Bucchero: Forms and consumption patterns in San Giovenale

(1)

Department of Archaeology and Ancient History

Bucchero: Forms and consumption patterns in San Giovenale

Joacim Seger

Master thesis 45 hp in Classical Archaeology and Ancient History VT 2020 Supervisors: Dominic Ingemark & Filmo Verhagen Uppsala University

(2)

Abstract

Seger, J. 2020. Bucchero: Forms and consumption patterns in San Giovenale Seger, J. 2020. Bucchero: Former och konsumtionsmönster i San Giovenale.

A Swedish excavation took place in the settlement of San Giovenale between the years 1956 to 1965 to shed further light on Etruscan settlements. During the excavation, a great amount of bucchero was uncovered at the site. This study focusses on the forms of bucchero that were uncovered in the San Giovenale area and how these vessels might be connected to a broader network of the ware. By identifying the forms of bucchero found in the area and by bringing together all the earlier publications concerned with the bucchero finds from San Giovenale, this study tries to look at the bucchero material in its totality. By locating and counting the forms and context in which the bucchero was found, together with the other finds from the area, this study attempts to contextualize and uncover the status of the bucchero ware within the settlement and how this particular ware might be connected with the Etruscan banquets. By bringing all the material together from all the areas in San Giovenale, this study hopes to paint a clearer picture of the bucchero in San Giovenale in terms of form, amount, chronology and spread of bucchero. By studying the bucchero from the settlement of San Giovenale we might greatly enhance our understanding of the bucchero ware outside of the tomb context that it is usually found within.

Keywords: Etruscan, San Giovenale, bucchero, ceramics, conspicuous consumption, feasting.

Master Thesis in Classical Archaeology and Ancient Archaeology 45 hp.

Supervisors: Dominic Ingemark & Filmo Verhagen (ventilated and approved: 2020–08–28)

Department of Archaeology and Ancient History, Uppsala University, Box 626, 75126 Uppsala, Sweden.

Cover illustration: Bucchero kantharos. From: San Giovenale IV:1, 63, Fig. 63, No. 19.

(3)

Acknowledgements

Firstly, I would like to thank Fredrik Tobin who introduced me to the site of San Giovenale and the bucchero from the site during my stay in Rome 2019. I would also like to thank both Yvonne Backe-Forsberg and Lars Karlsson who has shared their expertise and extended knowledge of the site with me. Last but not least, I would like to thank both Dominic Ingemark and Filmo Verhagen who has been with me through the whole project and who has provided me with amazing support and invaluable feedback.

(4)

ABBREVATIONS

c. Circa.

w. With.

Fig. Figure.

Frg. Fragment.

Frgs. Fragments.

No. Number.

Pl. Plate.

SPBC Stratigraphic probe in the bedrock cut.

Tab. Table.

EBN Excavation of balk in the north.

EBNE Excavation of balk in the north east.

PUWSWP4 Probe under white stone west of Pozzo 4.

(5)

One of the broadest and perhaps one of the most fundamental use of clay has been to create containers such as pottery vessels. Pottery containers may be used for carrying anything from liquids to dry substances as well as being used for heating and contain the food for eating, each use putting a different demand on the vessel.¹ One way to determine the function of a vessel is by studying its context of recovery, although this becomes problematic if there are great volumes of broken pottery that has been recovered from ambiguous contexts.² This largely seems to be the case concerning the history of the Etruscan pottery called ‘bucchero’. This pottery ware is one which history is filled with tombs and badly documented contexts, and often the find contexts or context of the vessel’s recovery is lost. A lot of the research concerning the Etruscans have traditionally involved their art and their tombs, much less focus has been spent on their pottery, which has been considered crude or imitative of the Greek originals by early scholars. The Greek originals were not only considered to be superior in quality, but also in execution and sheer skill, hence the best examples of the bucchero pottery were usually considered to be made by Greek potters – that had immigrated to the Etruscan homelands.³

Until recently, many texts that were concerning the Etruscan culture did not more than just state that bucchero was the most characteristic type of Etruscan pottery.⁴ Recent years have seen an increase in the information about bucchero and new excavations in Etruria brings further material that improves our understanding of bucchero, as well as the Etruscans at large.

This study adds to our already expanding knowledge of bucchero by studying the bucchero from San Giovenale, focusing on the potential status of the ware and the consumption patterns of the bucchero at this site.

1.1. Aim and purpose

Much of the bucchero that has been studied have had a less than satisfying recovery context, although, the archaeological materials from settlements such as Aqcuarossa, Murlo and the settlement of San Giovenale are among the exceptions.

This study makes a case study of the settlement of San Giovenale. By closely examining the bucchero pottery that has been uncovered in the settlement in terms of chronology, the spread of the ware within the settlement and by pinpointing the most common forms of the bucchero at the site – this study aims to provide a better understanding on how the bucchero was perceived in terms of status, and how it was used by the inhabitants of San Giovenale.

Furthermore, this thesis tries to uncover whether the bucchero vessels was considered a luxurious ware at the time of its appearance in the settlement or if it was considered a utilitarian ware used for every day. By examining the forms of bucchero uncovered within the site this study also discuss a potential connection between the use of bucchero vessels and the banqueting practices in Etruria, with the focus on the context of usage of bucchero pottery in the settlement of San Giovenale.

1 Rice 1987, 207.

2 Rice 1987, 211.

3 Izzet 2007, 224, 225 & 228.

4 De Puma 1976, 223; Jucker 1991, 143.

(8)

Banqueting scenes and the evidence for banqueting practices in Etruria will be discussed more extensively later on in the thesis, as there is still much to be said about the excavated material and how it compares to the banquet scenes depicted in Etruscan art.⁵ There are many examples of aristocratic tomb paintings in Tarquinia for example, where depictions of feasts and people who are enjoying themselves at banquet tables is a common motif.⁶ Of equal importance is the archaeological material that has been excavated in the Etruscan settlements. The material from the Etruscan settlements might give us another clue on how the banqueting was connected to the social activities of the inhabitants of the settlements and how the bucchero pottery might be connected to these activities. Barker and Rasmussen for example, have argued that wine was one of the obvious essentials for the elite symposium. The consumption of wine was sometimes associated with elaborate rituals, rituals that probably required prestigious and expensive drinking vessels in form of metal or in lack thereof, pottery of the highest quality.⁷

