The Oxford Handbook of the Phoenician and Punic Mediterranean

by Carolina Lopez-Ruiz

  Smith, P., G. Avishai, J. Greene, and L. Stager. 2011. “Aging Cremated Infants: The Problem of Sacrifice at the Tophet of Carthage.” Antiquity 85: 859–74.

  Smith, P., G. Avishai, J. Greene, and L. Stager. 2013. “Cemetery or Sacrifice?” Antiquity 87: 1191–99.

  Stager, L. 2014. Rites of Spring in the Carthaginian Tophet. Leiden: BABESCH Foundation.

  Stager, L., and S. Wolf. 1984. “Child Sacrifice at Carthage: Religious Rite or Population Control?” Biblical Archaeology Review 10: 31–51.

  Stavrakopoulou, F. 2004. King Manasseh and Child Sacrifice. Berlin: De Gruyter.

  Wagner, C., and L. Ruiz Cabrero. 2007. El sacrificio molk. Madrid: Ediciones del Orto.

  Xella, P. 2013. “ ‘Tofet’: An Overall Interpretation.” Studi Epigrafici e Linguistici 29/30: 259–81.

  Xella, P., J. C. Quinn, V. Melchiorri, and P. van Dommelen. 2013. “Phoenician Bones of Contention.” Antiquity 87: 1199–207.

  Material Culture

  Chapter 22

  Pottery and Trade

  Francisco J. Núñez

  Demand generates and conditions any production of goods. In regard to Phoenician pottery, this axiom seems to be often forgotten. That is, attention is focused more on the vessel itself than on the reasons and the conditions that led to its production. This situation is a result of the conditioning circumstances: any analysis of Phoenician pottery production, demand, and distribution is limited by the nature, scarcity, and dispersion of the available data, which makes our knowledge of basic aspects of the production, such as geographic, economic, social, and technical factors, unsatisfactory.

  Full knowledge of all these factors is fundamental here, which in turn requires as precise as possible an understanding of the specific social and economic context in which this activity was developed (Matson 1995). However, the issue is affected by the scarcity and dispersion of the material evidence; that is, most written sources on this subject come generally from other geographical and chronological contexts and deal predominantly with institutions, such as palaces and temples (Franken 1969; Sallaberger 1996; Duistermaat 2007). Therefore, the information these sources provide centers on those institutions and to those particular geographical and chronological contexts. Furthermore, all factors involved in any examination of the subject are interrelated and dynamic, adding new unknowns to the equation—especially the character and degree of those connections and dependences, as well as the pace, extension, relevance, impact, and feedback of any changes experienced through the ages.

  Also relevant is the role of models in the analysis of the pottery production in antiquity (Van der Leeuw 1977; Peacock 1982; Sinopoli 1988; Costin 2000; for their application, see, e.g., Beetles 2003; Duistermaat 2007). Most of these models focus on production and distribution, but not much attention is paid to the character of the demand, which as mentioned earlier conditions the entire relationship. Moreover, these models usually take particular situations as a reference, so each case study is forced to fit into alien specific parameters that most times assume universal laws of behavior, as well as apply a lineal scheme that goes from simple to complex situations, and thus overlooks the particular complexity of each historical period. As a consequence, a model per se cannot be considered an explanation of Phoenician pottery.

  In view of these circumstances, the scheme followed here is based on a direct examination of the ceramic repertoire of diverse metropolitan Phoenician sites and is inspired by observations of Michael S. Tite (1999) and Cathy L. Costin (2000, 2001) on ancient pottery and craftsmanship. Accordingly, the chapter is divided into three interrelated parts: demand, production, and distribution channels (figure 22.1).

  Figure 22.1 Factors involved in pottery production and their relationship.

  Source: F. Núñez.

  Demand

  Phoenician pottery production existed as a response to a demand for an array of wares, which were part of a bigger and amalgamated set of objects made of different materials (stone, metal, wood, basketwork), each accomplishing particular functions in specific uses. The question is, therefore: What that demand was, what were its general characteristics, and what were its variants and their particularities?

