image/svg+xml
331
XII/2/2021
INTERDISCIPLINARIA ARCHAEOLOGICA
NATURAL SCIENCES IN ARCHAEOLOGY
homepage: http://www.iansa.eu
Thematic review
Material Methods; Considering Ceramic Raw Materials and the Spread
of the Potter‘s Wheel in Early Iron Age Southern Iberia
Beatrijs G. de Groot
1*
1
The University of Edinburgh, School of History, Classics and Archaeology, William Robertson Wing, Old Medical School, Teviot Place, Edinburgh,
EH8 9AG, United Kingdom
1. Introduction
In the Iberian Peninsula, the frst millennium BCE is
a period of socio-economic and cultural transformations,
which culminated in the development of proto-urban
lifeways (Almagro Gorbea, 2014). Widespread changes
took place in the organisation of food production and
consumption, religious practices, pottery technology and
metallurgy. Fundamental to the changes taking place here
were the expansion of Phoenician long-distance trade
networks, which facilitated the spread of people and
technological innovations across the Mediterranean (
e.g.
,
Manning, 2018, p.38). In the Iberian Peninsula, Phoenician
groups settled in trade colonies on the southern coastline in
the 9
th
century BCE, utilising rural hinterlands for farming
and extracting Mineral ores from the interior mountain
ranges (Aubet Semmler, 2008; Dietler and López-Ruiz,
2009). The processes of dissemination of elements
from a Mediterranean
koine
developed into the eclectic
“orientalising” material culture styles of the southern
Iberian Iron Age (Celestino Pérez and López-Ruiz,
2016).
In and around these Phoenician colonies, workshops
appeared that utilised the potter’s wheel and double-
chambered updraught kilns to produce vast quantities of
luxury tableware as well as containers for trade goods (Mielke
and Torres Ortiz, 2012; Mielke, 2015). In the centuries that
followed, the production of wheel-made pottery expanded
across the Iberian Peninsula, outside of context of the
Phoenician colonial system (Ramón Torres
et al.
, 2007;
Delgado Hervás, 2011; García Vargas and García Fernández,
2012; Fernández Maroto, 2013; Jiménez Avila, 2013;
Mielke and Torres Ortiz, 2012; Sáez Romero
et al.
, 2021).
Despite strong evidence for the growing production and use
of wheel-made pottery outside of the Phoenician colonies,
particularly after the 7
th
century BCE (Coll Conesa, 2000),
there are still many gaps in our knowledge of the process by
which this workshop mode of production developed, how it
Volume XII ● Issue 2/2021 ● Pages 331–342
*Corresponding author. E-mail: Beatrijs.de.Groot@ed.ac.uk
ARTICLE INFO
Article history:
Received: 22
th
February 2021
Accepted: 24
th
October 2021
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.24916/iansa.2021.2.16
Key words:
Iberian Peninsula
Iron Age
ceramic raw materials
Phoenicians
potter’s wheel
technology
hybridity
ABSTRACT
This paper discusses the role of clay selection and preparation in the production of wheel-made pottery
in Early Iron Age southern Iberia. The frst systematic use of potter’s wheels in the production of
Early Iron Age ceramics in southern Iberia corresponds to the establishment of pottery workshops
associated with Phoenician trade colonies, dating to the period between the end of the 10
th
and 7
th
century BCE. There are still many gaps in our understanding of how technological knowledge was
transmitted between the Phoenician workshops and “indigenous’ communities that adopted the potter’s
wheel. This paper draws upon a growing body of archaeometric and ceramic technological research to
consider clay selection strategies in these new workshops. Secondly, this paper will consider the role of
ceramic raw materials in the development of new “hybrid’ ceramic forms, particularly grey-ware. It will
hereby provide theoretical considerations surrounding the signifcance of material cultural hybridity
in answering questions raised by postcolonial archaeologists about identity, cultural transmission and
hybridisation in the context of the Phoenician colonial system.
image/svg+xml
IANSA 2021 ● XII/2 ● 331–342
Beatrijs G. de Groot: Material Methods; Considering Ceramic Raw Materials and the Spread of the Potter‘s Wheel in Early Iron Age Southern Iberia
332
spread and how its adoption afected existing craft traditions
in the Iberian Peninsula.
1
This paper focuses on a specifc area of the
chaîne
opératoire
of early wheel-made pottery; the selection
and preparation of clays, in order to address questions
surrounding the development of knowledge about suitable
clay and temper recipes for the production of wheel-made
pottery. Recent research has provided detailed insights into
the production process, or
chaîne opératoire,
of ceramics
produced in the Phoenician-tradition workshops (Sáez
Romero
et al.
, 2021), evidence which is important for
reconstructing the spread of technological information
relating to ceramic production across southern Iberia. By
comparing data from a growing body of archaeometric
research, this paper draws out some general conclusions
surrounding the way in which the new pottery workshops
built upon, or replaced, traditional knowledge about clay
recipes. Particular attention will be paid to the premise,
informed by ethnoarchaeological literature, that clay
selection and preparation are often a cultural “choice”,
rather than an economic or environmentally determined
solution. This paper addresses the diferent factors that
might infuence clay selection strategies for the production
of wheel-made pottery in the context of Iron Age southern
Iberia, investigating the opposition between economic and
cultural preferences.
To address the above aims, this paper also integrates
information about the procurement and preparation
of ceramic raw materials into broader philosophical
questions surrounding the adoption and rejection of new
technologies in Iron Age Iberia. In order to do so it focuses
on the development of grey-ware, a class of ceramics that
might have developed as a “hybrid” form, imitating hand-
made “indigenous” pottery but produced on the potter’s
wheel, a technology associated with the Phoenicians. The
signifcance of this type of material is analysed by focusing
on evidence for the origin of its ceramic raw materials to
understand the mixing of technological knowledge and
visual style more fully.
I take the regions of southern Iberia near the Phoenician
colonies as my primary case-study because “orientalising”
material culture and technology has been strongly
infuential in this area (omitting Extremadura due to a lack
of published archaeometric studies on early wheel-made
pottery in this region). This includes the “Tartessian” area,
the area of present-day Andalucía, as well as Southern
Portugal and Lisbon. The time-period discussed is
restricted to the frst appearance of Phoenician settlements
to the period immediately after the so-called “crisis” in the
mid-6
th
century BCE.
1
The complexity of the processes of interaction underpinning the spread
of potter’s wheels is emphasised by the suggestion that rotational devices
were used from the Final Bronze Age onwards in Central Iberia at El Castro
de Cogotas during the 9th to 7th century BCE (Padilla-Fernández, 2019).
2. Clay selection and preparation; cultural
or economic choice?
With the growing importance of post-processual frameworks
in archaeology, the development of archaeological thought
about the use of raw materials has shifted from a focus on
functional properties to culturally informed, transmitted
knowledge. Instead of striving for a “best way” in the
development of technological practices, research into the
chaîne opératoire
of ceramic production demonstrates that
there are numerous equivalent methods to produce ceramics
(
e.g.
, Dobres, 1999; Roux, 2019) and that such variation can
refect the technological styles (
e.g.
, Lechtman, 1977) of
diferent social groups. Technological variation can therefore
be used to explore questions of cultural transmission and
agency (
e.g.
, Pauketat, 2001).
In the context of raw material selection and preparation,
the earliest steps in the
chaîne opératoire
of ceramic
production, ethnographic studies demonstrate that
technological practices might not be deliberately selected,
as if choosing the appropriate tool or practice for the task
at hand “from a catalogue” (Gosselain, 1992). Instead, the
composition of ceramic pastes can refect the preferences and
material knowledge of potters, which are shaped by socially-
transmitted conventions (
e.g.
, Gosselain, 1992; Livingstone
Smith, 2000; Pauketat, 2001). Spatio-temporal patterns in the
similarity of clay recipes can therefore provide insights into
the strategies of – and relationships between – contemporary
potting traditions, as well as informing a discussion on the
long-term development of material knowledge.
Although socially-transmitted information in theory
provides an important determining factor in the selection
of clay and temper, potters establishing the frst workshops
in the Iberian Peninsula will have had to take a number of
factors into account. Such workshops will have been part
of the Phoenician commercial economy, in which ceramic
production ran parallel to other industries to facilitate the
production and long-distance trade of goods (see below).
The choice of clay and temper formed part of a wide set
of demands, such as the proximity of pottery workshops
to transport routes and food production sites, which will
have afected the choice of raw material source next to
personal preference or social conventions. Furthermore,
wheel-thrown pottery is generally produced from clay with
fne-grained non-plastic inclusions to avoid abrasion of the
potter’s hands (Rice, 2015, p.143) or marring and tearing of
the pot surface (Sinopoli, 1991, p.101), suggesting that the
properties of clays deserve attention in explaining selection.
As such, it is important to assess how innovations act as
“systems” of related technological choices, raw materials,
logistics and economic contexts (
e.g.
, Sillar and Tite, 2000).