From literary sources, we are told by the Roman author Diodorus Siculus (c. 90–30 BCE) how the Etruscans twice a day had sumptuous tables laid and everything brought that goes with exaggerated luxury and that the Etruscans had accompanying goblets of every shape.⁸ Other Roman authors have condemned the Etruscans as Etruscus obesus (“fat Etruscan”).⁹ Is this a comment on the conspicuous consumption of the Etruscans? Whatever the case might be, there are many scholars who have followed suit in their description of the Etruscans and who in turn has described them in similar ways as the Roman authors of old.¹⁰

1.1.1. Question formulation

This thesis is structured around three main questions, all of which are connected to the overlaying questions of the status and connection that the bucchero vessels potentially had to the Etruscan banqueting practices, with the focus on the settlement of San Giovenale. The questions posed are as follows: What quantity, type and forms of bucchero were present at San Giovenale? What can the context of San Giovenale tell us of the status and usage of the bucchero pottery? Was bucchero considered a luxurious item or was it considered a utilitarian ware in the context of San Giovenale?

1.1.2. San Giovenale

The Etruscan settlement of San Giovenale is located some 60 km north of Rome (Fig. 1),¹¹ and the site is situated on a mountain ridge divided by two shallow rivers that are surrounded by a ravine. This ravine functioned as a mote during medieval times and was thus protecting the medieval castle which is located on the plateau. The plateau, or acropolis is directed east-west with a gentle curve and the site does have the characteristics of a typical Etruscan acropolis.¹² The site is placed in the centre of a fertile region like so many other of the Etruscan cities. The landscape is volcanic which is typical for the areas in the middle of southern Etruria, together with highlands and hills. San Giovenale also share some similarities in the topography with Monte Fortino (Luni).¹³

The San Giovenale plateau has been divided into several letters designating the different areas by the archaeologists who excavated the site. The west side of the acropolis has been divided into the letters D to F and in the east the area which is called the Borgo (after the medieval castle still visible on the site).

5 Pieraccini 2000, 35.

6 Barker & Rasmussen 2000, 180.

8 Diod. Sic. 5.40.

9 Catull. 39.11.

11 Forsberg 2005, 24.

12 Welin 1960, 292; San Giovenale V:1, 28–29.

13 Wetter 1960, 174 & 182; Welin 1960, 291.

(9)

The Borgo is a separate part of the acropolis. We do not know the actual antique name of the site of San Giovenale, and neither is the area that surrounds San Giovenale mentioned by any of the ancient authors.The site is named after a nearby church, and the site is totally uninhabited today.¹⁴

There are a lot of necropolises surrounding the plateau of San Giovenale and the majority of these have sadly been looted and plundered. Although much of the ceramics has been untouched, showing the presence of some black and grey bucchero together with some impasto ware. Most of the forms suggests that they were for the consumption of wine.¹⁵ Is the same true for the acropolis of San Giovenale?

1.1.3. The Swedish Excavation

The excavation of San Giovenale was an collaboration between the Swedish Institute of Classical Studies in Rome together with the Sopritendenza alle Antichitá dell’Etruria Meridionale and took place during several seasons between the years 1956–1965.¹⁶ The fist excavation in San Giovenale was aimed at researching the graves in the necropolises to the north of the ravines of the plateau (the Grotta Tuffarina and Porzarago), to establish during which times the site of San Giovenale may have been inhabited. Seventeen graves where excavated the first year, two graves 1957 and an additional six graves were excavated the following year in 1958. One of the graves excavated 1958 had some pottery in it, which they could date to the 300 BCE, and the ceramics were vessel forms primarily for wine and cups for drinking together with some personal belongings to the deceased as weapons and jewellery.

1959, seven additional graves were investigated.¹⁷

In the end, the excavation yielded several reports that have been published for each of the recognised areas of the San Giovenale acropolis with an addition of the bridge over Pietrisco.

The publications of San Giovenale are structured into six monographs together with some articles. None of the publications or the earlier research on San Giovenale has concerned the bucchero which has been uncovered at the site, and as all the publications are separated, none has taken a look at the totality of all the bucchero except for the recording of the finds.

Furthermore, the excavation that was undertaken on the actual plateau has shown that there was habitation on the plateau but there is also about 200 meters between the different excavation trenches which make it troublesome to see if the area in question was coherently settled or not.¹⁸

Before the actual excavation was undertaken, the medieval ruins were still visible at the site, and on a certain spots west of the fossa, there was a lot of Iron Age ceramics still visible on the surface and to the west of the castell, there were also ceramics uncovered when the terrain had been ploughed.¹⁹ In other words, some of the areas had been disturbed early, and many times before the excavation team had even started their research on the site.

14 Forsberg 2005, 24; Welin 1960, 290.

15 Welin 1960, 297; Wetter 1960, 156.

16 Forsberg 2005, 24–25; San Giovenale V:1, 41.

17 Welin 1960, 292, 297.

18 Welin 1960, 300.

19 Welin 1960, 298.

(10)

1.2. Earlier research

Much of the already uncovered material culture from the Etruscans ultimately derives from tomb groups which are by far the most common context.²⁰ Recent decades have shown a steady scholarly effort that demonstrates the importance of bucchero as an indicator of Etruscan cultural influences. Collections of bucchero both public and private have been carefully studied and interpreted, and this have given us a better position to study the relevance of bucchero within the Etruscan civilization today.²¹

Ramage’s work Studies in Early Etruscan Bucchero represents one of the early attempts to establish a typology for the early south Etruscan bucchero called bucchero sottile. In her study she was searching for the origins of the forms in earlier periods, and especially from the eight century and onwards, but her actual study covers the period of 650–600 BCE. This is also the period in which the forms of the bucchero sottile were established and developed in southern Etruria according to Ramage.²² The earliest bucchero pottery is found together with the late Proto-Corinthian and transitional material of 650–640 BCE, and the earliest bucchero types should have begun around 650 BCE. According to Ramage this is also the time period of some of the finest examples of the bucchero vessels. This early bucchero had very thin walls, elegant decoration and a shiny deep black surface and came in a wide selection of different shapes.²³

