The Oxford Handbook of the Phoenician and Punic Mediterranean

by Carolina Lopez-Ruiz

  A final question arises in this context: Is there a direct relationship between the character of the production (technical features and formal homogeneity) and the size of a workshop and the scope of its distribution? The answer at this stage of the research is no. Our knowledge of possible rural workshops is almost nonexistent, as is that of domestic production. However, as far as the evidence does go, Phoenician wares display similar formal characteristics in every context of use. Only variations in the quality can be distinguished, most often related to the final destination of the wares—for example, domestic or funerary contexts. Therefore, it is rather difficult to know whether technical advances were shared widely by dispersed production centers or were limited to a few workshops located near major cities.

  The Distribution of Ceramic Products

  As long as the production centers have not been identified, or their characteristics defined, or the acting parts recognized, or their role calculated, it is impossible to analyze properly the distribution of Phoenician pottery and its particularities. As a consequence, observations do not go beyond attestation of the ceramics’ presence in different cultural and geographic contexts, making hypotheses difficult to verify. Often these hypotheses are conditioned with assumptions and endorsements of specific models. To give two opposite examples, wares may be identified as “Phoenician,” even if their image does not seem to fit Phoenician parameters (e.g., Stern 2015: 449, pl. 4.1.2: 5–6); or assemblages may be vaguely deemed “Oriental” despite the presence of ceramics of diverse Levantine origin (including Phoenician) among their wares, such as recently identified among the ceramics found in Tekke, Crete (Gilboa et al. 2015).

  Until recently, and despite existing difficulties, most information about metropolitan Phoenician fabrics came from studies done in Israel (e.g., Lapuente et al. 2014). However, the boom of projects underway in Lebanon promises excellent results, despite the fact that the search for and study of production centers has become particularly complicated. That is, not only does the location of most workshops remain elusive but also current economic circumstances affect the recognition of clay supply areas in Lebanon. Besides the scarcity of accurate and updated geological studies, since 2006 the landscape of that country has experience a continuous dramatic transformation, owing to construction activities or movement of soils for agricultural purposes.

  In any instance, the nature of and channels for ceramic distribution depend on the functional nature of those wares and their specific demand. Take, for instance, the distribution of tablewares in contrast to that of a storage jar or a smaller and better finished container for scented oils. The storage jar was commercialized for its own features and functionality, while the oil container was made for its limited contents. Evidently, neither the scope of the distribution of these different types, nor the channels employed, nor their control could always be the same.

  Given the current state of evidence, we can only hypothesize about the distribution of products made by what are equally hypothetical ceramic centers. However, at least on paper, four different but interrelated distribution areas can be differentiated: local, regional, interregional, and long distance. The particularities and degree of involvement by all participants (potters, middlemen, retailers, landowners, big merchants, institutions) and the mechanisms involved (direct purchase, redistribution, taxes/tributes, etc.) also varied. Something similar may have happened regarding the particular nature of the ceramics—namely, containers for bulk transportation versus tablewares. A comparison between the Late Bronze Age Uluburun shipwreck (Pulak 2001) and the Tanit and Elyssa shipwrecks is illustrative. The former carried storage jars filled with diverse commodities, both organic and inorganic, including fine wares, while the latter apparently had only storage jars carrying wine or oil.

  In any case, the type of distribution varies from that stemming from the workshops themselves within the immediate area to the one directed to neighboring territories, whether it is done by the potters themselves or by middlemen, by retailers or by institutions; the commercialization can also extend to overseas markets directly or through redistribution nodes (factories, gateway communities, or ports of trade), done by single entrepreneurs or by societies (the hubur). Further elements for consideration regarding distribution channels can be found in other chapters of this book—for example, chapters 26 and 27.

  Last but not least, a complementary question arises: Did different workshops have specific, different distribution scopes, owing to localization, specialization, control, or scale? An accurate answer is still far from our reach, as Beetles’s study of storage jars in Persian times exemplifies (2003: 218–53). However, a differentiation effort should be made between transport/storage and utilitarian vessels, especially since the latter represent a commodity of equal economic and social repercussions despite their lesser visibility.

  Conclusions

  The conditions for the analysis of this subject are rather complicated. The data are scarce and fragmentary, originating in different regions and different contexts. Also, demand always stands at the center of any economic question: it is the nature of demand that conditions the response by production sources, as well as the mechanisms for distribution and the evolution of the productive activity as a whole. It is also important to consider the existence of two demand varieties: “consumption” and “industrial.” The former derives from society at large (local or foreign) and reflects its needs, whereas the latter is complementary to other economic activities. Besides, in order to meet any demand, production centers need to be well furnished and articulated for effective performance. This effectiveness was accomplished by skilled potters whose work was perfectly organized. Proof of this is the standardization of fabrics and the diverse features of their products, their use of the fast wheel, an identification of motor habits, and evidence of chaînes opératoires. Our knowledge of the distribution of their wares has been conditioned, on the one hand, by the scarce information concerning the number of production centers and their defining features, and on the other hand, by their character, the range of their distribution (local, regional, interregional, and overseas), and the involvement of diverse actors (potters, middlemen, retailers, merchants, and institutions).