  As mentioned at the start, one axiom is central here: the nature of the demand conditions the characteristics of the production. In this way, potters were obliged, to the extent of their abilities, to meet those requirements properly and without regard to their origin, nature, or purpose. Whenever local Phoenician potters could not fill, for diverse reasons, a specific demand, the solution was to acquire the required ceramics abroad through trade. Similar circumstances may also explain, in some instances, the presence of Phoenician ceramics in foreign contexts.

  Two aspects must be considered here: first, the nature of the Phoenician economy, its organization, and its functioning; and second, the role and relevance of the ceramic wares, taken in their broader socioeconomic sense.

  This is not the place to deal in detail with the nature of the Phoenician economy (Aubet 2001: 97–143; Beetles 2003: 38–43), but obviously pottery production was a sector of the Phoenician economic system. Some basic assumptions are essential in this context. First, the degree of complexity of the Phoenician society was not determined by its economic system but, rather, by the relations among its members, in which the economy was only one of many factors. Second, the economy, or at least a part of it, was embedded in this society and so was the relationship existing among the diverse classes, determining how those connections were displayed. Third, the economic system was multifaceted, with each specific constituent activity performing its own role. Fourth, the presence of diverse, intertwined economic subsystems has to be considered, each conditioned by its involvement with three spheres of influence provided by the society’s social groups, particular factors, and relations: institutional (administration, legislation, taxes, and control over strategic sectors), urban (industrial, commercial, and consumer), and rural (agricultural products and raw materials).

  Certain factors played additional roles, as they do currently in Mediterranean societies. First, these societies were closely attached to their own traditions, creeds, and habits, some general to all members and others particular to each social group. Second, a group’s internal relationships and degree of participation in and influence over diverse economic activities were relevant. Third, Phoenician society was not a “consumption society” in the capitalist sense of the term, but at the end of the day, its members—individuals, institutions and “corporations”—were “consumers” of the pottery produced by their workshops. To what extent, therefore, were those members able to purchase those products (wholesale and retail)? Which products in particular? And how did they pay for them? Fourth, demand, local or not, and especially its character and volume, conditioned the number of workshops existing in the cities and their surroundings, the nature and scale of their output, the intensity of their production, and their degree of specialization. Finally, every economic activity looks for a revenue, and Phoenician potters were no exception; the question is how to discern whether that income was a daily ration from an institution or whether it came from the prices customers paid for the vessels.

  Besides, the question is not so much about the ceramic object itself as it is the relevance of the object’s socioeconomic function. A ceramic object, and in particular the ceramic types, are concepts translated into clay through morphological and decorative conventions shared by the potters and the final users. Hence, any ceramic production must receive approval on the part of the latter by fulfilling certain requisites of a functional, cultural, and social nature. In any instance, it could be interesting to see whether the potter had, or could have had, influence over the behavior of the demand by offering technological, morphological, or decorative innovations. This aspect refers directly to any changes the ceramic repertoire experienced through time. However, one question remains: Did the users perceive those modifications and improvements—technical, typologica
l, morphological, or decorative—or were they able through their own preferences to modify existing general trends?

  Based on observations made in the field, two different kinds of demand can be differentiated, each generating potential different responses on the part of the potters: consumption and industrial. “Consumption” refers to the demand for products necessary for everyday life, whereas “industrial” consists of ceramics necessary for the diverse productive activities. Two further, potentially distinctive demand sources would be state institutions (palace, temple, and, probably, the army) and rural communities. Given the nature of these two “special markets,” which comprise elements of both the “consumption” and the “productive” sectors, their respective necessities probably did not vary much compared with those of the other two sectors mentioned. Actually, differences in markets affected mainly the quality and quantity of the products demanded. This also holds true for the existence of superimposed powers, such as the empires, as any tax or tribute payment was enacted by the local power itself.