Some scholars call this early bucchero fine bucchero, which is not to be confused with bucchero sottile, which also is early. The fine and sottile bucchero is the earliest bucchero, followed by transitional and the ordinary bucchero of the sixth century BCE. The terms are used loosely by scholars and differ in meaning from one publication to the next.²⁴

Ramage is of the opinion that the first bucchero to be produced must have come from Cerveteri,²⁵ as this is the place which has yielded the largest quantity of fine and distinctive bucchero. The largest quantity of bucchero pottery, in both variety and shapes can be found there, as well as bucchero shapes that closely resembles the impasto and metal prototypes. The apparent lack of any bucchero in any of the early tombs that is dated in the early seventh century indicates that the technique had not yet begun, but when it did it spread quickly to the neighbouring Etruscan centres where the local potters then would have initiated their own production.²⁶ Isolated pieces that have been found elsewhere seems to indicate that they were imported from the workshops of Cerveteri according to Ramage.²⁷

Rasmussen echoes Ramage conclusion that the earliest bucchero must have derived from the workshops of Cerveteri, adding that the bucchero pottery that has been found in Cerveteri by far surpasses the rest of the pottery that previously has been produced in central Italy in terms of quality.²⁸ Rasmussen did his own excellent study on the bucchero from southern Etruria which was published in 1979, and his work has since become the standard work which is commonly used when researching bucchero ceramics. It is a continuation in a sense of the work that was conducted by Ramage with some additional forms being presented.

The catalogue that Rasmussen did is filled with illustrations of profile-drawn pottery forms according to archaeological context and typological order. Rasmussen has recognized that profile-drawing yields the most information.²⁹ The work is frequently referred to in connection with possible forms of the bucchero pottery uncovered in San Giovenale by both Karlsson,³⁰

20 Edlund-Berry 2008, 165.

21 De Puma, 2013, 986.

22 Ramage 1970, 1.

23 Ramage 1970, 2, 3.

24 Rasmussen 1979, 3.

25 Ramage 1970, 2; Del Chiaro 1966.

26 Ramage 1970, 2.

27 Ramage 1970, 35.

28 Rasmussen 1979, 157–158.

29 Rasmussen 1979, ix.

30 San Giovenale IV:1.

(11)

and Pohl.³¹ Rasmussen’s catalogue has been frequently consulted in this study as well especially in connection to the forms of bucchero that was uncovered on San Giovenale’s acropolis.

Bucchero forms are generally designed for the serving and drinking of wine and other liquids and thus might have served both the living and the dead, but the latter are by no means outweighed by the former. Some examples of bucchero that have been found on Greek sites. In Sicily for example, it seems that bucchero pottery was primarily being used in funerary contexts but further east, on Ithaca and Chios, the bucchero is found in the context of votive offerings.³² In these examples the bucchero may have been seen as something strange and exotic but it does not tell us anything of how the Etruscans where perceiving or using bucchero, but it may serve as a good example that one use of the vessel does not exclude other uses for the same type of vessel. Indeed, the same type of vessel might have served different functions during its lifespan and most certainly dependant on the context in which it was usage.

According to Ramage and other scholars, most of the types on which the bucchero shapes are modelled on ultimately come from metal prototypes. Early bucchero pots are frequently made with a sharp curve, which are more natural to metal than to actual pottery. Examples of the pots show that they could be covered with a thin layer of silver to enhance the metallic effect.³³ The silvered surface of some of the examples indicate a metal tradition which Ramage also states is an indication that the bucchero pottery was seen to be an inexpensive facsimile of vessels made in precious metals.³⁴

Del Chiaro on the other hand thinks that the bucchero ware was a luxury item in its own right for a brief period, before it became an extremely abundant ware which replaced the earlier impasto pottery in popularity. He has argued that the technical prototype of the Etruscan bucchero was the impasto pottery, but through the improving of the quality of the clay together with the perfecting of their methods and through the refinement of the reduction process, the bucchero ware turned into a luxury item, although as mentioned above, just for a brief time.³⁵ The bucchero pottery might have been an economical substitute for metal vessels according to Del Chiaro who suggest that bucchero’s primarily function was as a funerary ware, as bucchero has mostly been found in funerary contexts.³⁶ Brendel on the other hand, states that there can be no doubt that the bucchero pottery was indeed designed for the wealthy households adding that the potters had learned much from the silversmith’s work.³⁷

It is indeed true that there are some influences from metal ware to be found in bucchero, although, even if some bucchero forms originated from metal wares does not necessarily mean that all metal shapes were copied in the bucchero.³⁸ Indeed, according to Ramage, the development of the bucchero forms seems to be modelled on the forms that is current with the bucchero itself, whilst outdated forms of pottery never were imitated in the bucchero technique, which seems to be based more on the mid-seventh century examples.³⁹ I believe we must pay more attention to the bucchero pottery that has been found within the Etruscan settlements and households to gain a more nuanced picture of the bucchero pottery’s usage and potential status as a pottery ware.

1.2.1. The catalogues

The bucchero material from San Giovenale have been recorded in several catalogues. No extensive work has been done on the bucchero finds from San Giovenale. The catalogues that

31 San Giovenale V:2.

32 Rasmussen 1979, 158.

33 Ramage 1970, 11; Jucker 1991, 142, 143.

34 Ramage 1970, 35.

35 Del Chiaro 1966, 98–100.

36 Del Chiaro 1966, 103.

37 Brendel 1978, 80.

38 Ramage 1970, 11.

39 Ramage 1970, 10.

(12)

are being used for this thesis are the following: E. & K Berggren’s publication San Giovenale II:2. Excavations in Area B, 1975 – 1960; B. Olinder and I. Pohl’s publication San Giovenale II:4 The semi-subterranean building in Area B; I. Pohl’s San Giovenale III:3. The Iron age habitations in Area E and San Giovenale IV:1; C. Nylander et al San Giovenale V:1. The Borgo, Excavating an Etruscan quarter: Architecture and stratigraphy; I. Pohl’s San Giovenale and L. Karlsson’s Area F East – Huts and houses on the Acropolis.

All the catalogues have had different publication strategies and none of the catalogues have the same system of recording and presenting the finds. The catalogues are varying greatly and thus making it harder to get reliable data of the site of San Giovenale and even harder still to combine all material into one single reliable database. Some data, like colour of the clay and surfaces and what type of bucchero, i.e., sotille, fine, transitional, ordinary, or grey bucchero is lacking, presenting further problems when combining the find catalogues.

