Pottery Production, Landscape and Economy of Roman Dalmatia : Interdisciplinary Approaches [1 ed.] 9781789690736, 9781789690729

Citation preview

Pottery Production, Landscape and Economy of Roman Dalmatia Interdisciplinary approaches edited by

Goranka Lipovac Vrkljan Ana Konestra

Archaeopress Roman Archaeology 47

Pottery Production, Landscape and Economy of Roman Dalmatia Interdisciplinary approaches

edited by

Goranka Lipovac Vrkljan Ana Konestra

Archaeopress Roman Archaeology 47

Archaeopress Publishing Ltd Summertown Pavilion 18-24 Middle Way Summertown Oxford OX2 7LG www.archaeopress.com

ISBN 978-1-78969-072-9 ISBN 978-1-78969-073-6 (e-Pdf)

© Authors and Archaeopress 2018 Cover illustrations: Mahućina Bay, Lopar – Rab island (photo: G. Skelac) (front); Crikvenica pottery (courtesy of Crikvenica City Museum) (back)

ROMAN ECONOMYIN DALMATIA

The research presented in the book was carried out within and was partly financed by the project of the Croatian Science Foundation, RED - Roman Economy in Dalmatia: production, distribution and demand in the light of pottery workshops (IP-11-2013-3973)

All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying or otherwise, without the prior written permission of the copyright owners. Printed in England by Oxuniprint, Oxford This book is available direct from Archaeopress or from our website www.archaeopress.com

Contents

List of figures and tables�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� iii List of the ontributors������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� vi Preface��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� viii Goranka Lipovac Vrkljan and Ana Konestra Eastern Adriatic Hellenistic and Roman pottery and ceramics production sites�������������������������������������������� 1 Goranka Lipovac Vrkljan, Ana Konestra and Marina Ugarković The amphorae of the western Adriatic: an update�����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������7 Marie-Brigitte Carre and Stefania Pesavento Mattioli Approaching the Roman economy of Province Dalmatia through pottery production – the Liburnia case study������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������14 Goranka Lipovac Vrkljan and Ana Konestra Overview of the capacity of pottery vessels from the workshop of Sextus Metillius Maximus (Crikvenica)��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������37 Ivana Ožanić Roguljić Numismatic finds from the area of the workshop of Sextus Metillius Maximus in Crikvenica�����������������������������44 Mato Ilkić New finds of Crikvenica 1-type amphorae in the area of southern Liburnia�����������������������������������������������������������50 Igor Borzić, Martina Čelhar, Gregory Zaro and Vedrana Glavaš Crikvenica amphorae from Canale Anfora: first evidence of Liburnian wine at Aquileia�����������������������������������57 Paola Maggi Geoarchaeology of pottery workshop sites in Roman Dalmatia�����������������������������������������������������������������������������������62 Fabian Welc Harbour installations in the context of the pottery workshop in Plemići Bay�������������������������������������������������������71 Mate Parica and Mato Ilkić Anthracology and wood analysis from the pottery workshop sites of Crikvenica – Igralište and Plemići Bay: first results of genus identification�����������������������������������������������������������������������������76 Ernest Goršić Animal exploitation at the Roman site of Crikvenica – Igralište��������������������������������������������������������������������������������81 Kazimir Miculinić The role of archaeometry in the study of production and dispersal of Hellenistic pottery in Dalmatia, with new evidence on the chemistry of grey-ware tableware������������������������������������������������������89 Marina Ugarković and Branimir Šegvić Archaeometric characterisation of pottery and ceramics from Dalmatian Roman pottery workshops and possible clay raw material by multivariate statistical analysis��������������������������������������������107 Tea Zubin Ferri i

Mineralogical analyses of Roman pottery from Dalmatian workshops and potential clays sources����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������113 Anita Grizelj RED Spatial Database�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������121 Nera Šegvić

ii

List of Figures and tables

G. Lipovac Vrkljan et al.: Eastern Adriatic Hellenistic and Roman pottery and ceramics production sites Figure 1. Map of Eastern Adriatic Hellenistic and Roman pottery and ceramics production sites........................................................ 3

M.-B. Carre and S. Pesavento Mattioli: The amphorae of the western Adriatic: an update Figure 1. Fourth-phase Dressel 6B amphora with the stamp C.P.M. (palma)............................................................................................. 8 Figure 2. Funnel-shaped rim amphora stamped C.IVLI/MARCELLI............................................................................................................ 9 Figure 3. Lamboglia 2 amphora from Matelica (Macerata)........................................................................................................................... 9 Figure 4. Stamp of the freedman L. Gavius Licinus...................................................................................................................................... 10 Figure 5. Small fish-sauce Adriatic amphora bearing the painted inscription LIQ(uamen)/ AQVIL(eiense)/ XVIII......................... 11

G. Lipovac Vrkljan and A. Konestra: Approaching the Roman economy of Province Dalmatia through pottery production – the Liburnia case study Figure 1. Crikvenica – excavated pottery kilns............................................................................................................................................. 17 Figure 2. Mahućina Bay, Lopar – Rab island – kiln locations...................................................................................................................... 17 Figure 3. Podšilo Bay, Lopar – Rab island – location of identified kilns and architecture..................................................................... 18 Figure 4. Plemići Bay, Rtina, Ražanac – location of site............................................................................................................................... 18 Figure 5. Plemići Bay, Rtina, Ražanac: 1) fragments of kiln and over-fired ceramics within the eroded profiles; 2) wasters within the eroded profiles; 3) remains of architecture visible on the beach; 4) lump of wasters.............................. 19 Figure 6. Stamps from the identified workshops: 1) EX. OF. L. TETTI. DESEDES; 2) M(VTTIEN); 3) SEX APPVLEIO∙COS; 4) DE SALTU SEXTI METILLI MAXIMI (Crikvenica)............................................................................................................................... 20 Figure 7. Caska, Pag island – cella with dolia defossa and possible pits for the arca lapidum................................................................... 21 Figure 8. Crikvenica amphorae type 1, 2, 5 and 8; Crikvenica loom weights........................................................................................... 22 Figure 9. Vinodol valley in the hinterland of Crikvenica showing the most important landscape and infrastructure features............................................................................................................................................................................... 26 Figure 10. Location of archaeological finds within the modern settlements of Crikvenica and Selce; below – opus spicatum floor excavated at Selce...................................................................................................................................... 26 Figure 11. Sites established in the hinterland and environs of Crikvenica.............................................................................................. 27 Table 1. Tile-stamps of certain and possible Dalmatian workshops (coastal area)................................................................................. 29

I. Ožanić Roguljić: Overview of the capacity of pottery vessels from the workshop of Sextus Metillius Maximus (Crikvenica) Figure 1. Fabrics................................................................................................................................................................................................. 38 Figure 2. Tableware........................................................................................................................................................................................... 39 Figure 3. Bowls.................................................................................................................................................................................................... 40 Figure 4. Jug........................................................................................................................................................................................................ 40 Figure 5. Pots with two handles....................................................................................................................................................................... 41 Figure 6. Pots...................................................................................................................................................................................................... 42

M. Ilkić: Numismatic finds from the area of the workshop of Sextus Metillius Maximus in Crikvenica Figure 1. Crikvenica – numismatic finds within the pottery workshop................................................................................................... 45 Figure 2. Numismatic finds from the Liburnian area................................................................................................................................... 45

I. Borzić et al.: New finds of Crikvenica 1-type amphorae in the area of southern Liburnia Figure 1. Map of southern Liburnia with finds of Crikvenica products..................................................................................................... 51 Figure 2. Nadin hillforts with Area B indicated............................................................................................................................................ 51 Figure 3. Crikvenica type-1 amphorae sherds from Nadin......................................................................................................................... 52 Figure 4. Asseria hillfort, sector A2 and fragment of Crikvenica type-1 amphorae handle................................................................... 53 Figure 5. Starigrad-Paklenica (Argyruntum) showing the position of the 2018 excavations................................................................. 54 Figure 6. Crikvenica type-1 amphorae sherds from Starigrad-Paklenica................................................................................................. 54

iii

P. Maggi: Crikvenica amphorae from Canale Anfora: first evidence of Liburnian wine at Aquileia Figure 1. Aquileia: current course of the Anfora channel close to the city.............................................................................................. 57 Figure 2. Aquileia: reconstruction of the waterways network to the west of the city on the bases of geophysical survey conducted in 2011, with the extension of the course of Anfora channel between the River Terzo and the urban perimeter, and its connection to the northern waterways....................................................................................... 58 Figure 3. Aquileia – Anfora channel, location of the channel’s stretches investigated in 1988 and 2004-2005................................. 58 Figure 4. Aquileia – Anfora channel, Crikvenica type 1 amphora from the 1988 excavation............................................................... 59 Figure 5. Aquileia – Anfora channel, rim of the Crikvenica type 1 amphora from the 2004-2005 excavations................................. 60

