PANTELLERIAN WARE: A COMPREHENSIVE ARCHAEOMETRIC REVIEW

Archaeometry

49

, 3 (2007) 455–481. Printed in Singapore doi: 10.1111/j.1475-4754.2007.00314.x

*Received 3 October 2005; accepted 19 May 2006© University of Oxford, 2007

Blackwell Publishing LtdOxford, UKARCHArchaeometry0003-813X© University of Oxford, 2007XXXOriginal Articles

Pantellerian ware: a comprehensive archaeometric reviewG. Montana et al.

*Received 3 October 2005; accepted 19 May 2006

PANTELLERIAN WARE: A COMPREHENSIVE ARCHAEOMETRIC REVIEW*

G. MONTANA,

1

B. FABBRI,

2

S. SANTORO,

3

S. GUALTIERI,

2

I. ILIOPOULOS,

4

G. GUIDUCCI

3

and S. MINI

2

1

Dipartimento di Chimica e Fisica della Terra ed Applicazioni alle Georisorse e ai Rischi Naturali (C.F.T.A.), Università di Palermo, Via Archirafi 36, 90123 Palermo, Italy

2

C.N.R.—Istituto di Scienza e Tecnologia dei Materiali Ceramici, Via Granarolo 64, 48018 Faenza, Italy

3

Dipartimento di Storia, Università di Parma, via Massimo D’Azeglio 85, 43100 Parma, Italy

4

Department of Geology, University of Patras, Rio, 26500 Patras, Greece

Pantellerian ware is a Late Roman cooking ware whose production centre was establishedon the island of Pantelleria by the pioneering research of Fulford and Peacock almost 20years ago (Peacock 1982; Fulford and Peacock 1984). Archaeological and archaeometricstudies carried out by the authors of the present contribution during the past four years haveaimed to fully characterize this ceramic class. Recurrent ceramic forms, their distributionover time and space, their petrographic characteristics and their chemical identity, as wellas possible raw materials and their technological properties, were considered. The presentpaper is a comprehensive review of this archaeometric work and aims to establish a‘reference group’. Using a representative number of samples of Pantellerian ware that wererecently discovered in the island through archaeological field surveys or surface andsubmarine excavations, it was possible to characterize in detail the compositional variabilityof this ware in terms of chemistry and petrography. Furthermore, the physical properties ofthis ceramic type have been defined in order to better understand its performancecharacteristics, mainly in response to induced thermal stress. In the meantime, theexperimental mixing and tempering of locally sampled raw materials have shed light on theancient manufacturing process and have led to an approximation of the original paste.

KEYWORDS

: WESTERN MEDITERRANEAN, SICILY, LATE ROMAN COOKING WARE, PANTELLERIAN WARE, CERAMIC PETROGRAPHY, CERAMIC CHEMISTRY,

REFRACTORY CERAMIC MANUFACTURE

© University of Oxford, 2007

INTRODUCTION

Pantellerian ware is acknowledged to be a distinctive ceramic manufacture (Fig. 1 (a))produced on the island of Pantelleria. It reached its highest diffusion in the Mediterranean areaduring the Late Roman period. The name of this ware was first proposed by D. P. S. Peacockand M. G. Fulford (Peacock 1982; Fulford and Peacock 1984). During their archaeologicalexcavations at Carthage, which focused on stratigraphic layers dating between the end of thefourth and the beginning of the seventh centuries

ad

, they brought to light a cooking wareassemblage. Its distinctive macroscopic features and their characteristic morphology ledthese authors to regard it as a specific ceramic production. Moreover, thin-section petrographyhelped them recognize very particular non-plastic inclusions (mineral and rock fragments) that

456

G. Montana

et al.

© University of Oxford, 2007,

Archaeometry

49

, 3 (2007) 455–481

were directly related to the volcanic rocks outcropping on Pantelleria, thereby giving themenough evidence to propose that the island of Pantelleria was the manufacturing centre.

The overall aspect of Pantellerian ware is sufficiently coarse-grained (Fig. 1 (b)) to supposethat it was thrown on a turntable. The walls of the artefacts are quite thick (around 10 mm),often with visible trails thought to be due to rubbing with a hard tool. The colour is dark-brownto reddish-brown, evidently inhomogeneous due to possible irregular firing. The well-knownforms, few but yet recurring, are relatively simple and relate to food preparation (Guiducci2003): pots, casseroles, pans, bowls and lids (Fig. 2). Since it was first reported in Carthage

Figure 1 (a) A typical form of Pantellerian ware (scale bar = 5 cm). (b) The characteristic coarse grained appearance (fabric) as seen on a fresh fracture of a Pantellerian ware sherd (scale bar = 5 mm).

Pantellerian ware: a comprehensive archaeometric review

457


Archaeometry

49

, 3 (2007) 455–481

(Fulford and Peacock 1984), its occurrence has been continuously attested at many otherarchaeological sites in the central and western Mediterranean, as shown in Figure 3 (SantoroBianchi 2000, 2003a,b,d, 2005 and references therein): Tunisia (Acholla, Gightis, Djerba,Sullectum, Thapsus, Utica and Zithia); Libya (Sabratha, Leptis Magna and the pre-desertic areato the south-east of Gebel Gharian); Sicily (Agrigento, Ravanusa, Segesta, Termini Imerese,

Figure 2 The main forms of Pantellerian ware: casseroles (A, B and C); pots (O1, O2 and O3); bowls (M1.1.1, M1.1.2, M1.2.1, M1.2.2, M2.1, M2.2, M2.3 and M3), saucepans (G1.1, G1.2, G2.1, G2.2 and H) and lids (L1, L2.1 and L2.2). The form T is probably a bowl.

458

G. Montana

et al.


Archaeometry

49

, 3 (2007) 455–481

Castellana Sicula, Caramia Marina, Tindari and Lipari); Sicily Channel (the Skerki Bankshipwreck); along the Tyrrhenian coast of Italy (Napoli, Quarto, Miseno, Bacoli, Roma, Ostia,Porto, Luni, Cosa,

Vada Volaterrana

and

Albintimilium

); Sardinia (Cagliari, Tharros andTurris Libisonis); Corsica (Mariana); France (Marseille, Toulon and Port Vendres); and Spain(Alicante, Barcelona, the Balearic islands and Tarragona). Based upon the initial findings atCarthage and then at these sites, the chronological diffusion of Pantellerian ware dates fromthe end of the first century

bc

to the sixth century

ad

and reaches its apex between the secondhalf of the fourth and the mid-fifth century

ad

.Until recently, cooking ware has been considered to be strongly linked to local traditions

and very conservative in terms of the variety of forms. However, the progress made by both thearchaeological and archaeometric studies dealing with this kind of ceramic manufacture hasrevealed the existence of specific production centres. The results underline the technologicalcomplexity of the pastes, which appear to balance a low production cost with the requiredfunctional properties.

During the Roman period in the Mediterranean area, cooking ware followed fashion andtransformations linked to changes in nutritional habits and cooking methods due to neweconomic relations, commercial routes and cultural interactions. Even if these transformationswere slower and less evident than those observed in forms of the finer tableware, they correlatewith processes that drive the productive organization and with dramatic changes that occurredin the social structure of the ancient world. Being exceptionally widespread through theMediterranean world, Pantellerian ware comprises a unique case study for the ceramic class of

Figure 3 The geographical distribution of Pantellerian ware in the Mediterranean. The main locations reported in the text are indicated by arrows on the satellite view of the island of Pantelleria (inset).


459


Archaeometry

49

, 3 (2007) 455–481

cooking ware. For this reason, the attention that it has received during recent years is justified.From the historical and archaeological points of view, unravelling the production process ofPantellerian ware could shed light on the role played by those communities that were locatedin mountainous areas or on islands, thus having a marginal position during Roman expansion.Nevertheless, owing to the development of specialized technical knowledge, the very samecommunities did sometimes play a very important role in the reorganization of the populationand the reconversion of the economy during Late Roman times (Jones 1964).

Pantellerian ware, as well as the entire archaeological heritage on the island of Pantelleria,has been the target of extensive survey and surface and underwater excavations (SantoroBianchi 2003b–d, 2005). In parallel with the ware’s archaeological recognition, archaeometricresearch has been undertaken to characterize the ceramic production on the island. More than60 specimens of Pantellerian ware were analysed both in terms of petrography (composition,packing, sorting and size distribution of sand temper) and bulk chemistry (major, minor andtrace elements). Data about physical parameters such as pore-size distribution and linearthermal expansion have been also collected (Alaimo and Montana 2003; Fabbri

et al.

2004;Montana

et al.