  Finally, we may consider which model this pottery production could best fit. The linearity of all models has been highlighted here, a fact that unfortunately leads scholars to rigid perceptions and skewed understandings of reality. In any case, the available evidence—especially that from Sarepta—seems to place the Phoenician pottery production as high in Peacock’s ranking as his “nucleated workshops” (Peacock 1982: 9). It would be logical also to relate it to Sinololi’s administered or centralized productions (Sinopoli 1988). Those identifications are valid at least on paper, because with the available data it is difficult to know where to situate the elusive Phoenician pottery production on those theoretical scales.

  References

  Alexandre, Y. 1995. “The ‘Hippo’ Jar and Other Storage Jars at Hurvat Rosh Zayit.” Tell Aviv 22: 77–88.

  Anderson, W. P. 1987. “The Kilns and Workshops of Sarepta (Sarafand, Lebanon): Remnants of a Phoenician Ceramic Industry.” Berytus 35: 41–66.

  Anderson, W. P. 1988. Sarepta I. The Late Bronze and Iron Age Strata of Area II, Y. Section des Études Archéologiques II. Beirut: Publications de l’Université Libanaise.

  Anderson, W. P. 1989. “The Pottery Production Industry at Phoenician Sarepta (Sarafand, Lebanon) with Parallels to Kilns from Other East Mediterranean Sites.” In Cross-Craft and Cross-Cultural Interactions in Ceramics, edited by P. E. McGovern and M. R. Notis, 197–216. Westerville, OH: American Ceramic Society.

  Arnold, D. E. 2003. Ecology and Ceramic Production in an Andean Community. New Studies in Archaeology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  Aubet, M. E. 2001. The Phoenicians and the West: Politics, Colonies and Trade. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  Aubet, M. E., F. J. Núñez, and L. Trellisó. 2014. “Catalogu
e of the 2002 to 2005 Seasons.” In The Phoenician Cemetery of Tyre—Al Bass II. Archaeological Seasons 2002–2005, edited by M. E. Aubet, F. J. Núñez, and L. Trellisó, 55–258. Beirut: Ministère de la Culture.

  Ballard, R. D., L. E. Stager, D. Master, D. Yoerger, D. Mindell, L. L. Whithcomb, H. Singh, and D. Piechota. 2002. “Iron Age Shipwreck in Deep Water Off Ashkelon, Israel.” American Journal of Archaeology 106: 151–68.

  Beetles, E. A. 2003. Phoenician Amphora Production and Distribution in the Southern Levant. A Multi-Disciplinary Investigation into Carinated-Shoulder Amphorae of the Persian Period (539–332 bc). Oxford: Archaeopress.

  Bikai, P. M. 1978. The Pottery of Tyre. Warminster: Aris & Phillips.

  Botto, M., and I. Oggiano. 2003. “L’Artigiano.” In El hombre fenicio. Estudios y materiales, edited by J. A. Zamora, 129–46. Rome: CSIC, Escuela Española de Historia y Arqueología de Roma.

  Bourogiannis, G. 2013. “Who Hides behind the Pots? A Reassessment of the Phoenician Presence in Early Iron Age Cos and Rhodes.” Ancient Near Eastern Studies 50: 139–89.

  Costin, C. L. 2000. “The Use of Ethnoarchaeology for the Archaeological Study of Ceramic Production.” Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 7, no. 4: 377–403.

  Costin, C. L. 2001. “Craft Production Systems.” In Archaeology at the Millenium. A Sourcebook, edited by G. M. Feinman and T. D. Price, 273–327. New York: Kluwer Academic and Plenum.

  Docter, R. 2014. “The Phoenician Practice of Adapting Greek Drinking Vessels (Skyphoi and Kotylai).” In El problema de las “imitaciones” durante la protohistoria en el Mediterráneo centro-occidental: entre el concepto y el ejemplo, edited by R. Graells i Fabregat, M. Krueger, S. Sardà, and G. Sciotino, 65–71. Tübingen: Wasmuth.

  Doumet-Serhal, C. 1982. “Les tombes IV et V de Rachidiyeh.” Annales d’Histoire et Archéologie 1: 89–137.

  Duistermaat, K. 2007. “The Pots and Potters of Assyria. Technology and Organization of Production, Cercamic Sequence, and Vessel Function at Late Bronze Age Tell Sabi Abyad, Syria.” Ph.D. dissertation, University of Leiden.