F. Welc: Geoarchaeology of pottery workshop sites in Roman Dalmatia Figure 1. Geophysical survey polygons within Podšilo Bay, Lopar, island of Rab................................................................................... 64 Figure 2. Geophysical survey polygons within Plemići Bay, Ražanac Municipality............................................................................... 66 Figure 3. Podšilo – Podkućine, Lopar: a) Magnetic and GPR results; b) 3D model of the obtained results.......................................... 67 Figure 4. a) map of the magnetic anomalies in Podšilo Bay, Po. 5, interpreted as the remains of a kiln; b) kiln excavated in 2009........................................................................................................................................................................... 68 Figure 5. Crikvenice – GPR and Magnetic plans, indicating: 1) the area of anomalies possibly generated by remains of kilns; and 2) the area of anomalies of more difficult interpretation............................................................................................. 68 Figure 6. GPR time slice for approximate depth of 1 m overlapped with the plan of the visible architecture in Plemići bay........ 68

M. Parica and M. Ilkić: Harbour installations in the context of the pottery workshop in Plemići Bay Figure 1. Underwater research at the smaller pier...................................................................................................................................... 71 Figure 2. Profile of the trench at the smaller pier........................................................................................................................................ 72 Figure 3. Satellite image of Plemići Bay showing the two piers................................................................................................................. 72 Figure 4. Drawing of the larger pier showing the recorded depths.......................................................................................................... 72 Figure 5. Stone embankment of the larger pier............................................................................................................................................ 73 Figure 6. Fragment of a tegula on the stone embankment of the pier...................................................................................................... 73 Figure 7. Fragment of wooden post within the structure of the stone embankment of the pier......................................................... 74

E. Goršić: Anthracology and wood analysis from the pottery workshop sites of Crikvenica – Igralište and Plemići Bay: first results of genus identification Figure 1. a) The archaeological remains of burnt wood from layer SU 219; b) detail............................................................................. 77 Figure 2. a) The archaeological remains of burnt wood from layer SU 707; b) detail............................................................................. 78 Figure 3. Elm sample CRI-U460 (Ulmus).......................................................................................................................................................... 78 Figure 4. Oak sample CRI-U566 (Quercus)....................................................................................................................................................... 79 Figure 5. Hazelnut sample CRI-U479 (Corylus)............................................................................................................................................... 79 Figure 6. Oak sample from Plemići Bay.......................................................................................................................................................... 79 Figure 7. Detail of oak structure from the Plemići Bay sample.................................................................................................................. 79 Figure 8. Tree-ring width of the Plemići Bay oak sample........................................................................................................................... 80 Table 1. Charcoal and wood samples with findspost and genus............................................................................................................... 77

K. Miculinić: Animal exploitation at the Roman site of Crikvenica – Igralište Figure 1. Wild boar canine with corroded enamel....................................................................................................................................... 82 Figure 2. Cut marks on cattle humerus; distal cut on badger ulna; burned bones.................................................................................. 82 Figure 3. Cattle ulna with cut articulation and smoothed distal part....................................................................................................... 83 Figure 4. Bone tool............................................................................................................................................................................................. 83 Figure 5. Bone tools........................................................................................................................................................................................... 84 Figure 6. Horse mandible.................................................................................................................................................................................. 85 Figure 7. Wild boar mandible........................................................................................................................................................................... 85 Figure 8. Upper deciduous teeth of horse/donkey....................................................................................................................................... 86 Table 1. Domestic animals................................................................................................................................................................................ 84 Table 2. Wild animals........................................................................................................................................................................................ 84

M. Ugarković and B. Šegvić: The role of archaeometry in the study of production and dispersal of Hellenistic pottery in Dalmatia, with new evidence on the chemistry of grey-ware tableware Figure 1. Maps of central Dalmatia, with indicated relevant sites ............................................................................................................ 90 Figure 2. Drawings of selected ceramic shapes: plate with horizontally articulated rim (1); plate with vertical rim (2); plate with rouletting decoration (3); relief mould-made bowls (4, 5); skyphos/kantharos (6); thorn kantharos (7); kantharos (8); articulated kantharos (10); skyphos (9, 11)................................................................................................................... 91

iv

Figure 3 (a). Biplot showing results of discrimination analysis in a space defined by two canonical variables – case study data; (b) the principal component biplot (PC1 and PC2) depicting projection of discriminating variables (elements).......... 102 Figure 4. Biplot with a more detailed look into the projection space shown in Figure 3.................................................................... 102 Figure 5 (a). Biplot showing results of discrimination analysis in a space defined by two canonical variables – combination of literature and case study data; (b) the principal component biplot (PC1 and PC2) depicting projection of discriminating variables (elements)............................................................................................................ 103 Figure 6. Biplot with a more detailed look into the projection space shown in Figure 5.................................................................... 104 Table 1. List of archaeological samples, with details and corresponding numbers................................................................................ 95 Table 2. List of all samples with their chemistry...................................................................................................................................97-100

T. Zubin Ferri: Archaeometric characterisation of pottery and ceramics from Dalmatian Roman pottery workshops and possible clay raw material by multivariate statistical analysis Figure 1. Dendrogram compiled from the dataset of Crikvenica clays (raw and fired)....................................................................... 110 Figure 2. Dendrogram compiled from the overall dataset of Crikvenica samples (local ceramic, distribution, clay).................... 110 Figure 3. Dendrogram compiled from the dataset of Uvala Plemići, Podšilo and Mahućina samples (local ceramic and clay)........................................................................................................................................................................... 111 Table 1. Description of potsherd and clay samples.............................................................................................................................108-109

A. Grizelj: Mineralogical analyses of Roman pottery from Dalmatian workshops and potential clays sources Figure 1. Selected samples (a. Mahućina tegula, N-17, sherd; b. Plemići amphora, PL-1, sherd; c. Podšilo 1 tegula, Podšilo 2 tegula, sherds; d. Crikvenica spica – overfired, U-396; e. Aquileia amphora 2.1, Aquileia amphora 2.2, Aquileia amphora 2.3, sherds)................................................................................................................................................................. 114 Figure 2. X-ray powder diffraction patterns of Clayey material samples, fraction < 2 µm recorded after the following treatments: red and brown: saturation with K+ and Mg2+, grey and light blue: ethylene-glycol solvation, blue and green: heating to 400°C and 550°C. a. Mahućina, b. Podšilo, c. Plemići, d. Crikvenica.................................................. 116 Figure 3. X-ray powder diffraction patterns of clayey material samples after firing a. Mahućina 850°C, b. Podšilo 850°C, c. Plemići 700°C, d. Plemići 800°C, e. Plemići 850°C, f. Crikvenica 700°C, g. Crikvenica 800°C, h. Crikvenica 850°C........................................................................................................................................117-118 Figure 4. X-ray powder diffraction patterns of pottery samples a. Pod-1 tegulae, b. Pod-2 tegulae, c. PL-1 amphora, d. N-17 tegulae, e. U-396, f. AQ-268-2.1, g. AQ-268-2.2, h. AQ-268-2.3, i. 5218..........................................................................119-120 Table 1. Semiquantitative content of bulk samples and clay minerals in the 10 %) reported from analysed pottery, which enhances the ceramics’ technical properties, argue for a raw material that required minimal preparation, including tempering and granulometric separation. The majority of Issaean pottery, although similar in terms of mineral composition and ceramic microstructure, showed peculiar geochemical discrepancies that stemmed from inconsistencies in the major element chemistry of the ceramics. Matrix composition consisting of illite enriched in Fe-Mg clay minerals and a range of natural inclusions strongly called for terra rossa outcropping at the island as a potential raw material. This assumption was corroborated by the peculiar grain-size distribution and the ratios and abundances of former sheet silicates versus quartz and feldspar shown to be in line with the values reported for Terra Rossa from the Croatian coastal regions. Variations in the chemistry between the groups is explained by the impact of the weathering on volcanic rocks present on the western part of the island.

In the last decade the questions on Dalmatian ceramic production in the Hellenistic times have been addressed through the interdisciplinary use of scientific methods.9 A geological survey of the island of Vis was conducted in 2007 and 2008 in order to locate and map the local occurrences of clay and inclusions used in ceramic production (Čargo and Miše 2010: 29, Figure 19 a, b). The recovered samples of clay and nine fragments of presumed local and imported Gnathia ware were investigated by optical microscopy and X-ray diffraction. The results were used to argue differences in firing technology for local and imported products (Čargo and Miše: 27-31; Miše 2015: 37-39).