2005a). At the same time, local raw materials have been sampled and theirmineralogy, chemistry and technological properties have been carefully described (Montana

et al

. 2005b). Furthermore, mixtures of local clays and volcanic sand have been subjected toexperimental shaping and firing in order to reproduce, as realistically as possible, the recipe ofthe original ceramic paste (Fabbri and Guiducci 2003; Fabbri

et al

. 2004).The aim of the present paper is to comprehensively review the published and unpublished

archaeometric work concerning Pantellerian ware. Such an effort is expected to help fulfil therequirements needed for establishing a ‘reference group’ and at the same time to increase thecorrect identifications of this characteristic ceramic production from other excavation sites allover the Mediterranean. Therefore, the mineralogical and chemical

markers

that can play akey role in the recognition of this specific ceramic paste are highlighted, and the fields ofcompositional variation in terms of the most characteristic major, minor and trace elementsare delimited and discussed. The entire manufacturing process of this particular refractorypaste was retraced employing localization and selection of raw materials, and experimentalreproduction of the ceramic artefacts—that is, mixing of clays, tempering, shaping andfiring—to provide as authentic a reproduction of the Late Roman paste as possible. Data onphysical properties proved helpful in understanding its response to the induced thermal stress.

ARCHAEOLOGICAL CONSIDERATIONS

The island of Pantelleria has always played a strategic role, thanks to its geographical locationin the central Mediterranean. Having been inhabited since the early Neolithic period due to itsobsidian resources, it reached its most flourishing period during Roman time. Archaeologicalfield surveys conducted by the University of Bologna have shown that the island of Pantelleriawas not as inhospitable as was previously thought. There is, in fact, enough evidence topresume that there was an economic structure based on agriculture (Cantarelli 1987). Withinthis framework, the detailed study of Pantellerian ware could reveal its role in the productivechain and its link to the general topography of the island. In particular, archaeological researchcould help to assess if this ceramic class was made as part of a primitive technology of adomestic-type economy; for example, being used as an item exchanged for food supplies. Or, bycontrast, was it a specialized product due to its intrinsic quality, belonging to a favourableproductive and commercial context? In this respect, a surface survey was planned in locations

460

G. Montana

et al.


Archaeometry

49

, 3 (2007) 455–481

of the island that had characteristics that could favour the development of ceramic productionand trade, such as the valleys of Ghirlanda and Nika, and Scauri, one of the three gateways ofthe island. In fact, the localities Contrada Serraglio, Fossa del Russo and Favara Grande havebeen recognized as possible sources of a reddish clayey material, whilst a whitish clay deposithas been found on Mount Gibele. Wood from the nearby forest of Montagna Grande could bethe fuel source, whereas the River Nika, even if nowadays it is constrained to a winter flow, inantiquity might have been the main source for the water supply. Moreover, the complex systemof canals that have been discovered in Contrada Serraglio, and that could hypothetically beattributed to a levigation process, further supports the existence of a ceramic productive chain.The manufacture and commercial component of such a chain have been recognized at Scauri,in a residential villa of the late Republican and Imperial period, which, during late antiquity,had evolved into a productive and commercial district (Santoro Bianchi 2003c). Largequantities of Pantellerian ware, dated from the late fourth century

ad

to the first half of thefifth century

ad

, as well as a structure linked to firing processes, have been found therein. Thevast quantities of Pantellerian ware dated to the fifth century

ad

, which have been foundunderwater at the port of Scauri, can be possibly attributed to the cargo of a ship that sankbecause of a fire that took place, and further confirm the link between this productive set-up andPantellerian ware.

It appears that Pantelleria comprised a very specialized pottery centre during the Late Romanperiod. In addition to socio-economic, historical and geographical factors, the development ofsuch a thriving cooking pot industry on the island of Pantelleria can be attributed to (i) theperformance characteristics of this ware, and (ii) the existence of all those components thatare required for the establishment of such a productive chain; that is, a clayey raw material,abundant fuel sources and a water supply.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The archaeometric data discussed in this paper were based upon analyses of 68 representativesamples of Pantellerian ware. A sampling strategy was planned in such a way as to reveal anypossible existing compositional variability, taking into consideration both the archaeologicalcontext in which the samples were found and the various ceramic morphologies. Therefore,some of the analysed sherds come from an archaeological site on the island (Scauri Scalo,‘SCAS’, an excavation near the harbour of Scauri; Fig. 3) where the large seaside villa of thelate Republican and Imperial period was discovered. Several samples found during a fieldsurvey that was conducted all over the island were also considered. Finally, samples comingfrom an underwater excavation at the shoreline close to the harbour of Scauri (‘ScaSub’) werealso included in order to control possible variability in products that were destined to beexported. In any case, the contamination of these latter samples due to their interaction withsea water has not been ignored. It has to be noted that no compositional differences are to beexpected among the various ceramic forms sampled because of their common use (for cooking),the usually conservative technology of this ceramic type and their macroscopic uniformity.Table 1 summarizes the provenance, dating and functional classification of the samplesconsidered here.

Thin-section petrography was carried out on all the ceramic samples, employing a ZeissAxiomat polarizing microscope. The relative abundance (modal mineralogy – area %) ofnon-plastic inclusions was determined by conventional point-counting procedures (Van derPlas and Tobi 1965). X-ray powder diffraction (XRD) was conducted on both bulk samples


461


Archaeometry

49

, 3 (2007) 455–481

and oriented preparations of the clay-sized fraction (<2

µ

m) of the raw materials, using aPhilips X’pert diffractometer with CuK

α

radiation (graphite monochromator) and theoperating conditions 40 kV and 40 mA. The clay-sized fractions (<2

µ

m) were pre-treatedwith MgCl

2

·6H

2

O saturation (homogeneous ionization) and then analysed in the air-dried,ethylene glycol, 180

°

C and 550

°

C treated states for identification of the clay minerals (Griffin1971). Experimental parameters were adequately optimized for quantification of the clay mineralspresent (2

°

–30

°

2

θ

scan range, CuK

α

radiation, graphite monochromator, 1

°

2

θ

min

−

1

scanrate and 2 s time constant). X-ray fluorescence analysis (using a Philips PW 1400 wavelength-dispersive spectrometer) was performed on powder pellets, which were prepared by mixingapproximately 1–2 g of homogenized sample with 0.75 ml of a 4% solution of Mowiol N50-98 (a binder media that is transparent in X-rays). The mixture was subsequently compressedon a base of ultra-pure boric acid. Chromium (Cr) and tungsten (W) targets were used forthe determination of major and trace elements, respectively. Details on the correction ofinstrumental drift and the matrix effect as well as procedures for the construction of calibrationlines are described elsewhere (Hein

et al

. 2002). ICP–OES was used exclusively for estimatingthe salt content of those samples that are possibly contaminated through their interaction withsea water. For the extraction of soluble salts, 1 g of the powdered samples was put into a plasticcontainer together with distilled water and mixed using a magnetic stirrer. This was then

Table 1 The provenance, dating and functional classification of the samples considered in the present study

Context Sample Form Period

Surface survey C26 Pot Late first century bc – early fourth century adPL10 Pot Mid-first century bc – late fourth century adC22 Flange rim ImperialC23 Pan Fourth to sixth centuries adC24 Dish Third to early sixth centuries adC27 Pan Fourth to mid-fifth centuries adC28 Pot ImperialC33 Casserole Mid-fourth to early sixth centuries adC30 Dolium ImperialC31, PL7 Dowl First to mid-fifth centuries adC77 Dish ImperialPL9 Lid ImperialSER600 Pan Late Roman

SCAS C34, C35, C47, C51, SS10 Casserole Second half of fourth to mid-fifth centuries adC52, PL4, SS1, SS9 Pan Second half of fourth to mid-fifth centuries adC38, C39, C40, C43, C44, C45, C49, C56, C57, C58, PL3, SS4, SS7

Bowl Second half of fourth to mid-fifth centuries ad

C41, C55, PL5, SS2, SS3, SS8 Lid Second half of fourth to mid-fifth centuries adC42 Dolium Second half of fourth to mid-fifth centuries adSS5, SS6 Second half of fourth to mid-fifth centuries ad

ScaSub C4, C59, C60, C61, C62, C63, C64 Lid Fifth century adC65, C66 Casserole Fifth century adC2, C5/1, C5/2, C67, C68, C69, C70 Pan Fifth century adC1, C3, C71, C72, C73, C74, C75 Bowl Fifth century ad

462

G. Montana

et al.


Archaeometry

49

, 3 (2007) 455–481

centrifuged three times for 15 min each to separate the powder and liquid containing eventualsodium chloride. The solution was poured into a glass container and then analysed using aVarian Liberty 200 ICP–OES. The analyses were executed on the Na 589.592 nm spectral line.All of the results are in weight per cent, calculated with reference to the original sample(Fabbri and Dondi 1995).

Moreover, in order to have data concerning the technological characteristics of therefractory paste, several selected samples were subjected to pore-size distribution analysis,thermodilatometric analysis and Mössbauer analysis. Mercury porosimetry was performed onabout the 10% of the collected Pantellerian ware samples, employing a Carlo Erba Porosimeter2000. Linear thermal expansion coefficients were achieved by a Netzsch 402E instrumentalfacility up to 700

°

C under static air conditions, with a thermal gradient of 10

°

C min

−

1

. Finally,Mössbauer analysis was undertaken at room temperature by using a conventional constantacceleration spectrometer, with an Rh matrix

57

Co source and a proportional counter as thegamma detector.