This is problematic to say the least, but one important side effect of this study will be the result that all the bucchero from San Giovenale which previously has been published will end up in one place. This has been achieved by collecting all the different bucchero fragments presented in the different areas into several databases, all of which will be presented later. It is important to stress that there were many other pottery types that was uncovered together with the bucchero pottery, even though only the bucchero fragments will be presented here.

There are still areas of San Giovenale that that still has not received a full publication and thus the potential bucchero finds from these areas will not be considered at all. In addition, there are areas on the acropolis of San Giovenale that have not been wholly excavated, and there is in all probability still potential bucchero (among other things) that has not been uncovered at the site, meaning that we cannot speak of the totality of bucchero finds in the whole area.

Nevertheless, the totality of bucchero finds documented in the catalogues can still be discussed.

All the areas and data tables will have slightly different presentation of the finds in this study because of the different information available in the catalogues. Some of the catalogues, i.e., Pohl and Karlsson’s publications have references to Rasmussen’s work Bucchero pottery from southern Etruria,⁴⁰ which has made it easier to compare and identify some of the bucchero forms.

As mentioned earlier, the bridge close to San Giovenale will not be considered in this thesis as this is located outside of the actual plateau/acropolis of San Giovenale. The Iron Age test square in the north-eastern part of Area D did not yield any bucchero and will not be treated, even though it is a part of the San Giovenale plateau.

It must be stressed that this study does not stand and fall with the exact amount of bucchero on the site. The function of the data tables is mainly to give an indication of where the bucchero has been found and in what approximately amount and which forms and types that are present.

In many cases, single finds and forms will be enough to do a comparison of the bucchero in the area. The main focus of the study is to uncover the consumptions patterns of the bucchero pottery within the plateau (acropolis) of San Giovenale and to see if we can speak of a pottery ware that began, as some scholars have suggested; as a luxurious ware that then turned into a more utilitarian every day ware within the settlement of San Giovenale. If that is the case, the material of San Giovenale should be comprehensive enough to investigate this further and provide us with an understanding of how the inhabitants of San Giovenale perceived and used this particular ceramic ware.

1.3. Methodological approach

To be able to interpret whether or not the bucchero was perceived as a luxurious item among the inhabitants of San Giovenale, and its potential connection to the Etruscan banquets, the first step was to collect all the documented bucchero from San Giovenale into the thesis.

40 Rasmussen’s work has since then been widely used by scholars. It is full of helpful illustrations of different bucchero forms and types.

(13)

The bucchero finds are spread across several different publications from San Giovenale, all of which have different approaches and styles in terms of their publication. A database has been constructed for each area in San Giovenale that considered the colour, form, fragment count and stratigraphy where possible, relying solely on the published catalogues of the site.

Unfortunately, none of the bucchero of San Giovenale has been colour checked with a Munsell colour-chart by the excavators, instead they have all been described and determined by ocular observations alone by the scholars. I have not been able to investigate the physical material myself, thus I have relied on the descriptions recorded in the catalogues. There are descriptions of the colour of many of the finds and even if it is not determined by any Munsell analysis, much weight will be put on the colour descriptions and type/form of the bucchero in connection to stratigraphy and area. Much consideration will be put on forms, and the forms of the vessels might also be the best aspect for the study of use and potential status of the ware, especially in connection with other finds within the same stratum or context.

For references of forms, most scholars have used Rasmussen’s study,⁴¹ on the pottery of southern Etruria and the catalogues have already identified many Rasmussen types which makes it easier.⁴² In addition to Rasmussen’s work I have also consulted Ramage’s study,⁴³ on the pottery of southern Etruria. The database will be presented in the analysis chapter, and the findings will be discussed in the last chapter with above-mentioned aspects which will be interpreted in the light of the Etruscan banquet’s and Etruscan elite practices.

One problem that becomes apparent immediately when confronted with the material from the settlement of San Giovenale, is that the material was excavated in the 1950– 60s and with a pretty unclear publication strategy the publications were released with considerable time between them. This does not only leave a considerable time gap between the excavation and the publication of the material; it also adds an even greater time gap between anyone else studying the material. Although, the upside of the material from San Giovenale is that unlike some other Etruscan sites, where the context can be obscure and sometimes missing, the material from San Giovenale does contain good data and recordings of (almost) all the recovery contexts for the vessels, which have been carefully documented by the excavators.

Much of the bucchero discussed and catalogued ultimately derives from tomb groups but the material from San Giovenale on the other hand comes mainly from the settlement. Indeed, this is also one of the reasons that San Giovenale was chosen as the location for the Swedish excavation project, the chance to contrast much of what we knew of the Etruscans with material finds actually uncovered in the settlements and not from the tombs.

1.4. Theoretical approach

This section discusses how the theoretical concept of conspicuous consumption and feasting theory might be applied to the bucchero from San Giovenale, to shed further light on how the bucchero might have been used and perceived in terms of status. Too be able to study the consumption patterns in San Giovenale and determining how the bucchero was perceived by the inhabitants of the site, this thesis combines these two existing theoretical frameworks, both of which will be discussed separately in this chapter.

1.4.1. Conspicuous consumption

The first theory that is being used in the thesis is Thorstein Veblen’s pivotal work The theory of the Leisure class, which formulated the concept of ‘conspicuous consumption’. The term has been especially pervasive in economics where the term “Veblen effect” has an established

41 Rasmussen 1979.

42 All Rasmussen types presented in this thesis has been noted in the catalogues.

43 Ramage 1970.

(14)

place,⁴⁴ and the work itself is deeply sociological in its implications.⁴⁵ Conspicuous consumption is usually descriptive in the sense to referring to any non-utilitarian form of consumption or consumption that is judged extravagant, luxurious or wasteful – which can be used to suggest a distinguished consumer behaviour.⁴⁶ This study is grounded in this theoretical framework, by applying the theoretical framework on the bucchero from San Giovenale.