The relicts of 10-Å phyllosilicate and their respective abundances in the ceramic material defined as locally produced was determined by QEMSCAN® and XRD measurements and indicated the firing temperatures of Issean pottery to be in the range of ~850 to ~1000ºC.11 The microstructural characteristics are practically devoid of newly-formed Ca-silicates and the illitic matrix was preferentially transformed into amorphous metastable compounds, thus supporting a relatively short time of firing at peak temperatures. Based on the high values of porosity, partial dehydroxylation of mica, and calcite obliteration, the utmost firing temperatures were estimated to span from ~850 to 900°C. With regards to the imported pottery the appearance and amount of vitreous matter, system of dense vesicular voids and high-temperature mineral assemblages consisted of fibro to lath-shaped Ca-silicates, like anorthite, clinopyroxene, and gehlenite, emerging as reaction rims within the ceramic matrix effectively constrained the firing temperatures to the range of ~900 to 1050°C. An isolated sample featured by the presence of swelling clays was proved to have distinct morphological and archeometric characteristics, such as a Ca-rich and Si-Mg-Fe-poor geochemistry, preserved calcite mineralization, and ceramic matrix full of calcareous and silica microfossils filled with

A separate study was conducted on 42 samples of fine-ware from the eastern necropolis of Issa. These were analysed by X-ray diffractometry, polarization and electron microscopy, X-ray fluorescence, and automated electron microscopy (Šegvić et al. 2016). The set comprised of fragments of various ceramic shapes used for drinking and eating, but also ointment vessels and cosmetic recipients, all deposited in the graves, and encompassed a variety of ceramic styles, e.g. Gnathia, black-coated ware, grey-slipped ware, red-slipped ware, plain painted ware, and plain ware. Geochemically the investigated material showed a range of compositions, and was divided into four compositional groups, which, based on their stylistic and morphological features, are presumed to be either of local origin or imported.10 For somewhat earlier fine-ware red-figure vessels of unknown provenance whose Issean manufacture could not be excluded, see Ugarković 2013; 2016. 9  Here we mention only case studies that are known from the available bibliography. Several other projects are currently ongoing. 10  This paragraph summarizes the main results as published in Šegvić et al. 2016. 8 

This paragraph summarizes the main results as published in Šegvić et al. 2016. 11 

92

M. Ugarković and B. Šegvić: The role of archaeometry in the study of production Fe-mineralization. The presence of expandable clay minerals and calcite from microfossil skeletons suggested that the firing conditions were at about 600 ± 100°C. All these particularities, along with typology, strongly argue in favour of the Levantine origin of the artefact in question (Phoenician amphoriskos) (more detailed in Ugarković, Šegvić forthcoming). This archaeometric study, in combination with previous archaeological investigations, make the existence of ceramic workshop(s) in Hellenistic Issa highly plausible. The study has furthermore indicated that the onset of ceramic production of fine-wares must have commenced at the latest by the end of the 4th century BCE, instead of by the mid 3rd century BCE, as supported by Alto Adriatico ware, typically of northwestern Adriatic production, that appears to have been imitated locally. Spatial constraints defined by limited occurrences of suitable raw clays on the island of Vis must have prompted ancient Issaeans to procure raw material, usually terra rossa, at different locations from the far-western city of Komiža to the south-central coastal areas. The imported pottery supports the fact that Issa maintained strong and continuous contacts with the western Adriatic, as well as central and southern areas of the Apennine peninsula. The new insights clearly indicate that in the advanced Hellenistic period Issa was also part of broader economic-cultural networks that connected the Eastern Mediterranean with the Adriatic, as evidenced in the recovered material that contained the products from far-flung centres, such as the Levant.

Greek house (Popović 2010: 139, 141, Figure 5), and another used for manufacture of a male athlete figure typical for the 4th century BCE (Jeličić Radonić and Katić 2015: 144-145). Fragments of dislocated kiln remains have also been found nearby, reused in walls and streets fillings (Jeličić Radonić and Katić 2015: 140). Based on the macroscopic observations of clay in fine-wares, that has been defined as pale yellow with a coating described as of good quality, as well as preliminary insights to morphological traits, B. Kirigin hypothesises Pharian production of blackcoated tableware (e.g. skyphoi, small bowls), but notes that more research is needed in order to define styles and shapes of fine-ware produced in this workshop (Kirigin 2004: 165; 2018: 405). He notes the existence of locally produced painted coarse ware as well (Kirigin et al. 2002: 247, 248). The current evidence (including discarded waste of poorly fired amphorae fragments of the 4th and 3rd c. BCE, above-mentioned moulds and preliminary observations on fabrics) speaks on the existence of a specialized workshop that besides fineware, coarse-ware (also overpainted) and terracotta, manufactured amphorae (including Corinthian B as the most common type), pithoi, Corinthian and Laconian type of tiles and looweights (Katić 2002: 51-59; Kirigin et al. 2002: 246-250; Jeličić Radonić and Katić 2015: 140, 143; Kirigin 2018: 405). It is presumed these products were indented for both local needs and export, although, thus far, the only confirmed evidence of amphora presumably from Pharos, as indicated by a sherd with a with grafitto -Φαρο(ς)- was discovered in a native site Ošanjići, in the eastern Adriatic hinterland (modern day East Herzegovina) (Marić 2004: 181, no 22, 200, no 22; Kirigin 2018: 405). These findings set off a small archaeological case study conducted on four samples of Corinthian B type amphorae from Pharos using optical microscopy and XRF bulk chemistry (Miše et al. 2016). The results of petrographic and chemical analysis could not establish the precise provenance of selected amphorae samples, but indicated that their petrographic and chemical composition did not match with local groups (Miše et al. 2016).13

Less comprehensive knowledge exists on the local ceramic production at Pharos on the island of Hvar. There are, however, clear indicators, such as kiln remains, ceramic discards of overfired and deformed vessel fragments, moulds and small kiln supporters (Kirigin 2004: 165),12 that testify to a plausible local production, with the workshop(s) presumably based at the outskirts of the city (Migotti 1989: 20, T: 7, 1; Katić 2000; Kirigin et al. 2002; Kirigin 2004: 70; Popović 2010; Jeličić Radonić and Katić 2015: 140-145; Kirigin 2018). From a chronological perspective, the workshop’s activity has been assumed for the period of the city’s independence during the 4th and 3rd centuries BCE (at least until the second Illyrian war) (Kirigin et al. 2002: 250), while some advocate the existence of later Hellenistic ceramic manufacture as well (Jeličić Radonić and Katić 2015: 140-145). The earliest workshop(s) seems to have been destroyed during the erection of the new city wall in the late 3rd c. BCE (Kirigin 2018: 397). The terracotta production was corroborated by moulds discovered in another close location, known as Remete vrt, one of which was documented within the context of a floor of a

Although current investigations at Resnik, a small urban native settlement built in middle Dalmatia during the 2nd century BCE (probably ancient Siculi), have so far revealed no remains that could be associated with a ceramic workshop, some pottery manufacture at this location was also argued. The indications for this came from the archaeological study of pottery (Šešelj 2005; 2008; 2010; Šegvić et al. 2012; Kamenjarin 2014) and findings of moulds for the production of Hellenistic relief ware (the manufacture of hemispherical cups and kraters) (Bilich 1994: 146, T. 1, 1,2; Brusić 1999: 77, Figure 22, no. 120; Brusić (ed.) 2004: 21; Kamenjarin 2017:

These were documented in layers 1212 and 1026 of trench III, excavated within the Adriatic islands project.

According to this source, local groups of Pharian production have been defined, but have yet not been published.

12 

13 

93

Pottery Production, Landscape and Economy of Roman Dalmatia 15, 1-2).14 This led to an archaeometric investigation of pottery from Resnik and the nearby sanctuary dedicated to Diomedes discovered on Cape Ploča, with a minor portion from Vis. A ceramic set of 36 samples was analysed by means of optical and electron microscopy, electron microanalyser, X-ray diffraction, and ICPMS whole-rock geochemistry (Šegvić et al. 2012). The presented evidence supports local production in Resnik, while material from Cape Ploča appears to have originated from the two different production centres (Šegvić et al. 2012). Overall pottery produced in Resnik and nearby centres share similar compositional, technological and archaeological properties, for which the authors suggested the term ‘Dalmatian production’ (Šegvić et al. 2012).

from four eastern Adriatic sites, were selected for compositional analysis (Tab. 1, Fig. 2). In terms of archaeological context, the samples belonged to pottery artefacts recovered both in urban and rural residential contexts in Dalmatia and Liburnia, as well as mortuary contexts of indigenous necropolises in southern Dalmatia. The northernmost site was the city and island of Krk, the biggest eastern Adriatic island situated in the northern Kvarner region, in antiquity part of the region Liburnia. Nine samples from this locality stem from a rare urban context of Late Hellenistic and Early Roman period, discovered and investigated during the 2011 rescue excavation conducted by the Maritime and History Museum of the Croatian Littoral in the Porta Pisana locality, along the outer face of the fortification walls on the eastern side of the city.16 Pottery assemblages belonged to discarded deposits of household waste formed in a shorter time range between the 3rd century BCE and the first decades of the 1st century (Starac 2011). Ten samples come from Tragurion (modern Trogir) in central Dalmatia, an indigenous settlement that is known to have created a sort of alliance with Issa in the 3rd century BCE (often considered its colony), in the context of its economic and political expansion in the central Dalmatian area. These belonged to grey-ware finds discovered during different excavations within the residential area of urban Tragurion.17 An additional six samples from central Dalmatia were collected in Soline bay on the island of Sv. Klement (the Pakleni otoci islands), near the city and island of Hvar. This site, in the vicinity of Issa, should probably be associated with a rural type of Hellenistic settlement, many of which have been documented on the island of Vis (Ugarković, Konestra 2018). Finally, eight samples were selected from the ceramic material found in the context of the indigenous necropolis of Kopila hillfort, recently discovered on the southern Dalmatian island of Korčula (Borzić 2017).18

A fragment of a mould for the production of relief ware was discovered at the locality of Kolovare in Iader (modern Zadar, north Dalmatia), which led to the belief that a late Hellenistic ceramic workshop existed at this site as well (Brusić 1999: 14; Čondić, Vuković 2017: 62). In addition, three small mould fragments have been recovered on the island of Sv. Klement (Pakleni otoci, Hvar) (Ugarković, Konestra 2018: 79).15 New case study: chemistry of Hellenistic grey-ware Within the framework of the RED project, attention was given to the study of Late Hellenistic production centres in Dalmatia. The typology of all known shapes was described for purposes of forming a database with all the relevant information, and a new archaeometric case study was conducted on the grey-slipped greywares. This distinctive pottery class, characterized by the fine levigated grey clayish substrate, created through reductive atmosphere during clay firing and grey coating, belongs to the 2nd and 1st centuries BCE (early 1st century CE). Grey-ware was attested at a number of sites in Dalmatia, within residential, funeral and votive contexts of both Greek and indigenous communities (Ugarković, Šegvić 2017: 162, and older bibliography cited in note 3). Despite this fact, its appearance on the eastern Adriatic has thus far not been systematically studied. The grey-ware is known to have been produced in a number of Late Hellenistic workshops in the central Mediterranean and beyond (Ugarković, Šegvić 2017: 162, and bibliography in note 1), while its manufacture in Issa (Miše 2015; Šegvić et al. 2016; Ugarković, Šegvić 2017), and conceivably another workshop(s) of Dalmatian Hellenistic production (Šegvić et al. 2012), has been argued as well.