GEOLOGICAL REMARKS

The island of Pantelleria (83 km

2

), located approximately 100 km south-west of Sicily and 70 kmnorth-east of Tunisia, has been studied in depth for its typical intra-plate peralkaline volcanism(see Montana

et al

. 2005b and references therein). Lavas and pyroclastic deposits arerepresented (in order of decreasing abundance) by pantellerites and pantelleritic trachytes,up to mildly alkali basalts. The latter are present only in the northern part of the island and arecomposed of 5–20% by volume phenocrysts, with plagioclase predominant over olivine,clinopyroxene and Ti-magnetite. The microcrystalline groundmass consists of plagioclaselaths, olivine, clinopyroxene, ilmenite, Ti-magnetite and apatite. Pantelleritic trachytes showa porphyritic texture, with alkali-feldspar, clinopyroxene, aenigmatite, olivine, ilmenite andmagnetite set in a vesicular glassy groundmass with very few microlites. Pantellerites arecharacterized by predominant anorthoclase (Or

16

to Or

37

) and green clinopyroxene (Civetta

et al

. 1998). Subordinate, though characteristic, constituents are aenigmatite and quartz (oftenembayed). The groundmass is characterized by vesicular glass, with rare microlites of alkali-feldspar, quartz, clinopyroxene, aenigmatite and alkali-amphibole (see Montana

et al

. 2005aand references therein).

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Raw materials

Clayey materials of marine origin are absent on the island of Pantelleria. However, recentgeological field surveys have revealed several clay deposits in the southwestern part of theisland. These clay beds are the result of the hydrothermal weathering of rhyolitic and trachyticlavas (Montana et al. 2005b). Two main types of clays, a ‘reddish’ one and a ‘whitish’ one(Figs 4 (a) and (b)), were found within a few kilometres of the village of Scauri (localitiesContrada Serraglio, Monte Gibele, Favara Grande and Fossa del Russo in Fig. 3), where severalindications of a flourishing ceramic commercial activity have been identified (Santoro Bianchi2003a).

Laboratory analyses allowed these local clays to be characterized in terms of compositionand some technological properties (Montana et al. 2005b). Grain-size analysis indicated a

Pantellerian ware: a comprehensive archaeometric review 463

© University of Oxford, 2007, Archaeometry 49, 3 (2007) 455–481

content of fine and very fine sand of around 34 wt% for the ‘reddish clay’. XRD on bulk samplesproved the presence of alkali-feldspar, quartz, augite, hematite and opal-CT. With respect tothe clay minerals, smectite also prevails over kaolinite and illite. The abundance of smectite-type clay minerals explains the fairly inadequate technological properties shown by this raw

Figure 4 Outcrops of ‘reddish clay’ in Contrada Serraglio (a) and ‘whitish clay’ in the calderas of Monte Gibele (b), in the southwestern part of Pantelleria.

464 G. Montana et al.


material, in terms of ceramic manufacture: Atterberg liquid and plastic limits are both high(Lw = 74% and Pw = 54%), restraining the plasticity index significantly (Ip = 24%), which in turnreflects a poor workability of the raw clay in its plastic state; consequently, linear shrinkagesafter 100°C, 600°C and 950°C firings are considerably higher than 10%. Chemical analysis byXRF (Table 2) highlights the low Na2O and CaO contents (0.7 and 1.1 wt%, respectively) incontrast with the high Al2O3 value (21 wt%) and the extremely elevated Fe2O3 concentration(21 wt%). Among trace elements, zirconium, lanthanum, cerium and yttrium are very abundant(Zr = 3170 ppm, La = 591 ppm, Ce = 821 ppm and Y = 179 ppm), whereas Ba is less than thelower limit of detection and Sr is significantly low (56 ppm).

The sand fraction content of the ‘whitish clay’ (11 wt%) is significantly lower than that ofthe ‘reddish clay’. XRD analysis showed the great prevalence of kaolinite over quartz,opal-CT, boehmite (γ-AlOOH) and alkali-feldspar. Augite and hematite (both being significantconstituents of the reddish clay) were not revealed. The ‘whitish clay’ shows a relativelyhigher plasticity index (Ip = 34%), and linear shrinkages after 100°C, 600°C and 950°C firings areeven considerably lower than 10%. The bulk chemical composition (Table 2) is characterizedby extremely low CaO, Na2O and K2O concentrations (< 0.1%) and a huge Al2O3 mean value(c. 42%). The latter can be straightforwardly related to the presence of boehmite and kaolinite,as revealed by XRD. Concerning trace elements, some substantial differences with respect tothe ‘reddish clay’ can be pointed out. The Zr, Y, La, Ce and Rb contents are definitely lower(from three up to 13 times), while Ba and Sr contents are to a great extent higher (from six upto 22 times). These outstanding differences can be attributed to the compositional variation ofthe eruptive products (Civetta et al. 1984, 1998), which have consequently been weathered dueto thermal fluids circulation (Fulignati et al. 1997).

The volcanic sand was sampled from alluvial deposits along the slopes of Montagna Grande(Montana et al. 2005b), where trachytic rocks are dominant. It is a feldspar-rich sand withplagioclase (predominant), quartz (abundant), volcanic glass (abundant), opaque minerals(sporadic) and aenigmatite (traces) as main mineral constituents. Chemical analysis by XRF(Table 2) shows high contents of silica (c. 65%) and alkalis (c. 11% in total), which reflect thepredominance of feldspars and quartz. As regards the trace elements, Ba is very abundant(1646 ppm), whilst Zr is definitely lower (up to 5–10 times) than in the clayey materials.

Ceramic artefacts

Petrography The physical appearance of Pantellerian ware is rather characteristic due to itscoarse and copious volcanic inclusions spread in a dark-brown to reddish-brown groundmass.Tabular crystals of alkali-feldspar (often 2–4 mm in size) and volcanic glass fragments areprominent (Fig. 5). This refractory paste has been extensively described microscopically by theauthors of this review (Alaimo and Montana 2003; Fabbri et al. 2004; Montana et al. 2005a),allowing its average textural and compositional characteristics to be carefully documented.

Packing of non-plastic inclusions in the ceramic body is rather variable, ranging from20% by volume up to values even higher than 40% by volume (average = 26% by volume).Concerning size distribution (Fig. 6), coarse and very coarse inclusions (0.5–2.0 mm) accountfor almost half of the examined samples, while fine and very fine sand (0.06–0.25 mm) andmean sand (0.25–0.50 mm) are equally represented (both around 20% by volume). Grainslarger than 2 mm account for approximately 10% of the total aggregate.

Single crystals of alkali-feldspar (anorthoclase), often fresh (unaltered) with euhedral and/or subhedral habit, are undoubtedly the predominant mineralogical constituents (see Fig. 5).

Pantellerian ware: a com

prehensive archaeometric review

465

© U

niversity of Oxford, 2007, A

rchaeometry 49, 3 (2007) 455

–481

Table 2 The chemical composition (XRF) of the raw materials and the ceramic artefacts from the three different archaeological contexts, together with the average forthe Pantellerian ware and the reproduction. Concentrations are in wt% for major oxides and in ppm for trace elements*

Raw materials Ceramic artefacts†

ReproductionReddish

clayWhitish

clayVolcanic

sandSurface survey

(n = 14)SCAS excavation

(n = 31)ScaSub excavation

(n = 23)All contexts

(mean, n = 68)

SiO2 51.46 50.45 64.94 60.64 1.11 60.69 61.78 1.45 61.73 64.10 1.28 64.13 62.34 56.18TiO2 1.01 2.23 0.82 1.11 0.09 1.11 1.01 0.12 0.99 0.92 0.06 0.91 1.00 1.01Al2O3 21.13 41.73 17.46 22.36 1.87 22.55 19.49 1.11 19.36 18.81 1.01 18.68 19.85 25.14Fe2O3 21.01 5.21 4.26 7.80 1.03 7.85 8.50 1.17 8.18 7.23 0.90 7.12 7.93 10.01MnO 0.69 0.05 0.10 0.12 0.04 0.13 0.18 0.04 0.17 0.15 0.06 0.12 0.16 0.25MgO 0.97 <LLD 0.23 0.71 0.25 0.71 1.05 0.41 0.94 0.74 0.22 0.72 0.88 0.69CaO 1.07 0.05 1.20 1.29 0.25 1.28 1.26 0.43 1.34 0.81 0.10 0.80 1.11 0.81Na2O 0.68 0.01 7.46 3.20 0.54 3.06 3.91 0.49 4.03 4.38 0.53 4.56 3.92 2.95K2O 2.01 0.09 3.47 2.60 0.31 2.51 2.70 0.25 2.73 2.86 0.17 2.85 2.73 2.25P2O5 0.01 0.17 0.05 0.18 0.06 0.17 0.17 0.08 0.18 0.04 0.02 0.03 0.12 0.06Rb 124 <LLD 29 49 12 48 55 17 54 58 7 58 55 61Sr 56 350 220 186 28 188 221 29 223 165 23 161 193 225Y 179 62 51 52 24 48 71 28 67 67 20 71 65 104Nb na na na 187 37 171 201 63 181 207 42 199 199 naZr 3170 1722 302 834 186 807 917 333 813 912 219 848 894 1832Cr‡ 61 45 <LLD 64 21 65 67 32 59 50 14 52 60 39Ba <LLD 615 1646 802 121 805 1020 135 1055 831 164 852 901 1135La 591 178 48 123 21 116 128 36 113 120 21 119 124 157Ce 821 272 95 240 42 226 260 76 232 273 63 264 259 323

*Trace elements were not measured for one, 10 and six samples of each ceramic category, respectively. Ni and V values were always less than the lower limits of detection.

