3 of FC 1A and FC 1D (N = 2) and e) Type C1 amphorae of FC 1A and 1B/1C (N = 4)………………………………… 216 6.12 Schematic diagram of a production monopoly in a region of 2 polities……………………… 218 6.13 Schematic diagram of production in a region of 2 neighbouring polities, showing high level of centralised production in one polity, and no production facilities in the other……………… 219 6.14 Schematic diagram of low levels of centralised control of amphora production in a region of 2 polities…………………………………………………………………………………… 220

10

page 6.15 Schematic diagram of amphora production under partially centralised control in a region of 2 polities…………………………………………………………………………………… 221 6.16 Proposed schematic diagram of amphora production in Persian period southern Phoenicia, illustrating partially centralised control of production with interaction between four centres (the arrow representing closer interaction than the dotted lines)…………………………… 222

CHAPTER 7 7.1 Map of the regional distribution of FC 1A amphorae…………………………………………. 230 7.2 Number of rim sherds of each fabric (identified macroscopically) of carinated-shoulder amphorae retained from Wolff’s excavations at Tel Megadim (N = 567)……………………. 231 7.3 Map of the regional distribution of FC 1B/1C amphorae……………………………………… 232 7.4 Map of the regional distribution of FC 1D amphorae………………………………………… 233 7.5 Quantitative data of fabrics of carinated-shoulder amphorae rim sherds at Jokne’am, identified macroscopically (N = 58)……………………………………………………………………… 234 7.6 Map of the regional distribution of FC 2A amphorae………………………………………… 234 7.7 Map of the regional distribution of FC 2B amphorae………………………………………… 235 7.8 Map of the regional distribution of FC 2C amphorae………………………………………… 236 7.9 Map of the regional distribution of FC 2D amphorae………………………………………… 237 7.10 The Iron Age ‘bazaar’ at Ashkelon (after Stager 1996b, 65*-66*, Fig. 2)…………………… 240 7.11 Plan of a house at Dor termed by the excavators the ‘Phoenician house’ (Stern et al 1995a, Fig. 5.9)………………………………………………………………………………. 243 7.12 Schematic diagram of Mode 1: regionally widespread distribution networks……………..... 244 7.13 Schematic diagram of Mode 2: regionally localised distribution networks………….……… 245 7.14 Schematic diagram of Mode 3: regionally overlapping distribution networks………….…… 246 7.15 Schematic diagram of Mode 4: a combination of region-wide and localised networks……… 247 7.16 Schematic diagram of Mode 5: a combination of overlapping and localised networks……… 248 7.17 Schematic diagram of Mode 6: a combination of regionally widespread and overlapping distribution networks………………………………………………………………………… 249 7.18 Schematic diagram of Mode 7: A combination of regionally widespread, overlapping and localised distribution networks……………………………………………………………… 250 7.19 Schematic diagram of the regional distribution of amphorae of southern Phoenician manufacture…………………………………………………………………………………… 251 7.20 Schematic diagram of the regional distribution of amphorae of non-southern Phoenician manufacture…………………………………………………………………………………… 252 CHAPTER 8 8.1 Histogram showing the number of each amphora subtype in the research sample…………… 8.2 Histogram showing the number of sites in the research sample at which each subtype has been noted……………………………………………………………………………………… 8.3 Hypothesised stacking technique for Type A1 amphorae (adapted from an illustration by J .Balensi) (in process of publication)………………………………………………………… 8.4 A Persian period stela from Saqqara, Egypt (Mathieson et al. 1995)………………………… 8.5 A scene relating to wine making in the tomb of the nobleman, Petosiris in Middle Egypt (after Lefebvre 1924)…………………………………………………………………………

11

262 262 264 266 271

APPENDICES page APPENDIX III III.1 Measuring the shoulder-carination angle using the 1:1 drawings………………………….. 284 III.2 Measuring amphora volume by the ‘summed cylinders’ method: V == Πr2h a) Measuring the radius of the interior of the amphora; b) The cylinders measured had a height of 1 cm…………………………………………… 285 APPENDIX VII VII.1 Scattergram comparing concentrations of MgO and SiO2 for all sherds sampled………… 301 VII.2 Scattergram comparing concentrations of MgO and SiO2 in Fabric Class 1……………… 301 VII.3 Scattergram comparing concentrations of MgO and SiO2 in Fabric Class 2……………… 302 VII.4 Scattergram plot comparing concentrations of CaO with Th for all sherds sampled……… 302 VII.5 Scattergram plot comparing concentrations of CaO and Th in Fabric Class 1 sherds……… 303 VII.6 Scattergram plot comparing concentrations of CaO and Th in Fabric Class 2 sherds ……… 303 VII.7 Scattergram plot comparing concentrations of Be and La in Fabric Class 1 sherds………… 304 VII.8 Scattergram plot comparing concentrations of Be and La in Fabric Class 2 sherds………… 304 VII.9 Scattergram plot comparing concentrations of Be and Cr in Fabric Class 1 sherds………… 305 VII.10 Scattergram plot comparing concentrations of Be and Cr in Fabric Class 2 sherds………… 305 VII.11 Scattergram plot comparing concentrations of Cr and La in Fabric Class 1 sherds………… 306 VII.12 Scattergram plot comparing concentrations of Cr and La in Fabric Class 2 sherds………… 306 VII.13 Scattergram plot comparing concentrations of Cr and Pr in Fabric Class 1 sherds………… 307 VII.14 Scattergram plot comparing concentrations of Cr and Pr in Fabric Class 2 sherds………… 307 VII.15 Scattergram plot comparing concentrations of Ni and Th in Fabric Class 1 sherds………… 308 VII.16 Scattergram plot comparing concentrations of Ni and Th in Fabric Class 2 sherds………… 308

12

LIST OF PLATES ON CD *

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43

Type A1 amphora of FC 1A (SQ:12) Upper body with handle of Type A1 amphorae of FC 1A (SQ:5) Type A2 amphora of FC 1A (KS:1) Upper body with handle of Type A2 amphora of FC 1A (KS:1) Type A3 amphora of FC 1B (DR:7) Upper body with handle of Type A3 amphora of FC 1B (DR:7) Type A4 amphora of FC 1A (KS:9) Type A5 amphora of FC 1A (KS:7) Upper body and handle of Type A5 amphora of FC 1A (KS:7) Type A6 amphora of FC 1A (SQ:6) Upper body with handle of Type A6 amphora of FC 1A (SQ:6 Type A8 amphora of FC 1A (SQ:10) Upper body with handle of Type A8 amphora of FC 1A (SQ:10) Type B2 amphora of FC 1D (SQ:2) Upper body with handle of Type B2 amphora of FC 1D (SQ:2) Upper body with handle of Type B2 amphora of FC 1D (SQ:8) Type C1 amphora of FC 1B (DR:9) Upper body with handle of Type C1 amphora of FC 1B (DR:9) Upper body of Type C3 amphora of FC 1B (DR:11) Upper body of Type C3 amphora of FC 1B (DR:11) Iron Age carinated-shoulder amphora of FC 1A (KS:24) Upper body with handle of Iron Age carinated-shoulder amphora of FC 1A (KS:24) Iron Age carinated-shoulder amphora of FC 1A (KS:25) Early Hellenistic carinated-shoulder amphora of FC 1A (DR:77) Early Hellenistic carinated-shoulder amphora of FC 1A (KS:3) Comparing the colour and shape of Type A1 amphorae of FC 1A (SQ:14) and FC 2A (DR:2). Carinated-shoulder amphora recovered from the seabed off Dor (in Nahsholim Museum FC 1A sherd section view (x2.5) Photomicrograph of FC 1A sherd (DR:55), ppl, field width = c.2.4 mm Photomicrograph of FC 1A sherd (SR:8), with globigerinida (Acarinina sp.), ppl, field width = c.0.97 mm Photomicrograph of FC 1A sherd (MG:4), with coralline algae (top centre), ppl, field width = c.0.97 mm Photomicrograph of FC 1A sherd (MG:4), with carbonate intraclast, ppl, field width = c.0.97 mm Photomicrograph of FC 1A sherd (SR:1), with iron oxide filled globigerinida, ppl, field width = c.0.97 mm Photomicrograph of FC 1A sherd (DR:51), with Morozovella sp., ppl, field width = c.0.97 mm Photomicrograph of FC 1A sherd (MG:4), with iron oxide-filled echinoid spine (centre), ppl, field width = c.0.97 mm Photomicrograph of FC 1A sherd (SR:15), with basalt clast (bottom right of centre), clay pellet (top centre) and coralline algae (top left of centre), xpl, field width = c.0.97 mm Photomicrograph of FC 1A sherd (AS:1), high fired, with quartz grains forming linear feature, xpl, field width = c.2.4 mm Photomicrograph of clay sample from settling basin near Sarepta kiln, xpl, field width = c.2.4 mm FC 1B sherd section view (x2.5) Photomicrograph of FC 1B sherd (AS:2), showing foramineral matrix, iron oxide nodules and coralline algae, Amphiroa sp. (top left), ppl, field width = c.0.97 mm Photomicrograph of FC 1B sherd (MG:11), with globigerinida (Acarinina sp.), ppl, field width = c.0.97 mm Photomicrograph of FC 1B sherd (DR:7), with Rotaliida foraminifera (Rosalina sp.) (centre), ppl, field width = c.0.97 mm Photomicrograph of FC 1B sherd (AS:4), with calcite-filled, single-chambered foraminifera of

13

44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76

Upper Cretaceous age (centre), ppl, field width = c.0.97 mm Photomicrograph of FC 1B sherd (MG:11), with coralline algae, Amphiroa sp, (top right centre and bottom left), ppl, field width = c.2.4 mm Photomicrograph of FC 1B sherd (AS:2), with carbonate intraclast (centre), ppl, field width = c.0.97 mm Photomicrograph of FC 1B sherd (LA:7), high fired, xpl, field width = c.2.4 mm FC 1C sherd section view (x2.5) Photomicrograph of FC 1C sherd (DR:72), with foraminifera of Cretaceous age (bottom centre) ppl, field width = c.0.97 mm Photomicrograph of FC 1C sherd (AT:29), with chalk-rich matrix with single-chambered foraminifera of Upper Cretaceous age, ppl, field width = c.0.97 mm Photomicrograph of FC 1C sherd (DR:70), showing poorer sorting of quartz grains, xpl, field width = c.2.4 mm Photomicrograph of FC 1C sherd (AT:10), with single-chambered foraminifera of Senonian age and multi-chambered Cibicides sp. (top left), sparry calcite filled, xpl, field width = c.2.4 mm.. Photomicrograph of FC 1C sherd (DR:72), with coralline algae, Amphiroa sp., ppl, field width = c.0.97 mm Photomicrograph of FC 1C sherd (MG:15), with carbonate sand grains (top right and bottom left), xpl, field width = c.2.4 mm Photomicrograph of FC 1C sherd (DR:76), with carbonate intraclast (bottom right), xpl, field width = c.0.97 mm FC 1D sherd section view (x2.5) Photomicrograph of FC 1D sherd (AH:6), general view, ppl, field width = c.2.4 mm Photomicrograph of FC 1D sherd (JK:16), with clay pellet and small fragment of carbonatecemented grains (left of clay pellet), xpl, field width = c.0.97 mm Photomicrograph of FC 1D sherd (JK:12), with ‘ghost’ of foraminifera, xpl, field width = 0.48 mm Photomicrograph of FC 1D sherd (JK:16), with basalt clast (centre), xpl, field width = c.0.97 mm Photomicrograph of FC 1D sherd (JK:16), with grog fragment (right), xpl, field width = c.2.4 mm Photomicrograph of FC 1D sherd (JK:16), with reaction rim around carbonate grain, xpl, field width = c.0.97 mm FC 2A sherd section view (x2.5) Photomicrograph of FC 2A sherd (DR:71), general view, (moderate firing), xpl, field width = c.0.97 mm Photomicrograph of FC 2A sherd (MG:6), general view, (high fired), xpl, field width = c.2.4 mm Photomicrograph of FC 2A sherd (MG:2), with carbonate-cemented quartz grains (centre), xpl, field width = c.0.97 mm Photomicrograph of FC 2A sherd (HS:30), with carbonate-cemented grains of polycrystalline quartz and coralline algae (centre), xpl, field width = c.0.97 mm Photomicrograph of FC 2A sherd (DR:47), with carbonate sand grain (centre right), xpl, field width = c.0.97 mm Photomicrograph of FC 2A sherd (MG:8), with quartz-free clay pellet (left), xpl, field width = c.2.4 mm Photomicrograph of FC 2A sherd (MG:8), with embayed quartz (bottom right of centre) and plagioclase feldspar (left centre), xpl, field width = c.0.97 mm Photomicrograph of FC 2A sherd (MG:6), with clay pellet (centre), ppl, field width = c.2.4 mm Photomicrograph of FC 2A sherd (DR:10), with microcalcite lining the voids, xpl, field width = c.2.4 mm Photomicrograph of FC 2A sherd (MG:5), with microcalcitic wash on outer surface of vessel, xpl, field width = c.2.4 mm Photomicrograph of FC 2A sherd (DR:52), with red oxyhornblende grains (centre), ppl, field width = c.0.97 mm FC 2B sherd section view (x2.5) Photomicrograph of FC 2B sherd (HS:5), general view showing bimodal quartz grains, xpl, field width = c.2.4 mm Photomicrograph of FC 2B sherd (HS:5), rounded and polycrystalline grains, xpl,

14

77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114

field width = c.2.4 mm Photomicrograph of FC 2B sherd (HS:18), clay pellet with ‘shrink rim’, xpl, field width = c.2.4 mm Photomicrograph of FC 2B sherd (AP:5), showing iron oxide nodule in the matrix, xpl, field width = c.0.48 mm Photomicrograph of FC 2B sherd (HS:27), with microcrystalline calcite hypocoating of void, xpl, field width = c.0.97 mm Photomicrograph of FC 2B sherd (HS:27), with microcrystalline carbonate grain (centre), xpl, field width = c.0.97 mm Photomicrograph of FC 2B sherd (HS:18), with red oxyhornblende (centre), xpl, field width = c.0.97 mm FC 2C sherd section view (x2.5 Photomicrograph of FC 2C sherd (AH:12), general view, with chert (top right), ppl, field width = c.2.4 mm Photomicrograph of FC 2C sherd (AH:11), general view, with coralline algae (bottom centre) ppl, field width = c.2.4 mm Photomicrograph of FC 2C sherd (AH:12), with calcite-filled foraminifera, carbonate sand grain (top left) and carbonate-cemented grains (top right), ppl, field width = c.0.97 mm Photomicrograph of FC 2C sherd (DR:76), with intraclast (top centre), xpl, field width = c.2.4 mm Photomicrograph of FC 2C sherd (AT:17), with basalt clast (centre) and burnt out organic inclusion (bottom left), xpl, field width = c.0.97 mm Photomicrograph of FC 2C sherd (AT:17), with basalt clast altered to iddingsite (top centre), ppl, field width = c.0.97 mm Photomicrograph of FC 2C sherd (AT:17), with fragment of tuff (centre left), ppl, field width = c.0.97 mm Photomicrograph of FC 2C sherd (AH:12), with carbonate-cemented quartz grains (centre), xpl, field width = c.0.97 mm Photomicrograph of FC 2C sherd (AH:11), with clay pellet (top left) and bryozoa fragment (bottom centre), ppl, field width = c.0.97 mm Photomicrograph of FC 2C sherd (AT:17), with microcalcitic wash on outer surface of vessel, xpl, field width = c.0.97 mm Photomicrograph of FC 2C sherd (AH:11), with globigerinida (centre), ppl, field width = c.0.97 mm FC 2D sherd section view (x2.5) Photomicrograph of FC 2D sherd (SR:27), view of matrix, xpl, field width = c.0.97 mm Photomicrograph of FC 2D sherd (SR:27), with grains of altered basaltic glass (top) and prehnite (bottom right), xpl, field width = c.2.4 mm Photomicrograph of FC 2D sherd (SR:27), with altered basaltic glass (top left), ppl, field width = c.0.97 mm Photomicrograph of FC 2D sherd (SR:27), with worn basaltic clast (centre), xpl, field width = c.0.97 mm. Photomicrograph of FC 2D sherd (SR:27), with amygdale out of a basalt (centre left), xpl, field width = c.2.4 mm Photomicrograph of FC 2D sherd (SR: 27), with fibrous amphibole, xpl, field width = c.0.97 mm Photomicrograph of FC 2D sherd (SR:27), with globigerinida, ppl, field width = c.0.48 mm Persian period stela from Saqqara, Egypt (Mathieson et al. 1995) Quartz-rich sand sample from Sidon, xpl, field of view = 2.36 mm Quartz-rich sand sample from Sidon, xpl, field of view = 2.36 mm Quartz-rich sand sample from Sidon, coralline algae (centre), xpl, field of view = c. 0.97 mm… Quartz-rich sand sample from Sidon, xpl, field of view = c. 0.97 mm Bioclastic-rich and sample from Tyre, xpl, field of view = 2.36 mm Bioclastic-rich and sample from Tyre, ppl, field of view = 2.36 mm Bioclastic-rich and sample from Tyre, coralline algae (centre), xpl, field of view = 0.98 mm Bioclastic-rich and sample from Tyre, with echinoid spine, xpl, field of view = = 0.98 mm Quartz-rich sand sample from Akko, xpl, field of view = 2.36 mm Quartz-rich sand sample from Akko, xpl, field of view = 0.98 mm Quartz-rich sand sample from Shiqmona, xpl, field of view = 0.98 mm Quartz-rich sand sample from Shiqmona, xpl, field of view = 0.98 mm

15

115 116 117

Kurkar sample from Dor, general view, xpl, field of view = 2.36 mm Kurkar sample from Dor, general view, xpl, field of view = 0.98 mm Kurkar sample from Dor, general view, xpl, field of view = 0.98 mm

* Please note that the CD referred to above has now been replaced with a download available at www.barpublishing.com/additional-downloads.html

16

ABBREVIATIONS

AASOR ADAJ AJA Am. Min. ANET An St ARA BA BAAL BAR BASOR BCH BES BICS BMB BSA CAH CCE CDAFI CHI CIG CIS CRAI EI ESI FGrHist IEJ IGSAM IJES IJNA JANES JAR JAS JEA JESHO JEOL JFA JHS JMA JNES JP JRS JSP KAI MDAIK MdB NMS OLP PEQ QDAP RB RDAC REA

Annual of the American School of Oriental Research Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan American Journal of Archaeology American Mineralogist Pritchard, J B. 1975. Ancient Near Eastern texts relating to the Old Testament, 3rd rev. ed. Princeton, N.Jersey: Princeton University Press. Anatolian Studies Annual Review of Anthropology Biblical Archaeologist Bulletin d’Archéologie et d’Architecture Libanaises Biblical Archaeology Review Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research Bulletin de Correspondence Hellénique Bulletin of the Egyptological Seminar Bulletin of the Institute of Classical Studies Bulletin du Musée de Beyrouth British School of Athens Cambridge Ancient History Cahiers de la Céramique Egyptienne Cahiers de la Délégation Archéologique Française en Iran Cambridge History of Iran Corpus Inscriptionum Graecarum Corpus Inscriptionum Semiticarum Comptes Rendus de l’Académie des Inscriptions et Belles Lettres Eretz Israel Excavations and Surveys in Israel Jacoby, F, 1923-1958. Die Fragmente der griechischen Historiker. Leiden: E.J. Brill Israel Exploration Journal Israel Geological Society Annual Meeting Israel Journal of Earth-Sciences International Journal of Nautical Archaeology Journal of the Ancient Near Eastern Society Journal of Archaeological Research Journal of Archaeological Science Journal of Egyptian Archaeology Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient Jaarbericht ex Oriente Lux Journal of Field Archaeology Journal of Hellenic Studies Journal of Mediterranean Archaeology Journal of Near Eastern Studies Journal of Paleontology Journal of Roman Studies Journal of Sedimentary Petrology Donner, K and Röllig, 1973-1979. Kanaanäische und Aramäische Inschriften. (3 vols). Wiesbaden Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts in Kairo Le Monde de le Bible National Museum News (of Beirut) Orientalia Lovaniensia Periodica (Leuven) Palestine Exploration Quarterly Quarterly of the Department of Antiquities of Palestine Revue Biblique Report of the Department of Antiquities, Cyprus Research in Economic Anthropology

17

SAA StPhoen ZDPV

Parpola, S and Watanabe, K, 1988. Neo-Assyrian treaties and loyalty oaths. (State Archives of Assyria 2). Helsinki: Helsinki University Press. Studia Phoenicia Zeitschrift für vergleichende Sprachforschung