The shapes selected for this study belong to fine-ware tableware. Most of these were taken from different forms of drinking cups, e.g. relief decorated and mould-made hemispherical bowls (K 3, K 8, S 1, S 5, S 10, T 10, T 11). Other represented drinking shapes include skyphoi (KO 2, KO4, KO 8) or kantharoi (T 5, T 6, KO 6, KO 9), with KO 7 being a thorn kantharos, The authors would like to thank Ranko Starac, senior curator of the Prehistoric and Antiquity collection of the Maritime and History Museum of the Croatian Littoral Rijeka, for his cooperation and kind permission to analyse the material from Krk. The publication of finewares from Porta Pisana is in preparation by the first author of this contribution and Ranko Starac. 17  The authors would like to thank Lujana Paraman, curator of the Archaeological collection of the Museum of Trogir for her cooperation and kind permission to include the Trogir samples in this case study. The publication of grey-ware from Trogir is in preparation by the first author of this contribution and Lujana Paraman. 18  The authors would like to thank Dr Igor Borzić from the University of Zadar for his cooperation and kind permission to include the Kopila samples in this case study. 16 

For the purpose of this case study, 33 samples of greyware, both plain and with relief decoration, recovered None of these finds have been recovered from a closed deposit, and are underwater discoveries (Kamenjarin 2014: 135). 15  These have been documented in Soline bay, during archaeological excavations, but not in closed deposits. 14 

94

M. Ugarković and B. Šegvić: The role of archaeometry in the study of production

12

Correponding number in all samples

Ceramic form

Ceramic class

Function

K1

78

Plate with horizontaly articulated rim

Grey-slipped grey-ware

tableware

K2

79

Plate with a vertical rim

Grey-slipped grey-ware

tableware

T8

80

Fish-plate

Grey-slipped grey-ware

tableware

T2

81

Plate with a vertical rim

Grey-slipped grey-ware

tableware

T3

82

Plate with rouletting decoration

Grey-slipped grey-ware

tableware

S9

83

Jug/table amphora

Grey-slipped grey-ware

tableware

T9

84

Closed shape (jug?)

Grey-slipped grey-ware

tableware

S8

85

Plate with horizontaly articulated rim

Grey-slipped grey-ware

tableware

K4

86

Jug

Grey-slipped grey-ware

tableware

T1

87

Jug/table amphora

Grey-slipped grey-ware

tableware

K3

88

Mould-made bowl

Grey-slipped grey-ware

tableware

K5

89

Skyphos/kantharos

Grey-slipped grey-ware

tableware

K6

90

Skyphos/kantharos

Grey-slipped grey-ware

tableware

K8

91

Mould-made bowl

Grey-slipped grey-ware

tableware

K9

92

Krater

Grey-slipped grey-ware

tableware

K 10

93

Articulated kantharos

Grey-slipped grey-ware

tableware

S1

94

Mould-made bowl

red slipped ware

tableware

S5

95

Mould-made bowl

Grey-slipped grey-ware

tableware

S7

96

Skyphos/kantharos

Grey-slipped grey-ware

tableware

S 10

97

Mould-made bowl

Grey-slipped grey-ware

tableware

T5

98

Kantharos

Grey-slipped grey-ware

tableware

T6

99

Kantharos

Grey-slipped grey-ware

tableware

T7

100

Articulated kantharos

Grey-slipped grey-ware

tableware

T 10

101

Mould-made bowl

Grey-slipped grey-ware

tableware

T 11

102

Mould-made bowl

Grey-slipped grey-ware

tableware

KO 1

103

Articulated kantharos

Grey-slipped grey-ware

tableware

KO 2

104

Skyphos

Grey-slipped grey-ware

tableware

KO 4

105

Skyphos

Grey-slipped grey-ware

tableware

KO 5

106

Articulated kantharos

Grey-slipped grey-ware

tableware

KO 6

107

Kantharos

Grey-slipped grey-ware

tableware

KO 7

108

Thorn kantharos

Grey-slipped grey-ware

tableware

KO 8

109

Skyphos

Grey-slipped grey-ware

tableware

KO 9

110

Kantharos

Grey-slipped grey-ware

tableware

Table 1. List of archaeological samples, with details and corresponding numbers (author: M. Ugarković).

and K 10, T 7, KO 1, KO 5 articulated kantharoi, while K 5, K 6 and S 7 belonged to one or the other, but more probably to an articulated version of the latter. Several samples were taken from jugs (K 4, T 9, S 9 and T 1), while the last two are defined as table amphorae. A krater is also represented with K 9. Among the forms for dining we can differentiate between three type of plates, with horizontally articulated rim (K 1, S 8), with vertical rim (K 2, T 2) and a fish-plate (T 8). Additionally, one sample was taken from a floor of a plate with rouletting decoration, probably belonging again to a shape with a vertical rim (T 3). All of these shapes, particularly the drinking cups and jugs, are from an archaeological perspective considered to have been produced in one or more Dalmatian workshops.

Some forms, i.e. articulated and thorn kantharoi, are popular eastern Adriatic shapes. Analytical approach Prior to submitting the selected samples to destructive chemical analyses, small fragments were optically inspected under the microscope with 50 x magnification.19 The fabric can be described as having a relatively homogeneous substrate of greyish colour (sometimes grey-green, grey-blue), with observable porosity, as well as yellow, white and grey inclusions We thank Dr Ivana Ožanić Roguljić for her assistance in these activities. 19 

95

Pottery Production, Landscape and Economy of Roman Dalmatia indicating the presence of metal oxides or alternated K-feldspars, quartz and ferromagnetic minerals or rock fragments. The noticed differences in colour and inclusions showed little or no connection when compared to the grouping of the same samples based on chemical analysis, suggesting that the composition of the matrix in fine-ware effectively controls the total element budget of analysed pottery.

constructed upon the first two PC variables, usually covering enough variance to describe the structure of the primary dataset, enabling the identification of possible compositional groups. Later the variables that differentiate different groups can also be identified using PCA analyses. Taking the P content as a common indicator of postdepositional changes (Feestone et al. 1985) a low-level degree of deuteric processes is suggested in analysed potsherds (P2O5 on average < 1.0 wt%, Table 2). Yet, several artefacts show the P concentrations exceeding 2.0 wt%, which is characteristic for ongoing postdeposition processes. Namely, a partly amorphous ceramic material is chemically active matter that often promotes adsorption and precipitation of fine-grained P from burial environment. Therefore, P was excluded from any further statistical treatment. We further excluded Ca, Mn, and Ba, as these elements are prone to becoming enriched by late mineralization (Heimann and Maggetti 2014).

The ICP-MS geochemical analyses were conducted at the Bureau Veritas Mineral Laboratories in Vancouver, Canada. Following a lithium metaborate/tetraborate fusion and nitric digestion the measurements were performed on 0.2 g of analyte. The LOI (loss of ignition) represents weight difference after ignition at 1000ºC. For rare and refractory elements an additional 0.5 g of material was digested in aqua regia and analysed in order to reveal their respective concentrations. Using the chemistry of standard materials provided by the Bureau Veritas (STD DS10, STD GS311-1, STD GS910-4, and STD OREAS45EA), and those of repeated measurements of selected samples from the dataset analyzed, the relative standard deviation was found to be within ±7%.