†Mean, standard deviation and median are given for each ceramic category.

‡Cr values were less than LLD for nine samples from the surface survey.

<LLD = under the lower limit of detection; na = not analysed.



Their size falls mainly in the class of coarse sand (0.5 and 1 mm), whilst larger crystals (up to3–4 mm) are less frequent. Angular fragments of volcanic rocks (pantellerites and pantelleritictrachytes) and volcanic glass are common constituents. The volcanic lithoclasts exhibit aporphyritic texture and a glassy to holocrystalline groundmass; microlites consist of alkali-feldspar (predominant), quartz and clinopyroxene. Vesicular glass fragments are more oftenunaltered, with an extremely variable size (0.1–2.5 mm). A relative prevalence of fragments

Figure 5 A photomicrograph showing the characteristic fabric of Pantellerian ware. Anorthoclase crystals exhibiting tartan twining occupy the centre of the field of view (scale bar = 0.5 mm, crossed nicols).

Figure 6 A comparison of the grain-size distribution of non-plastic inclusions of Pantellerian ware with the grain-size distribution estimated for the volcanic sand through a ‘population pyramid’ diagram.



within the medium-coarse sand (0.3–1.0 mm) has been noted. Mafic minerals are in generalextremely subordinate with respect to alkaline feldspar. Nevertheless, they must be consideredsignificantly distinctive constituents of the Pantellerian ware paste and resemble a ‘fingerprint’for this ceramic production. They comprise euhedral to subhedral crystals of iron- andsodium-rich clinopyroxene (characteristically green in parallel nicols) and aenigmatite (deepred almost opaque under crossed nicols), with a prevalent size ranging from 0.2 to 0.5 mm. Thelatter is a fairly uncommon triclinic alkaline inosilicate [Na2(Fe,Ti)6Si6O18]. In this context, itis present with the titanium-poor variety (Fig. 7), which is called cossyrite (deriving fromCossyra, the name used by the Romans for the island of Pantelleria). Subhedral or euhedralquartz (sometimes with a characteristic hexagonal bipyramidal habit), opaque Fe–Ti oxides(ilmenite and Ti-magnetite), plagioclase and olivine can be definitely considered subordinateto rare constituents. The micromass generally shows a non-homogeneous or clotted structurewith a brown-reddish to dark brown colour (crossed nicols). Its optical activity is variablefrom quite high (rarely) and moderate (frequently) to very poor (sporadically).

Very similar petrographic characteristics to those detailed herein have been reported forsamples of Pantellerian ware that were found in archaeological contexts outside the island ofPantelleria, such as Fabric 1.1 in Carthage (Fulford and Peacock 1984) and Fabric 3.4 in theBalearic islands (Cau 1998; Cau et al. 2000). In order to have a direct visual confirmation ofthis comparability, four thin sections of representative samples from the Balearic islands havebeen carefully studied.

Chemistry The estimation of the central tendency (arithmetic mean and median) and thestandard deviations calculated from the samples considered in this study (surface survey,

Figure 7 A photomicrograph of a Pantellerian ware thin section. An aenigmatite crystal can be observed in the central part of the field view (scale bar = 0.2 mm, crossed nicols).



SCAS excavation and ScaSub excavation) are included in Table 2 (raw XRF data are reportedin the Appendix). The mean and median of the concentration values are always rather similar,thus highlighting the normal distribution of most of the major and minor elements. Traceelements (with the exception of Rb, Sr and Ba) show minor positively skewed distributions(with the mean slightly higher than the median). Major elements that are relatively moreabundant are characterized by a satisfactory relative standard deviation (less than 10% orslightly higher), while minor elements (Mn, Mg and P) and the majority of trace elementsshow considerably higher values. The average chemical compositions of the samples from thethree different archaeological contexts show only minor differences. Concerning the mostsignificant major elements oxides, Al2O3, Fe2O3 and CaO are those showing the widest spreadaround the overall average values (calculated considering all the 68 analysed Pantellerian waresamples). Their concentration is lower in the set of samples from the ScaSub excavation(Al2O3 = 18.81%, Fe2O3 = 7.23%, CaO = 0.81%). Na2O is an exception to this trend, beingrelatively more concentrated in the ceramic sherds from this archaeological context (4.38%).This fact could be explained by considering the contamination that had definitely occurredduring the sherds’ long interaction with sea water. In order to estimate and quantify this type ofcontamination, six samples (C1, C2, C3, C4, C5/1 and C5/2) from the submarine excavationand three samples (SS3, SS6 and SS10) from the excavation in Scauri underwent Na2O extractionwith distilled water treatment. The Na2O content in the treatment solution, determined byICP–OES analyses, was around 0.27% for submarine samples and less than 0.05% for samplesfrom Scauri. Trace elements show quite similar values of average concentrations if the threesampling sets are compared. A moderate even though significant difference correspondingto more than 10% in comparison with the overall average values (n = 68) may be observed inonly a few cases (Sr, Y and Ba).

Table 2 permits the comparative evaluation of the concentration values of the local rawmaterials (‘reddish clay’, ‘whitish clay’ and volcanic sand) and the overall average elementalconcentrations (n = 68) of the sherds of Pantellerian ware. The latter can be confidentlyconsidered as the result of an appropriate mixing of these local raw materials. Volcanic sand,which constitutes the temper of the ceramic paste, may be definitely considered the mainsource of silica and alkaline metals. The ‘reddish clay’ seems to predominantly control theFe2O3, MgO, Rb and Cr contents, whereas the ‘whitish clay’ regulates the abundances ofAl2O3, P2O5 and Sr. Concerning the remaining trace elements, Ba is the only one directlylinked to the sandy component, while both clays are the main sources of Zr and rare earthelements. In any case, the average values of mainly the major and trace elements in theceramic paste are clearly the result of the dilution effect due to one or two of the three differentcomponents against the constituent that has the highest concentration.

Hence the high concentrations in Na2O, Fe2O3 and Al2O3, as well as the abnormally highconcentrations in the case of several trace elements (Zr, Ba, La, Ce) accompanied by verylow contents of CaO and MgO, could usefully play the role of ‘chemical markers’ for thefingerprinting of the ceramic production acknowledged as Pantellerian ware. Its emergence asa satisfactorily homogeneous chemical ‘reference group’ can be more directly appreciatedby multivariate treatment of chemical data. The projection of the scores of the samples ofPantellerian ware and the raw materials, in terms of chemical components, on the plane definedby the first two principal components (PC1 and PC2), which together represent 72% of thetotal variance, is shown in Figure 8. This figure can help to highlight the way in which thethree raw materials considered encompass the ceramic samples. In fact, the ceramic group canbe considered very homogeneous with regard to the principal component PC1, which mainly



reflects the influence of the major elements (see the loadings histogram). Among these, Al2O3

and TiO2 are the ones showing negative values and are those that are most significant withregard to the chemical composition of the whitish clay, which, for this reason, plots at the highnegative values of PC1. However, Pantellerian ware seems insusceptible to its influence andshows a strong link to the group of elements (MgO, CaO, Na2O, K2O and Rb) with positiveloadings, which could equally be attributed to the reddish clay and the volcanic sand. Asignificant spreading is also evident for positive loadings of PC2, mainly due to the relativeabundances of La, Ce, Zr and Fe2O3. This latter group of elements coincides well with thechemical identity of the reddish clay (Table 2), which further explains why this raw materialplots at the extremes of the positive scores on PC2. Less clear but still significant is the influenceof Ba, which has a negative loading on the same principal component and should be attributedto the role played by the volcanic sand.

A quite similar chemical trend has been reported for Pantellerian ware samples from theBalearic islands (Cau 1999), which seems to confirm the chemical comparability of the samplesanalysed in this study with samples of Pantellerian ware reported from archaeological contextsoutside the island of Pantelleria.

