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, as shown by its defining characteristics and manufacturing technology, the scholarly debate surrounding its origins and chronology, and its dispersal and reception across the eastern Mediterranean, which together demonstrate 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]. 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]. A British Museum juglet from Gastria, 8.2 cm high, carries decoration of this kind. 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]. The Drakopoulos collection has examples of both. Among the closed shapes are a squat biconical juglet with a disc mouth (shown at the head of this entry), a small trefoil-mouthed jug of oinochoe shape and a globular trefoil jug with a group of fine concentric circles on each side of the shoulder. Among the open shapes are a one-handled bowl with a black wavy line on the rim, a deep bowl with large concentric circles in the handle zone, and a plate with a barred rim and hair-fine circles struck on the wheel. 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) [9, 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 shows 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; 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]. 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].

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 is an important marker for the island's trade connections during the Iron Age [19]. 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]. Finds are not limited to the coast; BoR has also been identified at sites in Cilicia, such as Tarsus [22, p. 7]. To the south, a fragment of a Black-on-Red II juglet in the British Museum was excavated at Tell Nabasha in Egypt.

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; 8, p. 36]. The most common imported form was the small, ridge-necked juglet, often found in funerary contexts [8, p. 33; 8, 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 [8, 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 [8, p. 36].

However, this interpretation has faced growing skepticism [8, p. 36]. One issue is the variability in the capacity of the juglets, which seems inconsistent with a standardized trade in a specific product [8, 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 [8, 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 [1, 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 shown by the widespread production of local imitations in regions where it was imported [1, 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 [8, 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 [8, p. 27]. For example, scientific analysis of pottery from Eleutherna shows that some early BoR-style pieces were made with local Cretan fabrics [8, 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 [8, p. 28]. Similar imitations were also produced on Rhodes and Cos, indicating a broad Aegean engagement with this Cypriot style [8, 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.

Gjerstad's Five Stages

The standard subdivision of the ware is still the one Einar Gjerstad published with the Swedish Cyprus Expedition in 1948. Each stage carries two numerals: the stage within Black-on-Red, and in brackets Gjerstad's overall "Type" number, which runs across all the Iron Age wares. Black-on-Red I (III) is therefore contemporary with White Painted III and Bichrome III, and so on up to Black-on-Red V (VII) [6, pp. 68–72]. Gjerstad built the sequence by seriating tomb groups, mainly from Amathus and Lapithos, with stratified deposits at Kition as a check, and divided his periods into A and B horizons [3, p. 253]. No one has since replaced the scheme as a whole [3, p. 253], although Nicola Schreiber has questioned whether the first three stages form a true chronological succession rather than an assumed one [3, pp. 34, 255].

The dates given below follow this site's period chronology. Gjerstad's own absolute dates were lower (he placed Cypro-Geometric III at 850–700 BCE and Cypro-Archaic I at 700–600 BCE), and the Megiddo results described above push the start of the ware back to about 900 BCE [3, p. 303; 4]. In Gjerstad's counts the ware peaked soon after its introduction and began to fall away in Cypro-Archaic I B, when its sister ware Bichrome Red took over much of its role [3, p. 66].

Black-on-Red I

Black-on-Red I (III), dated here c. 850–750 BCE (Cypro-Geometric III), is the first stage Gjerstad accepted as made in Cyprus. It is wheel-made in a reddish-brown clay, with a red or reddish-brown slip that is lustrous or polished, and matt black paint [6, p. 68]. Some vessels carry only encircling lines and bands; jugs often have intersecting concentric lines. The ornament Gjerstad found most characteristic is the isolated set of concentric circles, placed below the rim of deep bowls and on the shoulders of jars, jugs, amphorae and hydriae [6, p. 68].

The shapes mix old and new. Shallow and deep bowls with horizontal handles, amphorae and hydriae continue Cypriot forms, while the handle-ridge jug with a pointed base, the flat-based handle-ridge juglet and the elongated oval jug with a pinched rim have no Cypriot ancestry [6, p. 68]. The handle-ridge juglet became one of the commonest Black-on-Red forms in early Iron Age Palestine, and the same juglet was copied in White Painted III and Bichrome III [3, pp. 47–48]. Stray pieces of this stage occur in Lapithos tombs 424 and 426 [3, p. 293].

Gjerstad also recognised an earlier, "non-Cypriot" Black-on-Red in Cypro-Geometric I–II contexts [3, p. 34]. Schreiber argued that this material is Cypriot as well and that the ware may begin around 950 BCE [3, p. 303], and the chemical analyses from Megiddo support a Cypriot origin for the earliest pieces [4].

In the catalogue this stage includes a barrel jug and an amphora in the British Museum. See all Black-on-Red I in the catalogue.

