Phoenician ceramic tableware between East and West: some remarks on open forms and on their absolute chronology
10.13125/caster/2841
In questo contributo è delineato un quadro cronologico e tipologico dell’evoluzione delle forme aperte della ceramica fenicia da mensa, partendo dalla documentazione dell’Età del Ferro della costa siro-palestinese (XI-VI sec. a.C.) fino alle elaborazioni coloniali della Penisola Iberica (VIII-VI sec. a.C.). La definizione degli orizzonti crono-tipologici identificati nelle due aree è corredata di un’analisi delle problematiche riguardanti la cronologia assoluta dell’Età del Ferro nel Mediterraneo. L’attenzione è rivolta alle fasi iniziali della presenza fenicia in Occidente, dato il crescente numero di testimonianze arcaiche emerse principalmente a Huelva e a Cadice. L’analisi è effettuata anche attraverso il confronto con altri contesti arcaici recentemente affiorati, ad esempio, a Utica e Cartagine.
application/pdf
2532-1110
2841
en
Sara Giardino
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0
Cartagine. Studi e Ricerche
datazioni C14
Phoenician ceramic tableware between East and West: some remarks on open forms and on their absolute chronology
Text.Serial.Journal
https://ojs.unica.it/index.php/caster
2
Saggi e studi
2017-09-14
2017-05-28
2017-03-21
2017-09-14
1
Sara Giardino
2017/09/14
10.13125/caster/2841
2532-1110
datazioni C14
en
Phoenician ceramic tableware between East and West: some remarks on open forms and on their absolute chronology
https://ojs.unica.it/index.php/caster/article/download/2841/2659
2
Cartagine. Studi e Ricerche, 2 (2017)                         Sezione: Saggi e studi
Rivista della Scuola Archeologica Italiana di Cartagine       Articolo presentato il 28/05/2017
http://ojs.unica.it/index.php/caster/index                    Accettato in data 21/07/2017
issn 2532-1110; doi: 10.13125/caster/2841                     Pubblicato in data 14/09/2017




                                                                                                  CaSteR, 2 (2017)




Phoenician ceramic tableware between East and West:
some remarks on open forms and on their absolute chronology


Sara Giardino
Sapienza, Roma
mail: sara.giardino@uniroma1.it




    Introduction

    Among the vessels used for serving and consuming beverages or food, open forms are gen-
erally characterized, from a geometrical point of view, by rim diameters exceeding or equal-
ling the body diameters. Plates, bowls, goblets and Phoenician imitations of Greek kotylai
and skyphoi meet these geometrical criteria. A variety of manufacturing techniques and shapes
fall into the category of the tableware pottery, ranging from vessels for everyday use to the
most finely wrought ones, for a lavishly decked table or, setting aside their primary function,
for the grave goods in the necropolis.
    In this paper, the focus will fall on the Iron Age documentation of the Syro-Palestin-
ian coast (11th-6th centuries BC) and on the finds of a key area for the Phoenician west-
wards expansion, i.e. the Iberian Peninsula (9th-6th centuries BC). The purpose is to provide
a chronological framework for the evolution of the open forms. Even though the research is
based only on a part of the ceramic repertoire, the analysis of the contexts and the arrange-
ment of material data in comparative stratigraphies, combined with absolute chronology,
provided some clarification, not only on the sites of the Syro-Palestinian region, concerning
the chronological debate that has been going on for several years in a complex situation for
different reasons, but also on the western zone, about the chronology of the early stages of
the Phoenician presence, even through the recent publications on archaeological researches
carried out in Huelva1 and Cádiz2.

    1
        González de Canales Cerisola et al. (2004).
    2
        Botto [ed.] (2014).


                                                          1
                                                 Sara Giardino


    This paper is based on my doctoral dissertation3 revised for publication purposes4. More
than 3000 findings5 have been catalogued through a typological system that identifies the
shapes in a hierarchical way by a label, using three numbers corresponding to: shape, type and
subtype6. They are hence subdivided into five ceramic classes according to surface treatment
or decoration7. In the scenario reconstructed by the ceramic finds of the two areas, Levantine
and Iberian, nine large formal groups have been recognized on the basis of the main morpho-
logical characteristics: 1.0.0, plates; 2.0.0, small plates; 3.0.0: bowls; 4.0.0: handled bowls;
5.0.0, small bowls; 6.0.0, deep bowls; 7.0.0, goblets; 8.0.0, skyphoi; 9.0.0, kotylai.
    Plates (1.0.0), with a more open and shallower profile, probably fit to the reception of sol-
id foods8. Among the remaining shapes, usually showing a smaller diameter of the mouth and
a greater depth, the only ones probably not having a drinking function are the small plates
(2.0.0) and the small bowls (5.0.0): the lesser sizes, in fact, suggest a use for contain sauces
and condiments in domestic contexts or unguents for funeral practices in funerary contexts9.
    The vast majority of findings belong to the formal groups of plates (1.0.0) and bowls
(3.0.0). The widespread dissemination of plates in the western area is opposed to the lack
of samples in the eastern area. In the next paragraphs a summary of the stages of the de-
velopment of these two types of vessels and their chronology will follow, starting from the
Levantine attestations until their adaptation in the colonial sphere. Since the debate on the
absolute Mediterranean Iron Age chronology (including the Levantine one) has not been re-
solved yet, and at the present state of knowledge it is impossible to determine an absolute and
completely reliable chronology, the focus has been placed mainly on the evolution of the ma-
terial culture itself. The elaboration of a typological sequence, from which a relative ceramic
sequence was extracted, has been an indispensable prerequisite. Firstly, starting from the data
provided in the original publications, the relationships of synchronicity and diachronicity
of the evidences have been remarked. They are based on the observation of the variations of
morphological and typological aspects as well as of the technical and decorative characteris-
tics and also on the association with other ceramic shapes and on the interrelations with the
evidences recorded in other sites that allow the stratigraphic concordances. The sequence so
obtained allows a contextualization of the material evidences from a relative chronological
perspective10. Crossing these relative data with other information (such as 14C dating, foreign
references as ceramic imports, historical associations and known dates) it has been tried to
located the evidences in a previously established chronology and to draw up a chronological


   3
       University of Rome, 2012.
   4
       Giardino (in press).
    5
       They come from: Ras el-Bassit, Tell Kazel, Khaldé, Sarepta, Tyre, Tyre al-Bass, Achziv, Hazor, Tell Keisan,
Tel Dor (Syro-Palestinian coast); La Fonteta, Almuñécar (Sexi, Cerro de San Cristóbal - “Laurita” necropolis,
Puente de Noy), Las Chorreras, Morro de Mezquitilla, Trayamar, Toscanos, Cerro del Villar, Castillo de Doña
Blanca, Huelva (Iberian Peninsula). For bibliographical references cf.: Giardino (in press), § 2.4-2.4.
    6
       The morphological diagnostic elements are examined in order of importance for the purpose of identify-
ing types and variants: for the plates are considered firstly the rim, secondly the basin profile and for the bowls
primarily the basin profile and then the rim.
    7
       Plain Ware, Red Slip Ware, Red Painted Ware, Black Painted Ware, Bichrome Ware.
    8
       Anderson (1988), 43. For a detailed study on red slip plates from the Malaga coastline and their use to
date pottery of other sites according to the system employed by H. Schubart (based on the increasing of the
width of the rim through time) cf.: Schubart (1976); Schubart (2005).
    9
       Balzano (1999), 67; Botto (2009), 164 (for small bowls).
    10
        Núñez Calvo (2015), 79.


                                                        2
                              Phoenician ceramic tableware between East and West


profile of the different stages of the typological evolution of open forms. Sometimes it was
necessary to revise the dating advanced by scholars in the excavation reports11.
    I would like to point out the current limits of the chronological attributions: dating is an
approximate procedure, the margin of error being greater for the most archaic phases, less im-
portant for the stages after 8th century12. These limits are due to, inter alia, the problems posed
by the chronology of Greek ceramics and the 14C dating techniques. Concerning the latter,
one should keep in mind the limits of this method and of the resolution that have detected
disagreements in the chronological interpretations, even if the determinations were obtained
from short-lived organic samples, originating from deposits safely assigned stratigraphically,
that by all standards should be considered reliable13. The clearest example is the Stratum IV of
Tel Rehov (in the Beth-Shean valley) where the radiocarbon dates obtained from different or-
ganic samples examined by different laboratories have led to divergent interpretations14. The
different readings of the 14C outcomes are used to date anew the Greek pottery associated to
the examined organic samples and consequently impact the Greek Geometric chronology15.
Coldstream’s dates suggested in 1968 were based upon J.W. Crowfoot and K.M. Kenyon’s
low chronology for Samaria and depended only on a few sherds, most of which from dubious
contexts, found in the Levant in the early years of archaeological research16. Nevertheless, the
Low Chronology advocated by I. Finkelstein17, based upon ceramic observation and radio-
metric dating and which dates to the 10th century a number of destruction strata conven-
tionally ascribed to the 11th century18, supports the Coldstream’s Conventional Chronology.
Notwithstanding all the problems enumerated above for these dates, according to the current
state of the art, there are not sufficient data to revise Coldstream’s Conventional Chronology,
adopted, together with Finkelstein’s Low Chronology, in this research.
    This paper is divided into three main parts, each one featuring the related chronological
issues: first I will explain the stages of the development of classified shapes in the Levantine
sphere; then, I will examine the first evidences of the Phoenician presence in western area,
namely from the archaic context of Huelva; and finally I will present the stages of the devel-
opment of classified shapes in the Iberian Peninsula.