By providing empirical evidence of continuity or the changes
in raw material selection co-occurring with the introduction of
the potter’s wheel, mineralogical and archaeometric studies
can contribute to understanding the workings of changes in
such technological systems. By focussing on the materials
from which ceramics were made, it is possible to gain
image/svg+xml
IANSA 2021 ● XII/2 ● 331–342
Beatrijs G. de Groot: Material Methods; Considering Ceramic Raw Materials and the Spread of the Potter‘s Wheel in Early Iron Age Southern Iberia
333
insights into processes of communication of environmental
knowledge and/or experimentation with new clay recipes and
the cultural construction and use of the landscape (
e.g.
, Albero
Santacreu, 2017), particularly concerning the location of
suitable clay sources and clay procurement strategies. Below
I will integrate such information in a broader discussion on
the development and spread of pottery production in Early
Iron Age southern Iberia.
3. Background: the economics of Phoenician pottery
production
In order to investigate the organisation of ceramic production
in western Phoenician communities it is informative
to consider the role of ceramic production in the wider
Phoenician colonial system. Although the relation between
the adoption of potter’s wheels and mass-production is
rarely straightforward (Roux and Courty, 1998; Baldi and
Roux, 2016; Choleva, 2020)
2
, in the western Mediterranean
2
Roux and Courty (1998) distinguish the diferent shaping methods the
potter’s wheel afords, providing valuable insights into the utilisation of
Rotational Kinetic Energy (RKE) next to combinations of hand-shaping
and rotation. Although comprehensive studies of the shaping methods
employed in the production of Phoenician pottery in the Iberian Peninsula
the introduction of this technology corresponds closely to
the intensifcation of ceramic production for long-distance
trade. The production of storage containers and tableware
in this region was initially part of the commercial strategy
of Phoenician colonies, whose economy focussed on the
maritime trade of agricultural surplus and luxury goods.
Phoenician pottery of local manufacture was found at Huelva
(Figure 1) in layers dating to at least 900 BCE (Millán
et al.
,
1990; Nijboer and van der Plicht, 2006; Delgado Hervás,
2011, pp.11–12; González de Canales
et al.,
2017). Evidence
for the local production of Phoenician-type wheel-made
pottery indicates that eastern Mediterranean(-trained) potters
were quick to instate a local pottery industry after settlement
in the Iberian Peninsula (Millán
et al.
, 1990), which will
have involved the use of double-chambered updraught
kilns as well as the use of low potter’s wheels or stick
wheels (
e.g.
, Jiménez Avila, 2013). The earliest excavated
ceramic workshops in Phoenician centres at Málaga and
Toscanos date to the 7
th
century BCE (Curià Barnès
et al.
,
are rare, some evidence demonstrates that such pottery was produced
through diferent shaping technologies including wheel-throwing and
wheel-coiling (Dorado Alejos, 2019). Hand-shaping methods prevailed in
the Iberian Peninsula during the Late Bronze Age, with pinching, coiling
and slab-building recorded for assemblages across the Iberian South-East
(
e.g.
, Dorado Alejos, 2019).
Figure 1.
Map of sites with published archaeometric data on Early Iron Age pottery. The shaded area marks the outline of the area of infuence of Tartessos
(after Celestino Pérez and López-Ruiz, 2016, p.175).
0 100 km
0 500 km
image/svg+xml
IANSA 2021 ● XII/2 ● 331–342
Beatrijs G. de Groot: Material Methods; Considering Ceramic Raw Materials and the Spread of the Potter‘s Wheel in Early Iron Age Southern Iberia
334
2000; Arancibia-Román and Escalante Aguilar, 2006; García
Vargas and García Fernández, 2012; Mielke and Torres
Ortiz, 2012, p.279). Evidence of ceramic manufacture in and
nearby other Phoenician sites dating to the same period also
derives from the distribution of ceramic prisms, which were
used to separate pottery during fring within the kiln and are
highly diagnostic (Delgado Hervás, 2011; Gutiérrez López
et al.
, 2013). During this period, next to the production of
Phoenician-type ceramics, there is also evidence for the
local production of ceramics of Greek typology at Huelva
(González de Canales
et al.
, 2018) as well as the development
of “hybrid” ceramic forms such as grey-ware (explored
further below), pointing to the heterogeneous infuences
afecting wheel-made pottery production in southern Iberia.
Phoenician workshops such as Cerro del Villar produced
symmetrical and standardised storage vessels (amphorae,
pithoi, globular pots and bottles), tableware (plates,
carinated bowls, dishes, jars and cups) and vessels destined
for other uses (pots, urns, tripods) (Curià Barnès
et al.
,
2000, p.1475). Archaeometric studies confrm that such
ceramics circulated widely in the western Mediterranean
(Behrendt and Mielke, 2011; Miguel Gascón
et al.
, 2015)
as well as reaching more distant places in the eastern
Mediterranean (Fantuzzi
et al.
, 2020). One of the largest
and most comprehensive of such studies on the provenance
of early wheel-made pottery in the Iberian Peninsula is the
Instrumental Neutron Activation Analysis (INAA) research
conducted by Sonja Behrendt (Behrendt and Mielke, 2011).
Chemical signatures from 224 Phoenician wheel-made
ceramic samples were obtained from vessels deriving from
nineteen Early Iron Age Phoenician sites in the southern half
of the Iberian Peninsula and northern Morocco. The results
show that wheel-made pottery circulated around four main
production centres associated with workshops in Phoenician
settlements (Behrendt and Mielke, 2011, p.193). Phoenician
ceramics from production centres located around the Straits
of Gibraltar, Sicily and Carthage appear in Early Iron Age
contexts in north-eastern Iberia (Miguel Gascón
et al.
, 2015)
and the Atlantic coast of Iberia (González-Ruibal, 2004;
de Sousa, 2019), suggesting that the Phoenician colonies
controlled trade with indigenous Iberian communities as
intermediaries through a so-called cabotage system (Rafel
Fontanals, 2012).
The potter’s wheel was an integral part of the process
of containerisation and wider economic opportunities
regarding the speed and quantity of production, (Bevan,
2014, p.392) standardisation and the generation/exploitation
of new markets. The economic character of early workshops
employing the potter’s wheel is refected by the location
of pottery workshops, which overlapped with that of the
production of agricultural trade goods (Bernal Casasola
and Sáez Romero, 2003). Industrial landscapes marked
by the convergence of pottery production and salted-fsh
processing for trade seem to have emerged soon after the
emergence of Phoenician settlements and fourished in
the Punic period (c. after 550 BCE) (Sáez Romero, 2008;
Carretero, 2007; Sáez Romero, 2014). Through connecting
such industrial landscapes to the wider Mediterranean,
the exchange in foodstufs and luxury tableware ofered
opportunities for generating wealth. The development
and prevalence of “orientalising” objects in the Tartessian
region (Figure 1) of the Iberian south demonstrates how,
next to the inhabitants of the Phoenician colonies, segments
of the broader population exploited such opportunities
(Delgado Hervás, 2013).
3.1 The inland spread of pottery workshops
During the 7
th
century BCE, workshops with Phoenician-
type kilns appear in the southern half of the Iberian
Peninsula, in “indigenous” settlements such as Cerro de los
Infantes (Mendoza
et al.
, 1981; Mielke, 2015; García Vargas
and García Fernández, 2012), Cerro de la Mora (Carrasco
et al.
, 1985) and La Campiña (Molinos
et al.
, 1994) (see
also Sáez Romero
et al.
, 2004; García Vargas and García
Fernández, 2012). Workshop-based production of wheel-
made amphorae and fne ware is also attested at a number
of diferent indigenous sites as indicated by archaeometric
studies, as will be discussed further below. Such production
centres, located outside of the immediate surroundings of
the Phoenician colonies, demonstrate that local groups
began to participate in the production of ceramics for
regional and interregional trade. This process intensifes
after the 6
th
century BCE “crisis” (Escacena Carrasco,
1993), a period in which the Phoenician colonial system
declined (
e.g.
Torres Ortiz, 2014, p.275). Petrographic
and chemical analysis of amphorae dating to the 6
th
– 2
nd
centuries BCE demonstrates that new workshops, located
in the Guadalquivir Valley and the Tagus and Sado Valleys
of Portugal, and the Iberian East coast, developed, gaining
access to the commercial networks that were originally
controlled by the Phoenician colonies (González Prats and
Pina Gosálbez, 1983; Moreno Megías
et al.
, 2020). This
has provided evidence contributing to existing discussions
about the relationship between coastal and inland economic
systems during this period. After the 6
th
c. BCE, amphorae
were used for the transport of wine as indicated by residue
analysis (Petit-Domínguez
et al.
, 2003), and a range of other
products such as olive oil, fsh by-products, honey, meat
preserves and milk by-products (Carretero
et al.
, 2008;
García Fernández
et al.
