Decorated domestic ware in Late Iron Age Europe. An introduction

7 Decorated domestic ware in Late Iron Age Europe. An introduction Lorenzo Zamboni, Jan Kysela This volume is the outcome of aworkshop held in Cremona on 29th and 30th April 2023. The meeting was jointly organised by the Universities of Milan and Prague, with the support of the Archaeological Museum of Cremona, the Municipality of Cremona– which provided the charming venue of Sala Puerari in Palazzo Affaitati, and the local Superintendence. The fundamental premise of the Cremona meeting was to foster acritical and comparative approach to the study of handmade and/or semi ‑fine domestic decorated pottery from the Late Iron Age and the Roman period. To this end, the meeting brought together scholars from France, northern Italy, Austria, Germany, Poland, and Bohemia, who presented and discussed arange of regional productions and styles. WHAT ‘UGLY’ WARES, WHEN AND WHERE? What is the precise subject of our investigation, and why did we refer to it, in asomewhat irreverent manner, as ‘ugly’? The term is ironically used to describe abroad and rather undefined category of pottery productions, which were produced in several regions of Europe between the late Hallstatt pe‑ riod and the early Roman Empire. In this volume, we concentrate on aselection of case studies spanning from the late 6th and 5th century BCE (in Central France and Liguria; see Saureletal., Giaretti and Venturino, Mangeletal. this volume) to the end of the Iron Age (La Tène D2) and the early 1 st century CE. The most recent case studies appear to be the region between Como and Milan, in northern Italy, where the presence of hand ‑crafted pottery with late La Tène ‑style decorative motifs has been documented until the late Julio ‑Claudian period (for example in Pogliano Milanese, Rovello Porro, Mandana; see Butti, this volume). Similarly, the Noricum manufactures are attested up to the early 1st century AD (Schindler Kaudelkaetal., this volume). The most salient characteristics of these groups of domestic coarse pottery are as follows: low firing, predominantly hand or mixed building techniques (coiling or slab ‑building, occa‑ sionally and partially wheel thrown), which collectively convey an impression of relatively low potting quality, although with notable exceptions. It is important to note that these low ‑tech approaches often diverge significantly from other pottery that was produced or that circulated within the communities manufacturing these vessels. This indicates that their adoption was not merely aresult of limited competence, but rather adeliberate choice. From ageneral and multiregional viewpoint, tableware and cooking ware, including shapes such as ollae or jars, beakers, mugs, and bowls, are more commonly encountered. As previously stated, these pots are predominantly hand ‑built. However, in select regions (such as the Seine Valley or Milan, as evidenced by Saureletal. and Binetal. in this volume, respec‑ tively), semi ‑fine productions have also been documented. 8STUDIA HERCYNIA XXVIII/1 The majority of contexts presented in this volume pertain to settlements, with afew no‑ table exceptions in the case of grave goods (for instance, Lombardy and the Cenomane area during the later La Tène periods). In addition, it is frequently presumed that the production of these items occurs at the local level within independent household workshops, destined for use within the domestic market. The second and more evident aspect is aspectrum of decorations on the external surface of the pots. These include incisions, fingernail patterns and, on occasion, applied clay elements. 1 The decorative patterns, which may be found in single rows or covering the entire surface of the vase, encompass amultitude of techniques, including linear, wavy, hatching, and her‑ ringbone incisions. Additionally, tools and finger impressions have been identified, with the fingertips or fingernails patterns being the most iconic and recognisable. However, the various techniques, patterns and their combinations exhibit considerable variation according to regional cultures and chronological periods. This is an aspect that will be explored in depth in the individual chapters of this volume. What is worthy anticipating here is that by any means we are dealing with asingle package of technological and cultural features. This is not auniform production in terms of the recipe (see for example the graphite pottery studied in Franke, this volume), the building process and the firing. Furthermore, the types of decorations and their execution are combined with the highest degree of variety. Fig. 1: Regions discussed in the individual papers of this volume. 