18

Acknowledgements I have been extremely fortunate in having been offered, on so many occasions, the kind and generous assistance of numerous scholars. Without their willing cooperation this research could not have been conducted. I would particularly like to acknowledge the assistance of those in Israel who granted permission for me to examine excavated ceramic material from 20 sites in the region and to take samples for scientific analysis. One can only look forward to the day when this is possible in all countries in this region. I would especially like to offer thanks to Dr. Naomi Porat at the Geological Survey of Israel, for offering her advice and expertise on ceramics from Israel and Egypt, and for providing pertinent and perceptive comments on my petrographic and chemical analysis. Her knowledge and experience of the local geology was invaluable. Thanks are also due to Dr. Gideon Steinitz, director of the Geological Survey of Israel, for allowing me use of the facilities of his organisation, where the chemical analysis and some of my petrographic analysis was conducted. I would like to thank the Israel Antiquities Authority for access to the published and unpublished ceramic assemblages in their storerooms in Jerusalem. Especially worthy of mention are members of staff at the Rockefeller Museum, including Ms. Hava Katz, Sophie DuRocher (photo archive) and Joe Zias for access to the Atlit material. I also acknowledge the assistance of Baruch Brandl at the Romema storeroom and that of Dr. Sam Wolff, for the Tel Megadim material, and Amir Golani for the amphora from Qiryat Ata, at the Har Hozvim storeroom. My thanks go to Avshalom Zemer at the Haifa Maritime Museum for allowing me to study the ceramic remains from Shiqmona and to Merav Barai who helped me with the excavation field notes, written in Hebrew. I would also like to express my appreciation to Prof. Michal Artzy and Prof. Avner Raban at Haifa University for allowing me access to the ceramic assemblages from Akko and the amphora sherds recovered from the Ma’agan Mikhael shipwreck. In addition, I would like to express my sincere thanks to Prof. E. Stern at the Hebrew University, Jerusalem, for permission to study the ceramic assemblage from Areas A and C at Dor; and especially Bracha Zilberstein who was so helpful in ensuring that I had all I needed to study this important material. Thanks go to Prof. Ben-Tor at the Hebrew University for allowing me to study the ceramics from Jokne’am and Tel Qiri, and to Anabel Zarzecki-Peleg for arranging for me to work on the material. I would also like to thank Prof. Jeff Blakely for permission to study ceramic material from Tell el-Hesi stored at the Albright Institute, Jerusalem. I would particularly like to express my appreciation to Dr. Jacqueline Balensi, of the CNRS, for her kindness and for giving me her undivided assistance when studying the material from Tell Abu Hawam at the École Biblique. My sincere thanks go to Fr. J-B. Humbert, also at the École Biblique, for allowing me access to his wonderful collection of reconstructed amphorae from the excavations at Tel Keisan. Finally, I would like to express my gratitude to Prof. Stager, who allowed me access to the ceramic storeroom from the on-going excavations at Ashkelon, and to Todd Sanders and Charles Adelmann who assisted me with the study of this material. Away from Israel, I would like to thank the Philadelphia Museum in the United States, especially Dr. R. Zettler and Dr. B. Routledge, for permission to study ceramic material from Sarepta in Lebanon, and to the Museum committee which allowed me to take samples for scientific analysis. I would like to express particularly my warm thanks to Dr. Anderson (who will be sadly missed) and his wife Jean, who entertained me in their home to discuss the ceramic assemblage from that site. In the UK, my thanks go to the British Museum for permission to study ceramic material from Lachish, and especially Dr. Pamela Magrill for her assistance. Furthermore, I would like to acknowledge the help of a number of specialists who assisted my scientific analyses. At the Geological Survey of Israel, I would like to thank Dr. Irene Segal for conducting analyses on some of my sherds using ICP-AES and ICP-MS; Dr. L. Perelis-Grossowicz in the Paleontology department for her foraminiferal analysis; and Mr. A. Barzilai, technician, for thinsectioning some of my amphora sherds. In the UK I would like to thank Dr. Sandre Nederbragt at the Geological Sciences department, University College London and Dr. J. Whittaker in the Palaeontology Dept., Natural History Museum, London for their assistance with my microfossil analysis and Dr. Andrew Middleton at the British Museum for helping to arrange the thin-sectioning of amphora sherds from excavations at Lachish. My special thanks go to Dr. Brin Roberts, Birkbeck College London, for his most helpful advice on petrographic analysis of the amphora sherds and his comments on parts of my 19

script. In addition, I would like to thank the following for allowing me to see their thin-section collections from the Near East and Cyprus: Dr. Yuval Goren, Tel Aviv University; Dr. Ezra Marcus, Haifa University; Anat Cohen-Weinberger at Har Hozvim, Jerusalem; Dr. Sarah Vaughan, formerly of Bristol University; and Dr. S. Pringle of the London Museum for allowing me to examine her thinsection collection of sherds from Carthage. I would also like to thank my supervisors, Dr. Karen Wright and Dr. Dafydd Griffiths for their comments and advice as my work progressed. I would especially like to thank Dr. Griffiths for collecting sand samples from the shores of Lebanon, at some peril to himself, and for allowing me to view his thinsection collection from the excavations at Sidon. Thanks also go to Prof. Amelie Kuhrt at the History Department, UCL and Dr. Ruth Whitehouse, Institute of Archaeology, UCL for their perceptive comments on several of my chapters. In addition, I am grateful to the library staff and Sandra Bond, Senior Technician at the Institute of Archaeology, UCL, for their willing assistance during my time in the department. Financially, this project could not have been conducted without grants from the Annual Scholarship from British School of Archaeology in Jerusalem, the British Academy and the William Lambarde Memorial Fund (The Society of Antiquaries).

20

Preface ‘Pottery is a complicated and multifaceted technology, whether past or present, and efforts to oversimplify this complexity and reduce it to a few meager dimensions of variability are a disservice to the field as a whole’. (Rice 1996, 191)

in the region, be it a commodity of different material, or indeed a different amphora type. I decided to use the term ‘amphora’ in this research only after much heartsearching. The term used for an artefact can have considerable effects on how that object is viewed by the reader. The word ‘amphora’ is a term which derives from two Greek works ‘amphi’ meaning ‘on both sides’ and ‘pherein’, meaning ‘to carry’. Thus the word itself illustrates its purely practical attributes: it has two handles by which it can be carried. It is recognised however that when scholars use the term, it may have many connotations to the reader. Firstly, the term is commonly used for Greek and Roman bulk ceramic containers whose function was mainly related to maritime transport and which contained wine, olive oil or fish sauces. By using the term ‘amphora’ I am not making the assumption that Phoenician amphorae had similar functions, but I base my assessment of their function on inscriptions painted on the amphorae and their consistent presence at coastal localities in this region. Secondly, Graeco-Roman amphorae are characterised by a comparatively long neck and two long side-handles (e.g. Grace 1961; Peacock 1977b; Whitbread 1995, 1). These are morphologically distinct from the containers studied here, which have little, or no, neck and two small rounded handles. Stamps which are characteristic of some GraecoRoman amphorae are absent from among the amphorae selected for this study, and none were observed on amphorae in any of the assemblages studied.

When embarking on this research I had two principal aims. The first was to undertake a study which threw more light on the commercial activities of the Phoenicians in their homeland, the coastal Levant. This was a challenge as relatively little data have been uncovered and published from archaeological excavations in this region during recent years. Collecting a large quantity of fresh data from a widespread area in the region required a major data collection strategy. Data collection was confined to 21 sites situated in southern Phoenicia, i.e. in territory which was under the jurisdiction of the citystates of Tyre and Sidon during the Persian period (539332 BC) (Fig. 1.1); in addition to a few sites in the areas bordering this region. I ceased data collection for this project in December 2001. The second aim of my research was to apply a multidisciplinary approach in the analysis of a commodity. The intention was to combine a number of analytical techniques, including scientific analyses, a study of historical sources written in Phoenician, Persian and Greek, a testing of an innovative method to create a formal typology and a consideration of anthropological theories regarding the manufacture, distribution, use and final discard of commodities. The purpose was to investigate as fully as possible a commodity in its cultural and economic setting. Within the time-span of this study, the investigation had to have its limitations. Many scientific techniques were not applied which might have brought fresh insights into the research findings (e.g. residue analysis, porosity tests, statistical analyses of chemical data). Not all historical sources relating to the Persian Empire and its effects on Phoenician commerce could be studied in depth. A formal typology of certain features, especially a typology of rims, could only briefly be accomplished. Nevertheless, I hope the results gained are a clear indication that investigating a commodity using a broad spectrum of approaches can produce a number of significant insights into a culture and its commercial practices.

Previous studies on these carinated-shoulder ceramic containers have offered various terms for the vessels. The most common term in excavation reports at sites in the coastal Levant is ‘storage jar’ or ‘store jar’, used by excavators of sites in Israel (e.g. Stern 1982a, 107-110) and in Egypt (Paice 1986/87, 98-99). Less commonlyused terms are ‘transport jar’ (Bennett & Blakely 1989, 207), ‘commercial jar’ (Raban 1980) and ‘water jar’ (Dray & du Plat Taylor 1949, fig. 55). Those present in Gjerstad’s classification on Cypriot pottery are termed ‘Plain White jars’, though in fact some in this study are of a bright orange fabric (Gjerstad 1948, 89). The term ‘amphora’ has also been used previously by scholars to describe these vessels when found on the coastal Levant (e.g. Duncan 1930, Type 47; Doumet 1982, 100, Rach. T V1); and for those found at sites outside the homeland region in Cyprus (e.g. Fejfer 1995, 141) and at Carthage (e.g. Chelbi 1991). This terminological multiplicity is

The commodity which is the focus of this study is a ceramic container for the bulk storage and transportation of predominantly liquid substances. I recognize that the findings of this research concerning this vessel type cannot be applied generally to all artefacts manufactured in southern Phoenicia. Each will have its own pattern of production, distribution and consumption 21

Phoenician Amphora Production in the Southern Levant

SITE

ABBREVIATION

SITE

ABBREVIATION

Tell Abu Hawam Akko Ashdod Fort Tell Ashdod Ashkelon Atlit

AH AK AF AP AS AT

GL HS JK KS LA LH

Tel Megadim Tel Mevorakh Tel Michal Tel Qiri Qiryat Ata Sarepta

MG MV MC QI QA SR

Dor

DR

Gil’am Tell el-Hesi Jokne’am Tell Keisan Lachish Lohamei Hageta’ot Ma’agen Mikhael

SITE

ABBREVIATION

MM

Shiqmona

SQ

Table i: Correlation of sites and their abbreviations used in this project very revealing about the problems faced by researchers when attempting to classify an artefact. The term used depends much on the preconceptions of the researcher about the predominant function of the vessel, and on how others before him/her have viewed it.

Chapter 1 presents the principal aims of the research. These relate to a characterisation of the various amphora forms and their proposed provenance; an assessment of the extent of regional centralisation of amphora manufacture; an analysis of patterns of their intra-regional distribution; and an examination of the socio-economic significance of these amphorae, or at least their contents, within the setting of the Persian Empire. This chapter provides an overview of Phoenician commerce as it is currently understood, and discusses the fresh perspectives offered in this study. Chapter 2 presents descriptions of the methods used to collect and analyse the data including a) the sampling strategy for sites and amphorae, and a summary is given of the sources of data gathered and their strengths and limitations; b) the ‘envelope’ technique used to create the formal typology of amphorae from the examples with complete or nearly complete body profile; c) fabric analyses by petrography and chemical analysis (using ICP-MS and ICP-AES); and d) the use of theoretical models to evaluate the data. Chapter 3 provides an examination of Tyre and Sidon as Phoenician city-states and their territorial extent as it existed in the Persian period. This is followed by a brief summary of published data concerning each site included in the research sample and a discussion of the Phoenician city-state attachment of each of the sites. Chapter 4 presents a formal typology for carinatedshoulder amphorae, with three types and fourteen subtypes using the innovative ‘envelope’ technique. Each subtype is illustrated and its main diagnostic features described. This typology is compared to previous typologies of carinated-shoulder amphorae. The success of the ‘envelope’ technique is assessed. Chapter 5 presents an overview of the geology of southern Phoenicia and its neighbouring regions. Each petrographic fabric is described in summary form, highlighting those raw materials which assist with provenance analysis. Full descriptions of each petrographic fabric follow. Proposals are made as to the provenance of each fabric. Finally, amphora forms and fabrics are correlated, and proposals are made concerning whether the forms differentiated may have been manufactured in the southern coastal Levant. Chapter 6 investigates to what extent amphora production may have been centralised in this region. The excavated remains from the pottery manufacturing centre

In my opinion no term is completely suitable for the bulk ceramic containers being studied here as all the terms have their conceptual weaknesses. Using a functional term as a label (e.g. storage or transport or water container) suggests amphorae were single-function vessels, whereas they may have been multi-purpose. The term ‘commercial’ pre-supposes that their primary purpose was for exchange, and not for domestic consumption, though it could have been for both, or just for the latter. Using a term which emphasises an aspect of the vessel’s appearance excludes the possibility of variability of form and decoration in examples discovered elsewhere. Despite its weaknesses, the term ‘amphora’ is the one adopted here, being used purely in the sense of having two handles. It is also a word which is attested in literary sources near to the period (Johnston 1984, 211). The word the Phoenicians may have used themselves for their amphorae may have been κάδον. This term was used by the Greek author Herodotus in the mid 5th century BC when relating a story concerning gifts offered to the Ethiopian King from the Persian king Cambyses, including a Phoenician earthenware jar (Herodotus III, 20). It is interesting to note that the term ‘kd’ is an Ugaritic measurement comprising 22 litres (Heltzer 1993, 51), though most amphorae in this study have a volume which is nearly less than half this amount (see Appendix IIIB). The data and sherds gathered for this project derive from excavations at 21 sites in the coastal southern Levant, from Sarepta in the north to Ashkelon in the south (Fig. 1.2). To identify each sampled amphora sherd a system of labelling has been used which comprises two letters which are abbreviated from the site name, plus a distinguishing number. A full listing of sites and their two-letter abbreviations are presented in Table i. Thus KS:5 is an amphora sherd from Tell Keisan. This book comprises eight chapters and seven appendices. The contents of each may be summarised as follows:

22

Preface I must add that in the process of preparing the text of this thesis for publication I have made several alterations. In particular, I have developed the theoretical modes of production and distribution, and I have added a new chapter which has drawn together information from the former appendices. Some illustrations have also been added.

at Sarepta receive particular attention. I examine to what extent amphora manufacturing centres may have differed in the production strategies they adopted, exploring levels of product diversity, specialization, uniformity and scale of production. The research data are evaluated in the light of theoretical modes of regional production. An assessment of Phoenician city-state specialisation in amphora manufacture is conducted. Chapter 7 attempts to characterise the distribution networks of amphorae of each fabric according to their spatial extent and their find-loci. Three significant types of distribution site are identified, including two ‘nodes of distribution’, one being a specialist ‘transit station’ and a ‘node of consumption’. The research data is evaluated in the light of seven theoretical modes of intra-regional distribution, and a mode of distribution for amphorae from one manufacturing centre is proposed. Information from seabed finds and contemporaneous documentary sources are collated to assess the level of maritime bulk distribution of Phoenician amphorae. Chapter 8 concentrates on the findings relating to the socio-economic role played by these amphorae. I examine the findings of the research which indicate the presence of a particularly significant manufacturing centre in the region, where an amphora form with unique characteristics of production and distribution was manufactured. I discuss the historical and archaeological evidence which points to elite consumption of the contents of this amphora type, and the likely impact that this may have had on the manufacture and distribution processes of these vessels. Finally, I propose a number of topics arising from this research which may be worthy of future investigation.

Finally, I must emphasize that any mistakes made in this work lie solely at the feet of the author.

The data on which the above analyses are based are provided predominantly in the appendices. Data concerning the sampled sites are presented in tables in Appendices I and II. The measurements of a selected number of dimensions of the sampled amphorae are presented in Appendix III. The identity of the petrographic fabric of each sherd sampled is listed in the table in Appendix IV. A microfossil analysis of selected amphora fabrics, which was conducted by L. PerelisGrossowicz, is presented in Appendix V. A brief analysis, with photos, of some sand samples gathered from localities on the southern coastal Levant is included in Appendix VI. In Appendix VII an analysis of the chemical data associated with 30 sherds is conducted, with the aim of attempting to provide some indication as to the possibility of differentiating petrographicallydifferentiated amphora fabrics through their chemical ‘finger-print’. Accompanying this publication is a CD with 117 colour photographs. These photographs include a) different types of carinated-shoulder amphorae, showing their whole body profile and their handles; b) characteristics of amphora fabrics as viewed macroscopically and through the polarising microscope; c) sand samples collected from the shore of southern Lebanon and northern Israel; and d) samples of kurkar (consolidated sandstone) gathered from Dor, Israel. 23

Phoenician Amphora Production in the Southern Levant

Fig. 1.1 The homeland region of Phoenicia in the Persian period: the coastal Levant

24

CHAPTER 1

Towards fresh insights into Phoenician commerce in the homeland [Phoenician history] ‘can be reconstructed only in the broadest outline, as the sources for the history of the Phoenician cities during the fifth and fourth centuries are very meagre and often conflicting. Fragmentary, often second- or third-hand, literary tradition is only very partially supplemented by inscriptions and coins. Archaeological evidence is unfortunately far less extensive than for the Bronze Age or the Hellenistic-Roman period. Thus our knowledge of the internal history of the cities… is severely limited; many problems remain unsolved.’ (Maier 1994, 319).

the manufacture of goods for the elite and non-elite intended for trade. Rhodes, Cos and Crete, for instance, became Phoenician centres of production for faience and ceramic containers (e.g. Bisi 1987; Coldstream 1969; 1982; Webb 1980), while faience trinkets were manufactured on Cyprus and Rhodes (e.g. Markoe 2000, 158). The Phoenicians also used sites in the Mediterranean for facilitating the movement of goods between regions. Cyprus played a particularly significant role in facilitating the dispersal of Phoenician goods westwards across the Mediterranean, as well as being a major source of valuable metal. It has been suggested that Rhodes was also a significant staging post and aided the distribution of metal goods between Italy and Cyprus (Markoe 1992, 74-75; Webb 1980, 84).

1.1 Introduction The inhabitants of the coastal Levantine region of Phoenicia1, a region comprising a series of city-states, (Fig. 1.1) were renowned by their contemporaries for their wealth derived from their commercial skills and their inter-regional trading ventures. Many present-day scholars have focused on the archaeological and artefactual remains which reflect Phoenician contact, if not presence, at sites across the Mediterranean and beyond the Straits of Gibraltar at localities including Rhodes, Cyprus, Crete, North Africa, Sardinia, Sicily, Malta, southern Spain, Portugal and Morocco.2 The factors which stimulated their long-distance expansion in the late second millennium BC are frequently explained in commercial terms, with their sites interpreted as trading posts and mining settlements (e.g. Frankenstein, 1979; Huot 1982, 24; Negbi 1992; Nieyemer 1982). Archaeological remains at Kommos (Crete), Rhodes and Kition on Cyprus, indicate that Phoenician commercial enterprises were developing from at least the 10th century BC, though the zenith of their inter-regional activities dates particularly between the 8th to 6th centuries BC. Colonisation is seen as a second phase of their expansion abroad.

Furthermore, recent studies scholars have drawn attention to Phoenician commercial activities eastwards from the Levantine coast. There is literary and archaeological evidence to indicate that they conducted commercial ventures into Israel, Northern Syria, Cilicia and Mesopotamia, and to the south-east they had contacts with Arabia from the later centuries of the second millennium BC and into the first millennium BC.3 These studies indicate that Phoenician trade could be conducted through the royal courts, by treaty between royal houses, as well as the activities of merchants bearing Phoenician names. As with their commercial expansion to the West, their commercial activities in these localities were supported by the construction of sanctuaries dedicated to Phoenician deities (e.g. Kestemont 1985, 136-137).

A number of settlements in the Mediterranean region, where the Phoenicians resided, have been identified as having a significant function for commercial activities and 1

‘Phoenicia’ was coined by the Greeks to describe the coastal Levant, the first mention being in Ody. IV.83. The term could derive from a word meaning ‘purple/red’ or ‘date-palm’. Prior to the 12th century BC this region is termed by scholars ‘Canaan’, which means ‘land of merchants’ (Muhly 1970). 2 General works on this topic include Anon 1988; Aubet 1993; Baslez 1987; Bikai 1989; Bunnens 1979; Fantar 1988; Frankenstein 1979; Krings 1995; Lipinski 1992; Markoe 2000; Niemeyer 1982; 1990.

3

Scholarly works on this topic include Briquel-Chatonnet 1992; Bunnens 1992; Coldstream 1982, 264, 268; Kestemont 1985; Lemaire 1987; Lipinski 1985a and b; 1995; Oppenheim 1967; Röllig 1992; and Zadok 1978.