According to Veblen, the institution of a leisure class can be found in what he defines as

‘higher stages of barbarian culture’, i.e., feudal Europe (which is Veblen’s example), where the distinction between class is rigorously observed by the population and features economic significances in the class differences in the distinction. This distinction is turn maintained between the employment of the several classes. The upper classes, or the leisure class, are commonly exempt or even excluded from industrial occupations, which are reserved for the lower classes whilst the leisure class is reserved for employments which have a degree of honour attached to it. These employments with a degree of honour attached to it varies greatly but usually entail offices that are connected to occupations such as priestly services or warfare.⁴⁷

The leisure class stands at the head of the social structure and their standards of life are in turn observed by the lower classes. The members of each of the different social stratum are in turn, according to Veblen, accepting as their ideal of decency the scheme of life that is in vogue in the higher stratum and focuses to live up to that perceived ideal.⁴⁸ A common way to describe this phenomenon is that it is a pattern of conduct which goal is to either maintain or enhance the social position of the individual according to Campbell.⁴⁹ Luxuries and the comforts of life is the lot of the leisure class, and in certain victuals and taboo as well as certain beverages may even be strictly reserved for the use of the leisure class. If the article they are consuming are costly, they are automatically perceived as also being noble and honorific.⁵⁰ The leisure class then consumes the best in terms of food, drinks, services, and ornaments (to mention but a few).

These goods effectively become the evidence of their wealth. If the leisure class do not consume the right quantity and quality of the goods, it becomes a mark of inferiority.⁵¹

The impulse to engage in conspicuous consumption seems to derive from a process where the individual feels the need to compare themselves with others, they receive esteem or the jealousy of others through a successful or failed act of conspicuous consumption, which is judged by the audience and if successful, they improve their social status in the eyes of others.⁵²

Perhaps the closest concept to conspicuous consumption in the ancient vocabulary is the Greek notion of tryphé (magnificence, extravagance), which involved ostentatious luxury which was intended to impress an audience.⁵³ Individuals thus seeks to excel in pecuniary standing and so gain the esteem or jealousy of their fellow men, and conspicuous consumption is way to improve other’s opinion of oneself. A conclusion seems to be that conspicuous consumption is an activity that is distinguished by the individual’s deliberate endeavour to achieve a particular end according to Campbell.⁵⁴

As the wealth accumulates, the leisure class develops further and a differentiation within the class itself arises, and a more or less elaborate systems of rank and grades emerges.

According to Veblen, there is no class of society that forgoes all customary conspicuous consumption, it is the last item that is given up except under direst necessity. Conspicuous

44 Campbell 1995, 37.

45 Veblen 2009, vii.

46 Campbell 1995, 38.

47 Veblen 2009, 7.

48 Veblen 2009, 59.

49 Campbell 1995, 38.

50 Veblen 2009, 50.

51 Veblen 2009, 53.

52 Campbell 1995, 42–43.

53 Riad 2012, 6; Becker 2016, 296.

54 Campbell 1995, 38, 39; Veblen 2009, 26.

(15)

consumption also claims a relatively larger portion of the income of the urban population, more so than what is the case within the rural population.⁵⁵

1.4.2. Feasting theory

Feasting has played a central role too most of the traditional and prehistoric societies alike and the use of feasting as a theory has in the past two decades risen in popularity, especially within archaeology.⁵⁶ It was the classical archaeologists that were among the first to take notice of the archaeological evidence for feasting, accounting the abundant ceramics used for drinking together with scenes of feasting depicted on some of the ceramics and murals.⁵⁷ The access to banquets also seems too have been restricted in some contexts. Scholars has explained this exclusion as a way for the emerging elite to manipulate the instruments of social and political power and legitimization.⁵⁸ By excluding a part of the population, feasting does in this sense manifests the boundaries between the elite and the rest of the society.⁵⁹ Although, even if there is ample of evidence and classical literature that is portraying the feasts as a part of the elite, we are never told by these texts what role it played in the broader dynamics of society as pointed out by Hayden & Villeneuve.⁶⁰

Borgna has argued that in Late Helladic IIA-B (c. 1450 –c. 1430 BCE) Greece, for example, the banquets and feasts were primarily regulated and organized by the central authorities as a powerful instrument for status negotiation.⁶¹ In the ancient Near East the banqueting was accompanied with gift giving.⁶² Anthropological studies on traditional stratified societies have also shown that generosity is of importance for the individual or chief in ascertaining leadership, thus it would seem that leadership is highly dependent on the individuals ability of being generous.⁶³ Hayden & Villeneuve point out that the range of motivation for the hosting of a feast can also include promotion of tangible benefits for the host of the feast.⁶⁴

In small scale societies for example, the feasting and craft production seems to be supported not only by the elites themselves according to Spielmann – but by the numerous individuals.

These individuals in turn are those who are fulfilling as it where the ritual obligations demanded and thus are creating and sustaining social relationships.⁶⁵ Spielmann further argues that feasting in small-scale societies is a way to exchange social valuables, built prestige and to provide the wherewithal for individuals to function in small-scale societies.⁶⁶ This might as well be true in an Etruscan setting, especially in a small settlement as San Giovenale.

In some less distinguished Late Minoan III (c. 1420–c. 1200 BCE) graves, drinking activities are represented by elaborate and decorated ceramic dinner sets. These included shapes as the kraters, goblets, kylikes, deep bowls and cups.⁶⁷ Borgna argues that the early Cretan elite practiced conspicuous consumption of wine and food, both of which had gradually become a powerful means of competition and exclusion.⁶⁸ Can the same be true in an Etruscan setting?

55 Veblen 2009, 54, 59, 61.

56 Hayden & Villeneuve 2011, 434.

58 Hayden & Villeneuve 2011, 438; Borgna 2004, 263.

59 Ingemark 2003, 212.

61 Borgna 2004, 267.

62 Schmandt-Besserat 2001, 394.

63 Ingemark 2003, 211.

65 Spielmann 2002, 197.

66 Spielmann 2002, 202.

67 Borgna 2004, 268.

68 Borgna 2004, 269–270.

(16)

2. Bucchero: shapes, techniques, and decoration

This chapter provides an overview of bucchero pottery. The chapter is divided into several sub- sections that discuss different aspects of the bucchero in terms of forms, technique, and decoration.