1 – Saurel et al.; 2 – Giaretti – Ventu‑ rino; 3 – Mangel et al.; 4 – Zamboni; 5 – Poggiani Keller – Rondini; 6 – Bin – Colomba – Roncoroni; 7 – Biondani; 8 – Butti; 9 – Coppo – Milan; 10 – Franke; 11 – Schindler Kaudelka – Mantovani – Auer. 1 They appear combined with red painted motifs in the Seine and Paris basins, Hallstatt D2/D3 to La Tène A– Saureletal., this volume. 9LORENZO ZAMBONI, JAN KYSELA AND WHY? ASSUMPTIONS AND POTENTIALITIES OF DECORATED COARSE WARE Yet the archaeological issue, which is the primary rationale behind this project, is that similar pots, with comparable decorations and an overall appearance that could be described as rustic and somewhat anti ‑classical, appear (and reappear) in different regions of northern Italy and Central Europe during comparable periods, namely the 5th and 4th centuries BCE, the Late Iron Age and, in certain regions, the Roman conquest towards the end of the 1st millennium BCE and the beginning of the 1st century CE. Moreover, in numerous regions, these rustic pots appear to be apreviously unrecorded phenomenon, with few local precedents, except for Liguria and certain areas in France per‑ haps (see Giaretti and Venturino; Saureletal. this volume). This resulted in the formulation of the hypothesis, frequently implicit (see Mangeletal., this volume), that the emergence of specific decorated domestic wares is associated with interregional contacts. In other words, and more explicitly, these productions might be pivotal for their assumed role in the study of ancient mobility, with particular emphasis on the so ‑called Celtic migra‑ Fig. 2: Homologous or analogous? Haphazard examples of decorated coarse ware from some of the case‑study regions in this volume: 1, 2, 5 Paris Basin (Saurel et al.); 3, 6, 7 Bohemia (Mangel et al.); 4, 11 Liguria (Giaretti, Venturino); 8, 10 Bergamo and surroundings (Poggiani Keller, Rondini); 9 Zevio (Biondani). Out of scale. 10 STUDIA HERCYNIA XXVIII/1 tions of the mid‑ and second half of the 1st millennium BCE (see also Zamboni; Mangeletal., this volume). The hypothesis posits acorrelation between the advent of aforeign style of food and beverage consumption, along with an imported taste for pottery decorations, and the presence of migrant populations during the Late Iron Age in Europe. This key issue informed our decision to select case studies. The objective was to gather and compare data from the presumed regions of origin of the human groups that invaded Italy, according to the historical and traditional account, towards the end of the 5th and the 4th century BCE (specifically France and other central European areas). The aim was also to compare them with the local milieu (Liguria and Golasecca) to gain insight into the outputs of the expected encounter and interaction during the following centuries. Accordingly, some of the following chapters of this volume will discuss, in apreliminary manner, the extent to which the selected cooking and tableware may be considered proxies of super ‑regional contacts and related to mobility. However, it will be necessary to gather further analytical data and engage in further discussion in order to reach amore informative conclusion. This aspect of coarse ware as apotential cultural marker has also another– and less con‑ tentious– consequence: while its usefulness for tracing Celtic migrations remains open to discussion, it is precious in highlighting continuity of local manufacturing and potentially alimentation habits in times of cultural transformation, in our case in the times of Romanisa‑ tion. Out of the numerous papers in this volume that approach this topic in one way or another (Butti; Poggiani Keller and Rondini; Biondani) it is Schindler Kaudelaetal. that deal with it in adetailed methodological case study. Similarly, the paper of R. Franke, albeit seemingly branching slightly off from the principal focus of the conference, provides aprecious insight into study of coarse ware from the viewpoint of ceramic mass. TECHNOLOGICAL AND MANUFACTURING ISSUES As already emphasised, the chapters in the present volume reveal astriking degree of het‑ erogeneity within the subject matter, suggesting the existence of multiple, independent manufacturing trajectories that exhibit comparable ‘phenotypic’ traits. At the same time, the resemblance between specific shapes and decorations, coupled with the recurring challenges pertaining to cultural dynamics between these rustic products and more sophisticated vessels, prompt us to consider whether we are dealing with amulti ‑scalar and over ‑regional phenomenon. Overall, we can anticipate that the history of these ‘rudimentary’ decorations is by no means linear (as stated by Saureletal.). Some authors of this volume place considerable emphasis on the continuity and transition from the Iron Age to the Roman period in certain areas (for example Liguria and Lombardy). Conversely, others highlight the discontinuity and cultural disruption evident in other regions, citing examples such as Bohemia and Moravia (where identical decoration re ‑emerged at several moments of prehistory– interspaced by centuries with no attestation –, associated with various archaeological cultures and possibly various populations, in any case without any thinkable continuity between them), as well as Emilia and Bergamo’salpine hinterland (Mangeletal.; Zamboni; Poggiani Keller and Rondini, respectively). From atechnological point of view, the selected case ‑studies show many local manufactur‑ ing traditions, with entangled relations and nuanced influences, often difficult to distinguish. 