, 2016). During this period, we also
fnd the development of ceramic industries associated with
the Central and Northern Iberian oppida, forming a new
and highly decorative style of locally-produced, wheel-
made ceramics (Lorrio, 2014).
This general overview suggests that commerce was
an important driver for the initial spread of the potter’s
wheel in southern Iberia. The production of ceramic
transport containers and luxury commodities at diferent
centres on the Iberian south coast indicate that a signifcant
level of standardisation existed, allowing these diferent
centres to produce in-demand commodities for local and
distant markets. The next section will examine if such
standardisation is also refected in choices potters made in
selecting clay and temper.
image/svg+xml
IANSA 2021 ● XII/2 ● 331–342
Beatrijs G. de Groot: Material Methods; Considering Ceramic Raw Materials and the Spread of the Potter‘s Wheel in Early Iron Age Southern Iberia
335
4. Clay provenance and preparation in Early Iron Age
southern Iberia
A growing body of archaeometric work has provided
evidence for petrographic and chemical groupings in
Phoenician pottery from the western Mediterranean (
e.g.
,
Arribas
et al.
, 1989; Millán
et al.
, 1990; Amadori and Fabbri,
1998; Pringle, 1998; Cardell
et al.
, 1999; Edreira
et al.
,
2001; Ruiz
et al.
, 2006; Cau Ontiveros, 2007; Cau Ontiveros
et al.
, 2010; Behrendt and Mielke, 2011; Miguel Gascón
et al.,
2015; Johnston, 2015; Ferreira
et al.
, 2020). Such
studies provide data concerning the variability of fabrics and
origin of clay sources at individual sites, but they also reveal
information on clay procurement and preparation strategies
characterising western Phoenician ceramic production and
how this compares to such technological habits in indigenous
contexts. The review of a selection of this archaeometric
research below provides an initial characterisation of the
technological choices made by potters utilising potter’s
wheels in Early Iron Age southern Iberia (both in indigenous
and Phoenician contexts). The aim of this is to provide
a discussion as to whether these can be understood as part of
a broader “technological style” or are informed by economic
choices and environmental variation.
4.1 Clay procurement
A starting point for understanding clay selection preferences
in the western Phoenician colonies is to compare the
nature of the ceramic fabrics from diferent Phoenician and
“indigenous” ceramic workshops and consider variation
in the mechanical properties of ceramic raw materials. In
order to situate Phoenician ceramic production in Iberia, it
is useful to characterise clay procurement and preparation
habits of other Phoenician settlements. For example,
Phoenician ceramics from the necropolis of Tyre-al Bass,
dating to 850–550 BCE, were produced from highly
calcareous pastes (Miguel Gascón and Buxeda i Garrigós,
2013), while calcareous clays tempered with crushed calcite
or sand were used in the production of wheel-made pottery
at Carthage (Miguel Gascón
et al.
, 2015). Phoenician pottery
from Sardinia, instead, is often tempered with grog (Miguel
Gascón
et al.
, 2015), demonstrating that variation exists
between clay preparation strategies in diferent Phoenician
contexts. In the Iberian Peninsula, however, a preference for
using calcareous clays or clays with a high calcite content
in the production of Phoenician-type ceramics seems likely
(Table 1). Calcareous clays were used in the production
of wheel-made Phoenician pottery from Castillo de Doña
Blanca, near the Phoenician colony of Gadir (Cau Ontiveros,
2007; Johnston, 2015; Fantuzzi
et al.
, 2020, p.6) as well as at
Huelva and São Jorge Castle in Lisbon (Ferreira
et al.
, 2020).
At the indigenous site of Cerro Macareno, wheel-made
pottery is produced from calcareous clays, contrasting with
handmade pottery, which is produced from metamorphic
clays (González-Vilchez
et al.
, 1982). Also at Seteflla
(Bartkowiak and Krueger, 2015; Krueger
et al.
, 2018;
Krueger
et al.
, 2021), there seems to have been a preference
for using calcareous clay in the production of wheel-thrown
pottery, although ferruginous clays were also often utilised
(Krueger
et al.
, 2018).
The advantageous properties of calcareous clays are that
such clays sinter at lower temperatures, allowing for a less
tight control over fring to obtain a suitable level of strength
(Tite and Maniatis, 1975). Other mechanical properties of
clays with a high calcite content include the way in which
calcium afects the clay-water system, improving their
toughness and workability (Hoard
et al.
, 1995, p.265, Müller
et al.
, 2014), properties that are useful for ensuring the
structural integrity of vessels during shaping or throwing on
the wheel. Whether the selection of clays was determined by
such functional advantages is debatable, particularly because
many diferent factors can contribute to the choice of clays
(see Discussion). Furthermore, many other workshops
utilised non-calcareous clays from nearby deposits for the
production of wheel-made pottery (Fantuzzi
et al.
, 2020,
Amadori
et al.
, 2017, Amadori and Fabbri, 1998, Ferreira
et al.
, 2020, Ferreira
et al.
, 2018). For example, late 8
th
century and 7
th
century BCE wheel-made pottery from
Toscanos were produced using metamorphic clays while
a second, calcareous fabric, corresponds to imports from
Carthage (Amadori
et al.
, 2017). Evidence for particular
clay procurement strategies other than an opportunistic use
of locally available resources is therefore currently limited,
but future consideration of the mechanical diferences in
pottery clays for producing wheel-made pottery can be
informative about the observed distinction between the raw
materials used for the production of hand-made and wheel-
made pottery.
4.2 Clay preparation
Ceramic petrography can provide insights into the use of
temper, indicated by the angularity of inclusions, grain-size
distribution (which should be bimodal if crushed rocks or
sand is added as temper), and a diference in the minerals
in coarse and fne fraction (Quinn, 2013). Nevertheless, it
can often be challenging to confrm if mineral inclusions
were added as temper or whether such inclusions were
naturally present in the clay matrix. The reviewed literature
demonstrates that we have limited conclusive evidence for
the use of temper in the production of early wheel-made
pottery in the Phoenician colonies. Non-plastics in the
ceramic fabrics of wheel-made pottery often refect minerals
that could be present in clays naturally. The use of crushed
calcite is suggested at a number of sites that are part of
Behrendt and Mielke’s (2011) study, although the authors
are not explicit about the question of whether materials are
added as temper (Behrendt and Mielke, 2011, pp.198–223).
At Castilla de Doña Blanca there is one quartz-tempered
fabric group (Johnston, 2015, p.253) among the wheel-made
samples, but in other contexts the literature is inconclusive.
Wheel-made ceramics produced in indigenous contexts
more often contain temper. For example, the use of mineral
tempers seems to have been common in the production of
Punic-Turdetanian amphorae during the 6
th
–2
nd
centuries
image/svg+xml
IANSA 2021 ● XII/2 ● 331–342
Beatrijs G. de Groot: Material Methods; Considering Ceramic Raw Materials and the Spread of the Potter‘s Wheel in Early Iron Age Southern Iberia
336
Table 1.
Summary of archaeometric studies (TSCP: Thin-Section Ceramic Petrography, XRF: X-Ray Fluorescence, XRD: X-Ray Difraction).
Production locationApprox. period
(centuries BCE)
ReferenceTotal nr of
analysed
samples
MethodClay composition
in wheel-made
pottery
Evidence of
tempering
wheel-made
Inclusions
wheel-made
Diferent clay-sources
hand-made vs
wheel-made pottery
Carthage
Post–800
Miguel Gascón,
Buxeda i Garrigós
and Day, 2015
4TSCP, XRFCalcareousYes Crushed calcite
N/A
Seteflla
800–675
Krueger, Brandherm,
Krueger and
Niedzielski, 2021
49TSCP, XRFCalcareousYes Vegetal in fabric
group VII
Yes except group VII
Almaraz (Lisbon)
800–700
Vieira and Ferreira,
2018
16Micro-Raman,
XRF, XRD
Miocene-Pliocene
clays (mixed)
N/AN/AN/A
Carambolo
Post–770/750
Moreno and Krueger,
2019
3TSCP, XRFCalcareous (non-
local)
N/AN/AN/A
Cabezo de San Pedro
750–600
Galvan, 19866XRD
N/AN/A
Occasional
calcite
Unclear
Castillo de Doña
Blanca
750–550
Johnston, 2015169TSCPCalcareousYes
Quartz in 5c
Yes
San Bartholome de
Almonte (Huelva)
750–600
Galvan, 198627XRD
N/AN/A
Abundant calciteYes
Cerro de los Infantes
725–550
Dorado Alejos, 2019206XRD (169),
TSCP (35),
XRF (209)
MetamorphicYes
Mixed/sand
Yes
São Jorge Castle
(Lisbon)
Late 8
th
– Early 7
th
Ferreira
et al.
, 2020
30Micro-Raman,
XRF, XRD
Calcareous
N/AN/A
Yes
Cerro Macareno
700–300
Gonzalez-Vilchez
et al.