  The “Consumption” Demand

  This particular demand was generated by the domestic, social, ritual, or funerary needs and expectations, or even the demands, of both private (urban and rural) and institutional sectors. Each market had specific socioeconomic needs and requirements that affected production aspects such as nature, quality, and scale. The products demanded by those sectors were basically vessels devoid of content at the time of their acquisition, and they corresponded with specific social functions. Among those ceramics are cooking wares (pots and grill-like devices), plates and bowls, cups, basins, mortars, jars (containers either for domestic storage or the processing of food), lamps, incense burners, and jugs such as decanters, dippers, spouted jugs, pilgrim flasks, neck-ridge jugs or askoi-like juglets.

  Some common features characterize these wares. First, as mentioned, they had to meet the technical, morphological, and decorative requirements that made them suitable for their final users, as well as meeting those users’ sociocultural standards. This aspect is especially relevant, since the Phoenician ceramic repertoire shows a conservatism that is clearly visible in the endurance over time of certain elements, especially of a morphological and decorative character. Probably, despite the modifications made throughout their evolution, those more or less fixed elements helped to identify and define the function of those forms and types. One example could be the ridge-like feature present on the necks of some jug types (figure 22.2e and f); another example applies to the cooking wares, which needed to meet requirements linked to preparation of particular meals. Whether those fixed elements are functional or represent cultural traits still needs further evaluation.

  Figure 22.2 Phoenician ceramic vessels and their metallic counterparts.

  Source: (a) Núñez 2004: 162, fig. 77, 3; (b) Matthäus 1985: 538, pl. 71; (c) Núñez 2004: 142, fig. 57, 2; (d) Matthäus 1985: 535, pl. 71; (e) Aubet et al. 2014: 182, fig. 2.13, U.71-3; (f) Matthäus 1985: 533, pl. 70; (g) Gershuny 1985: 23, pl. 2; (h) Bikai 1978: 5, pl. XXIX; (i) Matthäus 1985: 361, pl. 23; (j) Aubet et al. 2014: 203, fig. 2.34, U.107–9.

  Second, ceramic wares show a continuous comparison to metallic wares—in particular, their shapes, morphological components, decoration, and general aspect (figure 22.2). It seems that ceramic vessels, especially those used in social environments (domestic, ritual, and even funerary), did not enjoy the attention and relevance received by their metallic counterparts. This phenomenon is evident from the types and forms associated with banquets and wine consumption since the Bronze Age, and was intensified during the Middle and Late Iron Ages with the introduction of the red-slipped wares (Núñez 2015a). This suggests another interesting aspect. In many ways, it seems that ceramics represented cheap substitutes for metallic wares, which were beyond the reach of many social classes and, thus, carried greater social significance. Nevertheless, the amount of investment in the production of a ceramic vessel should have had an effect on its price and, accordingly, its social appreciation.

  Third, we are talking about a rather reduced repertoire, with a limited number of forms and types that became simpler in the course of the Iron Age. At this point, it is not possible to distinguish regional differences for most of the Iron Age, at least in the motherland. However, and despite the geographical distance and existence of colonial particularities, it is possible to observe trends regarding the production centers across the Mediterranean (Maass-Lindemann 2009; Núñez 2013).

  Fourth, an exclusive use of wares and vessels in particular contexts is not evident; in point of fact, the same forms were used for apparently similar actions in domestic, funerary, and ritual contexts. The best example of this is the funerary ceramic set, whose members were commonly used also in domestic contexts (Núñez 2011). Other ceramic forms, such as the incense burners or the tall stands, show a similar nature. It is assumed that these objects are almost exclusively ritual/religious/funerary in character, however, they could have been used in domestic contexts devoid of any evident religious connotation, especially in celebrations such banquets (e.g., Amos 6:4–7).