11LORENZO ZAMBONI, JAN KYSELA As Saurel and colleagues assert in their chapter, the observed variations in composition of products reflect alack of specialisation in the production process across multiple manu‑ facturing units. It is not possible to exclude asupra ‑local level at this stage, but only amore in ‑depth study of the techniques and composition would make it possible to address this. It seems more probable that the encountering and multiple influences among diverse cultural groups and artisans, as well as the emergence of new social, economic and cultural networks, occured. These ceramics can be seen as an example of aconvergence of techno‑ logical and cultural influences, produced and adopted by arange of hybridised groups (see Zamboni, this volume). Moreover, the magnitude of the change in regional potting traditions is highly variable. In some regions, such as present ‑day Lombardy and Transpadane Gaul, new technological and style choices not only mark asensible break if compared to previous Early Iron Age culture, but they increase towards the end of the La Tène period and during the Roman conquest. It is precisely during this latter period that we observe asort of reinvention of previous man‑ ufacturers, without aclear continuity, which can be defined as the reappraisal of Iron Age motifs during the process of Romanisation. TERMINOLOGIES AND APPROACHES The somewhat sarcastic adjective that we have chosen for the title of this project conceals amore profound terminological problem (see also Schindler Kaudelkaetal., this volume). How might we define these groups of domestic pottery, which simultaneously exhibit both stylistic similarities and significant regional variability? For some authors, including ourselves, the traditional ethnic definitions (such as “Celtic”, “Ligurian”) are highly problematic, as they perpetuate outdated culture ‑historical preconcep‑ tions that equate objects with people. Conversely, the local traditions of study evaluate the ethnological interpretations of Iron Age cultures, which has led to this pottery being labelled as “Celtic” (for example, Binetal.; Schindler Kaudelkaetal., this volume). Though understanding the handiness and universal accessibility of these terms, it is our contention that definitions should eschew terms derived from ancient textual and historical sources, which are often tainted by anumber of etic distortions. Instead, they should concen‑ trate on technological aspects, the life history of the ceramics, as well as the habitus, choices and practices of the potters. Nevertheless, it is evident, even in light of the Cremona workshop and this volume, that the issue remains unresolved and open to debate. Afurther issue arises from the disparate methodologies employed. Only asmall number of authors in this volume employ analytical and archaeometrical strategies (for instance Man‑ geletal.) and analyse larger areas with cross ‑regional comparative and statistical purposes (Franke, this volume), whereas the majority of available studies are thus far based solely on traditional chrono ‑typologies and macroscopic technological observations. This discrepancy is likely attributable to disparate traditions of study and the general dearth of research funding, which impedes more comprehensive analysis. It is therefore evident that further archaeometrical and in ‑depth technological analyses are required, including the use of microphotographs, fabric descriptions, petrographic, min‑ eralogical and chemical analyses. It is only through such analyses that production traditions 12 STUDIA HERCYNIA XXVIII/1 reflecting social relations in the network of ceramic producers can be reconstructed (see Mangeletal., this volume). Amongst other techniques, the tomography and scanning of ceramics represent an in‑ novative procedure, applied to radial and tangent sections, that allows the identification of pottery forming methods (e.g., coiling, slabs assemblage) and to trace the craft ‘signature’ of individual artisans and workshops (Thér– Mangel 2021). For example, apreliminary test on aselected sample of Bohemian and Moravian contexts (Mangeletal., this volume) suggests