   The beginnings: the Syro-Palestinian area

   The study of the eastern documentation faces the ongoing difficulty to establish an ac-
curate absolute chronology. That is the subject of a debate between those supporting a low
chronology (following I. Finkelstein) and the exponents of the Biblical Archaeology. At the
centre of the controversy lies the archaeological data from the Southern Levantine area, on

   11
        Giardino (in press), Tabb. 5.5-5.6.
   12
        This applies especially to the absolute chronology of the Syro-Palestinian coast: a high degree of reliability
is available only from the military campaigns of Tiglatpileser III (745-727 BC) when the correlations of archae-
ological contexts to documented historical events increase: Botto (2005), 589 (with note 38). In general, also
for Western Mediterranean area, currently there are no valid absolute dates in the chronological sequence of the
Greek Iron Age earlier than the second half of the eighth century BC: Fantalkin (2001), 122.
    13
        For a synthesis of the factors that complicate the use of 14C dating cf.: Núñez Calvo (2016a), 80.
    14
        Cf. A. Mazar in Coldstream, Mazar (2003) contra Finkelstein, Piasetzky (2009).
    15
        Cf. below: § The colonial ceramic production: the Iberian Peninsula with notes 77-78.
    16
        Coldstream (1968).
    17
        Among the papers upon the topic cf.: Finkelstein (1998a); Finkelstein (1998b); Finkelstein, Silberman
(2001).
    18
        Finkelstein (1999), 39.


                                                          3
                                                     Sara Giardino




Fig. 1. Eastern Mediterranean I (M-OR I), 1100/1050 - 900 BC (1.1.1, 3.1.1, 3.1.2, 3.3.3 = Tyre; 1.2.4 =
                                  Hazor; 3.1.3, 3.3.1, 3.8.5 = Tell Kazel).




which many discussions have been focused thus far, both for the many ongoing researches
and for the use of 14C dating techniques19.
    Since in this framework I cannot address this issue in detail20, I will concentrate on the
stages of the evolution of the Levantine open forms and on their absolute chronology, whose
determination has required a synchronization of artefactual (including those of regions such
as Cyprus and Greece), stratigraphic and radiometric data.
    From the study of the reconstructed chrono-typological sequence for the eastern zone
it is possible to establish a few general observations. Within the envisioned long period, I
identify three great chrono-typological horizons which correspond to the fundamental stages
of the formal and stylistic evolution of the open forms. Among the Levantine sites being in-
vestigated21, the main ones used as reference are Tyre22 and Sarepta23 since they provide fully
continuous sequences across the Late Bronze and Iron ages.
    The most archaic horizon concerns materials coming from layers following a transitional
phase between the end of the Late Bronze Age and the beginning of the Early Iron Age. They
have retained many characteristics of the previous phase in which the different regions of the
Levantine coast shared a similar ceramic repertoire. A starting dating around 1100/1050 BC
is suggested and the first chrono-typological horizon, called Eastern Mediterranean I (M-OR
I, Fig. 1), continues until the end of the 10th century. It is characterized by local ceramics de-
veloped from late Bronze Age prototypes, mostly undecorated (Plain Ware)24. The vessels in
use in this period are generally bowls with a curved body wall25 or globular bowls26. The rare
samples of plates have a narrow rim and curved wall27.
    The subsequent chrono-topological horizon, namely Eastern Mediterranean II (M-OR
II, Fig. 2), starts around the beginning of the 9th century and finishes at the end of the same
century28. A significant change occurs: the use of red slip and bichrome decorative patterns,
    19
       Cf. on these issues: Levy, Higham [ed.] (2005), especially papers of A. Mazar and I. Finkelstein in the
volume.
    20
       For further information I refer to: Giardino (in press).
    21
       Cf. note 5.
    22
       Bikai (1978).
    23
       Anderson (1988).
    24
       The key contexts for this stage are: Tyre (XIII-XI), Sarepta (E1-D2, first part of D1), Tell Kazel (IA I),
Hazor (XII-XI), Tell Keisan (9-8), Tel Dor (Ir1b - 1/2).
    25
       Subtypes 3.1.1-3.1.3.
    26
       Subtypes 3.3.1, 3.3.3.
    27
       Type 1.1.0.
    28
       The key contexts for this stage are: Tyre (X-VI), Tyre - al Bass (II), Sarepta (final part of D1 and first part C2),
Tell Kazel (IA IIA, part of IIB), Achziv (T.C.4), Hazor (X-IX, first part of VIII), Tell Keisan (7-6), Tel Dor (Ir2a).


                                                            4
                              Phoenician ceramic tableware between East and West




Fig. 2. Eastern Mediterranean II (M-OR II), 900-800 BC (1.1.2, 1.1.3, 1.2.1, 1.2.2, 1.2.4, 3.1.2, 3.1.3, 3.1.4,
3.3.3, 3.3.4, 3.4.1, 3.4.3, 3.7.2, 3.7.3, 3.8.1, 3.8.2, 3.8.3, 3.8.5, 3.8.7, 3.8.8 = Hazor; 1.2.3, 3.4.2, 3.7.4 =
 Achziv; 3.1.1, 3.2.1 = Tyre; 3.2.2, 3.3.1 = Tyre - al Bass; 3.3.2 = Tell Keisan; 3.5.1 = Khaldé; 3.7.1 = Sarepta).




with red and black stripes, becomes much more frequent, spreading at this stage from large
containers to smaller vessels like, exactly, bowls and plates. The plates are yet sporadic, both
with narrow29 or simple30 rim. In addition to bowls with a curved body wall31 or to globular
bowls32, which continue in this period, new types spring with shallow basin and flaring rim33,
with plain straight-sided flaring profile34, carinated with straight profile35 or with curvilinear
profile36.



   29
        Subtypes 1.1.2-1.1.3.
   30
        Type 1.2.0.
     31
        Type 3.1.0.
     32
        Type 3.3.0.
     33
        Subtypes 3.2.1-3.2.2.
     34
        Subtypes 3.4.1-3.4.3.
     35
        Type 3.7.0. It is interesting to note that the subtype 3.7.1, and especially one vessel from Sarepta (Stratum
D1, 950 - 850/825, Anderson (1988), 625, pl. 33, 14 = Giardino (in press), n. 124, tav. XCV), has a parallel in
the Bir Massouda context of Carthage (BM04/4460, Docter et al. (2008), fig. 3, 4; cf. below notes 85, 96) and
is seemingly non attested in any other western context.
     36
        Subtypes 3.8.1-3.8.2, 3.8.4-3.8.5, 3.8.7.


                                                         5
                                                   Sara Giardino




Fig. 3. Eastern Mediterranean III (M-OR III), 800 - 550/500 BC (1.1.2, 1.2.3, 3.2.1, 3.2.3, 3.3.1 = Tyre - al
Bass; 1.1.3, 1.2.1, 1.2.2, 1.2.4, 1.3.2, 3.2.2, 3.2.4, 3.4.1, 3.4.2, 3.5.1, 3.5.2, 3.7.1 = Tyre; 1.4.1, 1.4.2, 1.5.1,
3.8.6 = Tell Keisan; 3.1.4, 3.3.2, 3.3.4, 3.4.3, 3.6.1, 3.6.2, 3.7.2, 3.7.3, 3.7.4, 3.8.1, 3.8.2, 3.8.3, 3.8.4, 3.8.8 =
                                    Hazor; 3.3.3, 3.8.5, 3.8.7 = Ras el-Bassit).