Technological properties In order to determine the extent of total open porosity as well as thepore-size distribution of Pantellerian ware, high-pressure mercury intrusion (Hg porosimeter)was applied on eight samples. Special care was taken in order to include samples from all theconsidered sampling sites (‘surface survey’, two samples; ‘SCAS’ excavation, four samples;‘ScaSub’ underwater excavation, two samples). An average total porosity of 23% was

Figure 8 Principal components analysis (PCA). The scores of the ceramic samples and the raw materials are projected on the planes defined by the two first principal components, PC1 and PC2, which account for 72% of the total variance. Factor loadings of single chemical variables (14) are also reported.



obtained, but with an outstanding difference between the minimum (19%) and maximum(28%) values. Most of the analysed samples showed a rather continuous pore-size distributionin the range 0.01–10 µm, with decreasing relative frequencies towards larger pore sizes(Fig. 9, sample SS8). A similar pore-size distribution could be representative of a ceramicpaste that was not subjected to significant structural modification during the firing process, dueto a low firing temperature. Therefore, the resulting open porosity and its broad distribution insize could be attributed almost exclusively to the elimination of moulding-water during dryingand of constitution water of clay minerals and Al hydroxides during firing.

In addition, some representative samples were subjected to thermodilatometric analysisin order to determine the thermal expansion coefficient. The analyses were performed onspecimens previously subjected to a thermal treatment at 600°C, with a 2 h soak at themaximum temperature. This procedure is necessary in order to eliminate the water adsorbedby the ceramic body during burial (Fabbri et al. 2005). In fact, water elimination occurs up toa temperature of 500–600°C, also depending on the thermal gradient of the test, as deducedfrom a dilatometric analysis of an untreated specimen (Fig. 10). In this case, the ‘expansion’curve during heating shows four different stages:(1) an expansion stage up to approximately 100°C, due to normal expansion of the material;(2) a long contraction stage from approximately 100°C to 500°C, mainly due to loss of water;(3) a new expansion stage from approximately 500°C to 750°C, due to expansion of theceramic body;(4) a final rapid contraction stage above 750°C, due to structure collapse of the ceramicmaterial; this last phase occurs because the original firing temperature (estimated at around700°C) was exceeded.

By contrast, the contraction curve during cooling from over 750°C to room temperatureshows a linear decrease of dimensions, which can be exclusively attributed to the thermalexpansion coefficient of the ceramic material.

The linear thermal expansion coefficients for Pantellerian ware were calculated up todifferent temperatures (200°C, 350°C, 500°C and 700°C), starting from room temperature or

Figure 9 The pore-size distribution (Hg porosimetry) of sample SS8.



100°C. All of the values were very homogeneous at around 6 × 10−6 °C–1, with slightly lowervalues when the lowest temperatures are taken into account. In the intervals up to 200°C, infact, linear thermal coefficients as high as 5.5 × 10–6 °C−1 were generally calculated. Thesevalues are not significantly higher than those requested for modern Pyrex artefacts; that is, lessthan 5 × 10–6 °C−1 (Emiliani and Corbara 2001), even if measures made by us on some com-mercial products gave values between 5.2 × 10−6 °C−1 and 6.6 × 10−6 °C−1 in the 400–600°Crange. The similarity between the expansion coefficients determined for Pantellerian ware andfor recent Pyrex dishes confirms the supposed good quality of the ancient artefacts for use ascooking wares. On the other hand, the calcium silicates are characterized by high expansioncoefficients; in fact, ceramic pastes produced by using calcareous clays (for example, majolica)show expansion coefficients of around (8.0–8.5) × 10−6 °C–1 (Emiliani and Corbara 2001).The reason for the lower value for Pantellerian ware at these temperatures might be connectedwith the absence of quartz in its ceramic paste, while quartz is a very abundant phase in mostcommon ceramics. The phase transition of α-quartz into β-quartz at 573°C (and vice versaduring cooling) produces a noticeable expansion (or contraction), which does not occur inPantellerian ware. Moreover, the homogeneous values encountered for the thermal expansioncoefficient of Pantelleria ware was an expected result if we consider that the packing of itsnon-plastic inclusions was never less than 20% by volume, an amount that has been consideredcritical by Kilikoglou et al. (1998). These scholars have shown that if the amount of non-plastic inclusions is no less than 20% by volume, the contribution to the total fracture energyfrom crack propagation remains essentially constant with decreasing content of the non-plasticinclusions. Therefore, the linear thermal expansion coefficient of the Pantellerian ware bodyseems to be low enough to explain the supposed good quality of Pantellerian ware in terms ofresistance to repeated thermal shocks associated with the cooking exercise. This is consistentwith the reported use of non-calcareous clays as the favoured raw material for making cookingpots (Tite et al. 2001), because of their lower thermal expansion coefficient in respect tocalcareous clays (Paynter and Tite 2001).

Figure 10 The thermodilatometric analysis (heating and cooling curves) of an untreated sample of Pantellerian ware.



In addition, it is reasonable to suppose that thermal shock resistance is also improved by ahigh thermal diffusivity of the ceramic paste in question (Sbaizero 1994). This property can beincreased by reducing the open porosity and increasing the thermal conductivity. Pantellerianware really has a relatively low porosity (between 19 and 28%) and a thermal conductivity thatis possibly higher than that of other ceramic pastes, due to its iron-rich composition.

The described linear thermal expansion coefficients of Pantellerian ware, in addition to thehigh porosity and the continuous pore-size distribution over a wide range, as outlined above,are all favourable parameters that could account for the wide diffusion of the cooking waresfrom the island of Pantelleria.

Simulated manufacture

A prerequisite for a raw material to be chosen for a specific ceramic production is that itsphysical properties will give the finished product those performance characteristics that aredictated by the consumer’s needs. Pantellerian ware was being specifically produced to meetthe needs of domestic use and particularly cooking activities. For this reason, as in general forcooking ware, a clay component and a sand component are necessary. The sand fraction, witha congruent mineralogical composition, should be abundant in such a way that the finishedproduct can absorb and resist the expansions or contractions of the inner and outer surfacesthat result from rapid changes of temperature like those produced during the cooking of food.In fact, the lower part of the artefact, which is in contact with the flame, and also the externalwalls are normally subjected to higher temperatures, driving them to greater expansion. Aspreviously described, materials suitable for manufacturing a similar type of product are, infact, available on the island of Pantelleria: a fine kaolinitic clay (kaolin), a Fe-rich clay andalluvial deposits comprising mainly volcanic sands. These last deposits are often present invarious locations across the island, and even in proximity to clay layers—as, for example, inthe western foothills of Monte Gibele (Montana et al. 2005a).

Archaeometric research that was undertaken on local raw materials and ceramic artefactspermitted the actual formulation (in wt%) of the paste of Pantellerian ware in terms of thecomponents previously listed: 30–40 wt% red clay, 20–30 wt% white clay (kaolin) and 30–40 wt% volcanic sand. For the experimental reproduction of the original paste, the two kindsof clays were oven dried and subsequently crushed and pulverized in a ball mill. Then the redclay, the kaolin and the sand were dry-mixed by hand for 15 min in 30:30:40 proportions (byvolume). To achieve sufficient plasticity of the mixture for its workability, a quantity of waterequal to 35% of its dry weight had to be added (Fabbri et al. 2004). Two forms of Pantellerianware, a casserole and a baking dish, were replicated using the obtained experimental mixture(Fig. 11), together with specimens in the form of bars suitable for the determination of thetechnological properties of the mixture. An electric wheel was utilized at a very low speed forshaping the casserole and the baking dish, obtaining dimensions directly comparable to thoseof the original archaeological artefacts, thereby reproducing the ancient operating conditionsas much as possible. Such a choice is inevitably dictated by the presence of coarse sand in themixture and, moreover, the need for the wall to be of a consistent thickness. The shaping wasperformed by using a rag in order to protect the potter’s hands; in addition, the external surfaceof the objects was treated with a wooden tool. The shaped artefacts were dried naturally inopen air for approximately two weeks.

A comparison in terms of chemical composition (XRF) of the above-described experimentalreproduction with the average of the original Pantellerian ware samples included in this study,



as well as with the local raw materials used for its manufacture, is reported in Table 2. Mostof the major elements (SiO2, MgO, CaO, Na2O, K2O and P2O5) proved to be less abundant inthe reproduction than in the archaeological samples; TiO2 is practically the same, while Al2O3,Fe2O3 and MnO are less abundant in the original Pantellerian ware paste (Fig. 12). By contrast,the trace element concentrations (excluding Cr) are relatively higher in the reproduced paste.One reason for these compositional differences is that we analysed just a few samples each ofreddish clay, whitish clay and sand temper, and the results indicated a significantly variablecomposition. Taking into account that the recipe of mixing of an iron-rich red clay with akaolin in equal proportions, which we used, is already established for traditional refractorypastes (Buxeda et al. 2003), the use of different raw material sources in the original productionprocess might be assumed to be very probable. Nevertheless, a sufficient chemical similarityhas been achieved, bearing in mind that for 12 of the analysed elements (out of a total of 18),the relative compositional differences between the archaeological artefacts and the experimentalreproductions are very close to 20% or somewhat lower than this, with the highest discrepanciesbeing documented for elements that are less concentrated.