that finger ‑tip decorations do not reflect ‘the presence of aspecific group of manufacturers as representatives of apopulation subgroup with adistinct identity’. An additional avenue for investigation is cross ‑cultural comparative and postcolonial studies (see Zamboni, this volume), which permits the examination of alternative interpre‑ tative scenarios. This brings us to the final question: how can we make sense of these groups of decorated coarse ware? In the course of the volume, anumber of authors confirm, either explicit or implicit, the connection with the Celtic word that has already been outlined (see Biondani; Poggiani Keller and Rondini). The prevailing hypothesis is that ageneral diffusion of styles and tastes, broadly char‑ acterised as ‘Celtic’ or of Transalpine or Ligurian origin, became prevalent in anumber of regions. Nevertheless, the notion that mass migrations are the primary driver of change in the material record is largely discredited. Instead, several chapters place emphasis on identity construction, intermingling with local populations, integration, and the formation of novel mixed cultures (Biondani; Schindler Kaudelkaetal.; Butti, this volume). Furthermore, during the latter phases of the Iron Age and the Romanisation process, these pots are frequently perceived as indications of resistance and the formation of identity against the loss of independence and the assimilation into an imposed culture. Handmade table and cooking ware, decorated in astyle reminiscent of the preceding Iron Age periods, may be interpreted as aconservatorism (Butti) or even as an active resilience through the material agency of consumption tools (Poggiani Keller and Rondini, this volume). It is worthy of note that in certain regions the studies identify specific cultural selections and exclusions, which may have ethnic boundary significance. Such examples include the Camuni area in central Alpine valleys (Poggiani Keller and Rondini, this volume), the Venetic region east of Verona (Biondani, this volume), and Romagna east of Bologna (Zamboni, this volume). AIMS AND FURTHER RESEARCH The principal objective of this project was to generate anovel dataset of cultural and tech‑ nological observations of ceramics in order to understand the characterisation of change in pottery production during the Late Iron Age, and to ascertain whether this might be related to the mobility of groups and individuals through the Alps. This is promising since other studies have recently suggested that technological exchange between Central Europe and northern Italy began as early as the Early Iron Age (Nebel‑ sicketal. 2022; de Grootetal. 2023). It is our hope that the datasets collected and compared in this volume will pave the way for anew phase of sampling and technological studies, ca‑ pable of reconstructing the networks of artisans and the potential interchange of cultural traits and behaviours. 13LORENZO ZAMBONI, JAN KYSELA ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS We warmly thank the Municipality of Cremona for granting the sponsorship and their hospi‑ tality, together with the Museum of Cremona and especially Marina Volonté. The workshop was financed by the University of Milano Statale, Department of Department of Cultural and Environmental Heritage (Fondo PSR 2021, Linea 2), and by the Philosophical Faculty of the University of Hradec Králové. The present publication was financially supported under the National Recovery and Re‑ silience Plan (NRRP), Mission 4, Component 2, Investment 1.1, funded by the European Un‑ ion– NextGenerationEU– Fondo per il Programma Nazionale della Ricerca (PNR) e Progetti di Ricerca di Rilevante Interesse Nazionale (PRIN). Project title: “RuRES”. Rural Resilience. Decentralised Landscape and Ecological Strategies of Non ‑elite Groups in Cisalpine Gaul” CUP 202224R7K3” BIBLIOGRAPHY de Grootetal. 2023 = de Groot, B.G.– Braekmans, D.– Fernández‑Götz, M.– Hansen, L.etal.: Technological dynamics of Early Iron Age ceramics from the Heuneburg (SW Germany). Asynthesis of 50 years of research. Archaeological and Anthropological Sciences 5, 129. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12520‑023‑01832‑2 Nebelsicketal. 2022 = Nebelsick, L.– Balzer, I.– Metzner ‑Nebelsick, C.– Vanzetti, A.: Between Genoa and Günzburg– acommunication corridor or avoid? In: R.C. de Marinis– M. Rapi (eds.): Preistoria e Protostoria in Lombardia e Canton Ticino. Rivista di Scienze Preistoriche 72 s2, 609–620. Thér, R.– Mangel, T. 2021: Two trajectories of the development of pottery forming methods in central Europe in the Iron Age. The contribution of analysis of the orientation of components of aceramic body. Journal of Archaeological Science– Reports 35 (2021) 102717. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jasrep.2020.102717