    Finally, the third chrono-typological horizon identified, namely Eastern Mediterranean III
(M-OR III, Fig. 3) covers the chronological range from the beginning of the 8th to the late
7th or middle/late 6th century37. The layers included overlap with the Phoenician expansion
in the West. Bichrome decorative patterns are progressively abandoned, replaced by the red
slip, the dominant surface cover in the West. For all shapes a more complete documentation
is available in this phase.
    Concerning the plates, in the second half of the 8th century (M-OR IIIB) the type with
narrow rim38 disappears and is replaced by a characteristic central and meridional Levantine
elaboration, i.e. the type with large rim with an interior ridge39, or by sporadic appearances of
the plate with large rim, slightly tilted inwards40 or with very large rim, indistinct outwards,
with concave walls41. Concerning the bowls, there still are types already known from the pre-
   37
       The key contexts for this stage are: Tyre (V-I), Tyre - al Bass (III-V), Sarepta (final part of C2, C1-B), Tell
Kazel (part of IA IIB, IA IIC-III), Khaldé (part of T.121), Achziv (T.A.73, ZRIV, ZRVI, ZRXXIX), Hazor (final
part of VIII, VII-III), Tell Keisan (5-4).
    38
       Type 1.1.0.
    39
       Type 1.4.0.
    40
       Subtype 1.3.2.
    41
       Subtype 1.5.1.


                                                          6
                             Phoenician ceramic tableware between East and West


vious stage, including those with a curved body wall (of which only the variant with a distinct
continuous rim42 remains), those with plain straight-sided flaring profile43, those carinated
with straight profile44. For globular45 or with shallow basin and flaring rim (with two new
subtypes)46 bowls, the reserved slip and incise decoration is also attested especially starting
from the second half of the 8th century (M-OR IIIB-C). New elaborations are known: two
variants of the curvilinear profile type, with high carination and divergent rim47 or with cur-
vilinear high carination and extended divergent rim48 (both sporadically attested), and the
types with plain incurving rim49 and the hemispherical ones with a ridge50.

   The ceramic assemblage from Calle Méndez Núñez 7-13 / Plaza de las Monjas 12, Huelva

    Moving to the Iberian Peninsula, at Huelva, in Calle Méndez Núñez 7-13 / Plaza de las
Monjas 12, a large assemblage of materials was recovered during a rescue excavation. The
pottery includes thousands of Phoenician, autochthonous, Greek, Sardinian, Cypriot and
Villanovan potsherds51. The importance of this assemblage of materials lies in the fact that it
testifies to a material culture that is not preserved in other archaeological contexts and that
it records the existence of a ceramic level more archaic compared to those of the first known
western establishments.
    Accurate dating of this mixture of materials is hampered by the conditions of its extraction.
After the first publication of the assemblage, which was not stratified but connected by the
authors to a stage between 900 and 770 BC through typological analysis, other chronological
reconstructions have been proposed. They do not lead to only one conclusion. Linked to the
chronological issue on the early Phoenician presence in the West, these hypotheses have been
almost constantly directed, mostly by scholars of the Iberian sphere, towards a raise of the
chronologies52.
    Because of the lack of any orderly stratigraphic context, in my opinion, it is impossible
to organize the material in a reconstructed depositional stratigraphy and to know how many
occupation levels the material represents53 or whether the deposit took place on only one time
or in the chronological range of several decades.
    The 250 samples catalogued in my study are divided into three formal groups: plates
(1.0.0), bowls (3.0.0) and deep bowls (6.0.0).


   42
        Subtype 3.1.4.
   43
        Subtypes 3.4.1-3.4.3.
     44
        Type 3.7.0.
     45
        Type 3.3.0.
     46
        Type 3.2.0.
     47
        Subtype 3.8.3.
     48
        Subtype 3.8.6.
     49
        Subtypes 3.5.1-3.5.2.
     50
        Type 3.6.0.
     51
        González de Canales Cerisola et al. (2004); González de Canales Cerisola et al. (2006).
     52
        It has been proposed, through the organization of the out of context material in a reconstructed depo-
sitional stratigraphy and through the use of radiocarbon dates, a dating to the full 10th century, if not before:
Mederos Martín (2006); González de Canales Cerisola et al. (2006), 26-27. Among the other scholars that have
dealt with this issue cf.: Torres Ortiz (2005); Nijboer, van der Plicht (2006); Gilboa et al. (2008), 168-173;
Núñez Calvo (2008), 18-19; Torres Ortiz (2008a); Torres Ortiz (2008b); Gilboa (2013).
     53
        Cf. the diverging thesis of A. Mederos Martín (2013).


                                                       7
                                                 Sara Giardino


    Among the most archaic samples there would be two plates included in subtype 1.1.3
(with narrow rim, distinguished externally from the basin) close to Tyre’s type 1454, already
recognized in Strata XVI and XV, but still existing in Stratum IX. They testify to the per-
sistence of some morphological characteristics of the Bronze Age, but they may be dated, as
well as the other examples of the subtype 1.1.3, to the 9th century or to the first half of the 8th
century (M-OR II-IIIA). It is quite interesting to note that the other plates of the narrow rim
type (1.1.0) of the context are comparable only with the repertoire of the motherland and
not, for example, with the potsherds of the archaic phase of the Teatro Cómico of Cádiz55 or
of the pit 20017 of Utica56. The bowls with a curved body wall corresponding to Tyre’s types
11-13 are more profuse. The first subtype (3.1.1) is attested in Stratum XIII but one sample
is still found in Stratum X, witnessing a usage, confirmed by the documentation of other sites
of the Syro-Palestinian coast, starting from the early stages of the Iron Age until the first half
of the 9th century (M-OR I-IIA). The same dating can be attributed to the second subtype
(3.1.2), which is, however, very common in Tyre during the entire time lapse represented by
the Strata XIII-X and in the other Levantine sites between 11th-9th centuries (M-OR I-II).
Also these two mentioned subtypes (3.1.1-3.1.2), as well as the plates of the narrow rim type
(1.1.0), are missing in the other western sites, including Cádiz or Utica.
    All the other analysed potsherds find their best comparisons in Strata X and IV (9th - first
half 8th century, M-OR II-IIIA), with a particular concentration in the latter layer and in
some cases in Strata III and II yet (second half 8th century, M-OR IIIB).
    The review of some diagnostic elements57 (Phoenician potsherds of other shapes58, Eu-
boean Subprotogeometric pottery59, and radiometric data60) and the remark of the absence
of some typical late morphologies of Tyre (of Strata III-I)61 lead to reduce the time span indi-

   54
       Due to the similarity to the pottery of Tyre “in combination with the historical prominence of the me-
tropolis in the early expansion”, the typology elaborated by P.M. Bikai has been applied by the authors to the
Phoenician pottery of Huelva: Bikai (1978); González de Canales Cerisola et al. (2006), 15. The two mentioned
plates are: González de Canales Cerisola et al. (2004), lám. III, 28-29 = Giardino (in press), tav. IV, cat. nn.
3372-3373.
    55
       Periodo II: Torres Ortiz et al. (2014), 53-58, fig. 3-4 (820/800 - 760/750 BC).
    56
       López Castro et al. (2016), 74, fig. 6.
    57
       I will not include the palaeographic documents because of their uncertain chronological attribution.
M.L. Heltzer has proposed a dating to the 11th-10th century for one graffito, n. 2, and to circa 800 BC or just
before for the others: González de Canales Cerisola et al. (2004), 133-136. However, it should be pointed out
that a dating so archaic such as that proposed for the graffito n. 2 is not in accordance with the chronology of
the ceramic support, a handmade amphora of the Sant’Imbenia type: Botto (2004-2005), 22.
    58
       Jugs types 9 e 11 (spouted jugs) e Storage jars type 12, as well as Plates 11-13, are very common in the
early Iron Age and are not recorded after Stratum IX of Tyre (900-850 BC): Giardino (in press), 144-145.
    59
       Five vases (two kantharoi, two skyphoi, a trefoil mouth jug) initially ascribed by the editors to the Attic
Middle Geometric II (800-760 BC) have been identified as Euboean by A. Domínguez Monedero; two skyphoi
and fifteen plates with pendent sernicircles from Euboea can be ascribed to Subprotogeometric I-III (900-750
BC): González de Canales Cerisola et al. (2006), 19; Domínguez Monedero (2013), 16.
    60
       The combination of three radiometric dates issued by the analysis on cattle bones provide a dating range
from 930 to 830 BC with a 94 % probability: Nijboer, van der Plicht (2006); Nijboer, van der Plicht (2008).
This absolute chronology attests the Phoenician presence in Huelva in the first half of the 9th century “if nor
before”: Nijboer, van der Plicht (2006), 35. Nevertheless, since the dating comes from a secondary and mixed
assemblage, it cannot be used to date any artefacts because it is not sure that artefacts and bones hail from the
same ensemble or moment or if the dating can be related to the phase with greater presence of material: Gilboa
(2013), 322.
    61
       E.g., Plates 1-5, corresponding to Types 1.2.0, 1.4.0, 2.1.0 and subtype 6.4.1, are often found in other
western settlements: Giardino (in press), 145.


