doi: 10.2143/AWE.19.0.3288566 AWE 19 (2020) 247-255 EMBLEMS OF IDENTITY REVISITED: GENDER AND THE MESSAPIAN TROZZELLA EDWARD HERRING Abstract This paper returns to a topic first discussed by the author in 1995, namely the continued use of an otherwise obsolete pottery style and vase form – the trozzella – in the tombs of the non-Greek popula- tion of the Salento Peninsula. The earlier paper argued that the use of the trozzella was to communi- cate messages of ethnic identity. However, by the late 5th and 4th centuries BC, trozzelle are only found in the graves of adult women. The present paper, therefore, revisits the original argument to address this gender dimension and the implications for indigenous identity at the time. Introduction More than 20 years ago I published a paper entitled ‘Emblems of Identity. An examina- tion of the use of matt-painted pottery in the native tombs of the Salento Peninsula in the 5th and 4th centuries BC’.1 It drew attention to the late survival of matt-painted pottery in indigenous tombs from the Salento Peninsula in south-eastern Italy, long after this type of pottery had ceased to be used in domestic contexts (Fig. 1).2 Across much of the Salento area only one traditional vase form – the trozzella3 – survives in any significant 1 Herring 1995. 2 South-eastern Italy was home to both Greek and indigenous people in the 5th and 4th centuries BC. The Greeks lived mainly at Tarentum and its chora. The rest of the Salento peninsula was occupied by an indigenous population, referred to by the Greeks as the Messapians. They were one of three tribes described as living in Apulia: the others being the Peucetians in Central Puglia and the Daunians in the North. A fourth group associated with the region, the Iapygians, sometimes appears as a stand-alone tribe (for example Pausanias 10. 13. 10) but elsewhere as a higher-level group of which the Messapians were a subset (for example Polybius 3. 88). The label ‘Messapian’ is commonly attached to the material culture of the region, even though there is no evidence that the local population used the name them- selves. So, for example, the trozzelle are often referred to Messapian trozzelle, as in my title. Generally, I prefer to use terms such as indigenous or native for the ancient peoples of South Italy and their culture for a number of reasons. First, the Greek names of the tribes are an external perspec- tive to which the people themselves may not have subscribed. Secondly, the use of the tribal names is not consistent, as is indicated by the confusion regarding the Iapygians already highlighted. Finally, local (i.e. settlement level) levels of community affiliation may have been important to individuals in most circumstances than tribal structures. The issue of possible archaeological correlates to the tribal names has been extensively debated over the last thirty or so years and need not be revisited here (see Whitehouse and Wilkins 1985; 1989; also Herring 2007). 3 The trozzella form is related to earlier two-handled (kantharoid) shapes, which across South Italy, derive ultimately from an olletta form introduced into Salento Early Geometric in the 8th century BC from Albanian sources (Yntema 1985). The form is also related to the nestoris, which occurs in Lucanian and Apulian red-figure pottery (Schneider-Herrmann 1980). Colivicchi (2014, 215–16) succinctly 248 E. HERRING Fig. 1. Map showing major sites in the Salento Peninsula. numbers.4 Typically a single trozzella (although sometimes multiple examples survive in the same tomb), decorated in traditional manner, was placed in a grave alongside other ceramic funerary offerings, which were either of Greek origin or at least broadly of Greek inspiration, i.e. Apulian red-figure, black glaze wares, and wheel-made painted wares. It should be noted that many of these late trozzelle were produced using the fast wheel, which was a new technology learnt from the Greeks, but in terms of morphology and outlines the history of kantharoid shapes in South Italy and ably illustrates the relationships between them (Colvicchi 2014, fig. 10.1). 