  The examples just mentioned lead to the fifth feature: the exact function of each form and type mentioned here can only be assumed in so many instances, so we should accept that forms with a precise use coexisted with multipurpose ones. Besides, not only functional factors may have played a role; local or regional particularities, social differences, fashion (?), and sequential developments that occur over time could have influenced the functional nature of the ceramics.

  The sixth feature pertains to the quality of the ceramics, an aspect with evident social implications. For example, there is a close relationship between certain shapes and their technical quality. Those forms and types linked to the banquet, for instance, display better fabric, molding, and surface finishing. At the other extreme, some plate types, dippers, and certain varieties of decanter are of lower quality, despite their use in banquets. Differences can be also observed among vessels inspired by metallic wares, in which the relatively lower quality of some ceramic examples complicates their inclusion in what would be termed “fine wares.” However, those differences should not always be explained by social factors; many times, the reason involve their final destination (e.g., funerary contexts; Núñez 2011).

  The earlier mentioned preference for metallic wares leads us to the seventh and last point: How did Phoenician society regard their ceramic wares? Two aspects deserve to be considered here. The first is the cited general characteristics of Phoenician pottery, and especially the quality of their fabrics, modeling, and surface finishing—factors that may have had a direct influence on the price of those wares. However, the situation could also be the reverse: maybe these characteristics and their prices were of scarce consideration paid to them by society. Alternatively, imported vessels enjoyed the favor of part of Phoenician society. Most of those foreign vessels were linked to the banquet, especially jars from Cyprus (amphoroid kraters and belly amphorae) or cups from the Aegean, and in lesser quantities from Cyprus (Núñez and Aubet 2009). In fact, the taste for those imports brought about the production of ceramics that either imitated them or were inspired by them (Docter 2014).

  In conclusion, there is enough evidence to view Phoenician pottery in general, and ceramic vessels used in nonproductive environments in particular, as everyday objects with a functional relevance, which was not matched by their social consideration. In point of fact, most of them seem to be substitutes for their metallic counterparts, owing probably to economic reasons. However, that attitude toward ceramics changed when it involved certain ceramic forms produced in other regions, especially Cyprus and the Aegean.

  The “Industrial” Demand

  The second market category meets the needs of other economic activities, especially those related to agricultural, livestock, fishing, and certain transformation activities. Here, the pottery production acts as auxiliary, depending on the needs, requirements, rhythms, and scale of other productive s
ectors. We may assume that the basic constraints, devoid in theory of any social or aesthetic component, are of a technical, typological, and morphological nature. Therefore, the “industrial” demand is different, as it is part of a set of functionally interrelated activities.

  Two different ranges of ceramic products can be distinguished in this context. On the one hand, there are those ceramic vessels used in a workshop or on a farm, including basins, parts of complex installations, or large containers to store organic (oil, wine, beer, grain, fruits, dairy products[?], etc.) and nonorganic (refined and nonrefined metals, precious or semiprecious stones and other raw materials), or even used to undergo the necessary chemical reactions. These chemical reactions would include the fermentation of cereals or grapes to produce beer and wine, respectively, or to perform chemical processes like the dying of fabrics and hides. Certain conditioning factors, evident or not, and particular to specific products, obviously influence the nature of these ceramics. Among them are the general shape of the vessel, its hardness, impermeability, ability or not to react with the materials it contains, and presence of closure devices or lids. Other ceramic vessels used in the production process would find their place in this first group as well—for example, jugs or jars for mixing or as mortars with pestles.

  The second group of containers would be those in which raw materials—organic and nonorganic—and finished products could be stored, transported, or even sold, whether wholesale or retail. In all those instances, the content is what is relevant, not the container itself. Therefore, intended use would, at least in theory, condition the technical and morphological features of the containers. This would necessitate uniform morphology, sizes, volume, or elements to facilitate covering, handling, and transporting the containers. In this sense, further analysis would consider the existence of an apparent dichotomy: Do variations in container type, especially storage jars, depend on the content, closing device, or use?