                                                        8
                            Phoenician ceramic tableware between East and West




                                      Fig. 4. Huelva, 900 - 775/760 BC.



cated by the potsherds compared with the Tyre stratigraphic sequence and to establish a more
accurate chronological definition for the deposit.
    By absolute chronology data from the examined archaeological evidences it comes to light
that the archaic assemblage of Huelva is made up of materials dating to the early 9th century
(or to the last quarter of the 10th century) up to 775/760 BC. This period corresponds to the
horizons Eastern Mediterranean II and IIIA (M-OR II-IIIA, Fig. 4).
    A situation partially similar to that of Huelva has occurred at Utica, according to the first
published results of the Tunisian-Spanish research project62. The deposit recovered in the pit
2001763 is composed by Phoenician, Greek Geometric, Sardinian, Libyan, Villanovan and
Tartessian pottery. As stated by the authors’ analysis, the Phoenician potsherds are in chrono-
logical and typological correspondence with the Period II of Tyre - al Bass. The end of the
deposit is dated before the end of the 9th century, corresponding with Strata from X/IX to
VI of Tyre. The 14C dating64 and the Greek ceramics65 complete the chronological framework
provided by the Phoenician pottery.
    Latest materials of the mixed assemblage of Huelva are comparable with the vessels of the
first identified ceramic horizon found at Teatro Cómico of Cádiz (Periodo II)66. In terms of
relative chronology, the final moment of Huelva would overlap then with the initial stages of
the context of Teatro Cómico of Cádiz and with the phase III of the settlement La Rebana-
dilla67, near Malaga, the latter being a hypothesis at the present state of the research, because
of the lack of published material. Parallels are also detectable with the beginning of the Morro
de Mezquitilla sequence (B1a)68 and with part of the recovered material of Calle Canovas del
Castillo of Cádiz69. For the shared ceramic horizon a final dating to around the first quarter or
   62
      López Castro et al. (2014); López Castro et al. (2015).
   63
      López Castro et al. (2016). This paper enriches the knowledge about the archaic pottery of Utica provided
by previous publications: Ben Jerbania (2013), 45-50; Ben Jerbania, Redissi (2014).
   64
      The dating obtained from the seeds found in the pit’s fill indicate a chronology around 925-900 cal BC:
López Castro et al. (2016), 81-84.
   65
      The Greek pottery falls substantially within the repertoire of the Middle Geometric II but there are some
elements, such as a skyphos with crosshatched triangles and semi-circular bands, currently not attested in any
other wester context: López Castro et al. (2016), 76-77.
   66
      Cf. note 55.
   67
      Sánchez Sánchez-Moreno et al. (2011); Sánchez Sánchez-Moreno et al. (2012).
   68
      Maass Lindemann (1990); Maass Lindemann (2008).
   69
      Córdoba Alonso, Ruiz Mata (2005).


                                                      9
                                              Sara Giardino


the first third of the 8th century is suggested: a dating anchored to the conventional chronol-
ogy of Greek Geometric and to the Stratum IV of Tyre (775 - 760/750 BC)70.
   Although the most recent evidences of the assemblage of Huelva would overlap chrono-
logically with the most archaic vessels of the other contexts mentioned above, the deposit of
Huelva is characterized by archaic ceramic types currently not present in any other Western
Phoenician settlement. As stated above, a better clarification is impossible because of the
conditions of the extraction but also because of the problems posed by the chronology of
the Greek pottery. The kind of the assemblage, however, seems to be more clear. Unlike the
evidence recently emerged in the archaeological investigations at the Teatro Cómico of Cádiz,
at La Rebanadilla or at Utica, the assemblage of Huelva seems to represent a horizon not con-
nected to substantial architectural elements and in which it is not documented, apparently71,
a ceramic western Phoenician production.
   Coming back to the above-mentioned problematics raised by the 14C dating and the
chronology of the Greek ceramics, as explained by P. Bernardini, from Huelva as well as
from El Carambolo, La Rebanadilla and Utica, currently the most archaic western contexts
available with Phoenician evidences, the radiometric dating does not exclude a backdating for
the earliest Phoenician presence in the Western Mediterranean. In spite of this, however, the
organic samples used for the analysis are in constant association with the Greek Middle Geo-
metric II and Subprotogeometric III potsherds and with Phoenician ceramics related to Tyre’s
Strata VIII-IV. This overall situation, notwithstanding any possible raising of the chronology
of the Tyre’s stratigraphy and of the Greek Geometric pottery (especially considering that in
the latter case the proposition of revision has been considered with mistrust) recommends an
extreme caution72.

   The colonial ceramic production: the Iberian Peninsula

    The active trade witnessed by the materials of the archaic phase of Huelva moves up and
partly coincides with the beginning of a permanent Phoenician presence in the western Med-
iterranean area. That entails the activation of the local ceramic production and the progressive
replacement of imported eastern pottery by colonial potters’ products. As well as for the stage
discussed in the last paragraph, the chronology of this initial phase is argued.
    The 14C dating raises sometimes considerably the traditional chronology of the beginning
of the Phoenician westward expansion. This chronological information has been used to
redefine ex novo the whole issue. In fact, the evidence of radiocarbon dates suggests that the
process must be dated to the 9th century, at least 50 years earlier than conventional chronol-
ogy (i.e., traditional dating elaborated by the archaeologist based on stratigraphy, typolog-
ical sequences of local Phoenician ceramics, Greek imports and historical considerations)
suggests. The divergences of the outcomes of different dating methods (radiochronology,
dendrochronology and conventional chrono-typological schemes) produced significant time
gaps, for example when both conventional and radiometric dating systems were employed.
At present various scholars deal with this issue, suggesting different solutions to the problem
of chronological discrepancy and not coming to univocal conclusions: A. Mederos Martín73
   70
       Giardino (in press).
   71
       The hypothesis of the possible provenance from Tyre is based only on an optical similarity and not on
archaeometric analysis: González de Canales Cerisola et al. (2006), 15-16.
    72
       Bernardini (2016), 4-6.
    73
       Mederos Martín (2005).


                                                    10
                              Phoenician ceramic tableware between East and West


dates the earlier foundation in Spain back in the second half of the 10th century, M.E. Aubet74
to the 9th century, M. Torres Ortiz75 to the beginning of the last quarter of the 9th century and
P.V. Castro Martínez to circa 900 BC76. Among those reckoning the outcomes of radiocarbon
dating method reliable, some have evaluated the necessity of a re-examination of the absolute
chronology of Greek Geometric pottery. Proposals to raise the dates of the Geometric style
have been advanced77. But regarding this suggestion, the doubts raised about some radiomet-
ric results make necessary to approach it with caution: the quality of some contexts at the
present stage of archaeological knowledge would not permit to argue for a higher absolute
Greek Geometric chronology. The case of Carthage represents one of the best examples of the
issues discussed just above: the different dating methods of the radiochronology and of con-
ventional chrono-typological schemes, to which the testimonies of ancient texts are added,
are combined for the study of the site78.
    The on-going excavations keep on providing new evidences and some key sites of Phoe-
nician expansion such as Carthage79, Utica80, Motya81, and Sulcis82 for the Central Mediter-
ranean area and Cádiz (Teatro Cómico, Calle Ancha, Casa del Obispo)83 for Spain already
demonstrate a stable Phoenician presence towards the end of the 9th or the first quarter of the
8th century, according to the conventional dating. Even though the new discoveries raise the
dating of the western foundations, the average time intervals obtained through radiocarbon
dating is not always consistent with the outcome of dating based on the archaeological con-
texts; thus sometimes the ‘time gap’ persists84. The latest evidences from Bir Massouda site at
Carthage seem however to partially bridge the gap85.
   74
        Aubet (1994), 321-323.
   75
        Torres Ortiz (2008a).
    76
        Castro Martínez (1994), 144.
    77
        Cf., for example, Mederos Martín (2005); Brandherm (2008); Nijboer, van der Plicht (2008); van der
Plicht et al. (2009).
    78
        The 14C determinations obtained from cattle bones of the lowest layers, Phases I and II, uncovered in
the excavations of Hamburg University below the Decumanus Maximus have provided a dating to the second
half of the 9th century. Notwithstanding that some of these analysed samples could not be associated to local or
imported materials, certain scholars suggested a correction of the chronology of the Greek Geometric period:
Nijboer, van der Plicht (2008). According to the authors of the analysis, the 14C dates of Carthage are consistent
with its historical foundation, which is 814/813 BC, and together with radiocarbon dating contributions of
other 8 sites (in Israel, Sinai - Egypt, Jordan, Spain, and Italy), they “support a “high chronology” for the Iron
Age in each respective area of the Mediterranean region”. Furthermore, again quoting the authors, the “Huelva
and Carthage 14C dates are a clear indication that Phoenician contacts with cultures in the western Mediterra-
nean…start probably during the first half of the 9th century BCE”: van der Plicht et al. (2009). Concerning this
radiometric data, nevertheless, the reliability is being challenged by the problems of contextualization because
of their secondary stratigraphic position: Botto (2004-2005), 286-288.
    79
        Vegas [ed.] (2002); Docter et al. (2008).
    80
        López Castro et al. (2016).
    81
        Nigro (2013); Nigro (2016); Nigro, Spagnoli (2017).
    82
        Bartoloni (2005); Bartoloni (2008); Bartoloni (2010); Pompianu (2010); Guirguis (2012); Guirguis,
Unali (2016).
    83
        Botto [ed.] (2014) and, specifically, for the evidences of the Teatro Cómico: Gener Basallote et al. (2014a);
Torres Ortiz et al. (2014); of the Calle Ancha: Ruiz Mata et al. (2014); of the Casa del Obispo: Gener Basallote
et al. (2014b).
    84
        This is the case, for example, of Lixus where the radiocarbon determinations (however suffering from the
plateau effect) are in association with pottery conventionally dated to the second half of the 8th century: Álvarez,
Gómez Bellard (2005); Torres Ortiz (2008a), 141.
    85
        Recently the excavations have yielded new radiocarbon dates from the lowest layers that appear to be
slightly younger than the radiocarbon results from the Hamburg excavations. Particularly relevant are the de-