Results and discussion Compositional characteristics of analyzed artefacts and statistical analyses

With the objective to be able to infer whether the clay raw material was, or was not, local to archaeological sites of recovery, and to discriminate between the hypothetical sources of analysed potsherds, which would address important questions on regional interactions, the ICP-MS chemistry of the chosen artefacts was subjected to principal component analyses (PCA), which is one of the statistical multivariate techniques. For that purpose, the analyses of Hellenistic pottery from eastern Adriatic that are available in the literature (Šegvić et al. 2012; 2016) were also processed, together with the data acquired in this study. The computational software used for this treatment was JMP Pro 12.1.0 (SAS Institute Inc.) for Windows. Generally, a ceramic sample in statistical multivariate data analyses is represented by a point in multidimensional space, with each dimension corresponding to the content of the particular chemical element (e.g. Mommsen 2001; Baxter and Freestone 2006). Hence, those samples, which do not vary significantly in composition, will be represented by agglomerated (grouped) points. PCA analyses itself is traditionally used in ceramic inquiry as a mean of identification of different compositional groups. It effectively reduces a multidimensional dataset, i.e. the number of operating variables by inducing a smaller number of artificial variables known as principal components (PCs, e.g. Jolliffe 2002). The latter are selected to keep as much as possible of the variation in the used dataset in a way that the first PC describes the highest variance with subsequent PCs that are consecutively describing the progressively smaller variance. Diagrams are normally

ICP-MS chemistry of 32 potsherds recovered at four archaeological sites along the eastern coast of Adriatic is reported in Table 2. The silica content in all the analysed vessels is high, ranging between 45 and 56 wt%. The contents of other major oxides are also found in the relatively narrow compositional spans, e.g. Al2O3 (12-18 wt%), Fe2O3 (6-9 wt%), MnO (~0.1 wt%) and TiO2 (~1 wt%). For some elements, however, their respective concentrations vary significantly (MgO 3-6 wt%, Na2O 1-2 wt%, K2O 2-4 wt%, P2O5 0-3 wt%, and CaO 5-14 wt%). The Ca concentration range may seem unusually broad and yet if one excludes the potsherds with exceptionally high Ca contents (K1, K2, T3, T9, T1, K6, K10, T5, Ko2, Ko4, and Ko8), the Ca oscillation span gets significantly narrower (i.e. 5-9 wt%), thus classifying the majority of analysed pottery as low-Ca ceramic materials (Cultrone et al. 2001). This may point to the systematic use of noncalcareous pastes. This is contrary to the practice demonstrated in many modern studies where the usage of Ca-rich clays or intentional tempering by calcite was documented as a common practice in Antiquity (e.g. Papachristodoulou et al. 2010). Moreover, it has been shown by Šegvić et al. (2012) that the potters in Hellenistic Dalmatia were aware of the properties of Ca-rich paste in terms of better clay-working and facilitated sintering (Velde and Druc 1999) and, therefore, relatively lower Ca concentrations of analysed material may serve as a valuable provenance indicator. In regard to the trace element concentration ranges, a great majority of 96

M. Ugarković and B. Šegvić: The role of archaeometry in the study of production Abb. No. SiO2 Al2O3 Fe2O3 MnO MgO CaO Na2O K2O TiO2 P2O5 LOI Label Vis1a 1 60.11 16.18 7.54 0.14 3.15 8.59 0.89 1.86 0.97 0.15 0.3 CP 1 2 50.75 15.27 8.78 0.14 7.01 7.91 0.89 2.51 0.89 0.15 5.4 CP 2 3 53.01 15.94 8.53 0.12 6.15 9.85 0.99 2.58 0.86 0.15 1.5 CP 3 4 46.62 14.24 7.14 0.12 6.83 11.6 1 2.6 0.7 0.14 8.8 CP 4 5 48.48 14.46 7.24 0.11 6.2 12.2 1.16 2.59 0.71 0.15 6.3 CP 5 6 47.19 14.79 7.71 0.16 8.18 12.8 0.69 1.92 0.72 0.15 5.3 CP 6 7 54.83 17.21 9.51 0.14 6.44 4.01 1.15 2.6 0.95 0.13 2.6 CP 7 8 49.59 15.54 8.07 0.17 6.35 13.5 0.81 2.61 0.74 0.14 2.1 CP 8 9 53.87 15.71 8.25 0.12 7 6.15 1.23 2.75 0.81 0.17 3.6 CP 9 10 54.68 15.89 8.06 0.11 6.21 9.9 1.08 2.97 0.8 0.13 0.2 CP 10 11 48.14 14.31 7.26 0.14 6.2 11.5 1.02 2.77 0.7 0.18 7.4 CP 11 12 47.91 14.58 7.3 0.12 6.83 11.8 0.96 2.61 0.71 0.14 6.9 CP 12 13 46.72 12.46 4.82 0.08 6.97 12 1.21 2.06 0.56 0.2 12.5 CP 13 14 52.51 15.85 7.91 0.12 7.76 5.26 1.18 2.61 0.79 0.2 5.5 CP 14 15 52.84 15.81 7.93 0.11 6.33 8.68 1.06 2.87 0.76 0.13 3.2 CP 15a 16 47.43 14.47 7.6 0.17 6.71 12 0.97 2.55 0.76 0.19 7.1 CP 15b 17 48.14 17.35 6.74 0.09 6.73 6.06 0.8 3.28 0.63 0.24 10 CP 16 18 50.13 15.10 7.85 0.14 6.29 12.9 1.41 2.29 0.75 0.13 2.7 CP 17 19 43.8 11.7 4.5 0.08 5.18 16.9 0.91 1.96 0.54 0.25 14.1 CP 18 20 49.19 15.58 10.43 0.14 7.53 10.7 0.79 2.31 0.85 0.2 1.9 CP 19 21 52.99 15.43 9.1 0.15 5.77 6.08 1.05 2.77 0.9 0.18 5.4 CP 20 22 52.63 14.04 6.31 0.11 4.87 10.4 1.14 2.89 0.74 0.26 6.7 Re9 23 54.01 16.41 8.36 0.15 5.85 7 1.09 2.75 0.85 0.35 3.1 Re12 24 48.5 15.76 8.38 0.39 3.34 6.38 3.67 2.19 0.69 0.82 1.9 Re21 25 52.69 16.29 9.24 0.12 6.01 8.39 1.06 2.63 0.86 0.4 2 Re22 26 48.73 15.4 8.45 0.28 1.98 6.33 0.35 1.77 0.85 0.93 15.4 RE23 27 46.81 16.57 8.58 0.21 6.12 12.9 0.64 1.66 0.79 0.57 4.7 RE24 28 49.26 14.78 7.65 0.16 4.64 9.73 0.91 2.15 0.78 0.87 8.7 Re25 29 34.52 12.77 6.36 0.2 1.9 18.4 0.14 0.59 0.59 1.38 22.6 Re26 30 44.82 13.84 14.78 0.17 5.43 11.6 0.87 2.27 0.72 0.26 4.9 Re27 31 57.74 18.94 7.82 0.16 1.12 2.28 0.38 1.43 0.92 0.83 8 Re28 32 50.28 14.83 7.86 0.15 4.78 11.2 0.92 2.26 0.77 0.77 5.7 Re29 33 52.51 15.89 8.02 0.14 5.85 11 1.24 2.37 0.78 0.3 1.5 Re30 34 51.34 15.26 8.18 0.11 5.65 12.1 1.15 1.51 0.8 0.49 3 Vis1 35 46.25 15.19 8.72 0.12 6.19 10.5 0.81 2.54 0.8 0.47 8.22 Vis2 36 46.97 15.66 8.66 0.12 6.31 9.53 1.38 2.59 0.82 0.2 7.49 Vis3 37 42.71 11.59 9.17 0.14 2.31 15.4 0.54 2.86 0.97 1.28 12.1 Vis4 38 51.09 16.36 7.44 0.13 4.38 8.07 1.72 2.52 0.84 0.84 6.34 Vis5 39 45.62 16.4 8.26 0.14 5.44 11.5 0.75 1.55 0.78 0.37 8.98 Vis6 40 53.9 19.01 6.83 0.14 2.24 8.04 0.53 1.41 1.01 0.31 6.3 Vis7 41 49.73 15.67 8.77 0.15 5.93 12.3 0.6 1.31 0.89 0.37 4.02 Vis8 42 50.7 17.87 6.41 0.16 3.08 9.41 1.4 2.18 0.78 0.33 7.39 Vis9 43 50.53 17.42 6.03 0.09 3.15 9.42 1.61 2.3 0.71 1.13 7.4 Vis10 44 48.24 15.86 9.03 0.11 5.6 8.9 1.34 2.45 0.85 0.29 6.99 Vis11 45 52.66 20.29 7.64 0.14 3.18 6.44 1.07 2.07 0.99 0.19 5.05 Vis12 46 43.46 16.06 8.1 0.17 4.31 11.8 0.48 1.81 0.8 3.44 9.28 Vis13 47 48.29 16.36 8.1 0.13 5.75 8.44 1.03 2.3 0.82 1.82 6.62 Vis14 48 49.01 16.41 8.12 0.11 5.79 8.23 1.31 2.74 0.81 0.74 6.47 Vis15 49 49.91 16.61 7.55 0.11 6.77 7.82 1.35 2.48 0.76 0.26 6.14 Vis16 50 37.67 12.17 10.99 0.23 2.24 16.4 0.26 2.14 0.96 3.42 12.8 Vis17 51 43.53 13.47 12.2 0.16 3.46 11.5 0.46 2.69 1.11 2.14 9.01 Vis18 52 44.84 13.16 10.96 0.16 4.43 12 0.56 2.52 1 0.65 9.45 Vis19 53 42.78 12.76 11.63 0.19 3.97 13.2 0.45 2.52 1.09 0.84 10.4 Vis20 54 46.57 13.28 12.27 0.19 4.21 9.82 0.43 2.86 1.11 0.81 7.7

Table 2. List of all samples with their chemistry (authors: B. Šegvić and M. Ugarković).