25

Phoenician Amphora Production in the Southern Levant Scholarly endeavour has therefore been intensive on the commercial activities of the Phoenicians in an interregional context. There remains, however, much validity in Maier’s rather despairing comment above with regard to our understanding of their commercial activities in the homeland region.4 Research has been hampered by insufficient archaeological data on which to build a broad overview of Phoenician activities. Sadly, comparatively few sites have been excavated in the Phoenician heartland and those that have, some await full publication. A number of excavations have been carried out in the southern portion of the coastal Levant, along the coast of Israel in recent years. Difficulties still remain for archaeology, however, in the northern and central portions of the coastal Levant, though this situation is, thankfully, changing.5 The most significant excavations in the central region of Phoenicia include the ongoing excavations at Beirut (Elayi and Sayegh 1998; 2000; Griffiths et al. 1998; articles in the journals BAAL and The National Museum News (of Beirut)). In the area of southern Phoenicia excavations have recently commenced at Sidon, which have so far revealed Early Bronze Age and Iron Age remains (e.g. Clermont-Ganneau 1921; Doumet-Serhal 2000, 33-35; Griffiths 2000; Jidejan 2000). A small sounding was made on the former-island city of Tyre and on the causeway to the mainland, uncovering remains of Bronze and Iron Ages and Roman period (Bikai 1978a; Bikai et al. 1996). Major excavations in the former-island city remain to be conducted. A major problem facing excavators of Tyre, as with other coastal cities in this region, is that the ancient settlements lie directly below the present-day conurbation. Excavations of ancient sites which do not rest under modern settlements have revealed remains which bring highly valuable insights concerning Phoenician commercial enterprises. The excavations at Sarepta in southern Lebanon in the 1970s are particularly important in this regard, as is discussed in sections 3.3 and 6.3.

the Phoenicians to sites in the Central and Western Mediterranean where they settled (e.g. Heltzer 1983; 1990). One assumes that this guild system continued in the homeland throughout the first millennia BC, though at present there is little hard data to confirm this. An imbalance therefore exists in our spatial knowledge of the Phoenicians and their commercial practices. My primary aim with this project is to examine evidence (archaeological, artefactual and literary) which may indicate patterns of commodity production and distribution of the Phoenicians in their homeland region. There is also a time-period in Phoenician history which has received relatively little attention. From 539 to 332 BC the coastal Levant was encompassed within the Persian (Achaemenid) empire. This was in fact one of a series of periods during the first millennium BC in which Phoenicia came under foreign imperial suzerainty (Table 1.1). The effects of incorporation within Assyrian, Egyptian and Greek empires have already, to some extent, been the subject of scholarly debate (section 1.5). The impact of Persian domination on the Levantine littoral, especially the effects on its commerce, remains mostly a terra incognita. Yet this period is distinguished by the expansion of the Phoenician city-states of Tyre and Sidon in the homeland region, achieving its optimum territorial extent in their history (section 3.2). Sidon’s jurisdiction reached at least as far as Jaffa, while Tyre’s orbit extended further to Ashkelon (Fig. 3.1). Below, I pose a series of questions which reflect some of the gaps in our knowledge about Phoenician commerce and which, to some extent, will be explored in this research. Admittedly these are just a few questions which relate to a highly complex topic. a) Production of Phoenician goods What modes of production were adopted by the Phoenicians in their homeland region? In particular, to what extent was the production of their commodities centralised in this region? Determining the level of centralisation of production would help to understand the significance of that commodity in the socio-cultural and economic milieu of that time and place. A number of theoretical models have been presented by scholars studying past economies (section 1.2.3.1). My aim is to present a fresh model which represents the level of production of commodities as it may have existed in Persian period Phoenicia, based on the data gathered for this project. Was commodity production highly centralised in one or two localities, reflecting strong control by the elite? Or was manufacturing dispersed across the region, with numerous manufacturing centres, suggesting a relatively low level of elite involvement in their production? If there is evidence for elite involvement, was it state-controlled or conducted through wealthy private entrepreneurs? Could there be evidence

Amazingly, we have more insights into the economic activities and organisation in the coastal Levant during the Late Bronze Age at the end of the second millennium BC, than for the first millennium BC. This is primarily due to the documentary sources and archaeological remains relating to the northern coastal city of Ugarit. Texts reveal that commerce was controlled by members of the royal household and their agents, who sometimes were able to work independent of their royal masters. Manufacturing was conducted by skilled artisans who were grouped into guilds in the city, with a guild comprising master craftsmen who passed on his expertise to apprentices (e.g. Heltzer 1965; 1978, 1979b; 1982). This division of manufacturing into numerous, distinct professions and the guild structure seems to have continued into the first millennium BC and was taken by 4

For a resumé about the gaps in our knowledge about Phoenicians and their city-states generally, see Elayi 1990b. 5 For a resume of more recent excavations and their findings in Phoenicia see Salles 1995 and Markoe 2000, 192-206.

26

Towards fresh insights into Phoenician commerce in the homeland

ERA

DATES

EMPIRE WITH INFLUENCE OVER PHOENICIA

Early Bronze Age Middle Bronze Age Late Bronze Age I Late Bronze Age II Iron Age I Iron Age II

3100-2000 BC 2000-1550 BC 1550-1400 BC 1400-1200/1150 BC 1200/1150-1000 BC 1000-604 BC

Iron Age III Persian period

604-539 BC 539–332 BC

Neo-Assyrian (9th-mid 7th century BC) Egypt (end 7th century BC) Neo-Babylonian Persian (Achaemenid)

Hellenistic period Roman period

332–64/63 BC 64/63 BC–337 AD

Hellenistic Roman

PERSIAN KINGS

Egypt Egypt

Cyrus the King (559-530/29 BC) Cambyses (530/29-522 BC) Darius I (522/1-486 BC) Xerxes I (486-465 BC) Artaxerxes I (465-424/2 BC) Darius II (423-405 BC) Artaxerxes II (405-359 BC) Artaxerxes III (359-338 BC) Artaxerxes IV (Arses) (388336 BC) Darius III (336-330 BC)

Table 1.1 Chronological chart of the Ancient Near East, including terms employed in this study. that both mechanisms may have existed contemporaneously? To what extent did manufacturing centres across the region differ in the production strategies they adopted, especially with regard to the diversity of products in their output, or were they more intent on specialising in the production of one or two types of commodity? Furthermore, what evidence may there be that Phoenician city-states adopted their own distinctive policies regarding commodity manufacture, with one specialising in the production of a commodity more than another?

c) The impact of imperial domination What impact may imperial hegemony have had on the manufacture and distribution of Phoenician goods in the homeland, especially during the period when the Levant was incorporated into the Persian (Achaemenid) empire (539-332 BC)? Studies have been conducted on the impact of Egyptian, Assyrian and Neo-Babylonian regimes on the Phoenician economy, but the effects of Achaemenid hegemony on Phoenicia has received relatively little academic attention (section 1.5.1). What effects may the consumption habits and personal tastes of the imperial elite have had on the Phoenician economy? Can they be seen as a stimulant, encouraging adoption of techniques of mass-production and product specialisation and more effective methods of distribution? Or can the imperial military and bureaucratic activities be seen as detrimental to the economies of Phoenician city-states, depriving them of their wealth and resources and thus causing a decline in commodity production and distribution?

b) Distribution of Phoenician goods in the southern coastal Levant What modes of commodity distribution may have existed in Phoenicia? To what extent may the distribution of Phoenician commodities have been controlled by a state institution, or by private entrepreneurs, or possibly both simultaneously? Again, a number of theoretical models have been suggested by scholars, especially in relation to inter-regional distribution mechanisms in the ancient Near East (section 1.2.3.4). I propose a fresh series of modes to attempt to characterise the complexity, integration and effectiveness of distribution networks in the homeland. To what degree were they regionally widespread, were they predominantly localised, or to what extent did distribution networks overlap? Lastly, can one identify localities in the homeland which played a particularly significant role in facilitating the distribution of commodities inter- and intra-regionally, as has been suggested for some Phoenician sites in the Central and Western Mediterranean?

1.2 The principal research aims and focus One important aim of this project was to gather together and analyse a quantity of fresh data through which insights into Phoenician economic practices relating to production and distribution in the Phoenician homeland region might be gained. Spatially the focus of the study is

27

Phoenician Amphora Production in the Southern Levant the southern portion of Phoenicia. This region comprises the two city-states of Tyre and Sidon as their territory existed when the Levant was under Persian hegemony. Southern Phoenicia is therefore considered to extend from the area around Sidon, its most northerly point, south to Ashkelon (Fig. 1.1).

manufacturing centre. In this case, a source in southern Phoenicia is ‘the best guess’ (Markoe 2000, 165). Likewise homogeneity of decorative style on metal bowls from Cyprus is taken as reflecting a single workshop on that island (Markoe 1985, 7-8). Those artefacts manufactured on Cyprus, an island with numerous settlements indicating Phoenician presence (e.g. see Karageorghis 1999, map on p. 185), could be described as ‘Cypro-Phoenician’ rather than ‘Phoenician’. The occurrence of moulds at Kition suggests that three styles of ceramic figurines of Phoenician style were manufactured at this city, where Phoenician influence was strong (Yon and Caubet 1989). Whether they were also manufactured in the homeland is uncertain. Likewise, those items from sites in the Central and Western Mediterranean may belong to a ‘Punic’, or ‘PhoenicioPunic’ culture rather than being purely ‘Phoenician’. Insufficient research has been conducted on the provenance and decorative styles of Phoenician, CyproPhoenician and Punic commodities to be able to distinguish each of these cultures clearly.

1.2.1 A Phoenician commodity through provenance analysis The initial aim of this project is to identify a manufactured commodity which, with data based on scientific analysis, can be said to be a ‘Phoenician’ product. The surest way to determine the location of manufacture is for the commodity to be recovered during excavations at its manufacturing centre. Unfortunately, such discoveries are relatively rare in archaeology. References in historical source can be useful in identifying a source, though they often fail to pinpoint the exact location.6 The provenance of an artefact is often suggested by archaeologists through shape and style. This is based on the assumption that artisans in a particular culture create commodity forms and decoration which become distinctive of that culture (e.g. Hodder 1991).

Some scholars may also call into question the use of the term ‘Phoenician’ when discussing the culture and people from the coastal Levant in the first millennium BC. They may consider that the culture of the inhabitants of this region was not ‘pure’ and lacking in distinctive attributes.9 One analysis of Iron Age pottery forms from the coastal Levant concludes that shapes and techniques associated with Phoenician manufacture evolved over time, due mainly to indigenous forces (Anderson 1990). Indeed the inhabitants of this region probably did not refer to themselves as Phoenicians, but may have considered themselves Canaanites, continuing the cultural tradition of the Levantine littoral which had developed over millennia (e.g. Röllig 1983). Using the term ‘Tyrian’ or ‘Sidonian’ when describing artefacts may be preferable. I use the term ‘Phoenician’ in this research without ethnic or stylistic connotations. It is based solely on a proposed location of manufacture within the geographically and temporally defined region of Persian period southern Phoenicia. Furthermore, it is usually difficult, without discovery of the manufacturing centre(s) of a commodity, to be certain whether it might be of Tyrian or Sidonian manufacture.10

In the case of Phoenician artefacts, the label ‘Phoenician’ is often applied to items which bear decoration which combines an eclectic mixture of motifs which draw on Egyptian myths and religious symbolism and artistic influences from Syria and Assyria, while continuing a Canaanite tradition. Items such as decorated metal vessels, carved ivory inlays, carved Tridacna shells, carved stone sarcophagi, metal and glass jewellery, seals, faience objects and terracottas may typically be termed ‘Phoenician’ due to the style of their decoration. Whether they were actually manufactured in the coastal Levant remains uncertain.7 Inscriptions on products such as ivory inlays, for instance, which were found in the palaces in Assyria suggest that they are of Phoenician manufacture (e.g. Barnett 1982, 48). However, whether the Phoenician artisans were situated in the homeland or in Assyria when these objects were being carved is a matter of debate. Phoenician artisans were highly skilled and they are known to have travelled outside the homeland, especially at the behest of the king of a Phoenician city-state.8

The method chosen in this project to propose provenance is scientific analysis using primarily petrographic techniques. I apply the term ‘Phoenician’ to commodities which comprise raw materials which are consistent with a provenance in the southern coastal Levant as it existed in the Persian period. Scientific analysis can rarely pinpoint a specific locality as being a manufacturing centre. As

Uniformity of decorative style is sometimes considered to signify a single source, though it does not indicate exactly where. Decorated Tridacna shells exhibit a uniformity of design, suggesting that they were carved at one 6

For instance, Strabo records that glassmaking was conducted between Akko and Tyre because of the suitability of the sand for this purpose (Strabo XVI, 2.25). 7 Markoe, in his recent general publication on the Phoenicians, considers this knotty problem (Markoe, 2000, Chapter 6). 8 Hiram, king of Tyre, offered the services of his own bronzeworking artisan to Solomon during the construction of the temple in Jerusalem (I Kings 7, 13-14).

9 Despite recent books covering a broad spectrum of aspects of Phoenician culture, its exact nature in the homeland remains elusive (e.g. Aubet 1993; Lipinski 1992; Markoe 2000; Moscati 1999). 10 An exception would be city-state coins which were minted by Tyre, Sidon, Arwad and Byblos from the Persian period onwards.

28

Towards fresh insights into Phoenician commerce in the homeland Whitbread has pointed out, ‘Making a positive attribution to a source often means presenting a well argued suggestion rather than an unequivocal identification’ (Whitbread 1995, 28). However, scientific techniques can produce hard data by which provenance can be assessed, with the potential for reducing the intuitive input of the archaeologist who is analysing the artefacts.

(e.g. Lehmann 1996a; Sagona 1982). In the Persian period several types of amphorae with distinctive morphology are mentioned as being characteristic of strata of this period, including carinated-shoulder amphorae, basket-handle amphorae and ovoid bodied amphorae (Stern 1982, 103-111, where they are termed ‘jars’ to distinguish them from Greek amphorae). The choice of amphora type is discussed in section 1.3. The investigation of the modes of production and distribution of this amphora type focuses on a number of features, which are now described.

1.2.2 The commodity selected as the research focus The commodity on which this research focuses was selected on the basis of the following attributes which I considered essential for a study which would cover a broad spectrum of aspects concerning Phoenician manufacture and intra-regional distribution:

1.2.3 The modes of production and distribution under discussion 1.2.3.1 Centralised control of production

a) b) c)

d)

The commodity should be made of raw materials which can be analysed scientifically to provide data by which the provenance might be assessed; It should be characterised by a distinctive morphology which allows it to be easily recognisable by excavators during excavations; Remains of this commodity should have been recovered and retained for long-term storage in quantity from numerous sites in the territory of southern Phoenicia. The recovery of this commodity in quantity could be inferred from comments made in excavation reports comprising terms such as ‘many’ and ‘numerous’. The remains of this commodity should be readily available for scientific analysis.

One important focus of this study is an analysis of the degree to which production was centralised in southern Phoenicia. Centralised control of an ancient economy has been the subject of numerous scholarly works, with different schemes being presented to provide insights into a variety of cultural settings at various periods in history. High levels of centralised control are commonly regarded as characteristic of emerging complex societies (in the Near East and elsewhere) where strong state entities, as for example the palace or temple, are present which possessed sufficient power and wealth to exert this level of control (e.g. Brumfiel and Earle 1987; Clark 1995; Clark and Parry 1990; Costin 1991; Earle 1981; Sinopoli 1988; Stein 1994; and Wright 1977). By exerting high levels of centralised economic control, these institutions are seen as aiming to retain for themselves the financial and socio-cultural benefits resulting from that level of control, while excluding others from those benefits. Those in control may then use the wealth accrued to fund their own ambitions at a local, district and regional level.

The item which fits these criteria well is a ceramic vessel type. The use of a commodity made of pottery is suitable for scientific analysis of provenance. Numerous studies involving petrography and chemical analysis have been conducted on pottery from the ancient Near East to characterise the paste and help ascertain provenance (Chapter 5). Though ceramic vessels are most frequently found in small pieces in excavations, the sherds are virtually indestructible in the archaeological record and, at Near Eastern sites, they can be recovered in huge quantities. While body sherds may be discarded and not retained for long-term storage, diagnostic sherds are frequently kept in storerooms for further analysis. Because ceramic is not intrinsically valuable, there is the potential for pieces to be clipped for scientific analysis.11

Phoenicia was not however an emerging complex society. Society on the coastal Levant had been complex for at least two thousand years by the time this region comes to be called ‘Phoenicia’. Although the region developed as a number independent city-states over several centuries in Iron Age I and II, during which time they could administer their own economy, the Levantine littoral suffered a series of conquests by foreign regimes. In this setting the demands of the empire, with its taxes and tribute and the needs of the imperial war machine, may be viewed as encouraging an economic intensification and a high level of centralised control of production and distribution in the provinces (e.g. Briant 1988; Brumfiel and Earle 1987, 6; Kuhrt 1995, 409; Sherratt and Sherratt 1992, 363; and Sinopoli 1988).

The type of ceramic vessel chosen for this project is the bulk container of liquid foodstuffs, the amphora. This vessel type is considered particularly suitable for this project as excavation reports indicate that amphorae regularly occur in ceramic assemblages of the 1st millennium BC at sites in the southern coastal Levant

Whether economic centralisation was total under imperial regimes is debatable. In recent years the view that state entities were economically all-powerful in early Near Eastern polities has been challenged (see Stein and Blackman 1993 and Stein and Rothman 1994 for their

11

Nevertheless, there can be difficulties in some regions of the Near East in gaining permission to clip pieces of sherd from excavations for scientific analysis.

29

Phoenician Amphora Production in the Southern Levant near the city where the elite controlling the manufacture reside. This would allow them to keep a close eye on the production process to ensure none of the raw material went astray. If the commodity was of little intrinsic value, and was being manufactured perhaps for localised domestic consumption, one would expect manufacturing centres to occur throughout the region, with little evidence of centralised control of production. The types and quantities of commodities produced in an ‘independent’ mechanism would be created in response to the varied demands of their consumers. These demands would be communicated to those controlling production by ‘middle-men’ who would transport the commodities to the inhabitants across the region, or by contacts through market-places or shops.

research on early state formation in Mesopotamia). State institutions are seen as having limitations to their power, where centrifugal forces within the society act to counter their control (Adams 1978; Yoffee 1979, 21). Their control may be tempered by the presence of another state entity with which it has to share economic control, as occurs in Sumer with the palace and temple institutions (e.g. Postgate 1992a, 41). It may also be tempered by a rural economy run by non-urban elites (Adams 1978; Diakonoff 1974; Yoffee 1995). In this scenario, rural areas are considered to adopt more flexible strategies which can adapt to any changing environmental or social eventuality, while urban centres ensure control of food supplies for a population that cannot grow enough to feed itself. An example may be Mycenaean palaces of the Late Bronze Age, which were supposedly financed by estates controlled by the elites and by the exchange of palatial craft goods with surplus produced in the private sector. Although they controlled production near major centres and sub-centres, their control apparently did not extend across the whole territory where a market economy probably operated (e.g. Halstead 1992).

Scholars in the past have tended to characterise ancient economies as being either ‘attached’ or ‘independent’. Recent studies suggest they are not exclusive of each other, and that a dual ‘attached’ and ‘independent’ regional economy can co-exist, even when a strong centralised institution is present (e.g. Adams 1974; Knapp 1985a, 5; Larsen 1979, 100-101; Leemans 1950; Stein 1996; Zaccagnini 1977). Admittedly, when strong institutions existed, their control could be remarkably tight. In Ur III, at the end of the 3rd millennium BC, texts show that scribes kept daily records of how many pots were being manufactured at a workshop and the time taken over the manufacture of each vessel (Postgate 1992a, 232-233). Even in Ur III though, the state may not have had complete control over all facets of the economy, with some merchants acting privately, thereby blurring the boundaries between the two types of economies (Postgate 1992a, 220; Powell 1977).

Another model presented by scholars to explain ancient economies is use of the terms ‘attached’ and ‘independent’ (e.g. Brumfiel and Earle 1987; Clark 1995; Costin 1991). The ‘attached’ economy is regarded as one where an entity attached to the state has the financial wherewithal and power to exert a high level of centralised control of production with manufacturing initiated and closely monitored by a palace or temple. Production is ‘on command for elites and the social and political institutions they control’ (Costin 1991, 7). In this situation, the manufacturing centre may be constructed close to the building where the state entity resides. The ‘attached’ artisans are likely to be specialists, working full-time, but whose output would be carefully controlled by the patron, with the quantity, shape and decoration of the commodities monitored. The forms of artefacts produced may be specialised, with less diversity, as the needs of the controlling institution would be comparatively limited, especially with regard to utilitarian commodities which had to be manufactured in quantity (Rice 1981). With full-time, specialist craftsmen it is more likely that the commodities produced would display a relatively high level of shape uniformity (or ‘standardisation’) (Longacre et al. 1988; Rice 1991, 268; Schiffer and Skibo 1977).

A further insight into centralisation of production is furnished by a model proposed by Sinopoli regarding pottery manufacture in the Indian empire of Vijayanagara (Sinopoli 1988). The model relates to an economy in an imperial setting where urban elite-controlled and village household production co-exist. Sinopoli proposes three modes of ceramic production for this empire. The first is ‘administered production’, equivalent to the ‘attached’ production discussed above, in which manufacturing centres are spatially and economically linked to a controlling institution, and where they produce only those items which express elite status and political dominance. The other two modes she describes as follows:

‘Independent’ commerce, on the other hand, is considered to relate to activities conducted without interference from a state institution. Producers manufacture goods for consumers with whom the producers are less likely to be acquainted and their ‘products, intensity, organisation, and productivity … are guided by principles of efficiency and security’ (Brumfiel and Earle 1987, 5). The extent to which ‘independent’ production may be centralised depends to a great extent on the value of the commodity being produced and its function. If it comprised valuable raw materials one would expect the level of centralisation to be high, probably with the manufacturing centre(s) in or

a)

b)

30

centralised production: where specialists undertake large-scale, and spatially segregated, production without the direct involvement of a state entity. This takes place under market-principle conditions, with forces of supply and demand, and tradition playing a significant role; non-centralised production: where small workshops in regionally widespread localities manufacture a relatively small quantity of goods, characterized by a diversity of commodities, for nearby consumers.

