Black-on-Red Ware

Defining Black-on-Red: The Production, Dispersal, and Significance of an Iron Age Cypriot Pottery

Among the many ceramic classes of the ancient Mediterranean, few have generated as much debate as Cypriot Black-on-Red ware. With its distinctive shiny red or orange surface and precise black-painted geometric decoration, this pottery appears in archaeological contexts from the Levant to Crete [1, p. 365; 2, p. 14]. For decades, its origin was a subject of contention, with scholars attributing it to Phoenicia, Cyprus, or a hybrid “Cypro-Phoenician” culture [3, p. xix]. Its chronology was equally uncertain, with proposed dates spanning several centuries [3, p. xxii]. This uncertainty made the ware a problematic tool for understanding the complex trade networks and cultural interactions of the Early Iron Age.

Recent research, however, combining evidence from securely stratified excavations with advanced archaeometric analysis, has provided new clarity. It is now evident that Black-on-Red ware was a distinct Cypriot product that first appeared around the beginning of the 9th century BCE [4, p. 3; 5, p. 6]. Its widespread distribution and frequent imitation abroad reflect the island’s central role in the commercial and cultural currents of its time. This article will examine the defining characteristics and manufacturing technology of Black-on-Red ware, trace the scholarly debate surrounding its origins and chronology, and explore its dispersal and reception across the eastern Mediterranean, which demonstrates the complex patterns of exchange in the Iron Age.

Characteristics and Production Technology

Black-on-Red (BoR) is a fine ware, made from well-levigated clay and finished on the potter’s wheel [3, p. xix; 6, p. 60]. Its most notable feature is a red or orange slip, which is typically burnished to a lustrous finish [1, p. 365; 7, p. 3]. The decoration consists of geometric motifs—primarily thin horizontal lines, bands, and sets of small, neatly executed concentric circles—painted in black [3, p. xix; 8, p. 26]. The quality of the finish and the precision of the decoration suggest a high degree of technical skill [8, p. 36].

The ware appears in a range of forms, but the most common are closed vessels, particularly single-handled neck-ridged juglets with flaring lips and flat bases [3, p. xix]. These juglets were the most frequently exported shape [8, p. 33]. Open forms, such as shallow and deep bowls, are also part of the repertoire [3, p. xix]. While some shapes, like the conical juglet, are specific to the ware, others, including kraters and barrel-juglets, show the influence of contemporary Cypriot ceramic traditions like White Painted and Bichrome ware [3, p. xix].

Scientific analysis has provided significant insight into the manufacturing process, particularly the pigments used for decoration. Potters in antiquity used two primary methods to create black paint. The first, the “iron reduction technique,” required a complex three-stage firing process (oxidation-reduction-reoxidation) using an iron-rich clay slip [9, p. 397]. Controlling the kiln atmosphere to achieve both black and red colours on the same vessel was difficult [10, p. 8]. The second method, the “manganese black technique,” involved using pigments derived from manganese ores, such as pyrolusite (MnO2) [11, p. 397]. This technique was simpler, as the manganese-based paint fires black regardless of the kiln atmosphere, making it easier to produce bichrome effects by pairing it with an iron-based red paint in a single oxidizing fire [10, p. 6].

Analysis of BoR sherds using techniques like X-ray fluorescence (XRF) spectrometry has shown that its bichrome effect was achieved using the manganese black technique [10, p. 6; 12, p. 335]. The black bands consist of manganese-based pigments, containing both manganese and iron, while the red slip is an iron-based pigment with very low manganese content [13, p. 6]. This technological choice was a common feature of bichrome wares across the eastern Mediterranean, with the notable exception of Minoan Crete, where a lack of manganese ores led to the mastery of the more complex iron reduction method [10, p. 8]. The consistent use of this technique for BoR ware underscores its place within a broader technological tradition while also distinguishing it from other ceramic styles.

The Question of Origin: A Century of Debate

The origin and chronology of BoR ware were long-standing problems in Mediterranean archaeology [4, p. 3]. The debate began in the first half of the 20th century, with scholars in Palestine dating finds to the 11th–9th centuries BCE, while Cypriot contexts suggested a later start, around the 8th century BCE [3, p. xxii]. This chronological discrepancy fueled the debate over its place of manufacture.