2.1. Bucchero

The name ‘bucchero’ is what the modern archaeologists call this particular Etruscan ceramic ware as we do not know what the Etruscans called it. The name is a derivation from the Spanish word ‘búcaro’, a name which was first applied to South American pottery which was made from a smelly black clay. The black bucchero when it was discovered in the Etruscan sphere was then compared to this Spanish ceramic ware ‘búcaro’ which had its similarities with the Etruscan bucchero ceramics, hence the name.⁶⁹

Bucchero is a deeply black ceramic both on the surface and usually all the way to the core.⁷⁰ It is a common feature in most of the Etruscan sites in Etruria from the archaic period. Bucchero vessels were produced in central Italy between the seventh and the fourth centuries BCE.⁷¹ Bucchero can also come in different colours which can range from a lighter greyish colour to grey and black and even if it is indeed rare the bucchero can also have painted decoration,⁷² but rarely in any of the lighter colours.⁷³ The bucchero pottery has a widespread occurrence, and it appears in almost all types of deposits according to Rasmussen. There is no lack of evidence that show us of the spread of bucchero, as this particular Etruscan ceramic have been found in areas around the river Arno (in modern day Tuscany) in the north all the way down south to the river Sele (in modern day Campania), which lies a bit south of Salerno.⁷⁴ The bucchero is not restricted to the Etruscan homelands, as the ware has also been found along the shores of Italy, southern France, Iberia, north Africa all the way to the islands of Corsica and Sardinia. Some examples have also been found in Greece.⁷⁵

There are several different regional styles of bucchero and it might be prudent to keep in mind that bucchero, like most ceramic wares, varies enormously from period to period and from place to place.⁷⁶ Many scholars believe that the earliest types of bucchero to be established was the bucchero types found within southern Etruria, with its most important centres being that of Cerveteri, Veii and Tarquinia.⁷⁷

The bucchero of southern Etruria developed under the influences of the Proto-Corinthian pottery with the earlier so-called ‘bucchero impasto’ forming a potential transitional stage to bucchero ceramics. This early type of southern Etruscan bucchero is sometimes called by the name ‘sottile’ (meaning ‘thin’ bucchero) and in some cases the bucchero sottile can be as fine

69 De Puma 2013, 974; Furuhagen 1985, 26.

70 Ramage 1970, 1.

71 Perkins 2016, 224.

72 This seems to be the case with the large painted kantharos in Jucker 1991, 203, No. 268. This kantharos have motifs and circles in a faded blue green and purple colour that might have been added after the actual firing process according to Jucker.

73 Jucker 1991, 143.

75 Pallotino 1955, 76; Rendelli 2017, 174.

76 Ramage 1970, 1.

77 Rasmussen 1979, 1, 4.

(17)

and as thin as that of the finest type of Chinese porcelain.⁷⁸ Some of the first fine examples of bucchero with a shiny black appearance appear sometime around 650 BCE, these fine examples usually have less grit in the clay than that of its predecessors and this seems to be true for all over southern Etruria.⁷⁹

The manufacture of the bucchero ceramics was first centred in the southern part of Etruria and would later spread outside the centres of southern Etruria all the way to northern Etruria and especially the Etruscan centres of Chiusi and Vulci around 600 BCE. The vessels that were produced in the Etruscan centres in the north tended to be a bit larger and heavier type compared to that of their southern counterparts, with additions and reliefs modelled by freehand on the ware or by help of special moulds to achieve the desired result.⁸⁰ This heavier type of bucchero is usually called by the name of bucchero ‘pesante’ (‘heavy’ bucchero), and scholars and early enthusiasts of the bucchero have considered it to be somewhat inferior to its southern counterpart in Etruria – mainly in terms of technique and execution. Although that does not mean that there are no fine examples of the bucchero pesante and the best period of this bucchero was around the sixth century BCE.⁸¹ The size of the bucchero pesante type is also important, and some of the vases made in this technique are among the largest the Etruscans ever produced according to De Puma.⁸² In short, bucchero pesante usually has heavier shapes and is usually heavily decorated with reliefs, whilst bucchero sottile on the other hand usually relies more on its elegant shape in its presentation.⁸³

In addition to the sottile and pesante groups, there are two more groups which have previously been thought to be an early form of bucchero. That is the so-called ‘buccheroid’ type and the so-called ‘grey bucchero’ type which is somewhat like the bucchero. The buccheroid type is usually of a dark brown or dark grey colour with a fine and shiny polished surface which usually have thin walls and is overall small and delicate and, in many ways, similar to the bucchero pottery. The buccheroid fabric though is earlier than that of bucchero.⁸⁴

I am not so sure as to dismiss the grey bucchero as being actual bucchero. Ramage states that the basic requirement for the bucchero to even be considered as such, is to have a completely reduced core.⁸⁵ Yet, it would be impossible to know if the core was completely reduced unless the fabric was broken, thus revealing the core. Also, depending on the natural colour of the clay, it can be difficult to see if it was completely reduced or simply incompletely reduced. I will still take the grey bucchero into account in this thesis, as San Giovenale has revealed a lot of this distinctive bucchero type as well as fine and sottile (c. 650–630 BCE), transitional (c. 625–575 BCE), and ordinary bucchero (6^th century BCE) together with the grey bucchero wares (6^th century BCE).⁸⁶

The production of grey bucchero might have been a conscious choice of the producers as well as variations in the clay, or simply the lack of technological firing skills. Some sites, for example in the Volsinii-Orvieto area, have shown that the grey variety of bucchero was purposely done by a less than complete reduction.⁸⁷

Ramage has argued that sometime around the turn of the seventh century BCE, the fabric of the bucchero turned into a more ordinary ware with the colour and clay of the vessels still being black, but with an increased tendency towards a greyish colour in the fabric. The walls became thicker and the decoration on the vessels became crude and seems to have been applied

78 Jucker 1991, 143.

79 Ramage 1970, 2.

80 Jucker 1991, 143.

81 De Puma 1976, 227.

82 De Puma 2013, 981.

84 Ramage 1970, 3–4.

85 Ramage 1970, 3.

86 Rasmussen 1979, 3; Ramage 1970, 3.

87 De Puma 2013, 975.

(18)

in an almost mechanical matter.⁸⁸ De Puma believes that the grey bucchero is a type of undecorated utilitarian ware.⁸⁹

The bucchero type that Ramage calls ‘transitional’ bucchero will also be considered as

‘true’ bucchero pottery in this thesis. This type of bucchero has been found together with early Corinthian and Italo-Corinthian pottery from the last quarter of the seventh century and they maintain shapes and decorative motifs of an earlier type and they also tend to be less refined.