Towards fresh insights into Phoenician commerce in the homeland Sinopoli emphasises that these modes of production organization are in fact points along a continuum, and are not to be considered as a distinct categories.

is viewed by a state entity as serving a significant purpose. This would depend greatly on the perceived value and socio-cultural symbolism of the commodity at that particular time and place. The manufacture of commodities of high intrinsic value, such as those of metal, ivory or semi-precious jewels, is more likely to be centrally controlled than utilitarian items of little innate worth, as in all probability these were regarded as prestige items (or ‘politically charged commodities’ - Brumfiel and Earle 1987, 5) These commodities are more likely to be conducted under centralised control than those items whose possession is considered to provide little social standing. In every culture some items possess a symbolism which offers the potential to anyone who owns them an overt expression of their elevated social status, wealth and power (e.g. Appadurai 1986; Douglas and Isherwood 1996). They become a means whereby the owner can differentiate him/herself from others of lower social status. By controlling the manufacture of these goods others are excluded from these symbolically potent commodities.

A more complex modelling of pottery production in the ancient world, relating to the manufacture of Roman pottery, has been proposed by Peacock (1982, 6-11) (cf. models by Costin 1991, 8-10 and van der Leeuw 1977). His model involves a spatial assessment of pottery production attested by the clustering, or otherwise, of archaeological remains of pottery production (e.g. kilns and forming technology, e.g. the wheel) and the size of the premises. He also considers the level of dimensional uniformity of the products, the scale of production and the degree of product specialisation at these sites. His proposed modes of Roman pottery production are as follows:12 a) b) c)

d)

e)

f) g)

household production: where pottery production is a part-time, domestic chore, usually undertaken by women. household industry: where production is parttime but conducted by skilled artisans. individual workshops: where production is fulltime and conducted by skilled artisans using relatively complex technology (e.g. the kiln and wheel). nucleated workshops: where individual workshops cluster together in a complex; where potting is a major activity and a relatively large quantity of fairly uniform, high quality products are manufactured. manufactory: where artisans group together as an industrial complex in one locality to produce a single, highly specialised product. This is manufactured in greater quantities than in c) and d). estate production: where production initially centres on the needs of the estate, but which can develop into a commercial activity.13 military/official production: where relatively efficient production is conducted in association with the needs of a military establishment or state organisation.

In her research on the production of pottery and textiles in the medieval empire of Vijayanagara it has been demonstrated that the levels of centralised control of production varied as a result of differences in value and socio-cultural symbolism of the commodities (Morrison and Sinopoli 1991; Sinopoli 1988). Textiles were manufactured under a relatively high level of centralised control as textiles in this society possessed ‘symbolic importance’. Being highly valued, they also brought in considerable revenues through trade for those in control of production. The level of centralised control of production of pottery, on the other hand, was much less. Ceramic vessels were used in domestic circumstances and considered of ‘little social status’ (Sinopoli 1988, 594). A similar situation can be seen in Syria during the 3rd millennium BC. In Stratum IIb at Tell Leilan, Syria, it seems that pottery was manufactured under conditions of non-centralised control as pots were considered of little worth. Weavers, metalsmiths and wood-workers, on the other hand, were ‘attached’ to the palace and temple, reflecting the high status of the goods manufactured by these artisans and the demand for their output by the elite of that society (Blackman et al. 1993; Stein and Blackman 1993, Fig. 7).

Peacock admits that with these modes ‘we are attempting to impose a conceptual framework upon a situation that in practice may be almost infinitely variable’ (Peacock 1982, 8). As Costin has commented, this model appears to be influenced by the available (and very partial) archaeological and historical data (Costin 1991, 6-8).

1.2.3.2 Other aspects of production studied In addition to exploring the extent to which Phoenician amphora manufacture was centralised, I also examine the levels of product diversity, specialisation, uniformity and scale of production at manufacturing centres in southern Phoenicia. These modes have been selected because they also have the potential to reflect the variability of modes of production and the control of manufacturing processes across the region.

One factor which will affect the level of control of production is whether the commodity being manufactured 12

Peacock’s inclusion of ‘the factory’ are not mentioned as this mode of production arose during the Industrial Revolution. 13 This mode of production played a particularly significant role in the Roman economy.

31

Phoenician Amphora Production in the Southern Levant Diversity is a concept borrowed from population ecology to describe the ‘richness’, or variety, of distinct formal types produced at manufacturing centres (Leonard and Jones 1989; Pool 1992; Rice 1989; 1991). It is often regarded as an indirect indicator of whether production was attached to a state institution, or whether it was operating within a market forces environment. The notion is based on the hypothesis that if a manufacturing centre produces a relatively wide variety of commodities, it is acting in response to market forces, and catering for the varied demands of consumers. If a manufacturing centre produces few types of commodities, production may be controlled by a state institution. In this manner it could ensure that manufacturing centres under its control would specialise in producing only those commodities which fulfilled its requirements. This is based on the hypothesis that the requirements of an institution would be less varied than those of regional consumers generally.

form, decoration and colour (e.g. Arnold and Nieves 1992). If production is taking place in an attached environment, under the auspices of an elite institution, a high level of product uniformity could reflect a high level of quality control on product shape and form imposed by the patron. Recent research indicates that artisans in manufacturing centres in the ancient Near East may not have been able to sustain a high level of product uniformity at a manufacturing centre over a long period of time. Analysis of bowls of the same shape and size at the Bronze Age site of Tell Leilan in Syria, where artisans were probably specialists and repeatedly manufactured the same items in large quantities, reveals that their commodities became more variable over time, a phenomenon which is termed ‘cumulative blurring’ (Blackman et al. 1993, 74-76). This may result from the natural variation in clay deposits excavated over time and differences in the abilities of potters from one generation after another.

Uniformity is a term used to describe the decreased variability of attributes of shape, paste, decorative treatments and production technology of manufactured goods.14 A high level of uniformity can be viewed as a sign of a relatively high level of control over production. It would be expected that skilled, full-time artisans could achieve this high level through the mechanical repetition of the production processes on numerous occasions (e.g. Longacre et al. 1988; Schiffer and Skibo 1997).15 The level of uniformity can be a matter of personal interpretation however. Bevelled rim bowls of Uruk, for example, are considered by some scholars to be morphologically uniform enough to be ‘ration’ bowls produced by a state institution (e.g. Johnson 1973; Nissen 1970). Others consider it is more likely to be a homemade product, exhibiting a relatively low level of uniformity (e.g. Beale 1978).

Lower levels of uniformity (i.e. ‘variability’) may be considered to reflect a lower level of control of production at a manufacturing centre. It could also be the result of artisans who were part-time specialists (e.g. Benco 1986); or potters who lacked the skill to replicate the form, perhaps as it was not a frequent activity. It could also be that the number of producers was large (Rice 1989, 111). Presumably low levels of uniformity would not be acceptable to a patron in an attached setting, where the patron would apply some level of quality control over the production process, but they might be tolerated in an independent setting where quality controls might not always be considered necessary. A further mode of production which I explore in this study is scale of production. This notion can include the quantities of output and levels of labour and resources (e.g. Pool 1992, 306-307; Rice 1987, 180-181). I attempt to assess primarily the relative volume of output at different manufacturing centres across the region. This may be viewed as an indirect indicator of variability within the organisation of the regional economy, where some centres may manufacture goods in far greater quantity than others. Gaining a regional perspective on variability of the scale of production is challenging for the archaeologist, and inferences can be ‘confounded by differences in length of occupation, rates of sediment accumulation, and breakage rates at different locales and for different vessel classes’ (Pool 1992, 307). If archaeologists are fortunate enough to uncover a manufacturing centre, the published data will relate predominantly to that centre alone. As mentioned above, the discovery of manufacturing centres in archaeology is relatively rare. Even when they are found, not all the data may be published which are necessary for an assessment of the scale of production, including quantification of artefacts at the site. In this study I attempt to gain a broader regional perspective on production through archaeological and artefactual data gathered from a relatively large number of sites in the region. Admittedly,

A high level of uniformity may also be viewed as a result of decisions taken by those in control of production to suppress individual style and preference (e.g. Costin and Hagstrum 1995, 622-623; London 1991a; 1991b). If production is being conducted in an independent manufacturing environment, where market forces are in operation, a high level of product uniformity may result from the desire to cut costs and time, as well as produce vessels which are instantly recognisable to consumers in 14

I use the term ‘uniformity’ in preference to the more usual ‘standardisation’ in response to concerns expressed by Rice who believes ‘standardisation’ is ‘a fairly “loaded” term involving complex economic decision-making and operating over time’, as well as being an attribute which is ‘best measured through time and through large-scale comparisons’. Uniformity, on the other hand, she considers ‘a static, qualitative characteristic of a set of manufactured products’, carrying no implications about the intensification of the process (Rice 1996, 179). As this study does not aim to be a diachronic analysis, I consider the term ‘uniformity’ more appropriate here. 15 Nevertheless, part-time, domestic potters may also manufacture highly similar goods if they use measuring tools, as ethnographic studies in Mexico have indicated (Arnold 1991).

32

Towards fresh insights into Phoenician commerce in the homeland controlling its redistribution, or whether it was ‘independent’ and operating under market forces reacting to supply and demand (e.g. Brumfiel and Earle 1987, 5-6; Knapp 1985a). In an environment of strong, centralised, political control, goods may be dispersed at certain localities through a redistribution mechanism administered by a state entity. The mechanisms of control may be characterised by rations which are allotted to selected persons within the society, a system which can involve a highly complex bureaucracy and administration. By this means those persons who are considered essential for the survival of the controlling regime can be sustained. This control of distribution may be only partial in the sense that it concentrates on control of only those goods which the state entity deems essential for its survival.

one may furnish only the broadest inferences from this approach. 1.2.3.3 Phoenician city-state manufacturing specialisation A comment made by Elayi states that ‘Phoenician cities had basically the same … economic interests … but some differences of detail distinguished each of them’ (Elayi 1980, 28). This may well be a valid statement, but up to the present little hard data exists which can be put forward to support this claim. Normally, with independent polities it would be expected that each would follow ‘its own course’ politically, economically and socio-culturally (Jidejan 1992, 7). City-states are normally defined as polities which are economically relatively self-sufficient and distinct from their neighbouring city-state (Charlton and Nichols 1997; Griffith and Thomas 1981). As the inhabitants of neighbouring city-states in Phoenicia would have access to somewhat similar local raw materials and climatic conditions undoubtedly they would adopt some economic strategies which were similar. Their access to the sea meant that fishing would have been an important activity for all Phoenician city-states. The cedar-forested hills behind the coast would encourage all the city-states to be involved in ship construction. All the city-states with Murex shells along their coastline would be able to establish dye-manufacturing facilities.

Otherwise, in a market-principle environment, where forces of supply and demand exist, a high level of centralised control of distribution could be exerted by private entrepreneurs, especially if there were a heavy demand for a particular commodity. In this eventuality one would expect the existence of prices, with fluctuations and price-setting. Contra the belief of Polanyi (1957), studies on ancient Near Eastern economies have highlighted evidence, primarily textual, that private enterprise and the notion of profit and money, supply and demand, markets and market-forces were present in the ancient Near East from at least the 3rd millennium BC (e.g. Powell 1999).16 In the following two millennia the features of profit and supply and demand continue to be evident in the Near East and Eastern Mediterranean region (e.g. Artzy et al. 1985; Knapp 1985a; Leemans 1950; Postgate 1979; Sherratt and Sherratt 1991; 1992; Stolper 1985).

Yet one would expect each city-state to adopt a different economic focus and methods of organisation, not least due to slight variations in environmental and ecological resources, and the differences caused by the varying approaches to economic matters by the inhabitants of each polity. Each city-state had its own monarchy and elite groups who would be able to decide, in the absence of a stronger power in the region, to adopt their own economic strategies. The inhabitants of Tyre, for instance, are renowned for being the main instigators of the expansion to the West. Apparently, the other Phoenician city-states were not so heavily involved. Even when imperial forces dominated the region, the city-states were able to express their own economic identity, as is indicated by each Phoenician city-state minting coins with distinctive motifs during, and after, the Persian period (Acquaro 1999; Betlyon 1982; Elayi 1978; 1994a; Kindler 1967; 1989; Stern 1982, 217-221). In this study I examine whether any evidence suggests that certain Phoenician city-states specialised in amphora production more than others.

At the other end of the spectrum of economic control, a relatively low level of distribution control can exist where distribution networks are more localised. Goods can be dispersed spatially to settlements across the region, with little or no interference from a state institution, possibly through freelance ‘middle-men’ who select their own distribution network on the basis of the demand for the commodities they are carrying (Brumfiel and Earle 1987, 5; Renfrew 1975). These can be indicated by the presence of markets where people from nearby settlements can come, perhaps on specific days of the week to purchase commodities from a central place (e.g. Hirth 1998). In a coastal setting low control of distribution could be viewed as ‘tramping’ from shore to shore, where ‘Every sailor, from captain to cabin-boy would have his bundle of merchandise on board, and merchants or their representative would travel with their wares’ (Braudel 1972, 107).

1.2.3.4 Modes of intra-regional distribution

16 A good example of the existence of profit and demand affecting supply comes from Old Assyrian texts, dated between c.1900-1830 BC. These record merchants making 100% and 200% profit, and elite consumers making specific demands to distributors concerning the characteristics of the commodity (in this case, textiles) which they particularly wanted (see summary in Kuhrt 1998).

As with commodity production, scholars have presented models to help explain the extent to which the distribution of goods was controlled in a regional setting in the ancient world. One such model is based on whether such distribution was ‘attached’ to a state institution which was 33

Phoenician Amphora Production in the Southern Levant distribution, is to supply goods and services to those localities of lower-order status (Glick 1997). From an intra-regional perspective, large multi-functional cities may function in this manner, which, with their improved organizational facilities, can service the needs of smaller settlements, though the transport of goods may not necessarily be direct. These ‘central places’ may spread evenly across the landscape, given no topographic features to distort the pattern, to minimize travel distance to obtain or transport commodities (e.g. Renfrew 1975, Figure 2).

According to a model which relates to the regional distribution of Roman pottery, it has been suggested that state-control distribution can be differentiated from market forces distribution by an assessment of the nature of the find-spots of the vessels (Peacock and Williams 1986, 61-63). The authors propose that state-controlled distribution of a specific commodity is indicated by their presence at sites with a specific function which served the state’s needs. Thus one would expect to see that commodity at find-spots such as palaces, forts or statecontrolled storage depots. It would not be found, in great numbers at least, at other localities such as villages, towns, and lower class residential areas of cities with which the state elite, military or cult officials would have relatively little connection. The presence of a marketforce distribution economy would, on the other hand, be suggested by the presence of a regionally widespread dispersal of that commodity at settlements of all sizes and function, and in contexts associated with elites and nonelites.

‘Gateway-communities’ are also identified in the Eastern Mediterranean, being seen as localities whose primary function is economic, and where the activities are focused on commodity distribution (e.g. Hirth 1978; Knapp and Cherry 1994, 134-135). The term relates particularly, though not exclusively, to sites which aid the movement of goods between regions of differing cultural complexity. Knapp has defined ‘gateway-communities’ as ‘specialized trading centers … at strategic nodes where the production or flow of raw materials and goods can be controlled and where local exchange systems overlap with interregional systems’ (Knapp 1985b, 249). As the function is primarily economic, archaeological evidence for residential areas in these sites is relatively limited.

This model, although useful, has its limitations. Much depends on the commodity type being studied. For a commodity whose function was as a bulk container and transporter of goods, its context of deposition could be at the culmination of multiple occasions of re-use and after numerous journeys. Vessels which had been used by an institution could find their way to localities which were not linked with a state entity, once their primary purpose (i.e. as a container of foodstuffs, unguents etc.) had been achieved and their contents consumed. Another factor to consider is that in the case of the co-existence of a ‘dual’ distribution mechanism, the commodity could be distributed through a state-controlled distribution network at the same time as through private mechanisms. The result would be a blurred regional distribution pattern, where both mechanisms crossed over each other. It would not be possible to differentiate if a commodity as a state-associated locality was there through the agency of an attached or independent mechanism.

1.2.3.5 Other aspects of studied distribution A further aspect of distribution which I consider in this project is the specialisation in distribution of amphorae commodities, and the quantities in which they were being transported. At the beginning of his exposition of his Histories, Herodotus claims that Phoenician merchants sailing in Greek waters carried a wide variety of small items which had been manufactured in other countries (Herodotus I, 1). This was to serve the needs of a wide variety of consumers who happened to be at the place where they anchored, and with whom, presumably, the Phoenicians had no prior arrangements to deliver goods. Apparently, this was part of a market-principle distribution mechanism, with the Phoenician merchants responding to demands for their products which they gained knowledge of on previous ventures in that vicinity. The implication is from this text that Phoenicians in the Greek world carried a mixed, rather than specialist, cargo in their holds. Cargoes carried by Greek ships in the Classical period include quantities of amphorae of different forms, indicating that their ships carried specialist cargoes of amphorae which derived from a number of different locations (e.g. Bass 1972; Hadjidaki 1997). I examine to what degree Phoenician methods of transporting goods in the homeland region compares with the Greek ways.

Another facet of distribution relating to centralisation which is examined in this study is the attempt to identify specialist distribution centres, or ‘nodes’ of distribution. As mentioned above, these strategic localities have been differentiated in Phoenician-associated sites in the Central and Western Mediterranean. Scholars studying the distribution of manufactured goods in the ancient world have employed a plethora of terminology about places which could act in this manner. These include terms such as ‘central place’, ‘solar system’, ‘dendritic’ and ‘gate-waycommunity’ (e.g. Dilley 1996, 730; Hassig 1996, 10821082). In studies on trade in regions of the Eastern Mediterranean, the ‘central place’ has been a focus of research, incorporating the notion of commodities flowing in and out, either under a mechanism of state-controlled redistribution or under a market exchange mechanism (e.g. Renfrew 1975, 6, 41-44; Fig. 10). The aim of these central localities, at the head of a hierarchical system of

The excavation of Greek and Roman shipwrecks furthermore indicates that they were transporting amphorae in bulk (e.g. Koehler 1995; Parker 1992a, 1992b; Will 1977; 1992). Their quantity reflects the 34

Towards fresh insights into Phoenician commerce in the homeland large-scale consumption of their liquid contents, which is predominantly wine and olive oil, in these periods. This study looks at the archaeological and literary evidence and asks whether this might also be the case in Phoenicia in the Persian period.

commodity manufactured and distributed in southern Phoenicia from the 6th century BC bear out the current beliefs that economically Phoenician city-states such as Tyre was declining at this time? Another factor relating to Persian hegemony which is considered in this project is the behavioural patterns of the Persian elite, and the impact which they might have had on the Phoenician economic practices related to amphora manufacture and distribution. In particular I present the literary, epigraphic and archaeological evidence for their consumption of, and preference for, certain wines. Texts such as the Persepolis Fortification tablets and a discovery of a Persian stela in Egypt furnish insights into the quantities and types of wine consumed by the Persian elite at this time. The discovery of certain types of Phoenician amphorae in elite-associated contexts of deposition provides further support to the notion that the elite in the Levant were consuming the contents of these amphorae. I examine what impact these factors might have had on the modes of production and distribution of Phoenician amphorae.

1.2.4 Imperial impact on the Phoenician economy in the homeland Finally, my aim in this project is to assess the impact of domination by an imperial power on Phoenician activities relating to their organisation of production and intraregional distribution. Debates in the past have primarily centred on the impact of Egyptian, Neo-Assyrian and Neo-Babylonian empires, examining to what extent their impact could be considered negative or positive on the economy of the subject provinces (section 1.5.1). In this project, the focus is on the Persian (Achaemenid) empire (539-332 BC), to ascertain to what degree this imperial regime may be viewed as a driving force for development of manufacturing and distribution in the homeland, or whether its impact can be seen in more negative terms.

1.3 The amphora as the research focus

Indeed, Tyrian withdrawal from long-distance commerce across the Mediterranean in the 6th century BC is frequently perceived as a sign of the growing economic and political weakness of this city-state due to the negative impact of imperial domination (e.g. Aubet 1993; Baramki 1961, 60-66; Elayi 1981, 16-17; Frankenstein 1979, 291; Katzenstein 1973, 337-340, 347; Larsen 1979, 96; Tsirkin 1998). Phoenician activities in the Hellenistic period have received some scholarly attention which indicates that Phoenicia was gradually engulfed within the culture of the Greek world, eventually losing its distinct identity (e.g. Berlin 1997c; Grainger 1991; Stern 1995b). The period between the Iron Age and Hellenistic period has remained mainly a terra incognita regarding the Phoenicians, especially in their homeland region.

1.3.1 The choice of amphora type Although it has been stated that ‘there is no widely accepted definition of what an amphora is’ (Peacock and Williams 1986, 5), it is generally recognised that from the shape, size, narrow mouth and find-spot of these vessels, their function was predominantly that of bulk storage and transportation, especially maritime, of liquid foodstuffs (e.g. Garlan 1983; Grace 1961; Keay 1984; Peacock 1982; Peacock and Williams 1986; Whitbread 1995; for a detailed bibliography on amphorae, see Illsley 1996, 8596).19 As mentioned above, from a study of Persian period strata of site excavation reports in this region different types of amphorae appear regularly. By their morphology, some of these amphorae were clearly of East Greek origin, with the possibility of Cypriot imitations of Greek forms (e.g. Stern 1982, 113-114). Many others, whose provenance is less certain, display a distinctive morphological feature. They either have a shoulder carination (Lehmann 1996a, Form 393-396; 398-399; Sagona 1982, Types 2, 6, 8; Stern 1982, 107-110, ‘H’ group); or long bodies with huge basket-type handles (e.g. Lehmann 1996a, Form 421; Sagona 1982 Type 13; Stern 1982, 110-112, ‘I’ group).20

In recent years, however, a considerable amount of fresh data has been unearthed concerning the Phoenicians in what was the territory of southern Phoenicia during the Persian period. Numerous excavations have been conducted at sites along the southern portion of the Levantine coast and coastal plain which have revealed phases of habitation which date from the 6th to the 4th centuries BC.17 Of particular significance to this research are the results of excavations conducted at Sarepta, a coastal city situated between Tyre and Sidon. This tell was excavated in the 1970s and its remains have provided considerable data relating to a Phoenician industrial settlement, especially pottery manufacture from the Late Bronze to the Early Hellenistic period (Pritchard 1975; 1978; Koehl 1985; Anderson 1987; 1988; 1989; Khalifeh 1988; Pritchard 1988).18 Would a detailed analysis of a

A choice was needed for one of these two candidates to be the focus of this project. The selection was based on 19 For comments on the term ‘amphora’ as used in this study, see Preface. 20 Other bulk containers which exhibit rounded shoulders and ovoid-shaped bodies (e.g. Stern 1982, 104-105) and narrow cylindrical bodies (e.g. Stern 1982, 105-106, ‘G’ group) were observed too infrequently at sites in this region to be considered for this study.