, 1983
20+XRFCalcareous
N/AN/AN/A
La Joya
700–650
Moreno and Krueger
2019
9TSCP, XRFCalcareous (non-
local)
N/AN/AN/A
Toscanos
700–620
Amadori
et al.
, 2017
20TSCPMetamorphic
N/AN/AN/A
Huelva
Late 7
th
– 6
th
Arribas
et al.
, 1989;
Millan, 1990
29TSCP, XRFCalcareous
N/AN/AN/A
image/svg+xml
IANSA 2021 ● XII/2 ● 331–342
Beatrijs G. de Groot: Material Methods; Considering Ceramic Raw Materials and the Spread of the Potter‘s Wheel in Early Iron Age Southern Iberia
337
BCE (Moreno Megías
et al.
, 2020, pp.6–10). At Seteflla, we
fnd the presence of vegetal temper in wheel-made pottery,
which also occurs in some hand-made vessels (Krueger
et al.
, 2021). Based on the reviewed studies it therefore
appears that there is little evidence for a set clay recipe in
the production of early Iron Age wheel-made pottery in
southern Iberia. However, future systematic and targeted
comparative studies might be able to draw out regional or
local similarities more clearly.
Instead of adding minerals as temper, it is likely that,
instead, potters often removed larger minerals and other
impurities. Fantuzzi
et al.
’s (2020) study of amphorae from
diferent production centres on the southern Iberian coastline
demonstrates that clay samples from around Phoenician
settlements often contain larger mineral fragments than the
clay fabrics analysed, suggesting that such clays might not
have been used in a raw state, but rather were processed prior
to shaping. A range of clay preparation methods can be used
to purify clays, such as drying the clay, crushing, grinding
and winnowing or sieving it in a dry state, or levigating, in
which clay is mixed with water to separate coarser inclusions
from the clay matrix (Rice, 2015, p.133). To explore such
methods and how they might have been utilised in Early Iron
Age Iberia, some experimental studies have been conducted
(see Krueger
et al.
, 2018, Sáez Romero
et al.
, 2021).
Continuity in the use of clay sources by indigenous
groups adopting the potter’s wheel would provide important
evidence for the persistence or sharing of technological
knowledge between potters with diferent modes of
production. Below I will consider this topic in more detail
and discuss its implications for understanding questions
surrounding identity and processes of hybridisation in the
southern Iberian Early Iron Age.
5. Postcolonial perspectives and material hybridity
Evidence for the persistence and/or abandonment of deep-
rooted technological knowledge can contribute to examining
questions of identity in the context of the Phoenician
colonisation of the Iberian Peninsula and particularly
the power dynamics between indigenous and Phoenician
settlements. Studies of ancient forms of colonialism in the
Mediterranean address the contribution of the “colonised” to
processes of culture change under the banner of postcolonial
archaeology (Gosden, 2004; Tronchetti and Van Dommelen,
2005; Hodos, 2009; Van Dommelen, 2011). Under the
infuence of such research, it is often considered that processes
of cultural interaction taking place in eastern Mediterranean
colonies in the western Mediterranean resemble a “Middle
Ground” (Gosden, 2004) in which people and cultures
interact and mix. Such work, in part, draws upon a set of
concepts put forward by Homi Bhabha (1994) to describe
the political dimensions of interaction and identifcation in
postcolonial situations (see also Stockhammer, 2012, p.46).
Bhabha utilised the concept of “hybridity” to describe the
“in-betweenness” of culture, and “Third Space” as the arena
where the interactions that constitute new identities take
place, describing a tension between “received” tradition and
its re-evaluation in the light of authorised power and privilege
(Bhabha, 1994, p.3). Such concepts have been employed
by postcolonial archaeologists to recognise that power-
relationships in colonial systems are not wholly asymmetrical
and that identities of both “coloniser” and “colonised” are
complex and in fux, constituted by people drawing upon
multiple resources, ideas and practices. This is in contrast
to more simplistic traditional accounts that dichotomously
see the “colonised” as passive receivers of a “dominant”
coloniser’s material culture (Hodos, 2010). In the absence
of frst-hand accounts of processes of hybridisation and
interaction in ancient societies, archaeologists have suggested
that the terminologies of postcolonial theory of Bhabha and
others can be used to describe relationships within ancient
forms of colonialism, utilising artifacts and material culture
as evidence of the transformed and novel identities that
emerged in the Iron Age Mediterranean.
In the context of the Iberian Peninsula, for example, we
fnd references to “hybrid” grey-ware, ceramics produced
on the potter’s wheel but with typological elements that are
thought to originate in pre-colonial, Late Bronze Age ceramic
traditions (Roos, 1982; Caro Bellido, 1989; Lorrio, 1989;
Mancebo
et al.
, 1992; Maass-Lindemann, 2000; Sanna, 2009).
In particular, grey-ware was fred in reducing atmospheres
which is uncommon in Phoenician ceramic production but is
standard in Late Bronze Age ceramic production in southern
Iberia (see also Dorado Alejos, 2019). This characteristic of
grey-ware is considered by some as an intentional strategy
to appeal to a new aesthetic in which indigenous preferences
are adopted in Phoenician products to cater for local markets
(Vallejo Sánchez, 2016). The process by which such hybrid
pottery types developed is, however, still poorly understood
partly due to a lack of recent typological studies and evidence
from the early stages of Phoenician colonisation. Recent
evidence from Castillo de Doña Blanca, which will be
discussed below, provides a rare glimpse into the technological
choices that underpin the production of grey-ware pottery and
will therefore be used as a basis for addressing the relevance of
petrographic analysis for addressing questions about material
hybridity (Johnston, 2015).
Another issue is that it is not often clear exactly what
is meant when the term hybridity is used to describe
archaeological phenomena. Discussions are needed to take
into consideration the discrepancy between the contexts
of production and the context of use of objects, in which
the context of production is often governed by culturally
transmitted conventions and embodied skills that are for
the most part reproduced unconsciously. Furthermore,
although material culture appears hybrid to the eyes of
archaeologists, it might not have been perceived in the same
way in the past. Lastly, Bhabha’s (1994) utilisation of the
term addresses the political dimensions of processes of
hybridisation, which translate poorly to the distant past. The
remainder of this article, therefore, assesses the theoretical
approaches to ceramic technology and discusses how
image/svg+xml
IANSA 2021 ● XII/2 ● 331–342
Beatrijs G. de Groot: Material Methods; Considering Ceramic Raw Materials and the Spread of the Potter‘s Wheel in Early Iron Age Southern Iberia
338
notions of technological change are confated with theories
of hybridisation in the Phoenician colonial system.
5.1 The development of “hybrid” ceramic technologies
A petrographic and chemical study of ceramic production in
the Bay of Cádiz provides insights into the coexistence of
diferent pottery technologies in the Early Iron Age (Johnston,
2015). This has shown that separate technological traditions,
relating to the production of Phoenician pottery on the one
hand, and to the production of hand-made burnished ware
on the other, co-existed between c. 750–550 BCE (Johnston,
2015). Phoenician pottery was produced from marl-rich
clays from nearby the Phoenician settlement at Gadir. Late
Bronze Age and Early Iron Age hand-made pottery, instead,
was produced from clays from two distinct sources, tempered
with dolerite or grog (Johnston, 2015, p.332). This shows that
distinct clay selection and preparation methods corresponded
to distinct fashioning methods. Johnston’s (2015) research
demonstrates that one of the clay sources utilised by Late
Bronze Age potters is gradually abandoned during the Early
Iron Age. This evidence shows that contemporary potting
traditions in this region were completely distinct despite
their spatial proximity, refecting persisting technological
“polarisation” (
e.g.
, Roux
et al.
, 2017), corresponding to
processes of learning and information transmission addressed
in sections 2 and 3.
Nevertheless, this study also shows that new forms of
ceramics, particularly grey-ware, might have developed in
the context of the Phoenician pottery workshop. Grey-ware,
although later produced on the potter’s wheel, was here
initially hand-made. However, instead of corresponding to
Late Bronze Age technologies, such ceramics were produced
from clays which match the composition of the contemporary
wheel-made Phoenician pottery (Johnston, 2015, p.333).
In contrast, in indigenous production centres such as
Cerro de los Infantes, there might have been continuity in the
use of pre-existing clay sources for the production of grey-
ware, given that grey-ware from Morro de Mezquitilla falls
into a similar geochemical grouping as Final Bronze Age
pottery from this site (Dorado Alejos, 2019, pp.443–444).
Also at Seteflla, there is no clear distinction between clay
pastes used for the production of hand-made or wheel-made
pottery, and vessel shapes originating in local Late Bronze
Age and Phoenician pottery traditions are produced using
either shaping method (Krueger
et al.
, 2018).
Based on these rare studies, it seems as though the selection
of clays for the production of grey-ware refects broadly the
divergence we fnd in the uses of clay between Phoenician and
indigenous production centres. Such evidence suggests that
grey-ware developed separately in diferent technological
traditions, a point which will be further explored below.