                                                        11
                                                Sara Giardino


    Coming back to the analysis of the material culture, by an Iberian Peninsula overview on
open forms of the Phoenician repertoire, different chrono-typological horizons are recog-
nized: they mark the diachronic development from the early stages, in continuity with the
eastern tradition, until the final outcomes of an independent and original colonial produc-
tion.
    Rare potsherds are part of the first chrono-typological horizon, namely Iberian Peninsula
I (PEN-IB I, Fig. 5): they come from Morro de Mezquitilla and Castillo de Doña Blanca
and include: plates with horizontal86 or inclined inward and distinguished outside from the
basin87 or drooping88 rim, some of which are shaped with a light carination under the rim and
concave basin, no longer attested in the second half of the 8th century; two imported bowls
with shallow basin and flaring rim, signally carinated89; other bowls globular90, with plain
straight-sided flaring profile91, carinated with straight profile and triangular rim92 or with
curvilinear profile93. The framework of this archaic stage is now enriched by the more or less
contemporary potsherds recently brought to light at the Teatro Cómico of Cádiz (Periodo
II). They confirm the presence of the same ceramic types94. In terms of relative chronology
this phase corresponds to the beginning of the sequence of Morro de Mezquitilla (B1a), of
Castillo de Doña Blanca (although for the latter site, published archaic materials are lacking)
as well as to part of the phase II of the Teatro Cómico and, probably, of part of the sequences
of Calle Canovas del Castillo of Cádiz and La Rebanadilla (III-II)95. This pottery horizon
compares favourably with the important Phoenician ceramics recovered in the lower layers
of the Bir Massouda sequence, at Carthage, especially in the Strata BM04/4461 and 446096.
In terms of absolute chronology, it can be proposed for these materials a collocation between
800/775 and 760/750 BC, based on the comparison with eastern repertoires (M-OR IIIA)97.
    Other three chrono-typological horizons follow: the documentation in this case is more
copious, the Phoenician foundations being more numerous.
    The second chrono-typological horizon, namely Iberian Peninsula II (PEN-IB II, fig. 6),
dates to the second half of the 8th century. The documentation is well reflected in the short
stratigraphic sequence of Las Chorreras or by the evidences from Morro de Mezquitilla II /
B1b1 and Castillo de Doña Blanca. Among the vessels in use in this period there are plates


terminations from the Trench 4, where local and imported ceramics are sometimes in association with 14C
determinations. Apart from the oldest determination affecting the second half of the 9th century, obtained in
the deepest layer (BM04/4465 - GrA-28584), the others cover the 8th-6th centuries span, with a high probability
for the second and third quarters of the 8th century. These determinations are consistent with the chronological
indications provided by the Phoenician ceramics, most of all concerning the Strata BM04/4461 - 4460: Docter
et al. (2008); Núñez Calvo (2016b). Cf. below note 96.
    86
        Subtype 1.2.1.
    87
        Subtype 1.2.3.
    88
        Subtype 1.2.4.
    89
        Subtype 3.2.2.
    90
        Subtypes 3.3.1-3.3.3.
    91
        Subtype 3.4.1.
    92
        Subtype 3.7.3.
    93
        Subtypes 3.8.4, 3.8.6, 3.8.7.
    94
        Cf. note 55.
    95
        Cf. notes 55, 67-69.
    96
        Docter et al. (2008). Cf. the recent analysis of F.J. Núñez Calvo on the assemblage of Strata BM04/4461
- 4460: Núñez Calvo (2016b).
    97
        According to the Iron Age chronology of the eastern sites adopted in my research: Giardino (in press).


                                                      12
                             Phoenician ceramic tableware between East and West




Fig. 5. Iberian Peninsula I (PEN-IB I), 800/775 - 760/750 BC (1.2.1, 1.2.3, 3.2.2, 3.3.1, 3.3.2, 3.3.3, 3.7.3,
              3.8.4, 3.8.6 = Morro de Mezquitilla; 1.2.4, 3.4.1, 3.8.7 = Castillo de Doña Blanca).




Fig. 6. Iberian Peninsula II (PEN-IB II), 750-700 BC (1.2.1, 1.2.4, 3.3.1, 3.3.3, 3.4.1, 3.4.2, 3.5.3, 3.7.4, 3.8.6,
3.8.8 = Las Chorreras; 1.2.3, 3.2.2 = Castillo de Doña Blanca; 1.3.1, 3.9.1 = Morro de Mezquitilla; 1.3.2, 1.3.3,
                               3.7.2, 3.8.7, 3.8.9 = La Fonteta; 3.7.3 = Toscanos).



with horizontal, inclined inward or drooping rim98 together with the first attestations with
large rim99. Concerning the bowls the variants increase for the typologies already known in
the earlier phase100; some innovations are represented by the subtype with plain incurving rim
101
    or with curvilinear carination102.
    The third horizon chrono-typological, namely Iberian Peninsula III (PEN-IB III, Fig. 7),
can be dated to the first half of the 7th century. Its beginning corresponds to the abandonment
of the settlement of Las Chorreras and the evidences are given now especially by the settle-
ments of Cerro del Villar (VII-VI) and Toscanos (IV). To the variants already known still in



   98
       Subtypes 1.2.1, 1.2.3-1.2.4.
   99
       Subtypes 1.3.1-1.3.2.
   100
        Subtypes 3.3.1-3.3.3, 3.4.1-3.4.2, 3.7.2-3.7.4, 3.8.4, 3.8.6, 3.8.8-3.8.9.
   101
        Subtype 3.5.3.
   102
        Subtype 3.9.1.


                                                        13
                                                   Sara Giardino




Fig. 7. Iberian Peninsula III (PEN-IB III), 700-650 BC (1.2.1, 1.2.4, 1.3.1, 1.3.2, 1.3.3, 3.3.3, 3.3.5, 3.7.2,
3.8.7, 3.8.8 = La Fonteta; 1.2.3, 3.7.3, 3.8.9 = Huelva; 3.3.1, 3.8.5 = Cerro del Villar; 3.4.4, 3.5.3 = Toscanos).




Fig. 8. Iberian Peninsula IV (PEN-IB IV), 650-500 BC (1.2.1, 1.2.3, 3.3.1, 3.4.1, 3.4.2, 3.8.9 = Huelva; 1.3.1,
1.5.3, 3.3.5, 3.7.3, 3.8.5, 3.8.7 = La Fonteta; 1.3.2, 1.3.3 = - Puente de Noy; 1.5.1, 1.5.2 = Almuñécar - Cerro
   de San Cristóbal; 3.3.2, 3.3.4 = Trayamar; 3.4.4 = Toscanos; 3.7.2, 3.8.6, 3.8.8, 3.9.2 = Cerro del Villar).




use103 new ones are added concerning the plate with large rim104 and the globular bowls105,
the bowls plain straight-sided flaring profile106 and those carinated with curvilinear profile107.
   Between the second half of the 7th and the late 6th century the fourth and final chrono-ty-
pological horizon identified is enclosed, namely Iberian Peninsula IV (PEN-IB IV, Fig. 8).
Trayamar fits among the key settlements for observing developments in the ceramic reper-

   103
         Subtypes 3.3.1, 3.3.3, 3.4.2, 3.5.3, 3.7.2-3.7.4, 3.8.8-3.8.9.
   104
         Subtype 1.3.3.
   105
         Subtype 3.3.5.
   106
         Subtype 3.4.4.
   107
         Subtypes 3.8.5, 3.8.7.