17 For a summary of the excavations in Israel, see Stern 1993a. For the Persian period specifically see Stern 1982. 18 Further publications concerning the pottery manufacturing areas at Sarepta are in progress (J. Anderson, pers. comm.)

35

Phoenician Amphora Production in the Southern Levant might be in the vicinity of these sites.22

the following criteria: a)

b)

c)

d)

e) f)

A second reason for the selection of the carinatedshoulder amphora was that a few excavation reports included fabric analysis on some sherd samples from their ceramic assemblages. The analysts had suggested that the provenance of amphorae with this feature could be ‘Lebanon’ or ‘like Lebanon’ (Koucky 1989, 207-209; 444); or ‘Syro-Phoenician’ (Herzog et al. 1989, 265), or the hills to the east of Ashkelon (Cohen-Weinberger in Golani 1996a, 119, fn. 3). An amphora found at Tell elMaskhuta, Egypt has also been identified as ‘Phoenician’ on the basis of comparable elemental composition with a sherd from Tyre, though the elemental data from the Egyptian sherd remains to be published (Bieber 1978; Paice 1986/1987, 97).

Examples of the amphora type should have survived in sufficient quantity in the archaeological record to allow enough data to be gathered on which to base the research. Fragments of the amphora type should display formal attributes which make them easily recognisable in excavation reports and in storerooms; The date of their find-loci should be attributable with some degree of certainty to the Persian period, and the contexts from which they derive should be mainly considered by the excavators as ‘secure’. Their distribution should be widespread throughout southern Phoenicia, including any manufacturing sites, if they have been discovered, and contexts of deposition at sites of varying size and function. Their known distribution outside the Levant however should indicate that they might be less common in these areas. This clustering could be a reflection of proximity to the source. Any inscriptions on the amphorae should indicate a connection with the southern coastal Levant. Any previous fabric analyses should suggest a coastal Levantine source.

Thirdly, there was archaeological evidence for a possible carinated-shoulder amphora manufacturing in southern Lebanon. The published reports of excavation at Sarepta in Lebanon reveal archaeological remains associated with pottery production as well as illustrations of rim/shoulder fragments of amphorae with the distinctive carinated shoulder (e.g. Pritchard 1975, Fig. 23:17-20; Fig. 24:1,45). Their presence in Stratum B, which is dated by the excavators to 6th to 4th century BC, was particularly noteworthy (e.g. Pritchard 1988, type SJ-18, Fig. 43:5). No scientific analysis had been conducted on vessels with this attribute to determine whether they were of local manufacture. Because of the detailed publication of the finds at this site much vital information and quantification data is available for analysis concerning the scale of production at this centre, the types of goods manufactured, the extent to which the potters specialised in the types of vessels, and the level of uniformity (or ‘standardisation’) of the products being manufactured (section 6.3).23

The carinated-shoulder amphora form, i.e. amphorae with a vessel profile which displays a sharp angle where the body joins the shoulder (e.g. Figs. 4.1 and 4.2), was the preferred choice. This was firstly because the known distribution patterns of amphorae with this distinctive feature suggest that the distribution of amphorae with carinated-shoulders was widespread across the southern coastal Levant. This distribution pattern is suggested by the publications of Lehmann (1996a), Sagona (1982) and Stern (1982), which provide a résumé of pottery forms in this area, and site excavation reports.21 Additionally, terms such as ‘many’ and ‘numerous’ were sometimes used when the excavators were describing the quantities of these amphorae at their sites, indicating that these amphorae may have been relatively abundant in southern Phoenicia. This abundance could suggest that the manufacturing centre(s)

A fourth reason for the selection of this amphora type was the information furnished by painted Phoenician inscriptions on a few carinated-shoulder amphorae. Whether these inscriptions were applied on an occasion of reuse is unknown. Some inscriptions indicate that their contents had, at one stage in their life-history at least, been wine produced in the southern coastal Levant.24 An inscription on carinated-shoulder amphorae at Shiqmona, south of Haifa Bay, revealed that they had contained good 22

Recently published quantification data from Apollonia-Arsuf reveals that carinated-shoulder amphorae comprised a notable proportion (19.84%) of the common ware assemblage in Persian period Stratum 2 (Roll and Tal 1999, 103). 23 The other pottery kiln site in this region known to have manufactured amphorae during the Persian period is at Tel Michal (e.g. Herzog 1978, 128, pl. 23C; 1981, 121, pl. 22D; Herzog et al. 1978, 119-120; Shoval 1993). Because the amphorae produced at the latter centre were apparently not those with the carinated-shoulder feature, this centre has not been examined in detail in this project. 24 Stamps impressed on handles do not occur on these amphorae as they sometimes do on East Greek amphorae (e.g. Grace 1961).

21

Carinated-shoulder amphorae have also been found at sites outside the southern coastal Levant, in Egypt, the northern coastal Levant, Jordan, Anatolia, Rhodes, Cyprus and Carthage (see references in Lehmann 1996; Sagona 1982, and more recently published examples including examples in Beirut (Jabak et al. 1998), Carthage (Morel 1995, upper photo on pl. 51; and Egypt (e.g. Aston 1994; 1999; French and Ghaly 1991, no. 19; Paice 1986/87). They do not appear to occur in these regions in the quantities in which they are recorded at southern Levantine sites. The vessels from regions outside southern coastal Levant are beyond the scope of this research.

36

Towards fresh insights into Phoenician commerce in the homeland the production, distribution and consumption of liquid foodstuffs.

quality wine from the Carmel region, which is still today famous for its wine production (Cross 1968; Elgavish 1968, pl. LX, nos 143, 144; Lemaire 1994a; Naveh 1987).

It is hardly surprising that amphorae needed to be manufactured in Phoenicia. The Levantine littoral comprises rich agricultural land and a climate well suited for the production for liquids such as olive oil and wine (e.g. Bikai 1992c; Brown 1969). Indeed, archaeological remains of the Iron Age, during the period of Assyrian and Neo-Babylonian domination, reveal that agricultural techniques in the southern Levant improved considerably to allow for increased production of food (Borowski 1987). The study of the distribution of foodstuffs relating to the carinated-shoulder amphorae places this project within the setting of our current understanding of the Eastern Mediterranean where the movement of staples is viewed as becoming increasingly significant, especially during the latter part of the second millennium and the first millennium BC (e.g. Knapp 1991; Sherratt and Sherratt 1991; 1992).

Carinated-shoulder amphorae of certain forms have been unearthed in find-loci which can be dated with relative certainty to the Persian period. They have been found alongside imported Greek wares (e.g. Black-Figure, RedFigure and Black-Glazed wares) which can be dated to the 6th to 4th centuries BC with relative accuracy (e.g. Marchese 1989a; 1989b), as well as with coins which were minted during the Persian period (e.g. Acquaro 1999; Betlyon 1982; Kindler 1967; Elayi 1978; 1994a). Examples of amphora forms with the carinated-shoulder feature are also found in contexts of deposition dating to the Iron Age and Early Hellenistic period, though these have a different body profile to those which characterise Persian period strata (e.g. Lehmann 1996a, Pl. 112, Ass. 1-5 for Iron Age forms; Briend and Humbert 1980, Pl. 7:6-9 and Stern et al. 1995b, Fig. 6.38 for Early Hellenistic forms) (see pls. 21-25 for some examples). The forms studied in this project are found predominantly in find-loci dated by associated objects to the Persian period.

A variety of evidence indicates that carinated-shoulder amphorae could contain wine. An inscription on an amphora has been mentioned above which states that it had contained wine from the Carmel hills. Another carinated-shoulder amphora, recovered at Gaza, bore an inscription which said it contained ‘waxed’ or ‘strong’ wine (Naveh 1987, 27, 29, pl.2). Residue analysis on the contents of carinated-shoulder amphorae from a wreck near Philadelphia village off the Western Galilee coast identified grape wine (Raban 1976). Although this evidence suggests that carinated-shoulder amphorae were frequently used to carry wine, this may not always have been the case, or not at least on Cyprus. An inscription on a carinated-shoulder amphora recovered from Kition may suggest that it contained olive oil, though the translation is uncertain, and it could be a person’s name (Guzzo Amadasi and Karagheorgis 1997, D7, 135-136; Masson and Sznycer 1972; Szcyner 1984, 120-121, pl. XXII:11-12). During the data collection for this research I found no evidence to contradict the notion that these amphorae had originally held wine. There was no staining on the inner walls, which would presumably have been left if the vessels had contained resins or fish paste.

The ‘basket-handle’ amphora was also a strong candidate for this study as ceramic studies and excavation reports suggested that this large container vessel, with two huge handles rising vertically from the shoulders of the body wall, can be found in large quantities at southern Levantine sites (e.g. Humbert 1991; Salles 1991a, 225231; Stern 1982, 110-112). Fabric analysis of a baskethandle sherd from Tel Michal indicated that one example at least was manufactured in the southern coastal Levant (Goldberg et al. 1989, 266). However, this amphora form was rejected predominantly because other fabric analyses indicate that the sources of this bulk ceramic container could include localities other than southern Phoenicia. Cyprus appears to have been a major source of this amphora form (e.g. Bennett and Blakely 1989, 213; Gunneweg and Perleman 1991). The possibility existed therefore that this was a Cypro-Phoenician, as well possibly being a Phoenician commodity. This made this amphora a less suitable candidate for an investigation into purely Phoenician patterns of production and distribution.

A study of carinated-shoulder amphorae therefore may be seen as bound up with the production and distribution of wine.25 The scale of production and regional distribution of these amphorae may also be viewed in connection with the demand for wine and the level of its consumption. The contexts of deposition of these amphorae may be able to furnish information as to the identity and social status of those who had consumed their contents. As Phoenicia was under Persian hegemony at the period when carinated-shoulder amphorae were manufactured, insights may be gained into the effects of Persian domination on wine production and distribution. The significance of

1.3.2 Implications of choosing an amphora as the research focus As Greene has pointed out concerning Roman amphorae, any study on these bulk containers is really a study of ‘the trade in their perishable contents such as wine, oil or fish sauce, not a trade in pots’ (Greene 1986, 162). In the Greek and Roman periods amphorae are especially associated with maritime transportation of foodstuffs, including wine, olive oil and fish sauces, as well as shells, nuts, olive pits, grape pips, fig seeds - and even dried meat (Parker 1992a, 92-93). By choosing the amphora as the focus of the research information is also gained indirectly concerning

25 Such a hypothesis would benefit from further residue analysis – see section 8.4.

37

Phoenician Amphora Production in the Southern Levant food in the Persian empire is a subject which has been investigated previously with regard to the effects of war, tribute and taxes (e.g. Briant 1988; 1994; Tuplin 1987). Wine also played a role in a complex state redistribution mechanism established in the Persian homeland and was consumed in quantity by the Persian elite (see section 8.2.1).

sol dans une région déterminée, les revenues du commerce, ceux des impôts, des troupeaux et les produits des autres entreprises’ (Book II, 4).26 Apart from this reference, there is little indication as to the extent to which the Persian king was actively engaged in commercial activities in this area of the Eastern Mediterranean, though royal workshops under satrapal guidance have been proposed for Memphis, Egypt (Aime-Giron 1931, 58-61).

Finally, one must add that amphorae are just one of a number of vessel types which were manufactured by the Phoenicians (e.g. Anderson 1990; Bellard 1992). The patterns of production and distribution ascertained in this research apply to this vessel type alone. They are not necessarily applicable to other vessel types, each of which will require its own research project to ascertain the characteristics of its production and distribution in the southern Levant at this period.

There is greater evidence concerning the personal involvement of satraps in production and distribution of commodities in the provinces. One of the main responsibilities of a satrap was to ensure sufficient stocks of goods, including foodstuffs, which would be required by the empire. Depots of foodstuffs are recorded near Sidon (Diodorus Siculus XVI, 41), with wine noted as being one of the commodities stored at such storage localities (Xenophon, Anab, III.4.31). Satraps are known to have produced wine on their own estates. This is mentioned in the correspondence of Arsham, satrap of Egypt (Driver 1957, XII). Additionally, Arsham employed ‘all sorts of craftsmen’, indicating he controlled the manufacture of some goods (Driver 1957, VII). The correspondence of Arsham is highly instructive of the level of interest shown by the satrap in what might be considered administrative and economic minutiae. He gives detailed instructions concerning the repair of a boat, and the storage of items relating to that repair (Grelot 1972, no.61). This was not near the capital Memphis, but at Elephantine, nearly 700 km to the south of the capital city, where an imperial military outpost was situated. Generally, the Persian empire is characterised by its very close supervision of provincial matters by central political institutions, made easier by improvements in communication and the use of fast messengers who crossed the empire (Briant 1996, Chapter IX; Tuplin 1987). The likelihood is therefore that the production and distribution of any commodity considered significant for the empire would be monitored closely, if not subject to the direct involvement of satraps, even if these activities took place some distance from the satrap’s residence.

1.4 Phoenician economic strategies in the homeland 1.4.1 Control of the Phoenician economy A focus of this study on commodity production and distribution in the Phoenician homeland is an exploration of the extent to which they were under centralised control. Phoenicia is often considered to have been a ‘decentralised’ society. Politically the Phoenician city-state was possibly divided into several powerful sectors who could have been involved in economic affairs: the king, the temple, the councils of elders and possibly popular assemblies (Elayi 1987, 21-54). In addition there were others of the ‘middle class’, plus foreigners and slaves (e.g. Elayi 1980; 1982; Markoe 2000, 90-92). The control of production and distribution of goods could therefore have been diffused across many sectors (or ‘actors’) of society without recourse to other persons or institutions (e.g. Mann 1986, 190-195). The potential for heterogeneity of economic control in Persian period Phoenicia was therefore considerable. The notion of a decentralised Phoenician economy is supported by the comments of a Greek writer, Pseudo-Aristotle, who was writing at the end of the 4th century BC. In his Oeconomica, PseudoAristotle describes the economy within the Persian empire as being controlled by four entities, three of which are elite, and one which could include the activities of the non-elite (Von Gröningen and Wartell 1968, Book II, 28; see Briant 1994, 73-76). They are: a) the Great King (of Persia); b) the satrap (or governor) of the provinces into which the empire was divided; c) the city; and d) private enterprise.

According to other contemporaneous documentary sources, kings of Levantine city-states controlled production and exchange in their polities to some degree. The famous Tale of Wenamun, a story written in the 11th century BC, at the end of the 20th Dynasty when Egypt’s power and influence was weakening, relates the adventures of an Egyptian nobleman attempting to acquire cedar wood from the king of Byblos for the High Priest of Amon, Herihor, in Egypt (e.g. Goedicke 1996). It seems the king of Byblos controlled the supply of cedar and trade routes and possessed a fleet of at least seventy ships. Reference is made in the text to a special trading relationship (hubur) between cities along this coast and the Egyptians, including the governor of lower Egypt

The Persian king, possessing ‘absolute power’, was able to raise revenues through regulating ‘les monnaies, les exportations, les importations et les dépenses’ (Book II, 2-3). These he received through the offices of the satrap. The satrap, on the other hand, had six forms of revenues he could control: ‘ceux de l’agriculture, les produits particuliers du

26

A customs account at an Egyptian port, written in the 5th century BC, records that the treasury of Egypt benefited from the harbour taxes imposed on foreign ships (section 7.7.1).

38

Towards fresh insights into Phoenician commerce in the homeland Smendes and a private person in Tanis.

king, as a symbol of their control, a custom started by Ba’lshallim I (Betlyon 1982). When Phoenician coins were first minted, they were in silver and therefore probably used for large payments, though to what extent they were used to help finance commercial ventures is unknown. By the 4th century coins of bronze were being minted, suggesting that their use was changing, encompassing smaller transactions. Whether this may also reflect a change in who was controlling production is uncertain.

At the beginning of the first millennium BC Phoenician kings were using treaties with neighbouring kings to control inter-regional trade. If we consider the Old Testament account historically admissible, a treaty was arranged between Hiram I of Tyre and Solomon of Israel which allowed Hiram to acquire foodstuffs (grain, olive oil and wine) for consumption by those attached to the palace (I Kings 5, 8-11). In return, Hiram gave cedar and pine wood which he would arrange to be hauled from Lebanon, floated on rafts along the coast, and off-loaded at a specified location. The wood could then be transported overland to Jerusalem.

Other commodities which coastal Levantine kings probably controlled include artefacts of ivory. The discovery of the name of a Tyrian king of the 8th century, Milki-ram, on an ivory staff or sceptre butt in a palace in Mesopotamia seems to indicate a royal connection with the manufacture of this object (Barnett 1982, 52). Ivory would have been a prestige item, being of an exotic material and with ‘added value’ of decoration undertaken by skilled craftsmen (Hermann 1986; 1996; Winter 1975; 1976; 1981). It was also a commodity recorded on tribute lists, which suggests that tight control of production would have been required to meet these imperial demands. Royal control of its manufacture would therefore seem likely.

In addition to treaties, Hiram also organised long-distance commercial ventures with monarchs of other polities to control inter-regional trade. In the Hebrew Biblical account, Hiram and Solomon together purportedly organised expeditions to Ophir and Tarshish to acquire valuable and exotic commodities (Bikai 1992, 47; Elat 1979, 540; I Kings 10, 11-12, 22). These expeditions were regular occurrences, taking place ‘every three years’ (I Kings 10, 22). Whether the caravan trade from Phoenicia to northern Syria and Anatolia which took place at this time too was conducted through royal enterprise cannot be confirmed at present (e.g. Aubet 1993, 101, fig. 18; Kestemont 1985, 138-139; Oppenheim 1967; Röllig 1992, 101). According to Hebrew writers, Phoenician kings could become exceedingly wealthy through their commercial ventures. Ezekiel describes the Tyrian king as, ‘By your great skill in trading you have increased your wealth’ (Ezekiel 28:5, New International Version).

Documentary sources reveal that, as well as monarchs, private individuals could also control trade in coastal Levantine city-states. Some merchants blurred the boundaries between private and royal by acting for the king and for their own benefit simultaneously. Late Bronze Age texts from the northern Levantine city of Ugarit reveal that Sinaranu, a merchant of the king, was granted a ‘duty-free’ status on the grain and liquid produce he imported from Crete (Liverani 1979, 1330; Rainey 1963, 317; Sasson 1966, 135). He was able to acquire a considerable personal fortune by operating in both private and palace-attached spheres of commerce. A letter from the same city also shows that private individuals could own ships, which could be used for trade. Correspondence between the king of Tyre and Ugarit concerns a Tyrian official who attempted to take an Ugaritic vessel for himself (Virolleaud 1965, 76-77, no. 58). This notion is confimed in a treaty made by the Assyrian King Esarhaddon, in which reference is made to ships owned by ‘the people of Tyre’ (ANET II, 533-534).

In his dealings with Solomon, the king of Tyre is said to have offered him the services of his own multi-talented craftsman artisan, Huram-abi, who was skilled in metalworking and dyed textiles. The manufacture of metals and textiles seems therefore to have been ‘attached’ to the Tyrian palace (I Kings 7, 13-14; II Chron. 2, 8-10). Attachment of metalworkers to kings is also recorded in Late Bronze Age texts from the city of Ugarit. Artisans in this city had no raw materials of their own, but received them from the royal stores. Once the products were manufactured, they were delivered to the royal stores (Heltzer 1982, 100).27 Another example of the power of the king to control metalworking relates to the minting of coins. Phoenician city-states began minting coins in the 5th century BC (Acquaro 1999; Betlyon 1982; Elayi 1978; 1994a). Each city-state possessed its own specific dies and motifs as an expression of its autonomy and prestige. The Sidonian kings used coinage as an overt expression of loyalty to the Persian regime, with the city-state monarch depicted standing behind the Persian king in his chariot (e.g. Betlyon 1982, 10). From the end of the 5th century BC some dies included abbreviated names of the

According to Hebrew writers describing events in the late 7th and early 6th centuries BC, private individuals in Tyre could become immensely wealthy, their riches rivalling those of princes (e.g. Isaiah 23:8). To what extent people of lower social status, or foreigners, who were also resident in Phoenicia, may have controlled economic activities remains uncertain. The discovery of workshops attached to houses in strata at Al-Mina dated to the 5th/4th centuries BC, suggest that, at some localities along the coastal Levant, household production could take place, though whether the commodities were being manufactured for the benefit of the individual or a citystate institution is unknown (Woolley 1938, 12-13).