4 For details on the pattern of survival, see Yntema 1985, 455–61; summarised in Herring 1995, 137–39. In the Oria-Mesagne area the trozzella is the only traditional form that endures throughout the 4th century BC. In the province of Lecce, some other traditional shapes survive into this era including a conical-necked olla with fungus handles and a narrow conical-necked jug, although both appear to have stopped production earlier than the trozzella. Some isolated productions of trozzelle may have continued into the 3rd century BC but, by this time, their use was no longer widespread. EMBLEMS OF IDENTITY REVISITED: GENDER AND THE MESSAPIAN TROZZELLA 249 decoration these vases remained true to indigenous ceramic traditions. In 1995, I argued that the survival of this traditional shape, decorated in what was by the late 5th century onwards an otherwise obsolete ceramic style, solely for use in the symbolically heightened context of burial, was a conscious use of symbolism to indicate ethnic identity. The theoretical framework that I used to make my argument was Polly Wiessner’s style theory in which she argued that style is a non-verbal form of communication.5 The way that communication occurs and how specific the information communicated is, depends upon the degree of specificity of the social referent of the symbol. According to Weissner’s view all styles have social referents. Some social referents can be highly specific but others have much vaguer associations. Thus, for Wiessner, style can be either assertive or emblemic depending on the degree of specificity. In assertive style a sign or symbol does not have a single or specific social referent; in emblemic style it does. Inevitably, examples of emblemic style are inevitably far harder to detect archaeologically because of the degree of specificity required by the definition. Both assertive and emblemic style can convey information in an active way but examples of assertive style are likely to carry vaguer messages because the associations for the receiver are less specific. An artefact with a specific social referent will communicate information in an active and effective way to a receiver belonging to the same social group: this is emblemic style. My principal contention in my 1995 paper was that by the late 5th century and beyond, the use of the trozzella in indigenous tombs was an example of emblemic style because the nature of the artefact and its associations with the past, the fact that it was only being manufactured for the specific context the grave, its use in emotionally-charged atmosphere of the funeral, and its inclusion in assemblages otherwise made up of Greek and Greek-style pottery conveyed a very specific message of group (ethnic) identity to those participating in the funeral, thereby affirming the deceased’s status as a member of the group, also reinforcing their own sense of belonging. The Need to Revisit the Argument Overall, the argument hung together well and I was happy with the paper as a contribution to our knowledge. There was one problem, however. I had stated in my 1995 paper that virtually every adult tomb contained one or more trozzelle – and, indeed, had based my argu- ment on this idea. This was a mistake, as has been pointed out by Fabio Colvicchi in 2014.6 He rightly stated that, in fact, trozzelle are to be found in the tombs of virtually all adult women. Although Colvicchi did not question the basic conclusion of my 1995 paper – that the late trozzelle were ethnic indicators – I feel that the matter needs to be revisited in order to bring the gender dimension to the forefront of the discussion and to consider what this might mean for identity in the Salento Peninsula in the late 5th and 4th centuries BC. The pattern of production and use of trozzelle is still striking but is, in fact, even more specific than I had originally argued. However, the specificity could lead to the conclusion that these vases were not about community or ethnic identity but were solely connected with gender. In other words, the trozzella may have been a signifier of having been an adult woman. 5 Wiessner 1983; 1989; 1990. 6 Colvicchi 2014, 242, n. 136. 250 E. HERRING The association of certain artefacts with either men or women has long been an interpre- tive mainstay of Italian archaeology. For example, in the Iron Age weaponry and armaments have commonly been seen as the preserve of men while certain types of jewellery and the equipment associated with the production of textiles have been associated with women. The occupants of many tombs have been assigned a gender on the basis of the funerary assemblage rather than osteological examination. While this practice has its flaws and can lead to self-supporting assumptions about gender roles in ancient societies, the general asso- ciation of certain artefacts and activities with particular genders seems well grounded.7 We should not, however, necessarily expect the gender associations of artefacts to be absolute and exclusive. Similarly, there may not always have been a direct correlation between the biological sex of individuals and the gender identity ascribed to them by the burying com- munity at the time of their funerals. Some vase forms also seem to be association with a particular gender. For example, in terms of Greek pottery, which was common in South Italy, hydriai were mostly associated with women, presumably because women performed the task of collecting water from foun- tain-houses.