6. Discussion
This article set out to evaluate the contribution of
archaeometric studies to questions of social interaction and
cultural transmission corresponding to the spread of the
potter’s wheel in the Iberian Peninsula during the Iron Age.
Preliminary conclusions that can be drawn from this and
areas for future research are discussed below.
The picture that emerges from the growing body of
archaeometric and technological studies supports theories
about the commercial strategies of Phoenician colonies,
utilising locally produced ceramics for trade. Studies into
the provenance of Phoenician ceramics demonstrate that
the local production of pottery in and nearby the Phoenician
colonies commenced rapidly, utilising clays encountered in
the surroundings of such sites.
Phoenician ceramic production marks a signifcant
departure from foregoing ceramic technologies, not only
in the shaping methods employed (probably utilising stone
“pivot and socket” wheels similar to those found at sites
in the eastern Mediterranean), but also in the organisation
of ceramic production, the labour force involved and the
clay sources exploited. Archaeometric evidence from
Phoenician and indigenous settlements in the Bay of Cádiz
area provides a clear example of this shift by demonstrating
that clay procurement and clay preparation strategies of
potters utilising traditional hand-shaping methods, and those
that worked with the potter’s wheel, difered signifcantly
(Johnston, 2015). Notably, evidence of the organisation of
ceramic production in indigenous Iberian villages is scarce,
and it is broadly assumed that domestic modes of production
prevailed. Some scholars have gone as far as to suggest that
such hand-made pottery traditions relate to female labour,
whilst the introduction of the potter’s wheel marks a shift
to the production and control of ceramic manufacturing by
men (Delgado Hervás and Ferrer, 2007; Padilla Fernández
and Dorado Alejos, 2017). The appearance of wheel-thrown
pottery alone cannot confrm such shifts in the division of
labour, and we should be careful to associate specifc classes
of objects with specifc ethnic or gender groups without
substantial evidence.
Furthermore, due to the emphasis of Iron Age research
on wheel-made pottery, be it for typochronological
purposes or because such ceramics are seen to allude to
trade and interaction, the persistence and scale of pottery
production outside the workshop is unknown. Research
into the chronology of wheel-made and hand-made pottery
in the Iberian Peninsula has shown that the production
of hand-made pottery persists alongside the production
of wheel-made pottery at most sites throughout the frst
millennium BCE, being more prevalent in northern Iberia
(de Groot and Bloxam, 2021). In order to understand
the impact of the adoption of the potter’s wheel across
the Iberian Peninsula, and its efect on local economies
and the organisation of labour, it is therefore essential to
consider the organisation of the production of hand-made
pottery, and how this changes through time. Archaeometric
research that compares such contemporary hand-made and
wheel-made pottery can provide further insights into the
level of technological continuity such hand-made ceramics
exhibit.
image/svg+xml
IANSA 2021 ● XII/2 ● 331–342
Beatrijs G. de Groot: Material Methods; Considering Ceramic Raw Materials and the Spread of the Potter‘s Wheel in Early Iron Age Southern Iberia
339
6.1 Hybridity and the spread of the potter’s wheel
Grey-ware provides an interesting glimpse into the
development of new forms of material culture in the western
Phoenician colonies. Although previous research has
highlighted the “hybrid” nature of such ceramics, in the light
of difculties in establishing the nature of the social processes
and political intentions underpinning the production of this
material culture, “hybridity” (sensu Bhabha) might not be the
most useful term to describe these processes (see section 3).
It is possible that elements of distinct pottery traditions in the
Bay of Cádiz transcended the boundaries of their “polarised”
production strategies (see Johnston, 2015 and section 4.3),
but, in the case of grey-ware ceramics, it is impossible to
be certain which elements are “Phoenician” and which are
“indigenous”. As far as the evidence allows, most of the
grey-wares’ technological and stylistic characteristics could
be ascribed to Phoenician ceramic production, although this
changes when its production in “indigenous” workshops
is considered. Even if such ceramics developed as hand-
made shapes, their later production on the wheel might not
indicate a deliberate process of imitation of Late Bronze Age
shapes and colour-schemes. Finally, considering the nature
of ceramic technology, instead of adhering to fxed practices,
it may be under constant negotiation due to the infuence
of “
unpredictable circumstances, surroundings, and mix of
participants
” (
e.g.
, Pauketat, 2001, p.80, my emphasis). The
randomness of such factors suggests that the hybridisation
we observe in the wake of ancient forms of colonialism is in
fact no diferent from any other processes of technological
change that we can trace in the archaeological record.
A fnal comment to make is that studies of ancient forms
of colonialism and hybridisation are deeply preoccupied with
questions of ethnicity. In the context of this research, it is not
at all clear who worked in Early Iron Age pottery workshops.
The Levantine population in the Iberian Peninsula might
have been quite limited, being restricted to a relatively small
group of merchant families, rather than a persistent infux of
individuals from the eastern Mediterranean. It is telling that
ancestry from Central and Eastern Mediterranean individuals
only shows up in ancient DNA sequences from the Iberian
Peninsula during the Late Iron Age (Olalde
et al.
, 2019, p.3),
suggesting that migration into Iberia from these regions was
low in the Early Iron Age.
This raises several questions: frstly, who was responsible
for controlling Phoenician ceramic production and the trade
in goods; and, secondly, did the individuals in control identify
as Phoenicians, indigenous, both or neither? Perhaps it is
more helpful to speak of the rearrangement of hierarchical
structures driven by Phoenician commerce, rather than
ascribing ethnic categories to the inhabitants of southern
Iberia. Those who controlled the production and fow of
goods are likely to have beneftted most from the economic
opportunities long-distance networks aforded (
e.g.
, Delgado
Hervás, 2013, pp.322–323). Instead, those who provided
agricultural labour, worked in mines, and those who worked
in pottery workshops, are likely to have experienced
the physical impacts of the Early Iron Age economic
transformations. It is therefore tempting to speculate that
material culture such as grey-ware is a manifestation of the
interactions taking place during the reorganisation of labour.
Such processes will have afected the intergenerational
transmission of pottery technologies, leading in some cases
to their abandonment. In other cases, the development of new
production strategies may have facilitated the collaboration
between skilled and unskilled craftspeople, leading to new
contexts and outcomes of production.
7. Conclusions
This paper has attempted to summarise and compare some
initial fnding from existing technological studies concerning
the uses of ceramic raw materials in the frst ceramic
workshops in the Iberian Peninsula. This study demonstrated
how evidence from archaeometric and ceramic petrographic
studies can be integrated into debates surrounding cultural
transmission, the development of technological knowledge,
and “hybridity”, in the context of the Phoenician colonisation
of the Iberian Peninsula. The above interpretations should
improve if evidence from future archaeometric studies is
discussed comparatively.
Acknowledgements
This research was funded by the author’s Leverhulme Trust-
funded Early Career Fellowship project entitled “Economies
of innovation: tracing the potter’s wheel in Iron Age
southern Europe” (ECF-2019-081). I would like to thank the
organisers of the “Archaeological Approaches to the Study
of the Potter’s Wheel” conference and two anonymous
reviewers for their helpful comments and suggestions.
References
ALBERO SANTACREU, D., 2017. Interpreting long-term use of raw
materials in pottery production: A holistic perspective.
Journal of
Archaeological Science: Reports,
16
,
505–512.
ALMAGRO GORBEA, M., 2014.
Iberia: Protohistory of the Far West
of Europe: from Neolithic to Roman Conquest.
Burgos: Universidad de
Burgos and Fundación Atapuerca.
AMADORI, M.L., DEL VAIS, C., FERMO, P., and PALLANTE, P., 2017.
Archaeometric researches on the provenance of Mediterranean Archaic
Phoenician and Punic pottery.
Environmental Science Pollution Research,
24
,
13921–13949.
AMADORI, M.L., and FABBRI, B., 1998. Produzione locale e importazioni
di ceramiche fenicie da mensa (fne VIII-fne VII secola a. C.) a Toscanos
(Spagna meridionale). In: R. Alaimo, C. Greco, and G. Montana,
eds.
Produzione e circolazione della ceramica Fenicia e Punica nel
Mediterraneo.
Bologna: University Press Bologna, pp. 43–56.
ARANCIBIA-ROMÁN, A., and ESCALANTE AGUILAR, M., 2006. La
Málaga fenicio-púnica a la luz de los últimos hallazgos.
Mainake,
28
,
333–360.
ARRIBAS, J., CALDERÓN, T., RUFETE, P., and FERNÁNDEZ JURADO,
J., 1989. Estudio mineralógico comparativo de restos arqueológicos
indígenas e importados de Tejada la Vieja (Escacena) y Huelva. In:
J. Fernández Jurado, ed.
Tejada la Vieja: una ciudad protohistórica.
image/svg+xml
IANSA 2021 ● XII/2 ● 331–342
Beatrijs G. de Groot: Material Methods; Considering Ceramic Raw Materials and the Spread of the Potter‘s Wheel in Early Iron Age Southern Iberia
340
Huelva: Huelva Arqueológica, 9, pp. 243–258.