27

This system may be compared to the similar system ‘iskaru’ under the Neo-Assyrian empire (Postgate 1979, 205).

39

Phoenician Amphora Production in the Southern Levant both types of production could have existed simultaneously (Knapp and Cherry 1994, 8). Frankel admits that these two modes of organisation are probably a simplification of reality at this time, and cannot ‘take account of all the many dimensions and varieties of cultural and technological systems’ on the island (Frankel 1988, 29).

Recent discoveries at Beirut also indicate that households possessed their own production facilities (Elayi and Sayegh 2000). The discovery of two kilns in Area Y at Sarepta, a residential area of the city, may indicate that some private individuals had their own pottery manufacturing facilities, in addition to the nucleated workshop area on the west of the tell (Anderson 1987, 42). Whether any items of innate value, or prestige goods, or ‘exotica’ such as carved Tridacna shells, were manufactured under the control of private enterprise remains an open question at present. All one can say is that the potential existed for private individuals in Phoenician city-states to achieve considerable personal wealth. By the 8th century BC Heltzer, who bases his beliefs on inscriptional evidence, suggests that ‘in Phoenicia … we see the coming into being and development of the individual artisan, producing for his own profit’ (Heltzer 1990, 94). By the 4th century BC private citizens of Sidon could become immensely wealthy (Diodorus Siculus XVI.41.6).

Changes in the level of centralisation of pottery production over time are also noted on the island of Crete, though in this instance the reverse of what is observed on Cyprus seems to occur. Centralised palatial control of pottery manufacture is in evidence at Knossos during the height of the Late Bronze Age, especially in relation to the production of fine wares. From the latter part of the Late Bronze Age and the beginning of the Iron Age this level of control wanes, with a resurgence of regional variability of pottery forms taking place. This is considered to indicate that the economy was becoming more decentralised at this time (e.g. Haskell 1983). This decentralisation in economic matters appears to be reflected in many parts of the Eastern Mediterranean region in the first centuries of the first millennium BC (Sherratt and Sherratt 1992).

1.4.2 Centralisation of production in Phoenicia and the Eastern Mediterranean Although little research has been conducted on the level of centralisation of Phoenician production, the level of centralised control of pottery manufacture in the Eastern Mediterranean region has been a focus of study for scholars. This is especially with regard to Bronze Age and Iron Age Cyprus which had contacts with Canaan/Phoenicia in the Bronze Age and through the first millennium BC (e.g. Frankel 1988, 1991; Keswani 1991; Steel 1993). A relatively simple model has been proposed for ceramic production on the island during these periods which presents pottery manufacture as being centralised according to location. It is proposed that production took place at either urban centres under centralised elite control (as at Morphou (Toumba tou Skourou), Enkomi (Ayios Iakavos) and Kouklia (Palaepaphos); or specialist villages where production is more localised and smallscale than in the urban centres, and includes household production (Knapp and Cherry 1994, 8-9).

In Phoenicia itself it seems likely that the manufacture of products for the elite consumer could be concentrated in the urban areas in this region. An example of which may be the production of purple dye. The abundant presence of the Murex shell along the Levantine coast, and the discovery that it could exude a strong purple dye which was more valuable by weight than gold, encouraged manufacturing centres to develop at numerous settlements along the coast (e.g. Dor, Shiqmona, Sarepta and Sidon). In Area D1, near the harbour, at Dor a deep pit was found filled to the brim with crushed murex shells, with signs of lime which had been used to extract the dye from the mollusc (Stern and Sharon 1987, 208). At Sidon immense piles of Murex shells on the outskirts of Sidon indicate that not only was this probably a major commercial effort of the city elite, but it would have required complex organisation and administration (Doumet-Serhal 2000, 30, pl. 3). Metal-working too was conducted within the confines of an urban setting, remains of these activities having been found at Dor and Akko. Textiles were manufactured within settlements including Shiqmona and Dor, as is indicated by the presence of loom-weights of small round clay balls with holes through their centres (e.g. Elgavish 1993, figure on p. 1375, bottom right).

These two types are presented as being chronologically sensitive, with production becoming more centralised over time. This evaluation is based predominantly on statistical analyses, especially of the level of uniformity of dimensions and motifs of vessels recovered from sites across the island. In the Middle and Late Bronze Ages, although there seems to be an island-wide common tradition, vessel dimensions and motifs vary from region to region, suggesting a low level of centralised control (Frankel 1988, 1991; Keswani 1991). By the Iron Age this variability is notably reduced. Ceramic manufacture of the coarse, utilitarian wares is viewed as being mainly an organised industry rather than a domestic activity. This industry is described as producing pottery by means which are ‘highly standardised, both on an intra-site and intersite level’ (Steel 1993). It is however possible that this dichotomy is an over-statement of the situation and that

The location of archaeological remains in specific sectors of coastal settlements, as at Dor, Akko and Sarepta, suggest that city planning in the Persian period included the establishment of specialist industrial areas close to the harbour. At Dor an industrial quarter which included activities related to metalworking, the manufacture of purple dye, as mentioned above, and possibly glass making, weaving and spinning existed on the west of the tell near the harbour (Areas D1 and D2 – Fig. 3.11) (e.g. Stern 1994c, 194-200; Stern and Sharon 1987, 208; Stern 40

Towards fresh insights into Phoenician commerce in the homeland vessels of metal to a very high standard. Homer, describing events in the Iron Age, reports that at Petrokles’ funeral games, Achilles gave a silver mixing bowl as a prize which ‘for its loveliness, it surpassed all others on earth so far, since Phoenician craftsmen had wrought it well’ (Homer, Il, XXIII, 742-744). The Greeks also praised the high quality textiles dyed with the purple dye extracted from the Murex shells found on the Levantine shores. They especially favoured purple garments manufactured by Sidonian women (Homer, Il, VI, 289-292). Coloured garments are also commonly found in Assyrian tribute lists. Phoenician production of purple textile thus served the elite consumer in the Greek world as well as those in the Near East.

et al. 1990, 53). Area G at Akko, on the westernmost slope of the tell (Fig. 3.4), features workshops with pottery and metal slag dating from Iron Age II to the Hellenistic period (Dothan 1977). At Sarepta the majority of kilns and workshops excavated are also located on the west side of the settlement, in Sounding X, alongside remains of dye-making and olive crushing (Pritchard 1978, 74). This sector of the city is also nearest the coast. Although there seems substantial evidence to suggest that the centralisation of manufacturing of certain commodities within an urban setting is strongly characteristic of Phoenician production, it must not be forgotten that settlements are the primary focus of archaeologists in this region. Inevitably there will be an imbalance of data in favour of data from this context of deposition. Those directors who have adopted a wider spatial remit for their excavation area have sometimes uncovered signs of industrial activity outside the confines of the main settlement. Wine presses with three pressing floors, with an estimated capacity of 12,000 litres, were unearthed outside the city wall of Tel Megadim (Broshi 1967, 278; 1970). On a hill north of the main settlement area at Tel Michal evidence for industrial activities of metalworking, wine-making and pottery manufacture were found clustered together (Herzog et al. 1989, 88-89, 102, 110, 113).

In addition to using imported raw materials to serve elite consumer demand, the Phoenicians also produced high quality goods for the elite with local raw materials. According to writers of the Roman period, sand in the coastal area between Akko and Tyre was found to be suitable for the manufacture of glass (e.g. Strabo XVI.2.25). By using the core-formed technique and adding minerals to colour the glass, small but highly decorative unguent containers and beads were manufactured by the Phoenicians in the mid first millennium BC (McClellan 1984). Their quality made them particularly attractive to the female elite of the Near East, being found in the tomb assemblages of wealthy, well-adorned ladies (e.g. Johns 1993, p. 117, in photo top right).

1.4.3 Other aspects of production in Phoenicia The economies of Phoenician city-states seem to have focused to a considerable extent on the manufacture and transportation of goods for elite consumption. Indeed, a pool of very wealthy elite consumers would have existed within any imperial regime which governed Phoenicia, who would have wished to display their wealth, status and power through the objects they possessed. Phoenicians could fulfil some of the material desires of the imperial elite because of their inter-regional trading skills to acquire exotic and valuable raw materials and their level of craftsmanship. The Phoenicians were among few regions in the Near East which had long-established trade routes to the West and experienced merchants who able to acquire metals, ivory, and Tridacna shells, which were of interest to the imperial elite. Their artisans also were highly skilled artistically, producing items decorated to the highest standard, especially creating delicately carved, highly intricate motifs. The standard of skill their artisans display can be higher than of those craftsmen at inland areas such as Syria, judging by the standard of carving on ivory inlays of different styles (Winter 1975, 483). The quality of ivories manufactured in the Phoenician style ensured a heavy demand by the elite. Phoenician-style ivory inlays have been recovered in large quantities in the palaces of Assyrian kings (e.g. Barnett 1982). It seems the Phoenicians could adopt methods of manufacture which catered for large scale production of individually-made items while retaining a high level of artistic quality.

A further local raw material used for elite commodities was stone. Phoenician craftsmen carved stone sarcophagi with an anthropoid shape with stunning artistry, with human heads showing intricate hairstyles and some with carved flowers and fruit (e.g. Buhl 1959, 35-86; DoumetSerhal 1995; 1996). Often these were made of marble imported from Paros, though local granite from the vicinity of Arwad was also employed (e.g. Buhl 1959). Interestingly, there appears to be a stylistic differentiation between sarcophagi manufactured for the Arwad and Sidonian elite, suggesting that each city-state developed its own artistic and craftsman traditions (Kukahn 1959). Phoenician manufacture was not solely involved in the manufacture of goods for the consumer in the Near East and Eastern Mediterranean. They also produced those items which would assist in long-distance exchange. Faience objects were manufactured on Rhodes, probably for use as an exchange item across the Mediterranean (e.g. Markoe 2000, 158). These could be of high quality, or manufactured in quantity to a poor standard, presumably catering for the varying desires of consumers of varying social status and wealth. When the goods were made for those of lesser social status, or not intended for imperial elite consumption, the Phoenicians were content to mass-manufacture goods of poorer artistic quality, as is shown by the standard of artistry on ivories found in Carthage dating to the 7th century BC (Barnett 1982, 55). Faience objects which were made in vast quantities for

Likewise, Phoenician artisans were capable of working

41

Phoenician Amphora Production in the Southern Levant use as trade goods with local peoples across the Mediterranean, but could be of varying quality (Coldstream 1969; 1984; Markoe 2000, 158).28 The Phoenician approach to commodity manufacture seems highly pragmatic.

obscure. The term ‘gateway-community’, a locality which, as mentioned above, assisted the inter-regional distribution of goods, has also been applied to some sites associated with the Phoenicians. Knapp identifies Akko during the Late Bronze Age (Knapp 1989c, Fig. 1) and the settlement of Toumba tou Skourou on Cyprus (Knapp 1985b) as such localities. Hebrew writers confirm that, as well having their own ships in port, Phoenician city-state harbours received ships from many regions of the known world with goods for distribution. According to Isaiah, ‘Tyre … became the market-place of the nations’ (Isaiah 23:3). Ezekiel commented that ‘All the ships of the sea and their sailors came alongside to trade for your [Tyrian] wares’ (Ezekiel 27:9).

Essential for the success of the Phoenician economy were the forests of cedar trees which blanketed the mountains behind the coast. The inhabitants therefore had access to a major resource which allowed them to learn the skills involved in ship construction for building ships designed to carry cargo. Their expertise developed over millennia, reaching the level of developing methods of ship-building by pre-fabrication, with the pieces bearing instructions on them which indicated how the ship was to be assembled. A Carthaginian ship is known to have been assembled from parts which were pre-fabricated (e.g. Frost 1982).29 Effective organisation and pre-planning seem to be characteristic of the Phoenician approach to commerce.

Being located on the coast, Phoenician cities were in an ideal position to develop as trading intermediaries between areas of the Mediterranean and territories further inland. Harbours could be constructed near the settlements and their facilities improved considerably over the centuries during the first millennium BC (e.g. Raban 1997). They designed ships with round hulls, (‘gauloi’), especially for the purpose of carrying quantities of cargo (e.g. Bartolini 1999c, 86-87). Apparently, most were four times as long as they were broad and had a draught of about one and a half meters. Thus goods manufactured from sources across the Mediterranean could have been carried on Phoenician ships, off-loaded at Phoenician harbours and transported overland, possibly by wagon or mule train, through river valleys to Syria and on to Mesopotamia. Goods could also be transported in the opposite direction. According to Herodotus, goods which had been manufactured in Egypt and Assyria could reach the Greek world through Phoenician distribution networks (Herodotus I, 1).

1.4.4 Phoenician commodity distribution in the homeland region Studies relating to distribution activities of the Phoenicians have highlighted the presence of localities which acted as ‘central places’ where they could control the inter-regional distribution of goods (section 1.2.3.4). The terms used by scholars describing these localities are usually ‘port-of-trade’ (Dalton 1968; Revere 1957, 38-61) or ‘emporion’ (e.g. (Gras, M Dictionnaire 116-117). In the case of the ‘port-of-trade’ the term has been applied to independent kingdoms on the Mediterranean coast, including Ugarit, Tyre and Carthage whose main function was to act as an aid to the dispersal of goods. The ‘port-oftrade’ has been described as ‘a small state located on foreign territory and recognized internationally as neutral’ (Aubet 1993, 82). Thus the site characteristically features large warehouses and storerooms where the goods could be retained before dispersal. The activities at the site are suggested to be under state control, being regulated through treaties, rather than under the supervision of private individuals who are reacting to market forces. The term ‘emporion’ is a notion which rests on a Greek model, and the trading activities are conducted by professionals rather than under the scrutiny of a state institution. The exact nature of the distribution mechanisms within an ‘emporion’ or ‘port-of-trade’ in Phoenicia however remains

As far as can be ascertained at present, Phoenician ships could carry a mixture of goods. According to a Customs Account which records goods off-loaded from ships from Phoenicia in an Egyptian harbour during the 5th century BC, Sidonian ships brought in goods including cedar wood, wine, metal, wool and clay.30 They could also transport a variety of foodstuffs. The Greek writer Hermippos states that the Phoenicians were renowned for transporting food including ‘fruit of the date-palm and fine wheat-flour’ to the Greek world (cited in Wartenburg 1995, 12). Phoenicians developed over the millennia long-standing economic relationships with regions outside its political control, which presumably had considerable impact on their distribution networks. Egypt is a prime example (e.g. Leclant 1991). Phoenician city-states had been meeting the demand for good construction wood by exporting cedar logs to the Egyptian pharaoh since at least the 4th Dynasty, in the 3rd millennium BC. Paintings on the walls of Middle Kingdom tombs and New Kingdom tombs at Thebes in Egypt show Asiatics bringing goods into Egypt

28

For a distribution map of Phoenician commodities of high value, metal bowls, ivories and glass, in the Aegean and along the Italian coast, see Markoe 1996, Fig. 18. 29

This technique was also adopted with carved ivory panels intended for assemblage at some distance from the manufacturing centre. Marks on the backs of ivory plaques indicate that they craftsmen had worked out how the pieces were to be assembled into pieces of furniture and wall-covering and how to set down instructions for the fitters who were assembling them, presumably at some distance from the manufacturing centre (Barnett 1982, 48).

30

42

For more in-depth analysis of this text, see section 7.7.1.

Towards fresh insights into Phoenician commerce in the homeland during the second millennium BC. As mentioned above, in the text of Wenamun, dating to the end of the second millennium BC, a special trading relationship ‘hubur’ existed between Phoenician city-state monarchs and the pharaoh and private individuals in Egypt. By the 5th century BC Tyre had been able to create an enclave in Memphis, the capital city of Egypt (Herodotus II, 112). Their presence was clearly related to commerce as the enclave was situated near a temple dedicated to the god of artisans, Hephaestus. One assumes that during this longterm contact Phoenician merchants became well acquainted with the changing nature of consumer demand in that country and the changing centres of wealth and political power over the millennia. Presumably, if part of this trade was independent, they would have adapted to these changes by altering the types and quantities of goods they carried, and their distribution networks.

control of key-industries including bronze-working (Tubb 1988). Bienkowski, however, offers a more positive view of the effects of this empire (Bienkowski 1986; 1987). He views the materially rich areas in Canaan as being evidence for an economy which was flourishing, in part at least. Those areas which had close relations with Egypt he sees as especially benefiting. Those princes of vassal states brought up at the Egyptian court would have became aware of the high level of material culture in Egypt and the royal lifestyle of conspicuous consumption. This encouraged large-scale production in Canaan when the princes returned home, and as vassal leaders, they increased in wealth and status due to their relationship with pharaoh. Their conspicuous consumption however maintained ‘power relations within an economically impoverished and socially unstable country’, so this situation could only be temporary (Bunimovitz 1995, 326).

1.5 Foreign hegemony and Phoenician commerce in the homeland

After the decline of the Egyptian empire towards the end of the second millennium BC a power vacuum was left in the coastal Levant for several centuries. Tyre in particular expanded its commercial activities from the geographically narrow strictures of the Levantine coast and initiated long-distance ventures across the Mediterranean in search of new sources of trade and mineral wealth (e.g. Bikai 1987b, 1992a; Coldstream 1969; Frankenstein 1979; Negbi 1992; Shaw 1989; Sørensen 1997, 291), and into northern Syria and Anatolia (e.g. Aubet 1993, Fig.18; Kestemont 1972, 1985) and to Arabia and the Red Sea (e.g. Lemaire 1987). The precise date at which these ventures took place has been debated, as the documentary sources and archaeological evidence conflict. Their voyages of expansion westwards may have occurred in three phases, with voyages of exploration from the 10th century BC, followed by the establishment of permanent ports-of-trade or colonies from at least the 8th century BC, to the political rise of Carthage from the 6th century BC.31

1.5.1 Overview of some recent studies During most of the first millennium BC Phoenicia, as with all the Near East, fell under the influence of a series of foreign imperial regimes: Egyptian, Neo-Assyrian, Neo-Babylonian, Persian (Achaemenid), Early Hellenistic and finally, Roman (Table 1.1). The impact of the Egyptian, Assyrian and Neo-Babylonian empires on this region has come under particular academic scrutiny. Often the investigations hinge on the investigation into whether foreign domination caused Phoenician city-states to be drained of their resources, or whether it acted as an incentive to increase their commercial potential. The debates can be summarised as follows. First, Egyptian imperial control towards the Levant was established in the Late Bronze Age, or, in Egyptian terms, the period from 18th Dynasty to the late Ramesside. Archaeological remains at sites in the Levant reveal an interesting dichotomy at this time, with some areas in Canaan apparently flourishing with well-constructed cities, with evidence of abundant commercial activity, and goods of high value while, simultaneously, other areas appear to be impoverished. These data have been interpreted in two ways. According to Knapp, the impoverished areas are due to the negative effects of imperial domination, the result of Egypt’s aggressive policy of extracting considerable amounts of tribute and booty from subjugated vassals (Knapp 1987; 1989a; 1989b; 1989c). A good example of the quantity and variety of booty taken is depicted on the temple wall of Karnak at Luxor by Tuthmosis III, from a campaign in Syria (Sherratt and Sherratt 1991, Fig. 2). Knapp sees this as the removal of natural resources and manufactured goods from this region, either for consumption in Egypt or by Egyptian troops in Canaan, to the detriment of the local population. Tubb also views Egyptian imperial domination in negative terms, suggesting they kept

From the 9th century BC the Assyrians began to flex their imperial muscle in Mesopotamia once again, but it wasn’t till the reign of Tiglath-Pileser III (745-727 BC) that the population of the coastal Levant felt their military might. Neo-Assyrian policy towards the coastal Levant became one of direct territorial control by creating provinces, though Tyre apparently remained autonomous (Tadmor 1975, 39-40; Saggs 1984, 86-87). Imperial officials who had substantial powers were sent to the harbours at Tyre and Sidon. An official of Tiglath Pileser III informed his King that he had attempted to control Sidon’s trading networks by forbidding its people to sell their timber directly to Palestine and Egypt (Saggs 1955, letters XII and XIII). Presumably the Assyrians wanted to gain maximum revenues from taxes involving the movement of timber. The official reports that he had already levied taxes on the movement of timber, though when the taxes 31 For a helpful summary on this topic see Bunnens, in Lipinski 1992, 166-167.

43

Phoenician Amphora Production in the Southern Levant were set too high, civil unrest occurred (Postgate 1979, 206; Treumann-Warning 2000). The Assyrians also attempted to dictate the personal behaviour of Phoenician kings to highlight their subject nature. In a treaty of Esarhaddon (680-669 BC) with Baal, King of Tyre, the Phoenician king is informed that he must not open letters from the Assyrian king without the imperial official being present (Borger 1956, 108 Rs III:6-14).

rebellion collapsed (Na’aman 1998). Esarhaddon (680669 BC) arranged a treaty with the king of Tyre which suggests that he encouraged Phoenician commerce by granting the Phoenician monarch ports of trade and trade routes, presumably to benefit from the taxes which could be imposed on the movement of goods. The treaty states, ‘These are the ports of trade and the trade routes which Esarhaddon, King of Assyria, [entrusted] to his servant Baal: to Akko, Dor, to the entire district of the Philistines, and to all the cities within Assyrian territory on the seacoast, and to Byblos, the Lebanon, all the cities in the mountains, all (these) being cities of Esarhaddon’ with the aim of levying tolls ‘as in the past’ (SAA 2 no.5). Admittedly, this text could also be seen as a limitation exercise, restricting Tyre’s control of trade to just those specified routes.