97

Total 99.98 99.7 99.68 99.81 99.62 99.61 99.57 99.61 99.66 99.63 99.62 99.82 99.57 99.69 99.72 100.01 100.06 99.73 99.95 99.58 99.82 100.04 100.01 99.98 99.69 100.47 99.58 99.63 99.4 99.62 99.62 99.51 99.61 99.55 99.78 99.72 99.01 99.71 99.75 99.71 99.71 99.72 99.78 99.65 99.73 99.73 99.65 99.74 99.76 99.31 99.74 99.75 99.78 99.25

Sc

                                       

Ba

Co

Cs

19 326 27 9.1 23 311 32 4.8 23 351 30 3.3 19 305 29 6.2 20 324 28 7.2 22 300 36 3.7 24 355 37 5.4 22 347 38 6.9 23 319 31 7 23 319 33 7.9 20 307 31 7.3 20 306 28 6.1 12 241 11 4.3 22 310 32 6.4 23 331 28 7.3 20 334 34 5.7 18 372 21 7.3 22 332 31 7.1 12 237 10 3.9 26 391 44 3.4 25 303 32 5.6 16 386 13 6.5 22 432 32 6.4 22 491 31 2.8 24 401 33 3.5 21 508 51 5.2 25 517 40 2.8 21 612 37 4.9 16 1066 26 3.1 20 354 39 2.8 17 484 23 13.3 22 710 34 5.9 23 493 35 7.2 22 444 32 3.3 330 8  320 12   330 0  400 0  230 17   360 6  140 18   440 21   320 20   430 4  420 41   460 0  400 0  360 7  330 42   630 290   360 0  310 0  380 0  310 0 

Ga

Hf

19.7 19 20.7 16.9 18.4 18.8 21.7 19.6 19.4 20.2 17.5 17.1 16.1 19.7 18.9 18.5 22.7 18.7 15.2 21.3 17.7 16.9 20.1 17 18.7 16 18.2 16.5 9.7 18.1 22.9 17.2 19.2 19 15 0 14 15 0 16 17 0 13 19 20 0 0 13 19

7.6 4.4 4.2 3.4 3.4 3.4 4.7 3.6 4.3 4.2 3.7 3.6 3.7 4 3.5 3.7 4.6 3.4 3.7 3.8 4.1 4.4 4 3.6 4 4.6 3.6 4.2 3.3 3.6 10.8 4 3.7 4.6

  24 16 20 21

                                       

Pottery Production, Landscape and Economy of Roman Dalmatia Abb. No. SiO2 Al2O3 Fe2O3 MnO MgO CaO Na2O K2O TiO2 P2O5 LOI Label Vis21 55 42.11 13.04 12.93 0.18 4.76 11.9 0.68 2.77 1.16 0.58 9.33 Vis22 56 43.76 12.85 10.49 0.18 4.37 13 0.74 2.68 0.95 0.52 10.2 Vis23 57 44.45 13.26 13.06 0.17 4.7 10.4 0.47 2.57 1.21 0.81 8.15 Vis24 58 45.24 14.46 9.52 0.17 2.01 13.2 0.55 2.77 1.08 0.53 10.3 Vis25 59 43.29 12.02 11.13 0.17 3.78 13.8 0.51 2.61 1.02 0.55 10.9 Vis26 60 45.82 13.86 13.47 0.21 4.62 9.47 0.42 2 1.29 1.08 7.43 Vis27 61 50.56 11.29 9.14 0.14 3.01 11.8 0.42 2.13 1.23 0.57 9.28 Vis28 62 39.54 9.75 9.03 0.17 1.89 15.9 0.37 2.66 0.88 6.94 12.4 Vis29 63 43.63 12.06 12.84 0.18 3.84 12.7 0.42 2.15 1.23 0.62 9.98 Vis30 64 42.49 11.94 12.31 0.18 3.05 13.6 0.55 2.98 1.12 0.79 10.7 Vis31 65 44.66 13.18 11.09 0.16 4.25 12 0.53 2.82 1.02 0.58 9.45 Vis32 66 44.16 13.85 10.69 0.15 3.78 12.8 0.48 2.39 0.98 0.52 10 Vis33 67 44.02 14.78 11.85 0.19 5.32 10.5 0.55 2.32 1.14 0.78 8.23 Vis34 68 45.78 13.59 11.83 0.19 3.89 10.9 0.46 2.88 1.1 0.64 8.52 Vis35 69 40.45 10.05 5.97 0.08 2.81 20.5 1 1.62 0.66 0.69 16 Vis36 70 27.15 9.57 5.17 0.01 1.23 30.3 0 1.33 0.68 0.61 23.8 Vis37 71 41.13 12.65 11.26 0.19 3.52 15.4 0.24 1.54 1.04 0.72 12.1 Vis38 72 43.04 12.88 11.26 0.16 3.79 13.5 0.42 2.4 1.05 0.71 10.6 Vis39 73 45.63 13.9 11.98 0.16 3.62 11 0.38 2.66 1.11 0.74 8.62 Vis40 74 43.81 13.57 11.5 0.17 4.41 12 0.6 2.52 1.03 0.68 9.4 Vis41 75 48.1 17 9.84 0.16 2.23 9.73 0.57 2.66 1.13 0.66 7.65 Vis42 76 46.84 14.51 11.48 0.18 4.36 9.68 0.66 2.37 1.07 0.89 7.6 K1 77 48.49 14.49 7.15 0.13 4.84 11.3 0.88 2.95 0.72 0.5 8.3 K2 78 48.26 15.13 7.05 0.15 4.46 13.5 0.98 3.09 0.69 0.55 5.8 T8 79 52.39 16.39 7.92 0.12 5.17 9.36 1.02 3.45 0.79 0.59 2.4 T2 80 51.44 15.66 8.11 0.14 5.79 8.99 0.98 3.25 0.78 0.86 3.6 T3 81 47.36 14.45 7.41 0.12 4.35 10.4 0.99 3.1 0.73 2.35 8.3 S9 82 53.45 16.68 8.51 0.12 5.93 5.89 1.36 3.34 0.85 0.34 3.2 T9 83 44.99 11.92 6.06 0.16 4.21 13 1.26 2.67 0.62 0.56 14.2 S8 84 49.1 14.68 7.43 0.1 5.33 5.93 1.84 2.83 0.76 0.3 11.4 K4 85 54.16 16.17 7.68 0.12 5.59 9.09 1.2 3.03 0.81 0.33 1.5 T1 86 46.27 11.87 5.84 0.14 4.14 14 1.37 2.68 0.63 0.61 12.2 K3 87 51.21 14.58 7.4 0.11 4.8 8.77 0.99 2.87 0.74 0.69 7.5 K5 88 48.63 14.67 7.36 0.12 5.43 9.92 0.69 2.77 0.77 1.54 7.8 K6 89 53.35 16.17 7.98 0.12 6.01 10.3 1.02 2.93 0.82 0.31 0.7 K8 90 54.24 16.04 7.65 0.11 5.45 9.11 1.02 3.11 0.81 0.27 1.9 K9 91 50.2 15.66 7.61 0.11 4.98 8.89 0.94 3.06 0.75 1.06 6.4 K10 92 50.39 15.31 7.37 0.12 5.2 11.1 1 3.19 0.75 0.42 4.8 S1 93 56.23 18.08 7.09 0.1 3.06 5.22 1.26 3.64 0.72 0.26 4.1 S5 94 54.11 16.21 8.29 0.15 5.54 7.36 1.06 3.06 0.84 0.28 2.7 S7 95 51.63 15.85 8.27 0.13 5.6 7.71 0.8 2.38 0.84 0.58 5.9 S10 96 52.08 16.07 8.08 0.11 5.51 6.19 1.17 2.78 0.84 0.55 6.3 T5 97 46.01 14.58 7.29 0.24 4.34 13.7 0.61 3.18 0.69 2.07 6.9 T6 98 48.21 14.33 7.63 0.16 4.14 7.82 0.99 3.22 0.73 2.45 10 T7 99 52.83 15.12 7.62 0.14 4.68 9.58 1 3.15 0.76 1.75 3 T10 100 50.44 13.68 6.81 0.13 4.59 9.32 1.45 3.08 0.71 0.58 8.9 T11 101 54.43 16.3 8.24 0.16 5.56 7.29 1.1 3.38 0.84 0.64 1.7 Ko1 102 50.54 16.01 9.07 0.12 5.05 8.19 0.81 2.22 0.89 0.65 6.1 Ko2 103 52.69 16.03 8.12 0.12 5.4 10.3 1.04 2.54 0.84 0.24 2.4 Ko4 104 49.64 15.24 8.98 0.11 5.04 10.7 0.9 2.33 0.87 0.81 5 Ko5 105 53.98 16.08 8.08 0.12 5.58 7.25 1.12 2.95 0.82 0.27 3.4 Ko6 106 46.41 15.31 8.94 0.12 3.89 9.73 0.81 2.1 0.9 2.53 8.9 Ko7 107 51.69 15.05 8.64 0.12 5.76 7.46 0.83 2.61 0.89 0.24 6.4 Ko8 108 48.1 14.85 8.4 0.22 5.3 13 0.77 2.07 0.78 0.35 5.8 Ko9 109 51.88 16.79 8.77 0.11 5.72 7.48 0.79 2.51 0.87 0.5 4.2

Table 2. Continued.