Concerning the physical properties, the linear shrinkage and bending strength after dryingwere measured utilizing bar specimens of the experimental paste. Their average values turnedout to be 7.1 ± 0.5% (obtained from 17 measurements) and 12.2 ± 1.5 g cm−2

(obtained fromeight measurements), respectively (Fabbri et al. 2004). The dried artefacts were fired underoxidizing conditions in a modern electric kiln, following a very low thermal gradient up to a

Figure 11 The four phases of simulated manufacture of a Pantellerian ware casserole: top, the setting of the mass of clay on the wheel and the beginning of throwing; bottom, definition of the walls.



maximum temperature as high as 700°C, with a soaking time at this last temperature of 1 hand subsequent slow natural cooling. The complete firing cycle (from cool to cool) lastedapproximately 24 h. The choice of firing under oxidizing conditions was made due to theprevalent red colour shown by the sherds of Pantelleria ware. In accordance with this, theMössbauer analysis showed that the iron in the red pieces is composed of up to 90% ferriciron (Fe3+), with only 10% ferrous iron (Fe2+) (Fig. 13). The samples with a red–grey colour,of course, contain a higher amount of Fe2+, which can reach maximum values of around 30%.

After firing, the shrinkage is very close to zero and the bending strength does not increasein a significant way in comparison with the dried material. The total open porosity of the firedmaterial turned out to be 41.8%, quite a high value in comparison with the average porosity(around 23%) of the Pantellerian pottery. In addition, the pore-size distribution of thesimulated paste (Fig. 14) also appears to be different, being characterized by a noticeable poreconcentration around 0.1 µm, which is not present in the curve of the archaeological sample(see sample SS8 in Fig. 9). This difference is compatible with differences in both the com-position of the clay component and the grain size of the sand fraction between the archaeologicalmixtures and the simulated one. As a matter of fact, the thermal expansion coefficient ofthe simulated mixture (7.5 × 10−6 °C−1) is similarly higher, confirming that the experimentalmixture and manufacture do not correspond perfectly to those used in antiquity.

Figure 12 Elemental biplots for the most discriminating chemical variables of Pantellerian ware, the raw materialsand the simulated artefact.



CONCLUDING REMARKS

At present, archaeometric studies of cooking pots have been mostly limited either to theircompositional analysis, aiming to investigate their provenance, or the study of the requiredhigh thermal shock resistance (Tite et al. 2001 and references therein). A proper reconstruction

Figure 13 Deconvolution of the observed curve obtained via Mössbauer analysis, showing the prevalence of ferric over ferrous iron in Pantellerian ware.

Figure 14 The pore-size distribution (Hg porosimetry) of the simulated artefact.



of the whole production cycle, also containing a characterization of the relevant raw material,has only rarely been considered (e.g. Gliozzo et al. 2005).

It is only recently that archaeological and archaeometric interest has been focusing on LateRoman coarse ware, which has previously been underestimated in terms of possible socialinferences. Indeed, the scientific progress made on these types of ceramics recently promptedthe organization of the 1st International Congress on ‘Late Roman Coarse Wares, CookingWares and Amphorae in the Mediterranean, Archaeology and Archaeometry’, which was heldin Barcelona in March 2002 (Gurt et al. 2005). Even if various studies have already built upthe necessary background for investigating this type of archaeological material, the presentreview aims to further contribute to this kind of research by investigating a case study that hasyielded important results for several reasons: (i) the distinctiveness of the ceramic material,both in terms of its physical appearance (coarse fabric) and its compositional identity (chemicaland mineralogical); (ii) the geographically restricted production area (an island); (iii) thepeculiarity of the local geology, because of its special volcanic affinities (peralkaline lithology);and (iv) the wide diffusion of the studied ceramic ware all over the western and centralMediterranean area (identified at more than 30 localities). Therefore, the archaeometric dataobtained and discussed in this contribution come together to establish Pantellerian wareabsolutely as a ‘ceramic production’ characterized by unusual mineralogical, petrographicaland chemical features across the whole Mediterranean Basin.

An extensive, integrated archaeometric approach, comprising geological field survey forlocalizing local raw materials, determination of the technological properties of this refractoryceramic paste and, furthermore, simulated manufacture allows us to investigate such a multi-faceted production chain in depth. At the same time, the analysis of a statistically representativeset of ceramic samples has allowed the paste fabric to be satisfactorily described and the fieldsof chemical variation to be adequately defined.

Lastly, the experimental reproduction, in spite of the tolerable chemical correspondencewith the original ceramic artefacts, showed physical properties of inferior quality in responseto the induced thermal stress. In order to approximate better the technological characteristicsof the archaeological material, further enquiries can be made (i) to verify if other sources ofmore suitable raw materials outcrop on the island, (ii) to vary the proportions of the three rawcomponents used herein, and (iii) to modify the grain-size distribution of the sand temper.In such a way, the technological properties of the simulated artefact, especially after firing,would also be improved, giving rise to a product that was better suited to sustain furthermechanical stresses, a performance characteristic that is linked to the transportation ofthe finished artefacts and their distribution amongst various consumption centres in the westernMediterranean.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Special thanks are offered to Dr Luca Nodari and Professor Umberto Russo of the Dipartimentodi Scienze Chimiche dell’università di Padova, who performed the Mössbauer analyses. We arealso indebted to Dr Cau Ontiveros for giving us the thin sections from samples of Pantellerianware found in the Balearic islands. Dr M. Tantillo is also thanked for his analytical work onraw materials. I. I. is grateful to the European Union (EU Contract ERBFMRX CT 98-0165)for a fellowship. The authors wish to thank the anonymous reviewers for their precious com-ments, which led to many improvements over the first version of this paper. We are especiallyindebted to the reviewer who helped us to improve the English in the manuscript.



REFERENCES

Alaimo, R., and Montana, G., 2003, Scienza e archeologia: le analisi archeometriche, in Pantellerian ware, archeologiasubacquea e ceramiche da fuoco a Pantelleria (eds. S. Santoro Bianchi, G. Guiducci and S. Tusa), 52–5, D.Flaccovio, Palermo.

Buxeda i Garrigós, J., Cau Ontiveros, M. A., and Kilikoglou, V., 2003, Chemical variability in clays and pottery froma traditional cooking pot production village: Testing assumptions in Pereruela, Archaeometry, 45, 1–17.

Cantarelli, F., 1987, Le possibilità insediative e produttive dell’isola di Pantelleria dalla preistoria alla romanizzazi-one. Aspetti storici e proposte per il riconoscimento di una ‘limitatio’, in Studi di antichità in memoria di C. Gatti,47–65, Quaderni di Acme, no. 9.

Cau Ontiveros, M. A., 1998, Ceramicas tardorromanas de cocina de las Islas Baleares: estudio arqueométrico,Collecció de Tesis Microfitxades, 3192, Universitat de Barcelona.

Cau Ontiveros, M. A., 1999, Importaciones de cerámicas tardorromanas de cocina en las islas Baleares: el caso deCan Sorà (Eivissa), in Arqueometría y arqueología (ed. J. Capel Martínez), 198–219, Monográfica Arte yArqueología, 47, Universidad de Granada.

Cau Ontiveros, M. A., Iliopoulos, I., and Montana, G., 2000, Pots and volcanoes: provenance of some Late Romancooking wares in the western Mediterranean, in 32nd International Symposium of Archaeometry, Mexico City,May 2000 (published on CD-ROM).

Civetta, L., D’Antonio, M., Orsi, G., and Tilton, G. R., 1998, The geochemistry of volcanic rocks from Pantelleriaisland, Sicily Channel: petrogenesis and characteristics of the mantle source region, Journal of Petrology, 39(8),1453–91.

Civetta, L., Cornette, Y., Crisci, G., Gillot, P. Y., Orsi, G., and Requejos, C. S., 1984, Geology, geochronology andchemical evolution of the island of Pantelleria, Geological Magazine, 121(6), 541–62.

Emiliani, G. P., and Corbara, F., 2001, Tecnologia ceramica: le tipologie, 593–8, Gruppo editoriale Faenza EditriceS.p.A, Faenza.

Fabbri, B., and Dondi, M., 1995, Caratteristiche e difetti dl laterizio, 87–8, Gruppo editoriale Faenza Editrice S.p.A, Faenza.Fabbri, B., and Guiducci, G., 2003, Il lavoro dell’antico vasaio, in Pantellerian ware, archeologia subacquea e ceram-

iche da fuoco a Pantelleria (eds. S. Santoro Bianchi, G. Guiducci and S. Tusa), 56–60, D. Flaccovio, Palermo.Fabbri, B., Gualtieri, S., and Ercolani, G., 2005, Misura del coefficiente di dilatazione termica per la valutazione della

resistenza agli sbalzi di temperatura nella ceramica grezza da fuoco, in Innovazioni tecnologiche per i Beni Cul-turali, Convegno Nazionale A.I.Ar., 16–18 febbraio 2005, Caserta.