As was usual for imperial rule, tribute was set and the provinces had to gather large quantities of foodstuffs, including flour and wine, for imperial troops and provincial administrators. After the reign of Sargon II (722-705 BC) tribute was set more regularly as the economic potential of the subjugated provinces became of increasing interest to the Assyrian rulers (e.g. Kestemont 1985; Saggs 1984). For the Phoenician city-states this could involve handing over large quantities of silver and gold, ivory and dyed garments, all of which were of high value (Frankenstein 1979; Oded 1974; Winter 1975, fig. 7). Scholars who view Assyrian hegemony as deleterious have suggested that it acted as an economic parasite to those regions on the periphery of empire (e.g. Larsen 1979, 96). Those areas which had previously been wealthy and thriving are noted as declining as the Assyrians failed to ‘encourage initiative and local industry’, with no thought to long-range schemes and profits (Grayson 1991, 216-217). To some scholars the brutality of Assyrian military operations and deportations were a significant factor in having a negative effect on the economy of the provinces (e.g. Moscati 1999, 43-44; Oded 1974).

Nevertheless, Assyrian rule seems to have encouraged the development of techniques of mass-production. At Ekron, in the Shephelah hills, a huge industrial centre developed at this time, in this case involved in the mass-production of olive oil (see section 1.5.2). When commodities were for imperial elite consumption, Phoenician artisans were able to retain a high level of artistic quality, even when manufactured in large quantities, as the beautifully carved ivory inlays found at the palace of Fort Shalmeneser and Nimrud indicate. The implication may be that they were able to train a large number of artisans to a high standard in this technique to achieve these individually carved objects. After the decline of the Neo-Assyrian empire, and a brief interlude at the end of the 7th century BC where Egypt gained prominence in the area again, the Near East came under the suzerainty of the Neo-Babylonian empire. For Tyre, which reportedly suffered a thirteen-year siege under Nebuchadnezzar (Josephus Contra Apionem 1.21), the effects could have been devastating. From this period onwards, Carthage and the settlements in the Central and Western Mediterranean established by the Phoenicians clearly develop their own distinct form of ‘Punic’ material culture. This has been taken to be a sign of the growing weakness of Tyre due to the negative effects of imperial domination (e.g. Aubet 1993; Baramki 1961, 60-66; Elayi 1981, 16-17; Frankenstein 1979, 291; Katzenstein 1973, 337-340, 347; Larsen 1979, 96; Tsirkin 1998). This view perhaps fails to take into account historical references which suggest that a continuity of Phoenician ruling elite and sustained activity by Phoenician merchants active at this time. A listing of provincial rulers at the NeoBabylonian court c. 570 BC includes kings of Tyre, Sidon, Ashdod, Arvad and Gaza. Tyrian sailors are also noted as attending the Neo-Babylonian court between 595 and 570 BC and being given rations (Unger 1931/1970; ANET 307-308). Goods were still being transported from the Levantine coast to Mesopotamia and Phoenicians could attain high office within the imperial administration. The chief merchant of Nebuchadnezzar II had a Phoenician name, Hananu (Oppenheim 1967). Traditions and commercial patterns in this region also continue, apparently passing from the Assyrian period,

This is one view, but in recent studies more positive effects of Assyrian rule on Phoenician commerce have been highlighted. Assyrian domination is seen as stimulating further Phoenician long-distance commercial ventures (e.g. Frankenstein 1979, 271; Kestemont 1985, 147-148; Kopcke 1992, 106; Kuhrt 1995, 410; Postgate 1979; Markoe 2000, 98).32 The period between the 8th and 7th centuries BC was the zenith of Phoenician westward expansion, stretching to the far corners of the Mediterranean basin and beyond. They also traded northwards to Cilicia at this time, where Phoenician inscriptions have been found (Lipinski 1985, 1995; Röllig 1992, 97-98; Winter 1979, 127-128, 137 fn.96). This has been particularly related to the imperial demand for metal and for tax revenues, and the extension of mining activities on Cyprus, Crete and Sardinia, and opening up mines in Cadiz (Frankenstein 1979, 272-273). Imperial forces could also assist the endeavours of those vassal states which supported the regime. At the time of Sargon II, Tyre ruled much of Cyprus. When unrest occurred on the island, Shilta, king of Tyre, who may have been installed on the throne by the Assyrians, called for imperial military aid. This was duly granted and the 32

Why all Phoenician city-states were not similarly affected and as involved as Tyre in the expansion to the West has yet to be explained.

44

Towards fresh insights into Phoenician commerce in the homeland through the Neo-Babylonian, to the Persian period (Dandamayev 1997; Salles 1994). This does not seem to reflect a decline in Tyrian activities under NeoBabylonian hegemony. Interestingly, a recent seriation study on ceramic forms has observed a break in ceramic traditions in the early 6th century BC, concurrent with this rule. This suggests some cultural changes as regards food preparation and eating patterns may have occurred at this time (Lehmann 1996a; 1998). The nature and meaning of these changes await further investigation.

350 talents annually to the imperial coffers. Some scholars have proposed that Persian domination had a considerable impact on the economies of those provinces within its sway, due to the increasing regularised demands for taxes, tribute and wars, especially of the 4th century BC (e.g. Briant 1988, 1996; Elayi 1990a, 66-70; 1990b; Leith 1997; Tuplin 1987). Local industries including purple dye production and metal-working were taxed and tolls and customs taxes were imposed on land and sea trade.

1.5.2 The impact of the Persian empire on Phoenician commerce and liquid foodstuffs production

One facet of the economy of the provinces which was certainly affected to some degree by Persian hegemony was food production. Imperial demands for food concerned meeting the needs of the elite, the bureaucracy and military.34 Food and drink had regularly to be provided for provincial governors (e.g. Ezra 7:21; Nehemiah 5:17). When the imperial army was on the move, the forces had to be provided with food and drink in large quantities (Herodotus VII, 117-118). Xerxes ordered depots for foodstuffs to be founded along the route to be taken by his forces on his campaign against Greece (Herodotus VII, 25). When Artaxerxes III was preparing to attack Egypt, 500 ships on the Levantine coast were loaded with goods for the army (Diodorus Siculus XVI.40). On a more permanent basis, waystations were set up along the main roads which crisscrossed the empire. These were kept stocked with foodstuffs for redistribution to military personnel, imperial messengers and others of imperial status (e.g. Herodotus VIII, 98; Briant 1996, Chapter IX; Kuhrt 1995, 692-693). These demands must have resulted in an increase in the demand and production of liquid foodstuffs, and the need to sustain the capability of food producers to meet this demand over two centuries (Briant 1988, 173,177; 1996; Leith 1997; Salles 1994; Tuplin 1987).

An overall impression of Persian hegemony is that, despite imposition of taxes, tribute and military demands, ‘it was the Persian way to use existing institutions and seek to harness the energies and interest of the native dominant classes to their own ends’ (Tuplin 1987, 112). It was apparently not their policy to interfere in the administration of the economies of the provinces to a considerable degree. Unlike the Assyrian empire, they did not convert parts of the coastal Levant into a directly-ruled imperial province, nor did they create harbour cities (as with KarEsarhaddon near Sidon) through which they could control maritime commerce. Phoenician city-states continued to be ruled by their own dynasties, and private businesses were allowed to flourish. An example of a flourishing private family business in the Persian period is recorded in the Murashu archive. These letters are the correspondence of a land-renting business in Babylon written in the first half of the 5th century BC (Cardascia 1952; Stolper 1985). This family was able to lease and manage land granted to soldiers and landed estates which belonged to members of the royal family and court personnel, apparently without any direct imperial supervision or involvement.

Of particular interest to this project is the impact of Persian imperial domination on the production and distribution of wine. Wine and olive oil are recognized as playing a significant role in trade in the Eastern Mediterranean region from the Early Bronze Age (e.g. Heltzer 1993; Knapp 1991; McGovern et al. 1995; Renfrew 1972, 281-282, 285; Salles 1991a; 1994; Sherratt and Sherratt 1991; Stager 1985). In the Iron Age there is evidence that the production of both these liquids increased dramatically when the region was under Assyrian and Neo-Babylonian hegemony. This was made possible through technological innovations relating to agriculture (Borowski 1987; Briquel-Chatonnet 1992). A large well-constructed winery discovered in the heart of Ashkelon, which was operating in the 7th century BC, indicates that large-scale wine production was conducted in an urban environment, probably to allow close supervision by the elites (Stager 1996b; 1996c).

In addition, Phoenician city-states were not prevented from trading with regions outside the Persian empire, even with those localities which had been the political and military enemy of the Persian king. In the 4th century BC the king of Sidon, Straton I/’Abd-‘ashtert, maintained strong ties with Athens. In gratitude for the Sidonian king’s assistance in easing the passage of Athenian ambassadors to the Persian king, Athens passed a decree granting Sidonian merchants special exemptions from certain Athenian taxes (Tod II no. 139). The Persian kings however created a system in the early 5th century BC whereby the empire was divided into 20 satrapies (provinces), to be governed by Persian satraps (Table 1.2). Phoenicia was placed into the 5th satrapy, ‘Beyond-the River’ with Syria and Cyprus.33 Each satrapy was allotted to provide a specific quantity of tribute for the imperial chest (Herodotus III, 89, 91). Together, the areas within the 5th satrapy had to provide

34

In the Persian empire a complex ration system existed to provide this, as is recorded in the Persepolis Fortification tablets (section 7.4 and 8.2.1).

33

There is insufficient evidence to be certain whether the satrap who governed the 5th satrapy lived in Damascus or in Sidon.

45

Phoenician Amphora Production in the Southern Levant

TABLE 1.2 PRINCIPAL EVENTS CONCERNING PHOENICIA IN THE PERSIAN PERIOD (Main bibliographical references used: Briant 1996; Kuhrt 1995; articles by Cuyler Young, Eph’al, Kuhrt, Maier, Hornblower in CAH IV &VI)

Date

Event

539 BC 525 BC

Cyrus, King of Persia claims control over Phoenicia when he conquers the Neo-Babylonian empire. Cambyses, King of Persia, conquers Egypt, Phoenicia’s long-standing trading partner. His forces, including Phoenician ships, probably mustered along the Phoenician coast prior to the attack - ‘the whole [Persian] navy was dependent on the Phoenicians’ (Herodotus III, 19). Administrative reorganization divides the Persian empire into satrapies (provinces), with allotted amounts of tribute. Phoenicia is part of ‘Beyond-the-River’, the 5th satrapy, combined with Syria-Palestine and Cyprus, and initially, Babylonia. Their tribute is set at 350 talents annually. Dor and Jaffa are given to the Sidonian King Eshmunezer by the Persian king. Egypt rebels unsuccessfully against Persian rule. Xerxes shows favour to the Sidonian fleet and reviews his fleet aboard a Sidonian vessel before the Persian invasion of Greece (Herodotus VII, 96, 99). Egypt rebels once more against Persian rule. The Athenian fleet attack the Phoenician coast in support of the revolt. The Phoenician and Cypriot fleet combine successfully to win back Egypt, in support of the Persian satrap Megabyzus. Athens attacks Cyprus. Phoenician ships, supporting the Persian King, attack Greek ships but are defeated. The Peace of Callias was possibly arranged between the Persians and the Greeks, with Persian naval units agreeing not to deploy beyond certain locations in the Aegean while Athenian naval forces agree not to sail towards Egypt and the Levant. The Persian fleet is mobilised off Phoenicia to fight Athens, Amorges’ ally (Thucydides VIII.58; 87.5). Egypt revolts again, this time successfully. The satrap of ‘Beyond-the-River’, Abrokamas, amasses a large army, probably in Phoenicia, ready to invade Egypt. The revolt of Cyrus the Younger, diverts the army’s attention from that invasion. Tripolis, on the northern Levantine coast, exists as a centre for the cities of Sidon, Tyre and Arvad to meet in common council (Diodorus Siculus XVI, 41). The Phoenician fleet supports the Persians in their war against Sparta. Evagoras, king of Salamis, takes control of Cyprus, and occupies settlements on the Phoenician coast. Tyre supports and fights alongside Evagoras (Isocrates Paneg. 161; Diodorus Siculus XV, 2,4). The Kings’ Peace treaty, which dictates terms to Greek cities, deprives Evagoras of Athenian support and he is required to pay annual tribute. Evagorus besieges Tyre (Isocrates Evag. 60-62). Achoris, King of Egypt and supporter of Evagoras, is present on the Phoenician coast, leaving an inscription at a temple north of Sidon and a granite altar stand at Akko. Persian satraps Pharnabazus, Tithraustes and Abrokomas expel Egyptians and Cypriots from Phoenicia. A Persian force against Egypt uses Sidon, Akko and Gaza as bases for the attack. King Straton I/’Abd-‘ashtert of Sidon develops strong ties with Athens. Sidonian merchants are granted special exemptions from certain Athenian taxes. An imperial naval force gathers at Akko for a renewed attack on Egypt, with 300 ships and a landing force including 12,000 Greek mercenaries. Obtaining supplies becomes problematic and the invasion is repelled by Egyptian King Nectanebo. Phoenicians support a satraps’ revolt against Persian domination, though this may have been a sporadic and disjointed rebellion (Diod. Sic. XV, 90, 93, 1). Egyptian King Tachos/Teos, in collaboration with the rebel satraps, attacks the Levantine coast and secures nearly all the seaports in Phoenicia. A conspiracy by Nectanebo causes Teos to flee to Sidon to plead for mercy from the Persian King. An attack by Persian forces on Egypt fails. Phoenicia was used as the base for the campaign. Tennes, King of Sidon, in alliance with Nectanebo of Egypt, rebels against the Persians (Diod. Sic. XVI.42ff). Nine kings of Cyprus and Cilicia join the revolt. Phoenicia repels an attack by satraps of Cilicia and Beyond-theRiver (Diod. Sic. XVI, 42, 1). Tennes treacherously surrenders Sidon to the King Artaxerxes III and Sidon is partly burnt and some of its people deported. The satrapy of Cilicia and ‘Beyond-the-River’ are combined under Mazaios. Artaxerxes III succeeds in reconquering Egypt after executing a massive attack. Alexander besieges Tyre and some of its population is sold into slavery.

Reign of Darius or Xerxes 486-485 BC 480 BC 460-459 BC 456-454 BC 451 BC 450 BC 412/411 BC 404-399 BC 4th century BC 396 BC 391-386 BC 386 BC Early 4th century BC 385-380 BC 378-358 BC 373 BC 366-360 BC

351/350 BC 346-345 BC

mid 4th C BC 343 BC 332 BC

46

Towards fresh insights into Phoenician commerce in the homeland were sent to be tasted by the King (Athenaeus XIV, 652; b-c). Reportedly, people scoured the empire to search for drinks which the King might appreciate (Xenophon Agesilaos IX; Athenaeus IV, 144b). To the guests consuming the King’s largesse, the banquet was a form of imperial redistribution mechanism (Briant 1989, 39-42). What was consumed had ‘added value’ in the symbolic and material sense, as it had been offered by the King. It thus differentiated those who received it from those who did not, confirming the status of those attending the banquet. The overall impression of Persian foodstuffs consumption is one of ‘haute cuisine’ where appreciation of food and drink was regarded as a symbol of ‘civilised’ elite behaviour (Sancisi-Weerdenburg 1997, 339-340). The desire for quality of foodstuffs, from whatever place of origin, and the manner in which they were consumed was regulated by custom. This was a strategy which differentiated the elite from the lower social echelons (Goody 1982a). The implication of these literary references is that if any province in the Persian empire was able to produce good quality foodstuffs, especially wine, there was potential for there to be a considerable demand for that commodity from the imperial elite.

Simultaneously, over 100 olive oil installations were operating in the city of Ekron/Tel Miqne, revealing that foodstuff production could be on a very large scale (Eitam 1990, 1993; Gitin 1989, 30-51; 1995a; 1995b). The installations cover at least 20% of the city and could have had an output of at least 500 tons. The excavators estimate that 48,000 bulk ceramic containers would have been needed in a good harvest year to cater for this capacity (Eitam and Shomroni 1987, 48-49). The role of wine as a significant Phoenician product has perhaps been less widely noted than other manufactured items. Most evidence so far comes from Carthage and the Western Mediterranean (see ‘Viticulture’ in Lipinski 1992; Green 1995). Phoenicia, although a narrow strip of coastal land between the sea and a mountain range, possesses good agricultural land with ideal conditions for growing vines (e.g. Brown 1969, Chapter 5). Over time the coastal Levant became renowned for the quality of its wine. In the story of the Egyptian nobleman Sinuhe, written at the beginning of the second millennium BC, he describes how he fled his homeland to Yaa, a locality in Upper Retenu (Canaan), an area where wine ‘was even more plentiful than water’ (Breasted 1988, I, 238, no.496). The Egyptian elite appreciation of wine from this region, especially when it was flavoured with honey, continued through the second millennium BC. Tuthmosis III (14791425 BC) recorded on the walls of Karnak that during a campaign to Retenue he brought back 1,718 (mn-) jars of honeyed wine. Thus there may have been a tradition of consumption of Levantine wine by elites residing outside the region for centuries, if not millennia, prior to the Persian period (e.g. Leonard 1995, 245-247; Stager 1985).

1.6 The research data A significant aim of this project on Phoenician production and distribution in the homeland region was to conduct a multi-disciplinary approach (see Preface). Data were therefore gathered from a number of sources, namely: a) artefactual (fabric and form, including data from scientific analysis and typology creation); b) archaeological (data published by site excavation reports), and c) historic (textual and epigraphic).

Consumption of food and drink by the Persian elite has been the subject of several works, though these have centred predominantly on the Persian heartland (e.g. Briant 1989a; 1996, 297-306; Lewis 1987; SancisiWeerdenburg 1995; 1997). Contemporary documentary sources are particularly enlightening about the manner in which Persians consumed food and drink, the quantities they consumed and the types of food they enjoyed. Food was apparently an important aspect of the Persian royal lifestyle. Among the 449 people reportedly serving the King, 389 were associated with food preparation and serving, including 70 filterers of wine (Briant 1989, 35). Banquets were held with large numbers of guests and huge quantities of food consumed. One well known example was recorded on a bronze pillar, and included 500 marrish (5,685 litres) of wine, half being date wine the other half grape (Polyaenus IV 3, 32; Lewis 1987). Such meals were eaten over hours, with small dishes presented in sequence, rather than all being consumed in one sitting, as in the Classical Greek world.

1.6.1 Artefactual data In total, 307 carinated-shoulder amphorae were selected predominantly on the basis of attributes of form and fabric. The study includes published and unpublished material (Table 1.3, section 2.2.2 and Appendix II). Of these, 60 had sufficient of the body profile remaining to determine a complete body type, while the remainder comprises diagnostic rim/shoulder sherds (Table 1.4). The storerooms where the amphorae are retained are in a variety of locations in Israel and the U.S.A. (Table 1.4). A typology of carinated-shoulder amphora forms is created from those with whole body profiles (Chapter 4), using a previously untested technique for typology creation, the ‘envelope’ method (section 2.3). Three main types and fourteen subtypes of carinated-shoulder amphorae are differentiated through this technique. The body profile, typical handle shape and variability of rim forms are illustrated and described for each subtype. Tables with measurements of a selected number of formal attributes considered diagnostic are presented in Appendix III.

The types of food consumed at the King’s table possessed symbolic significance, as deriving from all corners of the empire they reflected the extent of Persian imperial territorial control. The best foodstuffs from these areas

The scientific data, including macroscopic descriptions, 47

Phoenician Amphora Production in the Southern Levant

TABLE 1.3 The target1 and sample population of carinated-shoulder Persian period amphorae Site

No. of amphorae in sample population

No. of amphorae in target population

Target population publication status

Description of target population of carinated-shoulder amphorae from which the sample population was selected

Tell Abu Hawam

21

64

U

Akko

18

38

U

Ashdod fortress

2

2

P

Tell Ashdod

8

15

P

Ashkelon

25

50

U

Atlit

15

23

P&U

Dor

66

211

P&U

Gil’am

4

5

P

Tell el-Hesi Jokne’am Tell Keisan

30 15 19

55 58 40

P P&U P&U

Lachish

5

69

U

Lohamei Hageta’ot Ma’agan Mikhael Tel Megadim

4

7

P

Sample of whole assemblage (proportion unknown) of 1985/86 excavations presumably selected by excavator on form and fabric variability. Sample of part (proportion unknown) of assemblage of 1970s excavations. Sample of whole assemblage (proportion unknown) selected by excavator on presumed formal criteria. Sample of whole assemblage (proportion unknown) selected by excavator on presumed formal criteria. Sample of part (proportion unknown) of assemblage in ongoing excavations. Presumed whole assemblage of complete, or nearly complete, amphorae from tomb L/16. Sample of amphorae from ‘secure’2 contexts from assemblage from Areas A & C; proportion of target population to A & C assemblage unknown. Sample of whole assemblage selected by excavator on presumed formal criteria. Whole assemblage of amphora rim/shoulder fragments Whole assemblage of amphora rim/shoulder fragments Sample of part (proportion unknown) of whole assemblage selected by excavator on formal criteria. Sample of whole assemblage (proportion unknown) selected by excavator on presumed formal criteria Whole assemblage of amphorae from 1991/1993 excavations

2

2

U

Whole assemblage of amphorae recovered from shipwreck

18

567

U

Tel Mevorakh

5

5

P

Tel Michal

6

6

P

Tel Qiri Qiryat Ata Sarepta

3 1 30

6 1 67

P&U P U

Shiqmona

10

18

P&U

Whole assemblage of amphorae rim/shoulder fragments from the 1994 excavations Sample of whole assemblage (proportion unknown) selected by excavator on presumed formal criteria. Sample of whole assemblage (proportion unknown) selected by excavator on presumed formal criteria Whole assemblage of amphora rim/shoulder fragments Whole assemblage of Persian period pottery from the site Sample of part (proportion unknown) of whole assemblage selected on formal, fabric and find-locus criteria. Sample of part (proportion unknown) of whole assemblage selected by excavator on presumed formal criteria.