98

Total 99.43 99.76 99.23 99.85 99.76 99.66 99.57 99.54 99.69 99.74 99.78 99.76 99.66 99.74 99.83 99.85 99.73 99.71 99.8 99.65 99.74 99.64 99.78 99.77 99.77 99.76 99.79 99.77 99.8 99.8 99.77 99.8 99.8 99.79 99.78 99.79 99.81 99.79 99.82 99.79 99.79 99.78 99.76 99.8 99.78 99.78 99.78 99.79 99.78 99.79 99.79 99.79 99.79 99.76 99.78

Sc                                             18 19 20 20 18 21 14 18 20 14 19 19 21 20 20 19 16 21 21 20 19 19 20 16 21 24 21 23 21 23 21 22 23

Ba

Co

240 390 230 360 520 340 340 390 390 420 410 410 360 450 400 230 190 470 490 350 380 380 365 402 402 467 703 320 341 286 332 355 380 417 332 331 367 349 422 454 415 383 817 712 627 444 366 432 402 514 361 739 327 450 380

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 29.9 25.9 28.7 30 24.8 31.1 27.7 26.1 29.4 23.5 30.8 27.9 30.9 29.5 27.6 27.9 19.9 31.2 31.4 30 32.6 29.1 29.7 28.6 35.1 29.6 28.7 28.6 32.6 27.9 32.5 35.6 32.2

Cs                                             7.4 7.3 7.2 6.7 5.9 7.6 4.7 4.4 6.8 4.6 6.5 5.4 5.8 7.7 6.3 7.1 8 7.3 5.2 6.4 6.4 6.2 7 5.5 7.2 4.4 5.6 1.3 7.1 2 5.7 6 5.7

Ga 23 15 19 21 21 20 17 15 20 0 18 15 21 15 0 15 0 19 21 20 24 17 15.4 16.5 18 17.1 14.6 16.5 12.5 13.9 16.7 12.1 17 15.5 16.8 18.7 15.1 16 20.6 16.7 15.9 17 14.8 14.3 15 13.6 16.3 17.6 16.9 16.9 16.6 14.9 16.3 15.5 17.8

Hf                                             3.1 2.9 3.3 3.1 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.6 3.7 3.1 3.6 3.3 3.5 3.3 3.2 5.3 3.6 4 4.3 3.2 3.2 3.5 3.9 3.7 4.2 3.8 3.7 3.5 3.8 4.1 3.3 4

M. Ugarković and B. Šegvić: The role of archaeometry in the study of production Abb. No. Nb Rb Sr Th U V Zr Y La Ce Pr Nd Sm Label Vis1a 1 17.7 928 272 12.6 2.9 180 293 34.7 39.7 78.3 9.6 37.9 7.1 CP 1 2 14.5 98 243 11.8 2.6 135 148 28.1 30.1 67.6 7.8 30.4 5.8 CP 2 3 14.1 84 305 11.7 2.3 156 139 28.8 30.2 63.4 7.7 30 6 CP 3 4 11.1 115 362 9.1 2.3 127 112 24.2 25.7 53.8 6.6 24.5 5 CP 4 5 11.9 124 367 9.9 2.4 149 117 25.3 26.7 54.2 6.7 25.4 5 CP 5 6 11.7 71 486 10.4 2.2 147 109 25 26.9 57.2 6.9 26.5 5.2 CP 6 7 16.2 107 147 11.8 2.4 127 154 29.4 32.4 69 8.2 30.2 6.2 CP 7 8 12.6 119 510 11.3 2.2 143 114 25 27.4 58.4 6.8 26.7 5.3 CP 8 9 13.3 129 249 10.1 2.4 148 141 27.2 28.7 61.6 7.3 28.4 5.7 CP 9 10 14 141 271 9.8 2.3 160 133 27.1 28 59.5 7.1 27.4 5.5 CP 10 11 11.2 127 438 9.3 2.1 136 113 24.2 25.8 52.8 6.5 25 4.8 CP 11 12 11.6 113 274 9.1 2.1 121 121 23.4 25.1 52.8 6.3 25.2 4.8 CP 12 13 13.6 89 402 8.5 3 99 125 21.8 25.6 52.2 6.3 23.6 4.8 CP 13 14 12.5 117 221 10.8 2.4 161 132 25.6 27.8 58.8 7.1 26.7 5.4 CP 14 15 11.6 130 299 9.3 2.2 144 117 24.3 25.9 55.3 6.6 26.2 5 CP 15a 16 11.6 102 382 10.2 2.4 141 134 25.5 27.3 57.3 6.9 27.5 5.2 CP 15b 17 18.2 162 207 18.4 5.1 106 152 36.6 39.7 80.4 9.7 35.6 7.2 CP 16 18 11.5 106 391 9.6 2 141 117 23.6 26.4 53.7 6.6 25.5 4.9 CP 17 19 12.3 82 398 7.9 3 97 117 20.2 24.9 50.9 6.2 23.7 4.6 CP 18 20 14.3 80 319 12.3 2.7 151 123 27.2 32.4 67.1 8.2 31.6 6 CP 19 21 13.5 109 276 11.2 2.5 158 136 27 31.5 64.6 7.7 30.9 5.8 CP 20 22 15.7 118 345 11.3 3.1 110 150 27 35.8 69.5 8.7 33.4 6.3 Re9 23 12.1 117 393 10.8 2.2 170 137 28.7 28.9 60.8 7.5 30 5.9 Re12 24 11.6 57 409 9.6 15.9 201 287 31.2 11.7 26.6 3.3 13.6 3 Re21 25 12.4 85 271 11.1 2 128 134 24.3 28.6 58.3 7.1 28 5.3 Re22 26 13.9 89 124 10.6 2.3 138 160 26.6 29.6 70.5 7.4 29.7 5.5 RE23 27 11.9 53 604 10.6 2 161 117 24.2 29.7 60.2 7.1 28.8 5.3 RE24 28 12.5 98 312 9.7 2.3 158 140 26.3 30 59.5 7.3 29.7 5.4 Re25 29 11.6 34 368 8.8 1.5 89 109 22.4 27.8 53.9 6.4 25.9 4.6 Re26 30 11.2 85 315 9.2 1.7 129 123 23.4 27.5 54.4 6.7 25.7 4.9 Re27 31 27.5 109 117 31.9 3.3 143 385 35.7 71.1 135 15.3 57.9 9.5 Re28 32 12.7 107 418 10.1 2.2 152 132 25.3 31 60 7.2 30.7 5.3 Re29 33 12.8 113 394 11.2 2.2 169 132 25.3 30.3 60.5 7.5 31.4 5.3 Re30 34 13.8 54 390 11.6 2.4 169 149 27 33.4 65.6 7.9 32.6 5.8 Vis1 35 8 103 197     193 107 19           Vis2 36 10 107 261     170 105 0          Vis3 37 37 105 392     0 298 16           Vis4 38 10 97 243     130 109 20           Vis5 39 11 38 213     170 117 0          Vis6 40 16 97 91     170 227 26           Vis7 41 10 23 194     0 127 21           Vis8 42 18 120 250     0 189 24           Vis9 43 12 85 300     170 146 26           Vis10 44 11 88 247     150 117 0          Vis11 45 18 111 122     0 221 30           Vis12 46 7 62 348     0 102 23           Vis13 47 0 84 245     0 102 0          Vis14 48 12 116 234     0 105 0          Vis15 49 0 101 239     0 114 0          Vis16 50 0 67 428     150 87 0          Vis17 51 32 86 308     0 109 16           Vis18 52 0 90 255     130 104 0          Vis19 53 8 69 275     0 115 25           Vis20 54 10 98 251     0 124 18           Vis21 55 22 75 253     0 110 19          

Table 2. Continued.

99

Gd

Dy

5.9 5.2 5.4 4.6 4.7 4.6 5.7 4.8 5.2 5 4.6 4.3 4.2 4.9 4.5 4.5 6.8 4.4 4.1 5.5 5.3 5.7 4.9 2.8 4.8 5.1 4.8 5.1 4.2 4.5 8.1 4.9 5 5.3                                          

Er

6.2 5 5.1 4.4 4.5 4.4 5.3 4.5 5 4.8 4.5 4.1 3.8 4.8 4.3 4.7 6.7 4.5 3.8 5.2 5 5.2 5 3 4.6 4.8 4.6 5 3.7 4.4 6.7 4.7 4.7 5.2                                          

Yb

3.5 2.8 2.8 2.4 2.5 2.4 3 2.6 2.8 2.8 2.5 2.3 2.1 2.8 2.5 2.5 3.7 2.5 2 2.9 2.9 2.8 2.8 1.8 2.6 2.8 2.6 2.8 2.3 2.5 3.6 2.7 2.7 2.9                                          

3.5 3 2.9 2.4 2.5 2.5 3.1 2.6 2.7 2.7 2.5 2.3 2.1 2.6 2.5 2.6 3.5 2.4 2 2.8 2.8 2.6 2.7 1.7 2.7 2.8 2.6 2.7 2.3 2.4 3.6 2.7 2.6 2.8                                          

Cu

Pb

Cr

Zn

Ni

18.3 42 31.6 40.1 34 40.9 28.8 44.4 40.6 16.1 31.9 36.6 25.6 39.5 33 34.8 34.3 32.9 18.4 32.1 33 25.2 30.4 25.2 42 43.9 35.1 27.8 42.4 35.3 43.3 22.9 25.8 35 61 62 33 63 52 51 59 68 47 60 46 78 54 61 57 141 54 89 77 71 87