Black-on-Red II

Black-on-Red II (IV), dated here c. 750–600 BCE (Cypro-Archaic I), is the largest and most varied stage. The slip is usually lustrous but never polished, and thinner than in the first stage [6, p. 69]. The repertoire takes in bowls, jars, jugs, bottles, askoi, alabastra, amphorae and hydriae, mostly the shapes of White Painted IV and Bichrome IV. Some bowls follow metal prototypes and have wavy or double handles, and one deep jar stands on three loop legs. New jug forms include a sack-shaped handle-ridge jug with a wide lip, pear-shaped and truncated-cone juglets, and juglets topped by a miniature jug. Rarer pieces include a jug with a strainer, jugs with an animal protome or a modelled human face on the neck, and an alabastron ending in the upper part of a human figure [6, p. 69].

Gjerstad described the decoration as an advanced form of the circle style. Groups of circles border the intersecting circular lines, circles are joined in vertical or horizontal rows, and the outer circle is sometimes thicker. Lotus and rosette motifs borrowed from Bichrome IV are very rare [6, p. 69]. Most of the juglets traded to the Levant and the Aegean, discussed above, belong to the first two stages; Birmingham observed that mainland finds come only from the earlier types [3, pp. 260–261].

The catalogue examples include a zoomorphic ox askos and an oinochoe, both in the British Museum. See all Black-on-Red II in the catalogue.

Black-on-Red III

Black-on-Red III (V), dated here c. 600–480 BCE (Cypro-Archaic II), has a slip that is usually slightly lustrous or nearly matt, often dark brown [6, p. 71]. Its shapes are mostly those of the other Type V wares: biconical jars with shoulder handles, an oval footed jar with a more evenly rounded body, biconical juglets, pinched-rim jugs, a squat biconical jug, and amphorae with a swelling at mid-neck and a down-turned rim [6, p. 71].

Gjerstad found the decoration still mainly in the circle style but poor in its arrangement, because the main decoration of red-slipped pottery in Type V had moved to the bichrome technique of Bichrome Red II (V) [6, p. 71]. Schreiber gives a fuller picture of the late ware: a brighter crimson slip, often unburnished, more groups of concentric circles set in vertical bands, more vessels with human or animal heads, more miniatures, and rims and conical necks that follow Phoenician red-slip jugs [3, pp. 313–314]. On her raised chronology, production should not run far past the end of the 7th century BCE, and exports to the mainland fall off after that date [3, pp. 261, 314].

The catalogue examples include a jar and a jug in the British Museum. See all Black-on-Red III in the catalogue.

Black-on-Red IV

Black-on-Red IV (VI), dated here c. 480–400 BCE (Cypro-Classical I), is a late stage of the ware. The red slip is usually more lustrous than in the third stage but is sometimes entirely matt, and the ornament is still painted black [6, p. 72]. Gjerstad listed only jars and jugs: squat jars with a base-ring, splayed rim and two rudimentary handles; a jug with a figure holding a jug on the shoulder, as in White Painted VI; and a pinched-rim jug with a globular body, high concave base, short swollen neck and funnel mouth [6, p. 72].

The concentric circles have gone. Only the earliest pieces keep the motif of intersecting circular lines, and the main decoration on red-slipped pottery of the period is in Bichrome Red III (VI) [6, p. 72].

The catalogue includes a globular jug that matches Gjerstad's pinched-rim type, and an oinochoe, both in the British Museum. Dishes and flasks assigned to this stage in the catalogue fall outside Gjerstad's shape list, so their placement should be treated with caution. See all Black-on-Red IV in the catalogue.

Black-on-Red V

Black-on-Red V (VII), dated here c. 400–310 BCE (Cypro-Classical II), is the terminal stage. Strictly it is no longer a red-slipped ware: the clay is buff and rather coarse in the core, with no slip, only a lightly polished wash, and matt black decoration [6, p. 72]. Gjerstad recorded only jugs: jugs with female figures on the shoulder, as in White Painted VII and Bichrome VII; a squat jug with a very short neck, pinched rim and raised handle that copies a metal prototype; and taller versions of the globular jug of the previous stage [6, p. 72].

The decoration follows White Painted VII, partly under Attic influence, with olive leaves and ivy sprays [6, p. 72]. Attic black-glazed and red-figure pottery was reaching Cypriot tombs in the same period [6]. With this stage the circle style that had defined the ware since the 9th century BCE comes to an end.

The catalogue has no examples of this stage yet. The term page is all Black-on-Red V in the catalogue.

Origin, Spread and Open Questions

Black-on-Red is now treated as a product of Cypriot workshops, emerging around 900 BCE. Its black-on-red effect depended on manganese-based pigments and controlled firing. Stratified finds and chemical analysis have replaced the older theories of a mainland origin and the "Cypro-Phoenician" label.

From workshops in Cyprus, probably first in the Paphos region, the ware travelled east to the cities of the Levant and west to the Aegean islands. It served as a container for commodities, as tableware and as a grave gift, and potters in Crete, Rhodes and Cilicia made their own versions of it. Two questions remain open. Archaeometric work may yet tie individual vessels to particular workshops on the island, which would give a finer map of production and distribution. Wider residue analysis could settle what the closed vessels actually carried.