                                                         14
                           Phoenician ceramic tableware between East and West


toire. The plates with very large rim (1.5.0) are the most important innovation of this peri-
od108; they gradually replace most of the preceding productions of Levantine tradition. For
the bowls the appearance of the variants with hemispherical profile for the globular bowls109
and with triangular rim for those with curvilinear carination110 occurs and many types con-
tinue to be attested111.
    Through the examination of the findings, a continuity with the production of the Phoe-
nician motherland can be perceived in open forms of the ceramic tableware, even if already
from the earliest stages of the Phoenician expansion in the West and, more precisely, from the
third quarter or the last twenty-five years of the 8th century, the elaborations have been joined
by elements of regional originality. One can detect this behaviour in the repertoires of other
Phoenician settlements, such as, for example, Carthage: on one hand, the ceramic production
is strongly linked to the Eastern tradition, on the other hand, it is receptive to the innovations
of the local contexts of the western Mediterranean Sea. The remains of the Huelva assem-
blage stand out the resemblance with the pottery of Tyre, in particular of the Strata X-IV, so
strong that many of them may have been imported from the Phoenician metropolis and not
produced on place112. The nature of the material seems to testify to the presence of a trade
settlement113 well developed but distant from the following organization of the settlements.
During the second half of the 8th century radical changes occurred altering the physiognomy
of the oriental presence in the Iberian Peninsula, as in general in the Mediterranean Sea: a
previous mostly commercial attendance is transformed into a stable presence of Phoenician
population. The pottery production of the circuit of the foundations, that prosper quickly,
introduces the original characters. The regional diversification of the repertoire is accentuated
during the 7th century, creating a gap between the productions coming from the different
areas of the Mediterranean basin achieved by the Phoenician expansion114.




   108
       Types 1.2.0-1.3.0. For a detailed study on the new elaboration (1.5.0): Bartoloni (1996); Giardino
(2013), 82, n. 37; Giardino (2015), 55, n. 21.
   109
       Subtype 3.3.4.
   110
       Subtype 3.9.2.
   111
       3.3.1, 3.3.3, 3.3.5, 3.4.1-3.4.2, 3.4.4, 3.5.3, 3.7.2-3.7.3, 3.8.5-3.8.9.
   112
       Cf. note 71.
   113
       González de Canales Cerisola et al. (2004), 208-210; Aubet (2012), 230-234.
   114
       I would like to thank the anonymous reviewers of this paper for their suggestions and comments.


                                                   15
                                                  Sara Giardino


Bibliographical references

Álvarez N., Gómez Bellard C. (2005), La ocupación fenicia. II. Cerámicas, in Lixus – 2: Ladera Sur: excavaciones
   arqueológicas marroco-españolas en la colonia fenicia, campañas 2000-2003, Habibi M., Aranegui Gascó C.
   [eds],Valencia: Universitat de València, Departament de Prehistòria i d’Arqueologia (=Saguntum Extra, 6),
   161-178.
Anderson W.P. (1988), Sarepta I. The Late Bronze and Iron Age Strata of Area II,Y. The University Museum of the
   University of Pennsylvania Excavations at Sarafand, Lebanon, Beyrouth : Département des publications de
   l’Université Libanaise.
Aubet M.E. (1994), Tiro y las colonias fenicias de Occidente, Barcelona: Ed. Crítica.
Aubet M.E. (2012), El barrio comercial fenicio como estrategia colonial, Rivista di Studi Fenici, 40, 221-236.
Balzano G. (1999), Ceramica fenicia di Monte Sirai. Le forme aperte del vano C 33, Pisa-Roma: Fabrizio Serra
   Editore (=supplemento Rivista di Studi Fenici XXVII, 1999).
Bartoloni P. (1996), La necropoli di Bitia, Pisa-Roma: Fabrizio Serra Editore (=Collezione di Studi Fenici, 38).
Bartoloni P. (2005), Nuove testimonianze sui commerci sulcitani, in Mozia - XI. Zona C. Il tempo del Kothon.
   Rapporto preliminare delle campagne di scavi XIII e XXIV (2003-2004) condotte congiuntamente con il Servizio
   Beni Archeologici della Soprintendenza Regionale per i Beni Culturali e Ambientali di Trapani, Nigro L. [ed.],
   Roma: Missione Archeologica di Mozia (=Quaderni di Archeologia fenicio-punica, II), 563-568.
Bartoloni P. (2008), Nuovi dati sulla cronologia di Sulky, in L’Africa romana. Le ricchezze dell’Africa. Risorse,
   produzioni, scambi. Atti del XVII Convegno di Studi (Siviglia, 14-17 dicembre 2006), González J., Ruggeri
   P., Vismara C., Zucca R. [eds], Roma: Carocci [Africa Romana XVII], 1595-1606.
Bartoloni P. (2010), Nuovi dati sulla cronologia di Sulky, in Tiro, Cartagine, Lixus. Nuove acquisizioni. Atti del
   Convegno Internazionale in onore di Maria Giulia Amadasi Guzzo (Roma, 24-25 novembre 2008), Mat-
   thiae P., Nigro L., Romano L. [eds], Roma: Università degli studi di Roma “La Sapienza” (=Quaderni di
   Vicino Oriente, IV), 7-18.
Ben Jerbania I. (2013), Observations préliminaires sur la cèramique archaïque d’Utique, Utique. Mission fran-
   co-tunisienne, 45-50.
Ben Jerbania I., Redissi T. (2014), Utique et la Méditerranée centrale à la fin du IXe et au VIIIe s.av.J.C.: les
   einsegnements de la céramique greche géometrique, Rivista di Studi Fenici, 42, 177-204.
Bernardini P. (2016), I Fenici sulle rotte dell’Occidente nel IX sec. a.C. Cronologie, incontri, strategie, CaSteR
   1 (2016), doi: 10.13125/caster/2485, http://ojs.unica.it/index.php/caster/, 1-41.
Bikai P.M. (1978), Pottery of Tyre, Warminster: Aris & Phillips.
Botto M. (2004-2005), Da Sulky a Huelva: considerazioni sui commerci fenici nel Mediterraneo antico, Annali
   Istituto Orientale di Napoli, 11-12, 9-27.
Botto M. (2005), Per una riconsiderazione della cronologia degli inizi della colonizzazione fenicia nel Mediter-
   raneo centro-occidentale, in Oriente e Occidente: metodi e discipline a confronto. Riflessioni sulla cronologia
   dell’Età del Ferro in Italia. Atti dell’incontro di studi, Roma, 30-31 ottobre 2003, Bartoloni G., Delpino F.
   [eds], Pisa: Istituti editoriali e poligrafici Internazionali (=Mediterranea, I), 579-628.
Botto M. (2009), La ceramica da mensa e da dispensa fenicia e punica, in Nora. Il foro romano. Storia di un’area
   urbana dall’età fenicia alla tarda antichità. 1997-2006. Vol.II, 1. I materiali preromani, Bonetto J., Falezza
   G., Ghiotto A.R., Novello M. [eds], Padova: Università degli Studi di Padova, Dipartimento di Archeologia
   (=Scavi di Nora, I), 97-237.
Botto M. [ed.] (2014), Los Fenicios en la Bahía de Cádiz. Nuevas investigaciones, Roma: Fabrizio Serra Editore
   (=Collezione di Studi Fenici, 46) [Los Fenicios en la bahía de Cádiz].
Brandherm D. (2008), Greek and Phoenician potsherds between East and West: a chronological dilemma?, in A
   New Dawn for the Dark Age? Shifting Paradigms in Mediterranean Iron Age Chronology = L’âge obscur se fait-il jour