307

1308

TOTAL

1 2

= ie. those amphorae retained in storerooms, not the whole assemblage of pottery excavated at the site. = ‘secure’ nature of context identified by excavators; P = published; U = Unpublished

48

Towards fresh insights into Phoenician commerce in the homeland

TABLE 1.4 Sampled carinated-shoulder amphorae - storage location, numbers selected and context date Site

Tell Abu Hawam Akko Ashdod fortress Tell Ashdod Ashkelon Atlit Dor Gil’am Tell el-Hesi Jokne’am Tell Keisan Lachish Lohamei Hageta’ot Ma’agan Mikhael Tel Megadim Tel Mevorakh Tel Michal Tel Qiri Qiryat Ata Sarepta Shiqmona

Current storeroom location of site pottery

No. of Persian period amphorae with body profile extant 0

No. of amphora rim/shoulder fragments 21

Pp (pre-mid 4th C)

3 2 0 3 14

15 0 8 22 1

Pp (non-specific) Pp (5th C - early 4th C) LI - Pp (non-specific) Pp (late 6th C) Pp (mid 5th C)

9

57

IAA Romema, Jerusalem IAA Romema, Jerusalem Hebrew University, Jerusalem Ecole Biblique, Jerusalem IAA Romema, Jerusalem British Museum IAA Romema, Jerusalem

2 0 2 7

2 30 13 12

0 4

5 0

LI - Pp (late 6th C - late 4th C) - EH Pp (5th C - 4th C) Pp (5th C - 4th C?) Pp (non-specific) LI - Pp (late 6th C - late 4th C) - EH Pp (mid 5th C- mid 4th C) Pp (5th C - 4th C)

Haifa University

0

21

Pp (late 5th C)

IAA Har Hozvim, Jerusalem IAA Romema, Jerusalem IAA Romema, Jerusalem IAA Romema, Jerusalem IAA Har Hozvim, Jerusalem University Museum, Pennsylvania, USA Haifa Maritime Museum

0 2 2 0 1 0

18 3 4 3 0 30

9

1

Pp (non-specific) Pp (non-specific & 4th C) Pp (late 6th C - late 4th C) Pp (non-specific) PP (non-specific) LI - Pp (6th C - mid 4th C) EH LI (mid 6th?) - Pp (late 6th C - late 4th C) - EH

60

247

Ecole Biblique & IAA Har Hozvim, Jerusalem Haifa University IAA Romema, Jerusalem IAA Har Hozvim, Jerusalem Ashkelon site storerooms IAA Rockefeller Museum, Jerusalem Dor site storerooms

TOTAL

Pp = Persian period; LI = Late Iron Age; 1 = one sherd is an amphora base fragment

Dates of their find-loci

EH = Early Hellenistic period;

They thus offered the potential for amphorae to be collected from contexts of the Persian period which were considered fairly ‘secure’ by the excavators. The sites also varied in size and function, providing a wide range of information concerning amphora distribution and contexts of deposition (section 2.2.1).

petrographic analysis and the results of the chemical analyses relating to each amphora fabric are presented in Chapter 5. A microfossil report on a selected number of thin-sections is included in Appendix V, while an abbreviated report regarding sand collected from four localities in the southern coastal Levant, with accompanying plates, is presented in Appendix VI.

Although most sites selected are considered to have been under Phoenician jurisdiction in the Persian period, some probably lay outside their direct control, including Lachish, Tell Ashdod and Tell el-Hesi (section 3.4). These sites were included as they provide an admittedly limited insight into the extent to which settlements under Phoenician control could have acted as ‘central places’ to control distribution of goods to areas outside Phoenicianheld territory (Renfrew 1975). Data concerning the sites

1.6.2 Site data Amphora samples were gathered from ceramic assemblages from 21 sites, ranging from Sarepta in the north to Ashkelon in the south (Fig. 1.2). These sites were chosen as excavation reports suggest carinated-shoulder amphorae were recovered from the site in some quantity and because the site stratigraphy was generally clear. 49

Phoenician Amphora Production in the Southern Levant sampled are summarised in Appendix I. The main features of the site, especially the Persian period remains and evidence for contacts between each site and Tyre and Sidon, are described more fully in Chapter 3.

he had accomplished (section 3.2.2). c)

The Customs Account at an Egyptian port (TAD C3, 7) (Bresciani 1993, 107-108, Briant and Descat 1998; Descat 2000; Gras 1995, 161-162; Lipinski 1994; Porten and Yardeni 1993; Yardeni 1994). This text records the movement of Ionian and ‘Sidonian’ ships, to and from an unnamed Egyptian port. The taxes paid by the ships are catalogued, some being paid from commodities from their holds. For the ‘Sidonian’ ships, the taxes paid at the harbour included amphorae of wine. Although the date of the text is debatable, it is most likely to be the 11th year of Xerxes, c.475 BC (section 7.7.1).

d)

The Persepolis Fortification tablets (Hallock 1969, 1978; 1985; Lewis 1990). These tablets, composed from the 13th to the 28th years of Darius I (504-494 BC), record a highly complex state-administered redistribution system which was conducted in the Persian heartland. Rations of a wide variety of foodstuffs are listed with quantities to be dispersed, and sometimes the regularity with which they are to be given. Those who receive the goods are named with receivers of rations including elite individuals, priests, messengers, travellers, workers (male, female and children) and women who have just given birth (sections 7.4 and 8.2.1).

e)

An Egyptian stela of the Persian period (Mathieson et al. 1995). This small stone stela, of probable 5th century BC date, was found recently in a re-used context of deposition in a poor grave in the cemetery of Saqqara, Egypt. The hieroglyphic and demotic texts on the stela reveal its owner had a Persian father and an Egyptian mother. A carved presentation scene depicts elite persons in Persian garb with a table on one side on which amphorae stand (section 8.1.3.3; Fig. 8.4; pl. 102).

1.6.3 The principal historical sources Information is drawn from numerous historical sources in this project. Passing references are made to texts written by Greek and Hebrew authors of the 1st millennium BC, including Herodotus, Diodorus Siculus, Thucydides, Pseudo-Aristotle, Xenophon, Ezra, Nehemiah, Ezekiel and Isaiah; Aramaic documents from Egypt (e.g. Driver 1957; Grelot 1972) and the 1st century AD writings of Pliny the Elder, in his Natural History. Texts such as Herodotus, Thucydides, Xenophon, Nehemiah and the Aramaic texts are an especially valuable source of data about the Persian period as they are believed to have been composed contemporaneously with the events they are describing. Several texts are discussed in greater detail, examining a broad spectrum of information concerning the territory of Phoenicia and the distribution and consumption of wine during the Persian period. These texts include: a)

b)

The Periplus of Pseudo-Scylax (Galling 1938; 1964; Müller 1882, Stern, M 1984). This text, which is probably a compilation of sources, was intended to be of use to sailors navigating the coasts of the Mediterranean. As it fails to mention Straton’s Tower, which was built after 350 BC, and which, according to Galling, was named after Straton II (342-332 BC), the likelihood is that the text was composed in the first half of the 4th century BC. Of importance to this study is that the writer(s) furnished comments concerning the Phoenician city-state affiliation of settlements along the coastal Levant, often recording whether they were attached to Tyre or Sidon (section 3.2.2). The Eshmunezer Inscription (CIS I, 3; Cooke 1903, 30-40; Gibson 1982, 104-114; III, no. 28; KAI 14.18-20; ANET no. 662) was inscribed on the side of the stone sarcophagus of Eshmunezer, King of Sidon, found in 1855 at Magharat Abloun cemetery to the south of Sidon. The king used the text as a vehicle to boast of his achievements through life. The exact date of this inscription is uncertain, depending on whether the king mentioned is the first or the second, and the dates posited range from 535/20 to 459/54 BC (Briant 1996, 506; Dunand 1965; Maier 1994 fn 46; Mullen 1974). On the basis of palaeographic evidence, it is dated to the early 5th century BC (Peckham 1968). In the inscription the king claims he acquired the cities of Dor and Jaffa on the southern Levantine coast because the Persian king approved of the deeds

A caveat must be added concerning the data gathered from these sources. The information they provide about Phoenicia and the Persian empire needs to be handled with a degree of caution. Some of the factors which will impact on the validity of the information they furnish include the abbreviated or damaged nature of some of the texts (and therefore the information which is lost with the potential of creating an unbalanced perspective on the data); whether the work is a compilation of sources (and therefore to what extent those sources vary in their concern for accuracy); the purpose for which they were written (e.g. the effects of propaganda), and the personal viewpoint and bias of the writers (e.g. Grabbe 1992; Hoglund 1992; Kuhrt 1995, 647-652; Metzger and Coogan 1993; Pfeiffer 1962, 214-219).

50

Towards fresh insights into Phoenician commerce in the homeland

Fig. 1.2 The 21 sites in the southern coastal Levant in the research sample

hundred or so years when Achaemenid kings ruled the Near East (539-332 BC).36 I treat the data from this period primarily from a synchronic rather than diachronic perspective, regarding the whole period as a temporal unit. This is primarily due to the fact that dating phases within the Persian period at sites in this region remains a thorny problem and requires more research. It relies heavily on the presence of certain artefacts, including

1.6.4 Spatial and temporal analysis of the data This study is primarily a spatial analysis of data gathered from ceramic assemblages from 21 sites in the southern coastal Levant. This is predominantly an intra-, rather than inter-, regional analysis of commodity distribution. Carinated-shoulder amphorae have also been recovered at sites in the northern Levant, Egypt, Rhodes, Cyprus and Carthage.35 These are outside the scope of this project.

36 A few samples were collected from Late Iron Age and Early Hellenistic strata to provide limited insights into any possible changes in form and fabric over time (e.g. AP:1; AP:6; AP:8: AP:9; AS:30; DR:22; KS:3;KS:24-KS:29; KS:32) (Appendix II) (see pls. 21-25).

Temporally the data is predominantly restricted to the two 35 For some bibliographic references to examples outside the coastal Levant see Lehmann 1996; Sagona 1982; Stern 1982.

51

Phoenician Amphora Production in the Southern Levant coins, especially Tyrian and Sidonian coins (e.g. Betlyon 1982; Elayi 1994; Meshorer 1995) and East Greek, Cypriot and Attic wares (Black-figure; Red-Figure and Black Glazed) (e.g. Bennett and Blakely 1989, 131-135; Marchese 1989). The minting of Phoenician coins can sometimes be dated to the reigns of specific kings in the 4th century BC, and hoards of coins of this date have been found at Akko and Tell Abu Hawam, as well as single coins (e.g. Elayi 1994; Elayi and Elayi 1993; Lambert 1931). However, how long coin hoards could be retained for safekeeping is uncertain. Likewise, some Greek vessels can sometimes be dated within a matter of decades, but one cannot be certain of the length of time between manufacture and its placing in the context of deposition in an area some distance from its centre of manufacture. Neither can one be sure of the extent to which they were curated due to their quality of manufacture and appreciation of the ‘exotic’. There is also the inevitable problem of residuality. Indeed, coins and Greek vessels are not as widespread, nor as abundant at sites on the Levantine coast as one would wish for the purposes of dating Persian period strata. Much research remains to be done on a diachronic analysis of ‘local’ commodities at coastal sites for this period, which can be uncovered in great quantities, providing a rich resource for the analyst. Unfortunately, a first impression is that ‘local’ commodities appear to change little in form and style over the two hundred or so years of the Persian period. 1.6.5 Omission of data from the capital cities of Tyre and Sidon When collecting data for this project none could be gathered from the capital cities of the polities which are the focus of this investigation. At Tyre the limited sounding of Bikai on what had been the island-city before the conquest of Alexander, uncovered remains which dated up to the end of the 7th century BC, but did not include material of Persian period date (Bikai 1978a). Unfortunately pottery from these excavations is unavailable for analysis at present. Excavations in the past at Sidon have revealed significant Persian period remains, including a cemetery where magnificent stone sarcophagi and statuary were discovered, a temple to Eshmun and an ‘Apadana’ with Achaemenid-style architectural features (e.g. Clermont-Ganneau 1921; Doumet-Serhal 2000, 3335; Jidejan 2000). Pottery from these excavations awaits publication and was unavailable for analysis at the time of writing. Early Bronze Age pottery from the recent excavations at Sidon has been preliminarily published (Griffiths 2000); and I have viewed thin-sections made from this ceramic assemblage (see Acknowledgements). Recent excavations at Beirut have also uncovered Persian period ceramics which have been petrographically analysed (Griffiths et al. 1998). As Beirut is regarded as outside the territory of southern Phoenicia as it is defined in this project, they are outside the scope of this project.

52

CHAPTER 2

Data collection and analytical techniques ‘Now I, King Artaxerxes order all the treasurers of Trans-Euphrates to provide…whatever Ezra the priest…may ask of you…up to…a hundred baths of wine, a hundred baths of olive oil’ Ezra 7:21 (New International Version)

Introduction

2.1

Four aims of this project are to examine data through a multi-disciplinary approach; to gather data using scientific and analytical techniques and apply anthropological theories to the analysis of these data; to create a typology of amphora forms using an innovative technique; and to collect insights into the data from information drawn from contemporaneous historical sources. My purpose is to provide a broad perspective, within the constraints of this project, concerning the provenance, production and distribution of these amphorae, and the consumption of their contents. To gather data for analysis, the following techniques have been applied: a)

b)

c)

d)

e)

f)

g)

h)

A sampling strategy is adopted to collect data from a relatively large number of sites located within the boundaries of Southern Phoenicia as it existed in the Persian period (i.e. territory under the jurisdiction of Tyre and Sidon, from the area of Sidon in the north, to Ashkelon in the south see section 3.2). A new formal typology of Persian period carinated-shoulder amphorae is created employing a repeatable and verifiable method, the ‘envelope’ technique. A detailed characterization of the fabrics of carinated-shoulder amphorae is undertaken by petrographic and chemical analytical techniques. On the basis of the petrographic characterization an assessment is made on whether the amphora fabric exhibits attributes consistent with a provenance in southern Phoenicia. An evaluation of the centralisation of carinatedshoulder amphora manufacturing centres in the region is made by assessing the number and location of these centres in the region. An assessment of the manufacturing techniques

i)

2.2

employed at these centres is conducted, including their levels of scale of production and product diversity through an analysis of the apparent relative quantity of each amphora type. An investigation of the levels of product uniformity (or ‘standardisation’) in the amphora manufacturing centres is made through application of the ‘envelope’ technique. A spatial characterisation of the distribution networks of amphorae from each centre in the southern coastal Levant is undertaken through a presence/absence analysis at the sites in the research sample. An investigation into the presence of ‘nodes of distribution’ is made by examining archaeological and artefactual data relating to sampled sites and the overlapping of distribution networks from each amphora manufacturing centre. An evaluation of the possible socio-cultural significance of the contents of the amphorae is conducted by gathering comments from contemporaneous texts (Persian, Greek and Phoenician) and epigraphic sources.

Sampling strategies

Publications have so far recorded the presence of carinated-shouldered Phoenician amphorae in Persian period strata in at least 40 sites in the southern Levant (Fig. 2.1) (for catalogues of references listing their distribution see Lehmann 1996, 431-444, pls. 70-76; Forms 380-409; Sagona 1982, Types 2 (fig. 1:4-5), 6 (fig. 2: 1-4); and 11 (fig. 2:12); Stern 1982, 107-110). To select which sites would be included in this study a simple, non-probabilistic sampling strategy was adopted (Benfer 1979, 227). The use of random sampling, which has the advantage of achieving ‘representative and reliable data within the bounds of … restricted time and monetary 53

Phoenician Amphora Production in the Southern Levant pottery had been retained for long-term storage. These were already selected by the excavators on the basis of varying criteria (Table 1.3). A non-random sampling procedure will inevitably lead to a certain degree of imbalance of data, quantitative and to some extent qualitative. Sites were dug under different conditions, sometimes as a matter of rescue, by excavators with varying techniques and research priorities. Nevertheless, it is hoped that by gathering material from 21 sites, the data will be of sufficient quantity to provide a regionally broad perspective on amphora production and distribution.

resources’ (Chenhall 1979, 3) was rejected for two reasons. Firstly, random sampling requires the target population to be relatively homogenous, with a commonality of attributes. Sites in this region exhibit a heterogeneity of attributes of size, function and quantity of amphorae recovered. Thus a random sampling technique would not have resulted in the gathering data of sufficient breadth and quantity to address questions on the production, distribution and consumption of the contents of these amphorae. Secondly, for most sites the target population of ceramics which was being kept in the storerooms was already a non-random sample. Varying amounts of

Fig. 2.1 Sites in the southern Levant where excavation reports indicate the presence of carinated-shoulder amphorae in Persian period strata.

54

Data collection and analytical techniques (1976, esp. p. 17-29), I assume that, generally speaking, the larger a settlement site, the more prominent its sociocultural, political and economic significance in the region. Those of smaller size are considered more likely to have had a secondary political, economic and socio-cultural role. The sites were divided into two categories; a) large settlements where the acropolis and lower city cover over 50 acres; b) smaller settlements, less than 30 acres in size. Calculation of site size could only be approximated. On large, multi-phase settlements, where the tell is too large to have been completely excavated, the spatial extent of occupation during a specific period can be impossible to determine. Excavations also often tend to concentrate on the acropolis of tells, so the extent of the ‘lower city’, which surrounds the tell, remains unknown. Thirdly, post-depositional processes at the site, such as modern agricultural and industrial activities and sea erosion, can obliterate large areas of a site (as at Sarepta in southern Lebanon). Nevertheless, as a general guide, 20 of the sites chosen, 6 were major settlements, 14 were secondary sites less than 30 acres (Table 2.1) (see Appendix I for size data of each site). The shipwreck site, Ma’agan Mikhael, is excluded from this categorization. This site was chosen because of its significance for a study of maritime distribution of amphorae (see below).

2.2.1 Sampling of sites The ceramic assemblages from the 21 sites selected were retained in storerooms in museums, universities and archaeological site depositories in Israel, US and the UK (Table 1.4). The criteria on which the sites were selected are listed as follows: 2.2.1.1 Regional spread of sites To ascertain the broadest possible regional extent of distribution networks of amphorae across southern Phoenicia from each manufacturing centre, sites were selected along the length of this portion of the coast, from southern Lebanon to Ashkelon, and on the coastal plain as far as the foothills of the range of hills running parallel to the coast. Thirteen of the sites sampled lie directly on the coast, whereas eight are located a few kilometres inland (Fig. 1.4; Table in Appendix I). Fewer inland sites were chosen primarily as fewer sites on the coastal plain have been the subject of archaeological excavation. Excavator directors have tended, until recently, to focus more on the larger tells in the region which are located predominantly on the coast.37 2.2.1.2 Phoenician city-state affiliation of sites

A few of the secondary sites are much smaller than 30 acres, including sites of specialist function such as the fort at Ashdod (841 m2) and a settlement (or waystation/agricultural estate?) at Tel Mevorakh (c. 1 dunam (1 dunam = 1,000 sq m.)). Qiryat Ata was probably a transitory site during the Persian period, with an amphora discarded on an otherwise Early Bronze Age settlement (see table in Appendix I).

Sites were chosen where archaeological evidence or contemporaneous textual sources evidence indicates that they were either under Tyrian or Sidonian jurisdiction, or they had strong connections with these city-states (see section 3.4). The purpose was to ascertain whether a connection could be made between carinated-shoulder amphorae and either, or both, of the city-states of Tyre or Sidon. The written sources used are primarily the Eshmunezer inscription and the Periplus of PseudoScylax (Table 3.1). The archaeological evidence studied includes the orthogonal ground-plan of settlements, wall construction techniques, and artefactual remains, including coins, inscriptions, seals, figurines, scarabs, jewellery and glass vessels (section 3.2.3). Not all the sites included in the research sample were likely to have been under Phoenician jurisdiction at this time. There are indications that Lachish, Tell el-Hesi and Tell Ashdod were outside the political boundaries of southern Phoenicia. Data from these sites were included in this project to provide some information concerning amphora distribution networks to neighbouring territories.

Site name Tell Abu Hawam Akko Ashdod fort Tel Ashdod Ashkelon Atlit Dor Gil’am Tell el-Hesi Jokne’am Tell Keisan Lachish Residency Lohamei Hageta’ot Tel Megadim Tel Mevorakh Tel Michal Qiryat Ata Sarepta Shiqmona

2.2.1.3 Site size Sites were selected on the basis of size, presuming that the distribution of amphorae to sites of different size might provide insights into the socio-cultural status of these vessels and their contents. Following the hierarchical ranking system adopted by Hodder and Orton 37

See section 6.2.3 for the concentration of Persian period remains at coastal, rather than coastal plain, sites.

Major site (>50 acres)

Secondary site (