  Duistermaat, K. 2017. “The Organization of Pottery Production: Toward a Relational Approach.” In The Oxford Handbook of Archaeological Ceramic Analysis, edited by A. Hunt, 114–47. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

  Franken, H. J. 1969. Excavations at Tell Deir ‘Alla I. A Stratigraphical and Analytical Study of the Early Iron Age Pottery. Leiden: Brill.

  Gershuny, L. 1985. Bronze Vessels from Israel and Jordan. Munich: C. H. Beck.

  Gilboa, A., P. Weiman-Barak, and R. Jones. 2015. “On the Origin of Iron Age Phoenician Ceramics at Kommos, Crete: Regional and Diachronic Perspectives across the Bronze Age to Iron Age Transition.” BASOR 374: 75–102.

  Hankey, V. 1965. “Pottery-Making at Beit Shebab, Lebanon.” Palestine Exploration Quarterly 1965, 27–32.

  Heltzer, M. 1978. Goods, Prices and the Organization of Trade in Ugarit. Wiesbaden: Reichert.

  Heltzer, M. 1990. “The Organization of Craftsmanship of the Phoenicians.” In The Town as Regional Economic Centre in the Ancient Near East, edited by E. Aerts and H. Klengel, 94–102. Leuven: Leuven University Press.

  Khalifeh, I. A. 1988, Sarepta II. The Late Bronze and Iron Age Periods of Area II, X. Beirut: Publications de l’Université Libanaise.

  Krahmalkov, C. R. 2000. Phoenician-Punic Dictionary. Leuven: Peeters.

  Lapuente, M. P., E. Miguel, and J. Pérez-Arantegui. 2014. “Preliminary report on fabric Characterization of the Phoenician Pottery of Tyre al-Bass.” In The Phoenician Cemetery of Tyre—al Bass II. Archaeological Seasons 2002–2005, edited by M. E. Aubet, F. J. Núñez, and L. Trellisó, 655–76 Beirut: Ministère de la Culture.

  Lipinski, E. 1992. “Corporations.” In Dictionnaire de la Civilisation Phénicienne et Punique, edited by E. Lipiński, 120–22. Paris: Brepols.

  Maass-Lindemann, G. 2009. “Phoenicians between East and West.” In Interconnections in the Eastern Mediterranean. Lebanon in the Bronze and Iron Ages. Proceedings of the International Symposium, Beirut 2008, edited by A.-M. Maïla-Afeiche, 479–88. Beirut: Ministère de Culture.

  Matson, F. R. 1995. “Potters and Pottery in the Ancient Near East.” In Civilizations of the Ancient Near East. Volume III, edited by J. M. Sasson, 1553–65. New York: Simon and Schuster and Macmillan.

  Matthäus, H. 1985. Metallgefässe und Gefässuntersätze der Bronzezeit, der geometrischen und archaischen Periode auf Cypern: mit einem Anhang der bronzezeitlichen Schwertfunde auf Cypern. Munich: H. Beck.

  Nambar, D., A. Gilboa, R. Neumann, I. Finkelstein, and S. Weiner. 2013. “Cinnamaldehyne in Early Iron Age Phoenician Flasks Raises the Possibility of Levantine Trade with South East Asia.” Mediterranean Archaeolgy and Archaeometry 12, no. 3: 1–19.

  Núñez, F. J. 2004. Catalogue of Urns. In The Phoenician Cemetery of Tyre-Al Bass. Excavations 1997–1999, edited by M. E. Aubet, 63–203. Beirut: Ministère de Culture.

  Núñez, F. J. 2011. “Tyre – al Bass. Potters and Cemeteries.” In Ceramics of the Phoenician-Punic World: Collected Essays, edited by C. Sagona, 277–96. Leuven and Paris: Peeters.

  Núñez, F. J. 2013. “De Tiro a Almuñécar. Conexiones metropolitanas de un contexto colonial fenicio.” Madrider Mitteilungen 54: 27–88.

  Núñez, F. J. 2014. “Tyrian Potters and their Products: Standardization and Variation in the Pottery of the al-Bass Cemetery.” In Understanding Standardization and Variation in Mediterranean Ceramics. Mid 2nd to Late 1st Millenium bc, edited by A. Kotsonas, 59–84. Leuven: Peeters.

  Núñez, F. J. 2015a. “Phoenician Early Iron Age Ceramic Interaction Dynamics.” In The Mediterranean Mirror. Cultural Contacts in the Mediterranean Sea between 1200 and 750 bc. International Post-doc and Young Researcher Conference. Heidelberg, 6th-8th October 2012, edited by A. Babbi, F. Bubenheimer-Erhart, B. Marín-Aguilera, and S. Mühl, 111–28. Mainz: Römisch-Germanisches Zentralmuseum Mitteilungen—Tagungen.