                                                        16
                             Phoenician ceramic tableware between East and West


   de nouveau ? Les paradigmes changeants de la chronologie de l’âge du Fer en Méditerranée, Brandherm D., Trachsel
   M. [eds], Oxford: Archaeopress (=BAR International Series, 1871), 149-174 [A New Dawn for the Dark Age].
Castro Martínez P.V. (1994), La Sociedad de los Campos de Urnas en el nordeste de la Peninsula Iberica. La necropo-
   lis de El Calvari (El Molar Priorat Tarragona) (BAR International Series, 592), Oxford: Tempus Reparatum.
Coldstream J.N. (1968), Greek geometric pottery: a survey of ten local styles and their chronology, London: Methuen.
Coldstream J.N., Mazar A. (2003), Greek pottery from Tel Rehov and Iron Age chronology, Israel Exploration
   Journal, 53.1, 29-48.
Córdoba Alonso I., Ruiz Mata D. (2005), El asentamiento fenicio arcaico de la calle Cánovas del Castillo
   (Cádiz). Un análisis preliminar, in El Período Orientalizante. Actas del III simposio internacional de arqueo-
   logía de Mérida: protohistoria del Mediterráneo occidental, Celestino Pérez S., Jiménez Ávila J. [eds], Mérida:
   C.S.I.C., Consorcio de Mérida (=Anejos de Archivo español de arqueología, XXXV), 1269-1322.
Docter R., Telmini M., Van Der Plicht J., Mansel K., Chelbi F., Nijboer A.J., Van Neer W., Garsallah S. (2008),
  New Radiocarbon Dates from Carthage: bridging the gap between history and archaeology, in Beyond the
  Homeland: Markers in Phoenician Chronology, Sagona C. [ed.], Leuven-Paris-Dudley: Peeters (=Ancient
  Near Eastern Studies, suppl. 28), 379-422.
Domínguez Monedero A.J. (2013), Los primeros griegos en la Península Ibérica (s. IX-VI a.C.): mitos, proba-
  bilidades, certezas, in El Oriente Griego en la Península Ibérica: epigrafía e historia, Paz de Hoz M., Mora G.
  [eds], Madrid : Real Academia de la Historia (=Bibliotheca archaeologica hispana, 39), 11-42.
Fantalkin A. (2001), Low Chronology and Greek Proto geometric and Geometric Pottery in the Southern Le-
   vant, Levant, 33, 117-125.
Finkelstein I. (1998a), Bible Archaeology or Archaeology of Palestine in the Iron Age? A Rejoinder, Levant, 30,
   164-174.
Finkelstein I. (1998b), Philistine chronology: high, middle or low?, in Mediterranean peoples in transition. Thir-
   teen to early centuries B.C.E. In honor of Professor Trude Dothan. Proceedings of an international symposium at
   the Hebrew University Jerusalem, Gitin S, Mazar A., Stern E. [eds], Jerusalem: The Israel Exploration Society,
   140-147.
Finkelstein I. (1999), State Formation in Israel and Judah, Near Eastern Archaeology, 62, 35-52.
Finkelstein I., Piasetzky E. (2009), Radiocarbon-dated Destruction Layers: a Skeleton for Iron Age Chronology
   in the Levant, Oxford Journal of Archaeology, 28, 255-274.
Finkelstein I., Silberman N.A. (2001), The Bible Unearthed. Archaeology’s New Vision of Ancient Israel and the
   Origin of its Sacred Texts, New York: Touchstone.
Gener Basallote J.M., De los Ángeles Navarro García M., Payuelo Sáez J.M., Torres Ortìz M., López Rosendo
   E. (2014a), Arquitectura y urbanismo de la Gadir fenicia: el yacimiento del “Teatro Cómico” de Cádiz, in
   Los Fenicios en la bahía de Cádiz, 14-50.
Gener Basallote J.M., Jurado Fresnadillo G., Pajuelo Sáez J.M., Torres Ortìz M. (2014b), El proceso de sacral-
   ización del espacio en Gadir: el yacimiento de la Casa del Obispo (Cádiz), in Los Fenicios en la bahía de
   Cádiz, 123-155.
Giardino S. (2013), Tipologia e cronologia dei piatti fenici nella Penisola Iberica, Sardinia, Corsica et Baleares
   Antiquae, XI, 77-90.
Giardino S. (2015), Produzione e circolazione delle forme aperte della ceramica fenicia da mensa tra XI e VI
   sec. a.C. nella madrepatria e nella Penisola Iberica, in Les céramiques communes. Techniques et cultures en
   contact, Esposito A., Zurbach J. [eds], Paris: De Boccard (=Collection Travaux de la Maison Archéologie &
   Ethnologie, René-Ginouvès, 21), 49-66.
Giardino S. (in press), La ceramica fenicia da mensa: un indicatore culturale e cronologico delle relazioni tra la
   madrepatria e la Penisola Iberica nei secoli X-VI a.C., Roma: Missione Archeologica di Mozia (=Quaderni di
   Archeologia fenicio-punica, VII).




                                                        17
                                                 Sara Giardino


Gilboa A. (2013), À-Propos Huelva: a reassessment of “early” Phoenicians in the West, in Tarteso. El emporio del
   metal, Campos J. M., Alvar, J. [eds], Córdoba: Almuzara (=Colección Huellas del pasado), 311-342.
Gilboa A., Sharon I., Boaretto E. (2008), Tel Dor and the chronology of Phoenician ‘pre-colonization’ stages,
   in Beyond the Homeland: Markers in Phoenician Chronology, Sagona C. [ed.], Leuven-Paris-Dudley: Peeters
   (=Ancient Near Eastern Studies, suppl. 28), 113-204.
Gónzalez De Canales Cerisola F., Serrano Pichardo L., Llompart Gómez J. (2004), El emporio fenicio precolonial
  de Huelva (ca. 900-770 a.C.), Madrid: Biblioteca Nueva.
Gónzalez De Canales Cerisola F., Serrano Pichardo L., Llompart Gómez J.(2006), The pre-colonial Phoenician
  emporium of Huelva ca 900-770 BC, Bulletin antieke beschaving, 81, 13-29.
Guirguis M. (2012), Tyrio fundata potenti. Temi sardi di archeologia fenicio-punica, Sassari: Edes.
Guirguis M., Unali A. (2016), La fondazione di Sulky tra IX e VIII sec. a.C.: riflessioni sulla cultura materiale
   dei più antichi livelli fenici (area del Cronicario - settore II - scavi 2013-2014), in Ubi minor… Le isole
   minori del Mediterraneo centrale dal Neolitico ai primi contatti coloniali. Convegno di Studi in ricordo di
   Giorgio Buchner, a 100 anni dalla nascita (1914-2014). Anacapri, 27 ottobre – Capri, 28 ottobre – Ischia/
   Lacco Ameno, 29 ottobre 2014, Cazzella A., Guidi A., Nomi F. [eds], Roma: Università degli studi di Roma
   “La Sapienza” (=Scienze dell’Antichità, 22), 81-96.
Levy T.E., Higham T. [ed.] (2005): The Bible and Radiocarbon Dating. Archaeology, Text and Science, Oakville,
   CT: Equinox Publishing.
López Castro J.L., Ferjaoui A., Adroher Auroux A., Arbi F., Ben Jerbania I., Dridi F., Essaadi F., Ferrer Albelda
   E., Fumadó Ortega I., Martínez Hahnmüller V., Mederos Martín A., Pardo Barrionuevo C.A., Peña Romo
   V., Sánchez Moreno A. (2014), Proyecto Utica. Investigación en la ciudad fenicio-púnica, Informe y Trabajos,
   11, 201-219.
López Castro J.L., Ferjaoui A., Ben Jerbania I., Ferrer Albelda E., Jendoubi K., Martínez Hahnmüller V., Pardo
   Barrionuevo C., Sánchez Moreno A., Fumadó Ortega I., Mederos Martín A., Carpintero Lozano S., Dhibi
   C., Maldonado López G., Mora Serrano B., Niveau de Villedary y Mariñas A., Peña Romo V., Souissi S.,
   Khalfalli W., Dridi F., Esaadi F. (2015), Proyecto Utica. Excavaciones en la ciudad fenicio-púnica. Cam-
   pañas de 2013 y 2014, Informe y Trabajos, 12, 259-280.
López Castro J.L., Ferjaoui A., Mederos Martín A., Martínez Hahnmüller V., Ben Jerbania I. (2016), La co-
   lonización fenicia inicial en el Mediterráneo Central: nuevas excavaciones arqueológicas en Utica (Túñez),
   Trabajos de Prehistoria, 73, 68-89.
Maass Lindemann G. (1990), Orientalische Importe vom Morro de Mezquitilla, Mitteilungen des deutschen
  archaologischen Instituts (Abteilung Madrider), 31, 169-177.
Maass Lindemann G. (2008), Morro de Mezquitilla: Die Entwicklung der Fundkeramik vom 8. zum 7. Jh. v.
  Chr., Mitteilungen des deutschen archaologischen Instituts (Abteilung Madrider), 49, 188-208.
Mederos Martín A. (2005), La cronología fenicia. Entre el Mediterráneo Oriental y el Occidental, in El Período
  Orientalizante. Actas del III simposio internacional de arqueología de Mérida: protohistoria del Mediterráneo
  occidental, Celestino Pérez S., Jiménez Ávila J. [eds], Mérida: C.S.I.C., Consorcio de Mérida (=Anejos de
  Archivo español de arqueología, XXXV), 305-346.
Mederos Martín A. (2006), Fenicios en Huelva, en el siglo X, durante el reinado de Hîrãm de Tiro. Phoenicians
  in Huelva in the Xth century BC, during the reign of Hîrãm of Tyre, SPAL: Revista de prehistoria y arqueología
  de la Universidad de Sevilla, 15, 167-188.
Mederos Martín A. (2013), La cronología de Huelva fenicia, in Fenícios e púnicos, por terra e mar: Actas do VI
  Congresso Internacional de Estudos Fenícios e Púnicos (Facultade de Letras da Universidade de Lisboa, 25
  de Setembro a 1 de Outubro de 2005), Arruda A.M. [ed.], Lisboa: Universidade, Centro de Arqueologia
  (=Estudos e memórias (UNIARQ), 5-6), 482-495.
Nigro L. (2013), Before the Greeks: the earliest Phoenician settlement in Motya - Recent discoveries by Rome
   “La Sapienza” Expedition, Vicino Oriente, XVII, 39-73.