In his influential 1948 publication, Einar Gjerstad proposed that BoR was not originally Cypriot. He argued that it first developed on the Syro-Anatolian mainland and was introduced to Cyprus around 850 BCE through an "influx of Syro-Anatolians" [6, p. 259; 14, p. 122]. This theory of a "Levantine Phase" in the ware's production history was widely accepted for many years [4, p. 5]. Some early examples found in Cypro-Geometric II contexts on the island were thus identified as imports from Syria [4, p. 5].

The term “Cypro-Phoenician,” used interchangeably with Black-on-Red, further complicated the issue [3, p. xix]. The term was often applied broadly to various Iron Age wares from Cyprus and Phoenicia, creating what one scholar called a "cluttering" of ceramic categories [3, p. xxii]. Nicolas Coldstream initially linked BoR directly to Phoenician commercial enterprise, viewing its appearance in the Aegean as a marker of Phoenician trade, particularly in unguents [3, p. xxviii; 8, p. 31]. He suggested the ware was manufactured in Cyprus under Phoenician influence, possibly at the colony of Kition, and exported by Phoenician traders [3, p. xxviii].

Over time, however, Coldstream’s position shifted as evidence mounted for a Cypriot origin [8, p. 33]. Scholars like Patricia Bikai, while acknowledging Phoenician influence, argued that BoR was not a Phoenician ware. She suggested that the inspiration for its red slip came from Phoenician “Red Ware” imports found in Cypro-Geometric I tombs, but that the ware itself was a Cypriot development [15, p. 10]. Subsequent research, most notably by Nicola Schreiber, provided a comprehensive assessment demonstrating the ware’s Cypriot origin through typological analysis [16, p. 30].

The most definitive evidence has come from recent excavations and scientific analysis. Excavations at Megiddo in the southern Levant have uncovered BoR sherds in securely stratified Iron IIA contexts [4, p. 1]. Radiocarbon dating of these contexts places the earliest appearance of BoR at Megiddo in the late 10th to early 9th century BCE, around 900 BCE [4, p. 1]. This date is significantly earlier than Gjerstad’s proposed timeline and corresponds to the Cypro-Geometric III period, or possibly even the end of Cypro-Geometric II [4, p. 13].

Crucially, archaeometric analysis of the Megiddo sherds resolved the question of their origin. Neutron Activation Analysis (NAA), a chemical method that identifies the elemental "fingerprint" of a clay source, was performed on 10 BoR sherds from these early contexts at Megiddo [17, p. 139; 4, p. 3]. The results confirmed that the vessels were manufactured in Cyprus [4, p. 3]. This finding makes Gjerstad’s theory of a "Levantine Phase" obsolete and firmly establishes BoR as a Cypriot innovation from its inception [4, p. 3]. Further research suggests that production may have originated in the workshops of Paphos in western Cyprus during the Cypro-Geometric III period before spreading across the island [18, p. 22].

Distribution and Interaction: BoR Across the Mediterranean

As a recognizably Cypriot product, BoR ware serves as an important marker for the island's trade connections during the Iron Age [19, p. Sec1]. Its distribution spans the eastern Mediterranean, with significant concentrations in the Levant and the Aegean.

In the Levant, BoR vessels are found at numerous coastal and inland sites, including Tyre, Tell Keisan, Tell Abu Hawam, and Megiddo [18, p. 22; 20, p. 8; 3, p. 9]. At Megiddo, BoR appears for the first time in Level Q-5 (ca. 900 BCE), alongside Cypriot White Painted ware, another common export [21, p. 28; 4, p. 9]. The presence of these wares in the Levant reflects established trade routes connecting Cyprus with the Phoenician and Palestinian coasts, a pattern of exchange that had roots in the Late Bronze Age [15, p. 10]. Finds are not limited to the coast; BoR has also been identified at sites in Cilicia, such as Tarsus [22, p. 7].

The ware's westward distribution is equally significant, particularly in the Aegean [23, p. 12]. Cypriot imports, especially BoR, arrived in Crete in a steady flow from about 800 BCE onwards [18, p. 22]. The primary destinations were Knossos, but finds are also known from Eleutherna, Kommos, and Kavousi [2, p. 14; 24, p. 36]. The most common imported form was the small, ridge-necked juglet, often found in funerary contexts [8, p. 33; 24, p. 35]. Substantial quantities have also been found in the Dodecanese islands of Rhodes and Cos [1, p. 367].