This bucchero is also considered less prestigious and more utilitarian according to De Puma.⁹⁰ The transitional bucchero bridges the short period between that of the bucchero sottile ware and the bucchero of the sixth century BCE.⁹¹

2.1.1. Bucchero shapes

The discussion of form and function of a vessel is based on the decisions of potters, they make or modify properties of the vessel towards particular kinds of uses.⁹²According to Rice, the function of domestic ceramic containers can be described as taking place in three broad realms, which she defines as storage, transformation and transfer or transport. Pottery is also most likely to be preferred for carrying liquids.⁹³

The influences of the Greek world came from the promoted and extensive trade that Etruria had with Greece, and in addition with the merchants and their goods there also came new artistic and technical influences in the form of imported pottery among many other things. New opportunities had opened in the West and may consequently have drawn trained artists overseas to the Etruscan shores and land.⁹⁴ The Etruscans of Etruria received a lot of cultural and artistic influences from the Greek world, especially Ionia in the beginning and later that of Attica.⁹⁵

Many of the new shapes and forms found within bucchero derives from native as well as Greek shapes, with the Corinthian ones being especially influential and which themselves are modelled on metal prototypes according to Jucker.⁹⁶ In addition, concerning the shapes of the bucchero, many of the forms that had gone out of fashion in the Greek or the Etrusco-Corinthian pottery continued to appear in the bucchero pottery repertoire.⁹⁷ This might indicate a change of the consumption practices as well as a result of new or changed demands on the vessels.

The most common forms found among bucchero, beginning with the sottile type, are the oinochoai, bowls, kylikes and amphoras which also come in a great variation of shapes. Much the same can be said about the bucchero pesante, although, there is less variation in terms of shapes to be seen in this type of pottery, especially in comparison to its southern counterpart.⁹⁸

The shapes of bucchero were imitations of earlier shapes. These shapes can be traced from Near Eastern, Greek, and Italic examples. The Near Eastern influences came mainly in two waves. The first wave, sometime in the late eight century BCE, and the second wave somewhere around the middle of the seventh century BCE. The impacts of the first wave can mainly be seen in the many new forms that appears in the impasto of the late eight century BCE, in Etruria.

These new shapes inspired the bucchero forms together with the earlier forms and was adopted by the bucchero craftsmen.⁹⁹ The influence and the first major impact of the Near Eastern influences was over in around 670 BCE, in Etruria, but by then the shapes had already been successfully copied and integrated in the impasto ceramics by the local craftsmen. These

88 Ramage 1970, 3. Ramage does not clarify why this is the case more than the tendency of the material, being of a greyer fabric, thicker walls, and cruder decoration on the vessels.

89 De Puma 2013, 975.

90 De Puma 2013, 976.

91 Ramage 1970, 3.

92 Rice 1987, 207.

93 Rice 1987, 208.

94 Ramage 1970, 34.

95 Pallotino 1955, 57–58.

96 Jucker 1991, 142, 143.

97 Ramage 1970, 10.

98 Del Chiaro 1966, 101.

99 Ramage 1970, 8.

(19)

influences and the same oriental imitation types would then in turn inspire the new bucchero forms.¹⁰⁰

Among the oriental forms that came with the first wave of influence that was imitated in the bucchero forms and were in use in the mid-seventh century BCE, were the so-called high- necked oinochoe, the chalice which could come with and without caryatids, the pilgrim flask and the barrel-shaped askos according to Ramage. Among these above stated forms, it was just the oinochoe and chalice that were the types that continued in any number the longest.¹⁰¹ Ramage also noted that many of the shapes that were imitated in bucchero died out almost immediately. She argues that the reason might have been because the earlier bucchero was by far more experimental in the beginning than those that would follow and some forms were probably also considered to be way too impractical for continued use and were therefore actively dismissed from the repertoire.¹⁰²

2.1.2. Technique

Perkin’s paper of the preliminary findings from his project to catalogue the bucchero collection in the British Museum has provided some insight on the manufacturing techniques of the bucchero ware.¹⁰³ One of his initial findings was that much of the bucchero was not as black as one might actually think. Indeed, some examples seem to have been partially or in some cases completely painted to provide a good uniform black colour of the bucchero ware – a practice that was widespread and as a result some of the earliest arrivals in the British museum’s collection have been treated with black paint. This is one of the reasons why Perkins cautions us not to put too much faith in the colour of the bucchero as a defining or descriptive characteristic, even though the colour still is a useful guide to classifying bucchero.¹⁰⁴ It must be stressed though that this practice was certainly not practiced by the Etruscan, but by later enthusiasts and museums. In short, the painted-on black colour was a modern addition to make the bucchero appear darker in colour.

Perkins also reconstructs a working sequence for the bucchero, detailing the different steps that were taken in the manufacture of each of the vessels in the British Museum’s collection.

The ‘standard’ sequence of the manufacture of some of the vessel types, for example, the bowl of the cup was potted first according to Perkins, then the base which then was attached to the bowl following by the handles which were formed and attached to the vessel. The vessel was then left for drying. After the drying process, the vessel was inverted on the wheel so that the foot could be burnished, but only around the edge and the extremity of the underside. After this was done, the bowl would be burnished on a wheel. The handles of the vessel got burnished horizontally by free hand. Finally, the last step in Perkins proposed working sequence would be the adding of the grooving.¹⁰⁵

Perkins example is based on Rasmussen’s 3b cup,¹⁰⁶ but it is consistent with many cups, chalices and oinochoai which would suggest that there was a standardised production process according to Perkins.¹⁰⁷ The earliest technique for burnishing the ware seems to be what Perkins calls a “freehand haphazard burning”, meaning that the finishing of the surface of the vessels was made with a burnishing tool, that where using strokes made without an apparent directionality. This stage of the manufacturing process was then followed by freehand, but with distinct directionality followed by a stage where the burnishing was made accurately horizontal while the vessel was turning on a slow-turning wheel. A developmental sequence that seems to