                                                       18
                              Phoenician ceramic tableware between East and West


Nigro L. (2016), Mozia nella preistoria e le rotte levantine: i prodromi della colonizzazione fenicia tra secondo
   e primo millennio a.C. nei recenti scavi della Sapienza, in Ubi minor… Le isole minori del Mediterraneo
   centrale dal Neolitico ai primi contatti coloniali. Convegno di Studi in ricordo di Giorgio Buchner, a 100
   anni dalla nascita (1914-2014). Anacapri, 27 ottobre – Capri, 28 ottobre – Ischia/Lacco Ameno, 29 ottobre
   2014, Cazzella A., Guidi A., Nomi F. [eds], Roma: Università degli studi di Roma “La Sapienza” (=Scienze
   dell’Antichità, 22), 339-362.
Nigro L., Spagnoli F. (2017), Landing on Motya. The earliest Phoenician settlement of the 8th century BC and the
   creation of a West Phoenician cultural identity in the excavations of Sapienza University of Rome - 2012-2016,
   Rome 2017 (=Quaderni di Archeologia Fenicio Punica/Colour Monograph 04).
Nijboer A.J., van der Plicht J. (2006), An Interpretation of the Radiocarbon Determinations of the Oldest In-
   digenous-Phoenician Stratum Thus Far Excavated at Huelva, Tartessos (South-west Spain), Bulletin antieke
   beschaving, 81, 31-36.
Nijboer A.J., van der Plicht J. (2008), The Iron Age in the Mediterranean: recent radiocarbon research at the
   University of Groningen, in A New Dawn for the Dark Age, 102-118.
Núñez Calvo F.J. (2008), Western challenges to East Mediterranean chronological frameworks, in A New Dawn
  for the Dark Age, 3-27.
Núñez Calvo F.J. (2015), Phoenician Early Iron Age Ceramic Interaction Dynamics, in The Mediterranean
  Mirror: Cultural Contacts in the Mediterranean Sea between 1200 and 750 B. C. International Post-doc
  and Young Researcher Conference. Heidelberg, 6th-8th October 2012, Babbi A., Bubenheimer-Erhart F.,
  Marín-Aguilera B., Mühl S. [eds], Mainz: Verlag des Römisch-Germanischen Zentralmuseums (=RGZM
  Tagungen; Bd. 20), 111-128.
Núñez Calvo F.J. (2016a), Considerations around a polarized Mediterranean Iron Age Chronology, in Contexts
  of Early Colonization. Acts of the conference Contextualizing Early Colonization. Archaeology, Sources, Chronolo-
  gy and Interpretative Models between Italy and the Mediterranean, Donnellan L., Nizzo V., Burgers G.-J. [eds],
  Roma: Palombi (=Papers of the Royal Netherlands Institute in Rome, 64), 73-85.
Núñez Calvo F.J. (2016b), The Lowest Levels at Bir Massouda and the Foundation of Carthage. A Levantine
  Perspective, Carthage Studies, 8, 7-46.
Pompianu E. (2010), Sulky fenicia (Sardegna): nuove ricerche nell’abitato, Fasti On Line Documents and Rese-
   arch. Folders. Italy Series, 212, 1-18. Disponibile su: www.fastionline.org/docs/FOLDER-it-2010-212.pdf.
Ruiz Mata D., Pérez C.J., Gómez Fernández V. (2014), Una nueva zona fenicia de época arcaica en Cádiz: el
   solar de la “calle Ancha, n.29”, in Los Fenicios en la bahía de Cádiz, 83-122.
Sánchez Sánchez-Moreno V.M., Galindo San José L., Juzgado Navarro M., Dumas Peñuelas M.R. (2011), La
   desembocadura del Guadalhorce en los siglos IX y VIII a.C. y su relacion con el Mediterráneo, Gadir y el
   Círculo del Estrecho revisados: propuestas de la arqueología desde un enfoque social, Domínguez Pérez J.C. [ed.],
   Cádiz: Servicio de Publicaciones de la Universidad de Cádiz (=Monografías historia y arte), 187-197.
Sánchez Sánchez-Moreno V.M., Galindo San José L., Juzgado Navarro M., Dumas Peñuelas M.R. (2012), El
   asentamiento fenicio de La Rebanadilla a finales del siglo IX a.C., in Diez años de arqueología fenicia en la
   provincia de Málaga (2001-2010): María del Mar Escalante Aguilar “in memoriam”, García Alfonso E. [ed.],
   Sevilla: Dirección General de Bienes Culturales e Instituciones Museísticas (=Monografías. Arqueología),
   67-85.
Schubart H. (1976), Westphönizische Teller, Rivista di Studi Fenici, IV, 179-196.
Schubart H. (2005), Platos fenicios de Occidente, Lucentum, XXI-XXII, 45-61.
Torres Ortiz M. (2005), Tartesios, Fenicios y Griegos en el Sudoeste de la Península Ibérica: algunas reflexiones
   sobre los recientes hallazgos de Huelva, Complutum, 16, 273-304.
Torres Ortiz M. (2008a), The chronology of the Late Bronze Age in Western Iberia and the beginning of the Phoe-
   nician colonization in the Western Mediterranean, in A New Dawn for the Dark Age, 135-147.
Torres Ortiz M. (2008b), Los “tiempos” de la precolonización, in Contacto cultural entre el Mediterráneo y el Atlánt-
   ico (siglos XII-VII ane): la precolonización a debate, Celestino Pérez S., Rafel i Fontanals N., Armada Pita X.-L.


                                                        19
                                                 Sara Giardino


   [eds], Madrid : Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Cientificas (=Escuela Española de Historia y Arqueología
   (Rome, Italy); Serie arqueológica, 11), 59-91.
Torres Ortìz M., López Rosendo E., Gener Basallote J.M., De los Ángeles Navarro García M., Pajuelo Sáez J.M.
   (2014), El material cerámico de los contextos fenicios del “Teatro Cómico” de Cádiz: un análisis preliminar, in
   Los Fenicios en la bahía de Cádiz, 51-82.
van der Plicht J., Bruins H. J., Nijboer A.J. (2009), The Iron Age Around the Mediterranean: a high chronology
   perspective from the Groningen radiocarbon database, Radiocarbon, 51, 213-242.
Vegas M. [ed.] (2002), Cartago fenicio-púnica. La excavaciones alemanas de Cartago 1975-1997, Barcelona: Uni-
   versidad Pompeu Fabra (=Cuadernos de Arqueología mediterránea, 4).




                                                       20
                         Phoenician ceramic tableware between East and West


Riassunto /Abstract


    Riassunto: In questo contributo è delineato un quadro cronologico e tipologico
dell’evoluzione delle forme aperte della ceramica fenicia da mensa, partendo dalla
documentazione dell’Età del Ferro della costa siro-palestinese (XI-VI sec. a.C.) fino alle
elaborazioni coloniali della Penisola Iberica (VIII-VI sec. a.C.). La definizione degli orizzonti
crono-tipologici identificati nelle due aree è corredata di un’analisi delle problematiche
riguardanti la cronologia assoluta dell’Età del Ferro nel Mediterraneo. L’attenzione è rivolta
alle fasi iniziali della presenza fenicia in Occidente, dato il crescente numero di testimonianze
arcaiche emerse principalmente a Huelva e a Cadice. L’analisi è effettuata anche attraverso il
confronto con altri contesti arcaici recentemente affiorati, ad esempio, a Utica e Cartagine.

   Abstract: In this paper a typological and chronological framework of the evolution of open
forms of the Phoenician table pottery is outlined, starting from the Iron Age documentation
of the Syro-Palestinian coast (11th-6th centuries BC) up to the colonial elaborations of the
Iberian Peninsula (9th-6th centuries BC). The definition of the chrono-typological horizons
identified in both areas is combined with an analysis of the issues affecting the absolute
chronology of the Iron Age in the Mediterranean basin. The focus is on the early stages of
the Phoenician presence in West, given the increasing number of archaic evidences emerged
notably at Huelva and Cádiz. The analysis is also carried out through the comparison with
other archaic contexts recently come to light, for example, at Utica and Carthage.

   Parole chiave: Ceramica fenicia, cronologia, datazioni C14, costa siro-palestinese, Penisola
Iberica
   Keywords: Phoenician Pottery, chronology, 14C dating, Syro-Palestinian coast, Iberian
Peninsula.


   Come citare questo articolo / How to cite this paper
   Sara Giardino, Phoenician ceramic tableware between East and West: some remarks on
open forms and on their absolute chronology, CaSteR 2 (2017), doi: 10.13125/caster/2841,
http://ojs.unica.it/index.php/caster/




                                                21