The function of these exported vessels, especially the ubiquitous juglets, has been a central point of discussion. Coldstream’s influential hypothesis proposed that they were containers for perfumed oil, or unguents [24, p. 36]. He suggested a sophisticated commercial enterprise in which eastern merchants—Cypriot, Phoenician, or "Cypro-Phoenician"—exported these unguents in BoR flasks [8, p. 33]. For Crete, he even proposed that local imitations were commissioned for bottling unguents produced in a factory at Knossos staffed by immigrant Phoenicians [24, p. 36].

However, this interpretation has faced growing skepticism [24, p. 36]. One issue is the variability in the capacity of the juglets, which seems inconsistent with a standardized trade in a specific product [24, p. 36]. Furthermore, if the Cretan imitations were part of a sophisticated enterprise for export, one would expect to find them widely distributed. In fact, very few Cretan copies of BoR traveled overseas, with finds mostly limited to the nearby Cyclades [24, p. 36]. While the juglets were certainly used as containers for liquids, their precise contents remain unconfirmed, and a singular function as unguent flasks is likely an oversimplification [25, p. 424]. They were also valued as fine tableware and as appropriate offerings for the dead, as their frequent appearance in tombs suggests [26, p. 162; 27, p. 563].

Local Reception and the Phenomenon of Imitation

The value and desirability of BoR ware are underscored by the widespread production of local imitations in regions where it was imported [28, p. 153]. The manufacture of copies is a clear indicator of cultural interaction, showing that foreign objects were not just passively consumed but actively integrated into local material culture [29, p. 225]. The phenomenon is well documented in the Aegean and the northern Levant.

On Crete, local potters produced numerous copies of Cypriot BoR juglets [24, p. 36]. These imitations, often termed “Creto-Cypriot,” can be distinguished from genuine Cypriot imports through non-analytical means, based on differences in fabric, technique, and style [24, p. 27]. For example, scientific analysis of pottery from Eleutherna shows that some early BoR-style pieces were made with local Cretan fabrics [24, p. 35]. The high quality of some imitations from Knossos has led to suggestions that Cypriot potters may have been working on the island [8, p. 38]. In some instances, such as at the North Cemetery of Knossos, genuine Cypriot imports and Cretan copies were deposited together in the same tomb, suggesting that consumers may not have perceived a sharp distinction between the two [24, p. 28]. Similar imitations were also produced on Rhodes and Cos, indicating a broad Aegean engagement with this Cypriot style [24, p. 27; 30, p. 16].

Local production of BoR-style pottery also occurred on the mainland to the north of Cyprus. Excavations at Tarsus in Cilicia uncovered kilns containing locally made BoR, which excavators termed ‘Cilician black-on-red’ [3, p. 277]. These wares closely resemble Cypriot BoR in form and decoration but are distinguishable by their fabric [3, p. 277]. More recently, analyses of BoR examples from Kinet Höyük, also in Cilicia, have shown that while some pieces were imported, much of the ware was locally produced [31, p. 19; 32, p. 62]. This pattern of local production alongside imports suggests that the Cypriot style was not merely copied but adapted and integrated into regional ceramic industries.

Conclusion

After decades of scholarly debate, Black-on-Red ware can now be understood as a distinct product of Cypriot ceramic workshops, emerging around 900 BCE. Its creation relied on a sophisticated understanding of materials and firing, particularly the use of manganese-based pigments to achieve its characteristic black-on-red effect. The long-held theories of a mainland origin or a "Cypro-Phoenician" identity have been superseded by clear evidence from stratified archaeological contexts and chemical analysis.

The story of Black-on-Red ware is a story of connection. From its workshops in Cyprus, likely originating in the Paphos region, it traveled east to the cities of the Levant and west to the islands of the Aegean. It served various functions—as a container for commodities, as fine tableware, and as a funerary gift. Its striking appearance made it a desirable object, inspiring potters in Crete, Rhodes, and Cilicia to create their own versions. As such, the ware is more than just a chronological marker or a type of pottery. It is a material proxy for the complex, multi-directional networks of trade, migration, and cultural exchange that linked Cyprus to the wider Mediterranean world in the Early Iron Age. While its Cypriot origin is now secure, further archaeometric research may yet allow for the attribution of specific vessels to workshops across the island, offering a more detailed map of its production and distribution. Similarly, expanded residue analysis could provide a clearer answer to the question of what these vessels carried, adding another dimension to our understanding of this important Iron Age ware.