100 Ramage 1970, 4.

101 Ramage 1970, 8.

102 Ramage 1970, 10.

103 Perkins 2007, 30–31.

104 Perkins 2007, 28.

105 Perkins 2007, 31–32.

106 Rasmussen 1979, 200–201, Pl. 38–39.

107 Perkins 2007, 32.

(20)

appear in the second half of the 7^th century BCE.¹⁰⁸ The slow-turning potter’s wheel seems like it was introduced in the end of the 8^th century BCE, and the vessels in turn became more and more polished as a result of this new technique.¹⁰⁹

According to De Puma, the distinctive black sheen of the bucchero ware was not achieved due to any glaze or slip but was the result of the reduction fire process. The reduction process involved that the fire was stoked and then deprived of oxygen, by reducing the oxygen a certain chemical change occurred in the clay, the better the reduction the blacker the clay core became.¹¹⁰ Bucchero was fired in a reducing atmosphere which caused the black surface and core of the ware as a result of this process.¹¹¹ The result of the colour through reducing was achieved by firing the bucchero ware in a low smoking heat – a technique which evolved independently in the Etruscan workshops.¹¹² The clay contained iron oxide which turned black when fired in the reductive environment achieved in the smoky kilns. It might also have been the case that some organic matter, like wood for example, might have been artificially placed within the kilns by the potters themselves to achieve the desired blackened colour.¹¹³

The grey bucchero on the other hand, with a fabric which is usually light grey whilst the core is a little darker and which usually has a creamy slipped surface usually belong to the sixth century BCE, or later, mostly with the same shapes as ordinary bucchero but with less variety.¹¹⁴

2.1.3. Decoration

Much of the bucchero does not have any decoration at all, and according to Brendel much of the work seem to be mere routine work.¹¹⁵ That said, that does not mean that bucchero was completely lacking decorations. Indeed, some of the ornaments to be found on bucchero, for example, some examples was engraved on the surface sometimes with open or closed fans and in other examples we can also find fine and thinly incised and stylized flowers and palmettes which usually surround the neck of the vessel or as in some examples, they had vertical rows of flowers made in the same technique placed on the back of the handles. Later, reliefs became the characteristic decoration of much bucchero.¹¹⁶ In other words, ornamentation can be found on bucchero, both the sotille and pesante variants and usually in the form of incised or impressed roulette’s or cylindrical seals.¹¹⁷

Decoration seen on some examples of bucchero, like the open or closed “fans” or notched patterns, were probably made with a small notched tool of wood, whilst the notched patterns were made with a roulette according to De Puma.¹¹⁸

Influences from the Greeks pottery production like painted decorations, scale patterns or registers of animals inspired many of the incised, relief patterns and scenes in the Etruscan bucchero production.¹¹⁹ Some more recent studies have demonstrated that chalky ochre or cinnabar was applied on many bucchero vessels to enhance the incised or impressed decorations on the vessel, even though the actual bucchero was rarely painted.¹²⁰

108 Perkins 2007, 32.

109 Jucker 1991, 143.

110 De Puma 2013, 975.

112 Brendel 1978, 77.

113 Jucker 1991, 143; Rasmussen 1970, 2.

115 Brendel 1978, 82.

116 Brendel 1978, 79–82.

117 Jucker 1991, 143.

118 De Puma 2013, 984.

119 Del Chiaro 1966, 102–103.

120 De Puma 2013, 975.

(21)

3. Sumptous feasts and the elite

This chapter provides the background for the Etruscan elite and the banqueting practices in Etruria. It is divided in three sections, all of which are discussing certain aspects of the elite and the banquets before we apply the theoretical concept of conspicuous consumption and feasting theory on the bucchero from San Giovenale.

3.1. The Etruscan elite

One of the defining hallmarks of the Etruscan Orientalizing period (700 BCE) was the new distinctive material forms that were used to express different aspects of the elite Etruscan’s social, economic as well as political identity. It is also during this Orientalising period that the groups in Etruria developed a self-conscious identity as “Etruscans”.¹²¹ When Rome was still a village on the southern side of the Tiber river, the Etruscan people had already began to emerge as Italy’s first great civilization. The Etruscans secured supremacy over the sea. They also began to establish a series of thriving emporia and had already developed and produced an impressive material culture.¹²² Their trade contacts stretched far and wide. Their commercial power had reached such extend in the sixth century BCE that Livy comments that they extended so widely on both land and sea and that their power was so great that they had given name to both the Tyrrhenian and the Adriatic Sea.¹²³

The Etruscans themselves did not leave us with any agricultural treaties or any general thoughts about food, but luckily, the Romans did.¹²⁴ It is through the Romans we get a glimpse of the Etruscan society. The fertility of for example northern Etruria even enticed the Gaul’s to occupy Etruscan territory in the 4^th century BCE.¹²⁵ The Roman author Livy (c. 59–17 CE),¹²⁶ left us with a long list of supplies that the Etruscan cities had produced for the Roman war preparations against Carthage, thus giving us a glimpse of the potential scale of the Etruscan economic production.¹²⁷ Plutarch (c. 46–120 CE), another Roman author has described the Etruscan cities as being wealthy and well equipped for productive business.¹²⁸

Although we must remember that this is written when most of the Etruscan lands had been annexed by the Romans, as Barker & Rasmussen points out; we cannot assume that the Etruscan farming ever reached a Roman scale in terms of manpower and technology, and evidences suggest strongly against that being the case as well.¹²⁹ Nevertheless, it gives us an idea of what we might have found in the Etruscan settlements before the Roman conquests. It is clear that Roman authors, even if they are pointing out different aspects of the wealth of the Etruscans in their various descriptions – certainly, all were impressed by the natural wealth of Etruria.

121 Neil 2016, 19, 20.

122 De Puma 1976, 220.

123 Becker 2016, 295; Livy 5.33.7–9. The Tyrrhenian sea takes its name from the Etruscans themselves whilst the Adriatic Sea is named after the Etruscan town of Adria. Both seas are named after the Etruscans according to Livy’s account.

124 Pieraccini 2013, 812.

125 Becker 2016, 294.

126 Livy. 28.45.15–16.

127 Barker & Rasmussen 2000, 180–181.

128 Becker 2016, 294; Plut. Cam. 16.

Bucchero: Forms and consumption patterns in San Giovenale