Fabbri, B., Gualtieri, S., and Guiducci, G., 2004, Archeometria e prove tecniche per la ricostruzione del ciclo produttivodi una ceramica da cucina: il caso Pantellerian ware, in Atti della VI Giornata di Archeometria della Ceramica,Ferrara, 9 Aprile 2002 (eds. F. Berti, B. Fabbri, S. Gualtieri and C. Guarnieri), 79–87, University Press Bologna,Imola.

Fulford, M. C., and Peacock, D. P. S., 1984, Excavations at Carthage: the British Mission, 2 vols, Department ofPrehistory and Archaeology, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, for the British Academy.

Fulignati, P., Malfitano, G., and Sbrana, A., 1997, The Pantelleria caldera geothermal system: data from thehydrothermal minerals, Journal of Volcanology and Geothermal Research, 75, 251–70.

Gliozzo, E., Fortina, C., Memmi Turbanti, I., Turchiano, M., and Volpe, G., 2005, Cooking and painted ware fromSan Giusto (Lucera, Foggia): the production cycle, from the supply of raw materials to the commercialization ofproducts, Archaeometry, 47, 13–30.

Griffin, G. M., 1971, Interpretation of X-ray diffraction data, in Procedures in sedimentary petrology (ed. R. E.Carver), 541–69, John Wiley & Sons, New York.

Guiducci, G., 2003, Le forme della Pantellerian ware, in Pantellerian ware, archeologia subacquea e ceramiche dafuoco a Pantelleria (eds. S. Santoro Bianchi, G. Guiducci and S. Tusa), 61–6, D. Flaccovio, Palermo.

Gurt i Esparraguera, J. M., Buxeda i Garrigós, J., and Cau Ontiveros, M. A. (eds.), 2005, LRCW I: Late Roman coarsewares, cooking wares and amphorae in the Mediterranean, archaeology and archaeometry, BAR InternationalSeries 1340, Oxford.

Hein, A., Tsolakidou, A., Iliopoulos, I., Mommsen, H., Buxeda i Garrigós, J., Montana, G., and Kilikoglou, V., 2002,Standardization of elemental analytical techniques applied to provenance studies of archaeological ceramics: aninter-laboratory calibration study, The Analyst, 127, 542–53.

Jones, A. H. M., 1964, The later Roman Empire 284–602: a social, economic, and administrative survey, JohnsHopkins University Press, Baltimore, MD.

Kilikoglou, V., Vekinis, G., Maniatis, Y., and Day, P. M., 1998, Mechanical performance of quartz tempered ceramics:part 1, strength and toughness, Archaeometry, 40, 261–79.



Montana, G., Iliopoulos, I., and Giarrusso, R., 2005a, Pantellerian ware: new data on petrography, chemistry andtechnological properties, in LRCW I: Late Roman coarse wares, cooking wares and amphorae in the Mediterra-nean, archaeology and archaeometry (eds. J. M. Gurt i Esparraguera, J. Buxeda i Garrigós and M. A. CauOntiveros), 425–35, BAR International Series 1340, Oxford.

Montana, G., Iliopoulos, I., and Tantillo, M., 2005b, Establishing a ‘recipe’ for Pantellerian ware: raw materials fieldsurvey, analysis and experimental reproduction, in LRCW I: Late Roman coarse wares, cooking wares andamphorae in the Mediterranean, archeology and archaeometry (eds. J. M. Gurt i Esparraguera, J. Buxeda iGarrigós and M. A. Cau Ontiveros), 437–50, BAR International Series 1340, Oxford.

Paynter, S., and Tite, M. S., 2001, The evolution of glazing technologies in the ancient Near East and Egypt, in Socialcontext of technological change (ed. A. Shortland), 239–54, Oxbow, Oxford.

Peacock, D. P. S., 1982, Pottery in the Roman world: an ethnoarchaeological approach, 79–80, Longman, London.Santoro Bianchi, S., 2000, Pantellerian ware: il progetto di ricerca (1998–2000), Rei Cretariae Romanae Fautorum

Acta, 36, 561–6.Santoro Bianchi, S., 2003a, Ceramics and society in late antiquity: Pantellerian ware, a case history, in Ceramic in the

society: proceedings of the 6th European Meeting on Ancient Ceramics, 3–6 October 2001, Fribourg, Switzerland(eds. S. Di Pierro, V. Serneels and M. Maggetti), 255–60, Department of Geosciences, Mineralogy and Petrography,University of Fribourg, Fribourg.

Santoro Bianchi, S., 2003b, Cronologia e distribuzione della Pantellerian ware, in Pantellerian ware, archeologiasubacquea e ceramiche da fuoco a Pantelleria (eds. S. Santoro Bianchi, G. Guiducci and S. Tusa), 67–9, D.Flaccovio, Palermo.

Santoro Bianchi, S., 2003c, Gli scavi a Scauri Scalo, in Pantellerian ware, archeologia subacquea e ceramiche dafuoco a Pantelleria (eds. S. Santoro Bianchi, G. Guiducci and S. Tusa), 40–4, D. Flaccovio, Palermo.

Santoro Bianchi, S., 2003d, La ricerca sulla Pantellerian ware, in Pantellerian ware, archeologia subacquea e ceram-iche da fuoco a Pantelleria (eds. S. Santoro Bianchi, G. Guiducci and S. Tusa), 7–14, D. Flaccovio, Palermo.

Santoro Bianchi, S., 2005, The informative potential of archaeometric and archaeological cooking ware studies: thecase of Pantellerian ware, in LRCW I: Late Roman coarse wares, cooking wares and amphorae in the Mediterranean,archaeology and archaeometry (eds. J. M. Gurt i Esparraguera, J. Buxeda i Garrigós and M. A. Cau Ontiveros),327–39, BAR International Series 1340, Oxford.

Sbaizero, O., 1994, Shock termici nei materiali ceramici. I: considerazioni generali, Ceramurgia, anno XXIV, 3, 113–25.

Tite, M. S., Kilikoglou, V., and Vekinis, G., 2001, Review article: Strength, toughness and thermal shock resistanceof ancient ceramics, and their influence on technological choice, Archaeometry, 43, 301–24.

Van der Plas, L., and Tobi, A. C., 1965, A chart for judging the reliability of point counting results, American Journalof Science, 263, 87–90.



479

© U


rchaeometry 49, 3 (2007) 455

–481

APPENDIXChemical data (XRF) for the Pantellerian ware samples considered in the present study, normalized versus LOI: concentrations are in wt% for major oxides and in ppm

for trace elements

Sample SiO2 TiO2 Al2O3 Fe2O3 MnO MgO CaO Na2O K2O P2O5 Rb Sr Y Nb Zr Cr Ba La Ce

Surface surveyC22 61.39 1.19 22.76 6.56 0.10 0.71 1.09 3.60 2.51 0.10 31 188 18 139 564 <LLD 942 102 203C23 60.71 1.11 21.94 8.34 0.14 0.73 1.47 2.93 2.50 0.12 50 188 48 199 882 <LLD 788 152 281C24 62.23 1.06 23.89 5.50 0.08 0.59 1.22 2.52 2.77 0.15 48 161 23 160 726 <LLD 593 110 223C26 60.31 1.20 23.33 7.84 0.12 0.47 0.99 3.12 2.49 0.13 48 171 66 170 746 <LLD 889 116 215C27 58.38 1.19 25.59 7.42 0.05 0.22 1.01 2.95 2.99 0.21 47 163 23 155 661 <LLD 737 131 245C28 60.28 1.18 24.03 7.56 0.08 0.69 1.33 2.53 2.21 0.10 47 165 27 155 695 <LLD 719 142 265C30 61.79 1.10 20.08 7.85 0.13 0.78 1.20 3.99 2.88 0.20 57 237 63 198 852 <LLD 962 106 223C31 61.79 0.98 19.68 8.32 0.14 1.32 1.51 3.08 2.97 0.20 77 231 66 171 807 <LLD 845 113 226C33 59.20 1.07 23.97 8.25 0.16 0.92 1.43 2.60 2.14 0.28 46 156 68 225 1048 <LLD 615 133 304C77 59.82 1.04 21.23 8.24 0.15 0.84 1.68 3.99 2.85 0.17 40 192 47 159 719 59 805 90 176PL7 59.76 1.26 23.17 8.68 0.11 0.51 0.87 2.95 2.48 0.20 50 156 84 264 1223 37 708 115 208PL9 60.66 1.07 18.93 9.87 0.20 0.83 1.19 4.04 3.04 0.15 61 196 94 239 1082 70 918 161 322PL10 61.28 1.17 22.33 6.94 0.07 0.61 1.38 3.52 2.39 0.31 34 220 48 192 835 88 901 131 233Ser600 61.39 0.98 22.07 7.82 0.17 0.70 1.62 3.03 2.22 n.a n.a n.a n.a n.a n.a n.a n.a n.a n.a