AUBET SEMMLER, M.E., 2008.
The Phoenicians and the West: Politics,
Colonies and Trade.
2
nd
ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
BALDI, J., and ROUX, V., 2016. The innovation of the potter’s wheel:
a comparative perspective between Mesopotamia and the southern
Levant.
Levant,
48
,
236–253.
BARTKOWIAK, M., and KRUEGER, M., 2015. Wstępne rezultaty analizy
petrografcznej ceramiki ze stanowiska Seteflla (Hiszpania).
Poznańskie
studia nad najstarszymi dziejami Iberii,
1
,
37–45.
BEHRENDT, S., and MIELKE, D.P., 2011. Provenienzuntersuchungen
mittels Neutronenaktivierungsanalyse an phönizischer Keramik von
der Iberischen Halbinsel und aus Marokko.
Madrider Mitteilungen
,
52,
139–237.
BERNAL CASASOLA, D., and SÁEZ ROMERO, A.M., 2003. Saladeros
y alfares en Gadir. la perspectiva productiva de las ciudades fenicio-
púnicas del Extremo Occiente. In:
Las ciudades fenicio-púnicas en
el Mediterráneo Occidental: III Coloquio Internacional del Centro de
Estudios Fenicios y Púnicos.
Olmería: Universidad de Almería – Centro
de Estudios Fenicios y Púnicos, pp. 315–368.
BEVAN, A., 2014. Mediterranean containerization.
Current Anthropology,
55
,
387–418.
BHABHA, H.K., 1994.
The location of culture,
New York: Routledge.
CARDELL, C., RODRÍGUEZ GORDILLO, J.M., MOROTTI, M., and
PÁRRAGA, M., 1999. Arqueometría de cerámicas fenicias de” Cerro del
Villar”(Guadalhorce, Málaga): composición y procedencia. In: J. Capel
Martínez, ed.
Arqueometría y arqueología.
Granada: Universidad de
Granada, pp. 107–120.
CARO BELLIDO, A., 1989.
Cerámica gris a torno tartesia
, Universidad de
Cádiz: Servicio de Publicaciones.
CARRASCO, J., PACHÓN, J., PASTOR, M., and NAVARRETE, M., 1985.
Memoria preliminar de la campaña de excavaciones de 1985 en el Cerro
de la Mora (Moraleda de Zafayona, Granada).
Anuario arqueólogico de
Andalucía,
2
,
266–271.
CARRETERO, P., ARRUDA, A., CARRETERO, M., PETIT, M., GARCÍA,
and RUCANDIO, M., 2008. Archaeometry of a New Punico-Turdetano
Amphora Type: The Oil Amphorae from the Campiña Gaditana (Cádiz,
Spain). In: J.-F. Moreau, R. Auger, J. Chabot, and A. Herzog, eds.
36
th
International Symposium on Archaeometry.
Québec: CELAT, Université
Laval, pp. 261–268.
CARRETERO POBLETE, P.A., 2007.
Agricultura y Comercio Púnico-
Turdetano en el Bajo Guadalquivir. El inicio de las explotaciones
oleícolas peninsulares (siglos IV–II aC).
BAR International Series, 1703.
Oxford: Archaeopress.
CAU ONTIVEROS, M., 2007. Caracterización mineralógica y petrográfca
de los materiales anfóricos. In: J. Ramon, A. Sáez, A.M. Sáez and
A. Muñoz, eds.
El taller alfarero tardoarcaico de Camposoto.
Sevilla:
Monografas de Arqueologia, 26, Junta de Andalucía, pp. 269–281.
CAU ONTIVEROS, M., ILIOPOULOS, I., and MONTANA, G.,
2010. Caracterización petrográfca de cerámicas a mano ya torno del
yacimiento protohistórico de la Plaza de la Catedral (Ceuta). In: F. Villada
Paredes, J. Ramon Torres, and J. Suarez Padilla, eds.
El asentamiento
protohistorico de Ceuta: Indigenas y fenicios en la orilla Norteafricana
del estrecho de Gibraltar.
Ciudad Autónoma de Ceuta: Archivo General
e Ceuta, pp. 449–480.
CELESTINO PÉREZ, S., and LÓPEZ-RUIZ, C., 2016.
Tartessos and the
Phoenicians in Iberia,
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
CHOLEVA, M., 2020. Travelling with the potter’s wheel in the Early
Bronze Age Aegean.
Annual of the British School at Athens
,
2020, 1–46.
COLL CONESA, J., 2000. Aspectos de tecnología de producción de la
cerámica ibérica.
Saguntum: Papeles del Laboratorio de Arqueología de
Valencia-Extra
,
2000, 191–207.
CURIÀ BARNÈS, E., FERNÁNDEZ, A., DELGADO HERVÁS, A., and
PÁRRAGA, M., 2000. La organización de la producción de cerámica
en un centro colonial fenicio: el taller alfarero del siglo VI ane del Cerro
del Villar (Málaga). In: M. Barthélemy, and M.E. Aubet Semmler, eds.
Actas del IV Congreso Internacional de Estudios Fenicios y Púnicos:
Cádiz, 2 al 6 de octubre de 1995.
Cádiz: Universidad de Cádiz, Servicio
de Publicaciones, pp. 1475–1485.
DE GROOT, B.G., and BLOXAM, A., 2021. Radiocarbon approaches for
mapping technological change: the spread of the potter’s wheel in the
Iberian Peninsula, 1000–0 BCE.
Journal of Archaeological Science:
Reports
, 2021.
DE SOUSA, E., 2019. O comércio na costa atlântica portuguesa durante
a segunda metade do 1. º milénio aC. In: E. Ferrer Albelda, ed.
La ruta
de las Estrímnides. Navegación y conocimiento del litoral atlántico de
Iberia en la Antigüedad.
Alcalá de Henares: Universidad de Alcalá:
Universidad de Sevilla, pp. 499–520.
DELGADO HERVÁS, A., 2011. La producción de cerámica fenicia en el
extremo occidente: hornos de alfar, talleres e industrias domésticas en los
enclaves coloniales de la Andalucía mediterránea (siglos VIII–VI aC).
Treballs del Museu Arqueologic d’Eivissa e Formentera = Trabajos del
Museo Arqueologico de Ibiza y Formentera
,
2011, 9–48.
DELGADO HERVÁS, A., 2013. Households, Merchants, and Feasting:
Socioeconomic Dynamics and Commoners’ Agency in the Emergence
of the Tartessian World (Eleventh to Eigth Centuries B.C.). In: M. Cruz
Berrocal, L. García Sanjuán, and A. Gilman, eds.
The Prehistory of
Iberia: Debating Early Social Stratifcation and the State.
London and
New York: Routledge, 311–336.
DELGADO HERVÁS, A., and FERRER, M., 2007. Cultural contacts
in colonial settings: the construction of new identities in Phoenician
settlements of the Western Mediterranean.
Stanford Journal of
Archaeology,
5
,
18–42.
DIETLER, M., and LÓPEZ-RUIZ, C., 2009.
Colonial encounters in ancient
Iberia: Phoenician, Greek, and indigenous relations,
Chicago and
London: University of Chicago Press.
DOBRES, M.-A., 1999. Technology’s links and chaînes: the processual
unfolding of technique and technician. In: M.-A. Dobres, and C.R.
Hofman, eds.
The Social Dynamics of Technology: Practice, Politics,
World Views.
Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution Press, pp. 124–
146.
DORADO ALEJOS, A., 2019.
Caracterización de las producciones
cerámicas de Andalucía oriental y el sudeste de la península ibérica:
del bronce tardío al hierro antiguo (1550/1500–550 cal ac).
Unpublished
thesis (PhD), University of Granada.
EDREIRA, M., FELIÚ, M., and VILLENA, V., 2001. Caracterización
por Métodos Químico-Físicos de Cerámicas del Yacimiento de
Pocito Chico. In: J. Ruiz Gil, and J. López Amador, eds.
Formaciones
sociales agropecuarias en la Bahía de Cádiz.
Sevilla: Monografías de
Arqueología, 26, Sanlúcar de Barrameda, pp. 157–176.
ESCACENA CARRASCO, J.L., 1993. De la muerte de Tartesos: Evidencias
en el registro poblacional.
SPAL – Revista de Prehistoria y Arqueología
,
2, 138–218.
FANTUZZI, L., KIRIATZI, E., SÁEZ ROMERO, A.M., MÜLLER,
N.S., and WILLIAMS, C.K. 2020. Punic amphorae found at Corinth:
provenance analysis and implications for the study of long-distance salt
fsh trade in the Classical period.
Archaeological and Anthropological
Sciences,
12
,
1–21.
FERNÁNDEZ MAROTO, D., 2013. Tornos de alfarero protohistoricos
del Cerro de las Cabezas (Valdepenas, Ciudad Real)
Espacio, Tiempo y
Forma: Prehistoria y Arqueologia, Serie I
,
297–322.