  Núñez, F. J. 2015b. “The al-Bass Funerary Ceramic Set.” In Cult and Ritual on the Levantine Coast and its Impact on the Eastern Mediterranean Realm. Proceedings of the International Symposium. Beirut 2012, edited by A.-M. Maïla Afeiche, 235–54. Beirut: Ministère de Culture.

  Núñez, F. J., and M. E. Aubet. 2009. “Tyre al-Bass – Imported Material / Typology and Results.” In Interconnections in the Eastern Mediterranean. Lebanon in the Bronze and Iron Ages. Proceedings of the International Symposium, Beirut 2008, edited by A.-M. Maïla Afeiche, 403–17. Beirut: Ministère de Culture,

  Payne, E. E. 2013. “Artisans, Ancient Near East.” In The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, edited by R. S. Bagnall, K. Brodersen, C. B. Champion, A. Erskine, and S. R. Huebner, 799–802. Oxford: Blackwell.

  Peacock, D. P. S. 1982. Pottery in the Roman World: An Ethnoarchaeological Approach. London: Longman.

  Pulak, C. 2001. “The Cargo of the Uluburun Ship and Evidence for Trade with the Aegean and Beyond.” In Italy and Cyprus in Antiquity, 1500–450 bce, edited by L. Bonfante and V. Karageorghis, 13–60. Nicosia: Costakis and Leto Severis Foundation.

  Ramón, J., A. Sáez, A. M. Sáez, and A. Muñoz. 2007. El taller alfarero tardoarcaico de Composto (San Fernando, Cádiz). Seville: Junta de Andalucía.

  Roux, V. 2016. “Ceramic Manufacture: The Chaîne Opératoire Approach.” In The Oxford Handbook of Archaeological Ceramic Analysis, edited by A. Hunt, 101–13. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

  Sallaberger, W. 1996. Der Babylonisher Töpfer und seine Gefässe nacj Urkunden altsumerischer bis altbabylonischer Zeit sowie lexikalischen und literarischen Zeugnissen. Ghent: University of Ghent.

  Sinopoli, C. M. 1988. “The Organization of Craft Production at Vijayanagara, South India.” American Anthropologist 90: 580–97.

  Stern, E. 2015. “Iron Age I-II Phoenician Pottery.” In The Ancient Pottery of Israel and its Neighbors from the Iron Age through the Hellenistic Period, edited by S. Gitin, 435–82. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society.

  Tite, M. S. 1999. “Pottery Producti
on, Distribution and Consumption: The Contribution of the Physical Sciences.” Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 6, no, 3: 181–233.

  Ussishkin, D. 2012. “Lmlk Impressions once Again: A Second Rejoinder to Oded Lipschits.” Antiguo Oriente 10: 13–23.

  Van der Leeuw, S. E. 1977. “Towards a Study of the Economics of Pottery Making.” In Ex Horreo, edited by L. Beek, R. W. Brant, and G. van Watteringe, 68–76. Amsterdam: University of Amsterdam.

  Chapter 23

  Art and Iconography

  Eric Gubel

  The inventors of the alphabetic writing, ironically, rarely bothered to identify the many deities and royals represented in Phoenician art by means of accompanying inscriptions. Moreover, the fact that a considerable percentage of the material remains of the Phoenician homeland consists of chance finds or artifacts from uncontrolled excavations and sites sacrificed for the growing needs of modern building projects (Khaldeh for example, now buried under the tarmac of Beirut’s International Airport) remains another major drawback, since pertinent comparable stratified parallels are lacking as yet for the mainland. With no equivalent of royal annals (as we have for Egypt and Mesopotamia) on hand, and the debate on the synchronization of regional chronologies still ongoing, any attempt to reconstruct the evolution of Phoenician art remains a hazardous endeavor.

  Chronological Evolution

  Many components of Phoenician art’s Egyptianizing style echoed the impact of a blooming trade with Egypt (export of cedar timber and shipping technology) as early as the Proto- and Paleo-Phoenician periods. This was accompanied by an influx of Pharaonic gifts arriving at Byblos, where scribes versed in the Egyptian language were active (see chronological chart, table 23.1). Contemporary levels not yet reached by excavations in other coastal centers of the central Levant may substantiate a similar situation, but to date, the local art of Byblos (jewelry and royal name scarabs with hieroglyphic legends) stands out as that of the only harbor town on the Phoenician coast from which the Egyptian-style idioms proliferated abroad (with a particular impact on, e.g., “Syro-Palestinian” cylinder seals). Toward the end of the Paleo-Phoenician period, new centers such as Ugarit in the North and Hazor in the south took over Byblos’s pivoting role before a time of upheaval and socioeconomic change marked the end of the Bronze Age in the Levant.