SCAS excavationC34 62.64 1.03 19.28 7.65 0.13 0.88 1.34 4.07 2.88 0.11 54 208 45 128 555 59 1068 108 188C35 59.90 1.38 18.38 10.37 0.23 0.95 1.23 4.10 3.36 0.12 54 184 78 193 832 50 1199 115 220C38 61.09 0.98 19.37 9.37 0.14 0.73 1.55 4.07 2.51 0.19 42 236 107 292 1395 38 925 200 386C39 59.54 1.22 20.89 8.75 0.18 0.70 1.63 4.24 2.69 0.16 43 190 67 164 700 53 1183 109 214C40 61.73 0.96 20.53 7.19 0.17 0.77 1.52 4.54 2.52 0.09 32 255 61 144 615 39 1137 106 212C41 60.36 1.00 19.31 9.54 0.16 0.99 1.62 3.91 2.89 0.22 71 228 86 213 983 51 1050 139 299C42 62.07 1.04 20.02 7.53 0.13 0.90 1.34 4.14 2.75 0.06 56 213 52 167 719 58 1024 102 223C43 59.17 1.33 19.36 11.24 0.16 0.73 1.61 3.37 2.85 0.18 77 223 72 209 986 136 996 108 189C44 61.95 0.87 18.84 7.63 0.18 0.65 1.77 4.83 3.03 0.26 39 230 53 177 784 154 1055 112 246C45 61.48 0.96 20.04 7.48 0.16 0.82 1.43 4.68 2.87 0.10 36 246 72 181 786 39 1118 123 238C47 61.39 1.05 19.89 8.33 0.17 0.70 1.11 4.42 2.89 0.05 60 213 65 203 934 108 1055 102 228C49 61.15 1.00 20.60 7.74 0.17 0.70 1.59 4.24 2.54 0.26 44 284 67 194 852 45 1189 113 232C51 62.88 0.86 17.07 9.46 0.22 0.94 1.97 3.50 2.73 0.36 81 172 71 256 1282 62 708 163 375C52 62.46 1.02 19.12 7.61 0.13 0.81 1.25 4.40 2.95 0.26 59 235 55 151 684 68 1107 97 197

480G

. Montana et al.

© U


rchaeometry 49, 3 (2007) 455

–481

C55 62.59 0.90 19.33 6.96 0.15 0.98 1.77 4.29 2.85 0.18 58 235 55 131 560 57 1063 96 181C56 61.07 0.99 20.66 7.66 0.17 0.92 1.71 4.03 2.50 0.31 35 242 46 161 693 39 1124 122 232C57 60.48 0.99 21.15 8.20 0.13 0.96 1.82 3.50 2.59 0.18 51 258 69 180 813 <LLD 932 121 242C58 58.88 1.07 21.44 10.52 0.20 0.83 1.11 3.43 2.44 0.10 76 186 119 343 1686 64 851 201 424PL3 61.97 1.06 18.47 9.46 0.13 0.96 1.37 3.55 2.83 0.19 53 223 86 213 1020 66 857 128 292PL4 61.56 1.06 19.05 8.82 0.17 0.73 1.53 4.07 2.81 0.20 42 190 12 158 691 87 1003 109 225PL5 60.76 1.04 18.19 10.95 0.23 0.84 1.13 3.92 2.85 0.09 93 180 147 356 1693 71 775 221 413SS1 62.00 0.98 19.55 8.18 0.19 2.44 0.66 3.57 2.44 n.a n.a n.a n.a n.a n.a n.a n.a n.a n.aSS2 63.55 0.91 19.24 7.48 0.24 1.54 0.82 3.58 2.64 n.a n.a n.a n.a n.a n.a n.a n.a n.a n.aSS3 62.82 0.99 19.45 8.14 0.18 1.42 0.63 3.90 2.48 n.a n.a n.a n.a n.a n.a n.a n.a n.a n.aSS4 62.67 0.96 18.91 9.04 0.24 1.37 0.68 3.40 2.72 n.a n.a n.a n.a n.a n.a n.a n.a n.a n.aSS5 63.06 0.94 19.91 7.87 0.22 1.51 0.65 3.52 2.32 n.a n.a n.a n.a n.a n.a n.a n.a n.a n.aSS6 63.42 0.97 18.91 7.43 0.15 1.85 0.43 4.16 2.67 n.a n.a n.a n.a n.a n.a n.a n.a n.a n.aSS7 61.52 1.06 20.06 9.55 0.27 0.94 0.72 3.41 2.46 n.a n.a n.a n.a n.a n.a n.a n.a n.a n.aSS8 65.85 0.92 16.63 7.84 0.22 1.17 1.19 3.36 2.81 n.a n.a n.a n.a n.a n.a n.a n.a n.a n.aSS9 61.55 0.98 21.47 8.32 0.26 1.70 1.19 2.52 1.99 n.a n.a n.a n.a n.a n.a n.a n.a n.a n.aSS10 63.64 0.90 19.09 7.16 0.21 1.25 0.61 4.39 2.75 n.a n.a n.a n.a n.a n.a n.a n.a n.a n.a

ScaSub excavationC59 65.99 0.83 17.50 5.83 0.11 0.73 0.90 5.03 3.06 0.03 60 161 75 199 844 57 778 119 258C60 64.42 0.93 18.50 6.71 0.12 0.85 0.77 4.64 3.03 0.03 58 148 69 184 774 52 1073 105 224C61 65.26 0.89 18.04 7.00 0.12 0.73 0.73 4.37 2.85 0.02 65 154 71 202 890 34 746 124 310C62 64.35 0.92 18.79 7.12 0.11 0.64 0.74 4.51 2.79 0.02 47 135 16 179 792 52 850 144 313C63 63.18 1.05 18.39 7.79 0.15 1.44 0.73 4.22 3.01 0.03 55 130 37 120 483 78 854 80 156C64 62.29 0.91 18.68 8.80 0.18 0.76 0.82 4.73 2.80 0.01 71 158 68 292 1317 61 520 139 380C65 64.46 0.89 18.03 7.14 0.14 0.93 0.91 4.56 2.88 0.05 63 163 102 176 788 55 1005 138 284C66 63.12 0.98 18.98 7.12 0.21 0.89 1.01 4.64 3.00 0.04 66 194 59 167 745 53 1133 95 205C67 62.64 0.90 18.77 8.06 0.33 0.95 0.76 4.52 3.05 0.02 58 159 85 254 1141 35 760 150 338C68 61.12 0.99 21.41 8.15 0.13 0.73 0.91 4.08 2.43 0.04 58 165 75 227 997 56 778 124 270C69 63.19 0.90 20.47 6.49 0.12 0.61 0.80 4.60 2.80 0.02 51 182 82 185 778 41 855 128 264C70 64.13 0.87 18.08 7.75 0.14 0.82 0.73 4.66 2.82 <LLD 71 144 48 271 1267 40 561 156 401C71 64.87 0.85 17.58 7.74 0.12 0.60 0.73 4.72 2.80 <LLD 50 138 85 257 1257 79 626 116 301C72 63.58 0.93 20.24 6.43 0.09 0.45 0.81 4.78 2.66 0.02 60 198 60 203 868 38 906 103 207


APPENDIX Continued



481

© U


rchaeometry 49, 3 (2007) 455

–481

C73 63.66 0.95 19.70 6.60 0.09 0.56 0.84 4.87 2.71 0.02 49 198 71 196 804 44 931 105 240C74 64.82 0.85 19.10 6.08 0.09 0.66 0.80 4.82 2.77 0.01 52 200 74 211 917 29 852 111 238C75 63.07 0.99 19.53 7.05 0.11 0.54 0.87 4.97 2.86 0.02 55 185 66 191 848 48 907 100 245C1 65.44 0.91 19.23 6.21 0.14 0.40 0.86 3.95 2.86 0.07 n.a n.a n.a n.a n.a n.a n.a n.a n.aC2 65.63 0.83 18.46 6.50 0.12 0.67 0.95 3.92 2.92 0.06 n.a n.a n.a n.a n.a n.a n.a n.a n.aC3 64.07 0.99 19.71 6.70 0.12 0.60 0.91 4.17 2.73 0.06 n.a n.a n.a n.a n.a n.a n.a n.a n.aC4 66.42 0.82 17.76 7.56 0.18 0.72 0.74 3.16 2.63 0.06 n.a n.a n.a n.a n.a n.a n.a n.a n.aC5/1 63.43 0.89 18.00 9.56 0.22 0.99 0.60 3.03 3.26 0.04 n.a n.a n.a n.a n.a n.a n.a n.a n.aC5/2 65.21 1.00 17.63 7.93 0.21 0.66 0.68 3.72 2.96 0.08 n.a n.a n.a n.a n.a n.a n.a n.a n.a

<LLD = under the lower limit of detection; n.a = not analysed.


APPENDIX Continued

PANTELLERIAN WARE: A COMPREHENSIVE ARCHAEOMETRIC REVIEW

Documents

Transcript of PANTELLERIAN WARE: A COMPREHENSIVE ARCHAEOMETRIC REVIEW