FERREIRA, L., BARROS, L., MACHADO, A., GONZALEZ, A.,
CASIMIRO, T., and PEREIRA, M., 2018. Spectroscopic characterization
of the 8
th
to 7
th
BC amphorae from Almaraz site, Almada, Portugal.
Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports,
21
,
166–174.
FERREIRA, L., DE SOUSA, E., PEREIRA, M., GUERRA, S., and
MACHADO, I., 2020. An archaeometric study of the Phoenician ceramics
found at the São Jorge Castle’s hill in Lisbon.
Ceramics International,
46
,
7659–7666.
GARCÍA FERNÁNDEZ, F.J., FERRER ALBELDA, E., ÁLVAREZ-
MATEOS, M.P., and DURÁN-BARRANTES, M.D.L.M., 2016.
Análisis de residuos orgánicos y posibles contenido en ánforas púnicas
y turdetanas procedentes del Valle del Guadalquivir.
Saguntum. Papeles
del Laboratorio de Arqueología de Valencia,
48
,
59–87.
GARCÍA VARGAS, E.A., and GARCÍA FERNÁNDEZ, F.J., 2012. Los
hornos alfareros de tradición fenicia en el valle del Guadalquivir y su
perduración en época romana: aspectos tecnológicos y sociales.
SPAL –
Revista de Prehistoria y Arqueología,
21
,
9–39.
GONZÁLEZ-RUIBAL, A., 2004. Facing two seas: Mediterranean and
Atlantic contacts in the north‐west of Iberia in the frst millennium
BC.
Oxford Journal of Archaeology,
23
,
287–317.
GONZÁLEZ-VILCHEZ, C., GARCÍA-RAMOS, G., GONZÁLEZ-
GARCÍA, F., and PELLICER-CATALÁN, M., 1982. Cerro Macareno
image/svg+xml
IANSA 2021 ● XII/2 ● 331–342
Beatrijs G. de Groot: Material Methods; Considering Ceramic Raw Materials and the Spread of the Potter‘s Wheel in Early Iron Age Southern Iberia
341
(Sevilla) Pottery: The Nature and Provenance of Amphoras and other
Earthenware Pots from VIII to III Centuries B.C. In: A. Aspinall, and
S. Warren, eds.
Proceedings of the 22
nd
Symposium on Archaeometry.
Bradford: Bradford University, 388–403.
GONZÁLEZ DE CANALES, F., DOMÍNGUEZ MONEDERO, A.J.,
LLOMPART GÓMEZ, J., MONTAÑA JUSTO, A., 2018. Un grupo
nuevo de cerámica arcaica Griega (“Grupo H”) fabricado en Tartessos
(Huelva, España).
Cuadernos de Prehistoria y Arqueología,
44
,
133–143.
GONZÁLEZ DE CANALES, F., SERRANO PICARDO, L., LLOMPART
GÓMEZ, J., GARCÍA FERNÁNDEZ, M., RAMÓN TORRES, J.,
DOMÍNGUEZ MONEDERO, A., and MONTAÑO JUSTO, A.,
2017. Archaeological Finds in the Deepest Anthropogenic Stratum at
3 Concepción Street in the City of Huelva (Spain).
Ancient West and East,
16
,
1–61.
GONZÁLEZ PRATS, A., and PINA GOSÁLBEZ, J.A., 1983. Análisis de
las pastas cerámicas de vasos hechos a torno de la fase orientalizante de
Peña Negra (675–550/35 AC).
Lucentum,
2
,
115–145.
GOSDEN, C., 2004.
Archaeology and colonialism: cultural contact from
5000 BC to the present.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
GOSSELAIN, O., 1992. Technology and style: potters and pottery among
Bafa of Cameroon.
Man
,
1992, 559–586.
GUTIÉRREZ LÓPEZ, J.M., SÁEZ ROMERO, A., and REINOSO DEL
RÍO, M.C., 2013. La tecnología alfarera como herramienta de análisis
histórico: refexiones sobre los denominados” prismas cerámicos”.
SPAL
– Revista de Prehistoria y Arqueología,
22
,
61–100.
HOARD, R.J., O’BRIEN, M.J., KHORASGANY, M.G., and
GOPALARATNAM, V.S., 1995. A materials-science approach to
understanding limestone-tempered pottery from the Midwestern United
States.
Journal of Archaeological Science,
22
,
823–832.
HODOS, T., 2009. Colonial engagements in the global Mediterranean Iron
Age.
Cambridge Archaeological Journal,
19
,
221.
HODOS, T., 2010. Local and global perspectives in the study of social and
cultural identities. In: S. Hales, and T. Hodos, eds.
Material culture social
identities in the ancient world.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
3–31.
JIMÉNEZ AVILA, J., 2013. En torno a los tornos. A propósito de una piedra
de torno de alfarero de la I Edad del Hierro conservada en la Colección de
Prehistoria de la Comarca de Mérida (Badajoz). In: D. Bernal Casasola,
L.C.J. Tovar, M. Bustamante-Álvarez, J.J. Díaz Rodríguez, and A.M.
Sáez Romero, eds.
Hornos, talleres y focos de producción alfarera en
Hispania: I Congreso Internacional de SECAH, Ex Ofcina Hispana,
Cádiz 3–4 de marzo de 2011.
Cádiz: Universidad de Cádiz, pp. 187–198.
JOHNSTON, P.A., 2015.
Pottery Production at the Phoenician Colony of El
Castillo de Dona Blanca (El Puerto de Santa Maria, Spain) c. 750–550
BCE.
Unpublished thesis (PhD), Harvard University.
KRUEGER, M., BRANDHERM, D., KRUEGER, M., and NIEDZIELSKI,
P., 2021. Archaeometric analysis of Late Bronze Age and Early Iron
Age pottery from Seteflla (SW Spain).
Mediterranean Archaeology and
Archaeometry,
21
,
21–36.
KRUEGER, M., KRUEGER, M., and JAKUBOWSKI, K., 2018. Some
Remarks on the Technological Process of Tartessian Pottery.
EXARC
,
2018, 1–7.
LECHTMAN, H., 1977. Style in technology, some early thoughts. In:
H. Lechtman, and R. Merrill, eds.
Material culture: styles, organization,
and dynamics of technology.
St. Paul, Minnesota: West Publishers,
pp. 3–20.
LIVINGSTONE SMITH, A., 2000. Processing clay for pottery in northern
Cameroon: Social and technical requirements.
Archaeometry,
42
,
21–42.
LORRIO, A.J., 1989. Cerámica gris orientalizante de la necrópolis de
Medellín (Badajoz).
Zephyrus,
41–42
,
283–314.
LORRIO, A.J., 2014. The Celtic peoples. In: M. Almagro Gorbea, ed.
Iberia. Protohistory of the Far West of Europe: From Neolithic to Roman
Conquest.
Burgos: Universidad de Burgos & Fundación Atapuerca.
MAASS-LINDEMANN, G., 2000. El yacimiento fenicio del Alarcón
y la cuestión de la cerámica gris. In:
Fenicios y territorio: actas del II
Seminario Internacional sobre Temas Fenicios, Guardamar del Segura,
9–11 de abril de 1999.
Alicante: Instituto Alicantino de Cultura Juan Gil-
Albert, pp. 151–168.
MANCEBO, J., DE LA BANDERA, M.L., and GARCÍA, J.M., 1992.
La cerámica gris a torno del yacimiento orientalizante de Montemolín
(Sevilla).
Trabajos de Prehistoria,
49
,
277–293.
MANNING, J.G., 2018.
The open sea: the economic life of the ancient
Mediterranean world from the Iron Age to the rise of Rome,
Princeton
and Oxford: Princeton University Press.
MENDOZA, A., MOLINA, F., ARTEAGA, O., AGUAYO, P., and SAEZ,
L., 1981. Cerro de los Infantes (Pinos Puente, Provinz Granada). Ein
Beitrag zur Bronze und Eisenzeit in Oberandalusien in Helmut Schlunk
zum 75. Geburtstag.
Madrider Mitteilungen,
22
,
171–210.
MIELKE, D.P., 2015. Between transfer and interaction: Phoenician pottery
technology on the Iberian Peninsula. In: W. Gauss, G. Klebinder-Gauss,
and C. von Ruden, eds.
The transmission of technical knowledge in the
production of ancient Mediterranean pottery.
Vienna: Österreichisches
Archäologisches Institut, pp. 257–276.
MIELKE, D.P., and TORRES ORTIZ, M., 2012. Technologietransfer und-
entwicklung auf der iberischen Halbinsel im Rahmen der orientalisch-
phönizischen Kulturkontakte. In: A. Kern, J.K. Koch, I. Balzer,
J. Fries-Knoblach, K. Kowarik, C. Later, P.C. Ramsl, P. Trebsche, and
J. Wiethold, eds.
Technologieentwicklung und-transfer in der Hallstatt-
und Latènezeit. Beiträge zur Internationalen Tagung der AG Eisenzeit
und des Naturhistorischen Museums Wien, Prähistorische Abteilung–
Hallstatt.
Langenweißbach: Beier & Beran, pp. 263–286.
MIGUEL GASCÓN, E., and BUXEDA I GARRIGÓS, J., 2013.
Characterisation of possible Phoenician pottery production of Tyre.
Applied Clay Science,
82
,
79–85.
MIGUEL GASCÓN, E., BUXEDA I GARRIGÓS, J., and DAY, P.M., 2015.
Central Mediterranean Phoenician pottery imports in the Northeastern
Iberian Peninsula.
Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports,
3
,
237–
246.
MILLÁN, A., ARRIBAS, J., BENITEZ, P., CALDERÓN, T., and RUFETE,
P., 1990. Caracterización mineralógica de cerámicas de fliacion fenicia,
griega y turdetana de Huelva.
Huelva Arqueologica,
12
,
401–446.
MOLINOS, M., RÍSQUEZ, C., SERRANO, J., and MONTILLA, S., 1994.
Un problema de fronteras en la periferia de Tartessos: Las Calañas de
Marmolejo (Jaén),
Jaén: Universidad de Jaén.
MORENO MEGÍAS, V., GARCÍA FERNÁNDEZ, F.J., FRAGNOLI, P.,
and STERBA, J.H., 2020. Petrographic and neutron activation analysis
of Late Iron Age amphorae from the south western Iberian Peninsula.
Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports,
34
,
102598.
MÜLLER, N.S., KILIKOGLOU, V., DAY, P.M., and VEKINIS, G.,
2014. Thermal shock resistance of tempered archaeological ceramics.
In: M. Martinon-Torres, ed.
Craft science: International perspectives
on archaeological ceramics.
Doha, Qatar: UCL Qatar Series in
Archaeological and Cultural Heritag. Bloomsbury Qatar Foundation, pp.
263–270.
NIJBOER, A.J., and VAN DER PLICHT, J., 2006. An interpretation of the
radiocarbon determinations of the oldest indigenous-Phoenician stratum
thus far, excavated at Huelva, Tartessos (south-west Spain).
BABesch,
81
,
31–36.
OLALDE, I., MALLICK, S., PATTERSON, N., ROHLAND, N.,
VILLALBA-MOUCO, V., SILVA, M., DULIAS, K., EDWARDS, C.J.,
GANDINI, F., and PALA, M. 2019. The genomic history of the Iberian
Peninsula over the past 8000 years.
Science,
363
,
1230–1234.
PADILLA FERNÁNDEZ, J.J., and DORADO ALEJOS, A., 2017. Lo que
la cerámica esconde: continuidad y cambio social a fnales del Bronce y
comienzos de la Edad del Hierro en el castro de las Cogotas (Cardeñosa,
Ávila).
Complutum,
28
,
87–117.
PAUKETAT, T.R. 2001. Practice and history in archaeology: An emerging
paradigm.
Journal of Anthropological Theory,
1
,
73–98.
PETIT-DOMÍNGUEZ, M.D., GARCÍA-GIMÉNEZ, R., and RUCANDIO,
M.I., 2003. Chemical characterization of Iberian amphorae and tannin
determination as indicative of amphora contents.
Microchimica Acta,
141
,
63–68.
PRINGLE, S., 1998. The petrology of the archaic punic plates from
Toscanos, Spain.
The Old Potter’s Almanack,
6
,
2–7.
QUINN, P.S., 2013.
Ceramic petrography: The interpretation of
archaeological pottery related artefacts in thin section,
Oxford:
Archaeopress.
RAFEL FONTANALS, N., 2012. La Cuenca minera del Baix Priorat
(Tarragona): explotación y distribución en época colonial, recursos locales
versus recursos alóctonos.
Cuadernos de Arqueología Mediterránea
,
2012, 71–86.
RAMÓN TORRES, J., SÁEZ ROMERO, A.M., SÁEZ ROMERO, A.,
image/svg+xml
IANSA 2021 ● XII/2 ● 331–342
Beatrijs G. de Groot: Material Methods; Considering Ceramic Raw Materials and the Spread of the Potter‘s Wheel in Early Iron Age Southern Iberia
342
and MUNOZ, A., 2007.
El taller alfarero tardoarcaico de Camposoto,
San Fernando, Cádiz.,
Sevilla: Monografías de Arqueología, Junta de
Andalucía.
RICE, P.M. 2015.
Pottery analysis: a sourcebook.
Chicago: University of
Chicago Press.
ROOS, A.-M., 1982. Acerca de la antigua cerámica gris a torno en la
Península Ibérica.
Empúries: revista de món clàssic i antiguitat tardana
,
1982, 43–70.
ROUX, V., 2019.
Ceramics and society: a technological approach to
archaeological assemblages
. Springer.
ROUX, V., BRIL, B., CAULIEZ, J., GOUJON, A.-L., LARA, C., MANEN,
C., DE SAULIEU, G., and ZANGATO, E., 2017. Persisting technological
boundaries: Social interactions, cognitive correlations and polarization.
Journal of Anthropological Archaeology,
48
,
320–335.
ROUX, V., and COURTY, M.-A., 1998. Identifcation of Wheel-fashioning
Methods: Technological Analysis of 4
th
–3
rd
Millennium BC Oriental
Ceramics.
Journal of Archaeological Science,
25
,
747–763.
RUIZ, T.C., SANJUÁN, L.G., PÉREZ, V.H., RAMÍREZ, J.M.M., DEL
RÍO, Á.P., and TAYLOR, R., 2006. La arqueometría de materiales
cerámicos: una evaluación de la experiencia andaluza.
Trabajos de
Prehistoria,
63
,
9–35.
SÁEZ ROMERO, A.M., 2008.
La producción cerámica en Gadir en época
tardopúnica (siglos-III/-I),
Cádiz: BAR International Series, S1812,
Universidad de Cádiz.
SÁEZ ROMERO, A.M., 2014. Fish processing and salted-fsh trade in
the Punic West: new archaeological data and historical evolution. In:
E. Botte, and V. Leicht, eds.
Fish and Ships: Production et commerce des
salsamenta durant l’Antiquité.
Aix-en-Provence: Centre Camille Jullian,
pp. 159–174.
SÁEZ ROMERO, A.M., BELIZÓN ARAGÓN, R., and ALBURQUERQUE,
P., 2021. Throwing Punic Amphorae: An Archaeological and Experimental
Approach to the use of the Potter’s Wheel in southern Iberia during the
Iron Age.
EXARC
,
2021, 1–26.
SÁEZ ROMERO, A.M., MONTERO FERNÁNDEZ, R., and TOBOSO
SUÁREZ, E.J., 2004. Un antecedente centro-mediterráneo al complejo
alfarero púnico de Torre Alta (San Fernando, Cádiz). In: A.M. Niveau de
Villedary y Mariñas, ed.
Las industrias alfareras y conserveras fenicio-
púnicas de la Bahía de Cádiz.
Córdoba: Publicaciones Obra Social y
Cultural CajaSur, pp. 201–236.
SANNA, C.J.A.Y.T., 2009. La cerámica gris orientalizante entre tradición
e innovación: el caso de Ronda la Vieja (Acinipo)(Ronda, Málaga).
Arqueología y Territorio
, 6, 151–164.
SILLAR, B., and TITE, M.S., 2000. The challenge of “technological
choices’ for materials science approaches in archaeology.
Archaeometry,
42
,
2–20.
SINOPOLI, C.M., 1991.
Approaches to archaeological ceramics
, Springer.
STOCKHAMMER, P.W., 2012. Conceptualizing cultural hybridization
in archaeology. In: P.W. Stockhammer, ed.
Conceptualizing Cultural
Hybridization.
A Transdisciplinary Approach.
Berlin, Heidelberg:
Springer, pp. 43–58.
TITE, M., and MANIATIS, Y., 1975. Scanning Electron Microscope of
Fired Calcareous Clays.
Transactions of the British Ceramics Society,
74
,
19–22.
TORRES ORTIZ, M., 2014. Taršiš, Tartessos, Turdetania. In: M. Almagro-
Gorbea, ed.
Iberia. Protohistory of the Far West of Europe: From Neolithic
to Roman Conquest.
Burgos: Universidad de Burgos, pp. 251–283.
TRONCHETTI, C., and VAN DOMMELEN, P., 2005. Entangled objects
and hybrid practices: colonial contacts and elite connections at Monte
Prama, Sardinia.
Journal of Mediterranean Archaeology,
18
,
183.
VALLEJO SÁNCHEZ, J.I., 2016.
Las cerámicas grises orientalizantes en
la Península Ibérica.
Unpublished thesis (PhD), Universidad de Cádiz.
VAN DOMMELEN, P., 2011. Postcolonial archaeologies between discourse
and practice.
World archaeology,
43
,
1–6.