5.2 38.9 20.8 33.6 19.5 18.5 17.5 24.8 29.4 5.3 22.9 86.1 20.3 25.8 13.5 29 18.1 9.5 14.2 33.5 33.7 30.2 17.9 13.7 23.6 28.5 31.9 23.8 24.9 10.4 48.2 26.2 20.8 17.9

350 397 383 308 335 321 445 328 383 376 315 321 89 363 342 50 198 342 89 554 397 137 300 300 417 397 390 376 226 445 260 363 369 383 340 332 209 198 367 313 422 134 152 355 298 359 334 355 362 295 378 383 422 413 411

26 100 70 74 84 100 49 87 86 54 87 66 62 83 64 72 65 60 56 76 116 79 76 66 70 98 75 94 94 58 94 81 56 69 135 122 158 130 109 134 85 123 99 123 116 130 122 137 133 0 129 129 137 140 161

16 323 308 254 270 2912 360 300 293 313 263 260 39 296 289 202 148 286 36 567 317 64 245 220 349 319 315 267 172 350 116 288 306 281 313 339 152 189 331 173 331 85 65 298 218 279 301 308 321 58 340 363 372 388 385

                                         

Pottery Production, Landscape and Economy of Roman Dalmatia Abb. No. Nb Rb Sr Th Label Vis22 56 13 74 264   Vis23 57 12 59 267   Vis24 58 15 97 280   Vis25 59 10 67 295   Vis26 60 11 38 216   Vis27 61 10 53 249   Vis28 62 0 91 429   Vis29 63 9 46 235   Vis30 64 29 74 258   Vis31 65 11 103 260   Vis32 66 13 79 245   Vis33 67 13 54 245   Vis34 68 30 92 233   Vis35 69 0 63 278   Vis36 70 0 64 423   Vis37 71 0 35 251   Vis38 72 9 77 257   Vis39 73 10 89 226   Vis40 74 0 24 115   Vis41 75 19 101 276   Vis42 76 11 70 210   K1 77 9.4 127 292 9.2 K2 78 9.5 131 510 9 T8 79 10.5 139 280 9.3 T2 80 10.1 134 301 9.5 T3 81 9.8 118 280 8.4 S9 82 10.9 135 227 10.4 T9 83 9.5 112 292 8.3 S8 84 9.6 102 179 8.9 K4 85 10.1 127 255 9.8 T1 86 9.5 102 309 8 K3 87 10.3 125 255 8.7 K5 88 10.5 105 250 10.1 K6 89 10.4 114 276 9.8 K8 90 10.5 138 258 9.9 K9 91 10.1 120 247 9.8 K10 92 9.9 131 289 9.6 S1 93 16.3 168 158 20 S5 94 11.1 129 261 10.7 S7 95 11.6 92.2 215 10.8 S10 96 12.9 118 232 11.7 T5 97 9.7 130 628 9.8 T6 98 10 130 235 9.3 T7 99 10.9 130 350 10.5 T10 100 11 133 353 9.7 T11 101 10.8 142 241 10.5 Ko1 102 12.3 81.8 274 11.8 Ko2 103 11.5 98 349 11.1 Ko4 104 11.9 55.1 346 11.6 Ko5 105 11.2 132 264 10.7 Ko6 106 12.2 51.8 347 11.5 Ko7 107 12.2 104 185 12.2 Ko8 108 11.2 92.8 560 11.3 Ko9 109 12.2 103 235 11.6

U

V

Zr

Y

1.9 2 2.3 1.9 2.3 3.3 2.1 2 2.2 2.3 2.1 2.1 2.1 2.3 1.6 2.2 4.9 2.1 2 2.4 1.9 1.8 2.1 2 2.5 2.4 2 2.2 2.2 2.5 2.3 2 2.4

0 180 0 0 200 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 140 0 0 0 0 0 0 170 0 132 150 168 148 136 162 107 136 165 106 137 141 156 152 139 157 103 155 152 154 141 139 134 126 155 154 162 174 144 158 141 163 161

119 128 127 116 147 140 175 135 303 111 111 136 275 107 83 115 108 121 190 136 124 118 106 122 124 119 128 130 122 128 135 117 126 129 126 117 116 192 134 142 151 107 117 140 143 135 145 134 145 139 145 149 120 140

0 24 23 0 24 15 0 21 0 0 0 23 0 21 0 24 23 19 0 20 18 23.8 21.2 23.8 24 22.5 24 20.9 22.9 23.3 20.9 22.8 23.4 24.3 24.9 23.4 22.8 32.2 25.9 28.3 25.2 23.5 22.9 24.2 21.5 25.1 28.9 25.8 28.6 26.7 29.2 26.6 24.4 27.6

                                         

La                                          

Ce                                          

27.8 26.9 28.4 26.9 25.6 30.4 24.5 28.9 28.8 25.5 27.3 27.9 29.3 30 28.4 26.9 44.1 30.4 32.8 32.1 28.2 26.3 31.8 26.7 29.6 32.8 30.2 32.1 30.1 34.7 32.6 29.2 32.8

Pr                                          

54.5 52.5 58.2 52.9 51.6 58.9 49.2 53.3 59.5 49.3 53.6 57 59.2 60.7 55.9 53.6 85.9 61.5 64.4 68.4 54.3 51 63.9 55.9 61.3 67.5 61.8 67.3 61.7 68.4 67.4 60.6 68.2

Nd Sm Gd

Dy

Er

Yb

Cu

                                          4.51 4.33 5.01 4.59 4.32 5.27 3.99 4.95 4.83 4.07 4.73 4.84 5.23 4.91 4.95 4.85 7.38 5.18 5.62 5.52 4.86 4.39 5.21 4.58 5.13 5.86 5.44 5.87 5.38 5.98 5.47 5.08 5.6

                                          4.27 4 4.33 4.05 4.08 4.52 3.64 4.02 4.58 3.67 4.27 4.2 4.27 4.42 4.31 3.99 6.19 4.51 5.06 4.86 4 3.97 4.3 4.32 4.56 5.07 4.49 5.15 4.65 5.32 4.75 4.29 5.22

                                          2.53 2.54 2.67 2.48 2.38 2.63 2.14 2.46 2.83 2.22 2.45 2.5 2.66 2.8 2.61 2.56 3.64 2.88 3.06 2.89 2.37 2.64 2.58 2.39 2.76 3.14 2.62 3.18 2.8 3.26 2.95 2.68 3.09

                                          2.54 2.24 2.68 2.45 2.36 2.61 2.05 2.46 2.61 2.17 2.3 2.35 2.67 2.54 2.42 2.31 3.24 2.68 2.86 2.78 2.33 2.44 2.5 2.15 2.48 2.88 2.8 2.87 2.88 3.14 2.97 2.61 2.78

59 63 69 71 66 49 56 63 60 78 58 88 75 47 52 60 62 54 84 53 76 34.2 30.8 38.7 35.8 45.9 31.1 79.9 34.2 14.8 74.9 54.4 52.9 16.3 20.4 38.9 33.8 31.1 24.8 24.6 34 36.7 58.3 39.1 94.4 54.5 42.5 30.5 33.6 24.9 53.7 26.9 43.2 26.2

                                          6.19 5.92 6.46 6.1 5.82 6.8 5.48 6.28 6.57 5.6 6.16 6.28 6.54 6.61 6.41 6.24 9.91 6.9 7.42 7.44 6.25 6.07 7.08 6.37 6.81 7.76 6.81 7.62 7.01 7.64 7.44 6.7 7.47

23.5 21.9 24.3 23.7 22.4 25.5 20.4 23.6 23.7 21.6 22.7 24.3 25 25 25.2 24.4 37.7 25.9 29.3 28.8 23.4 22 27.1 23.9 26.2 30.3 26 29.1 26.6 29 29.2 26.3 28.9

Table 2. Continued.

100

                                          4.52 4.2 4.7 4.52 4.37 4.83 3.93 4.49 4.77 4.05 4.32 4.44 4.62 4.83 4.6 4.6 6.84 5.05 5.27 5.14 4.44 4.15 4.8 4.7 4.91 5.52 4.98 5.61 5.12 5.44 5.49 4.85 5.45

Pb

Cr

Zn

Ni

23.9 20.6 16.4 22.8 23 25.5 24.2 23.8 11.8 26.1 26.9 23 11.7 36 21.9 23.2 30.3 29.1 25.7 67.9 31.9 25.9 22.6 57.8 29.5 18.7 17.5 18.8 13.8 25 20.3 13.8 16.8

405 397 145 403 487 482 268 424 376 387 398 445 351 130 130 387 394 412 400 143 448 335 308 356 369 349 383 322 349 376 322 342 342 376 363 342 335 212 383 390 363 301 349 328 390 376 411 383 397 369 404 390 342 383

117 156 152 158 173 129 109 134 124 119 99 162 148 91 128 102 126 118 143 145 149 141 103 98 124 170 84 125 116 55 134 176 137 57 65 118 96 50 87 118 128 109 210 138 125 59 102 98 80 70 130 124 97 99

362 409 77 361 410 276 193 384 315 354 364 403 346 67 61 346 366 383 380 86 388 218 189 193 210 192 254 187 239 202 176 269 256 301 287 288 287 142 313 306 286 257 246 243 252 299 292 253 263 299 253 315 284 315

                                         

M. Ugarković and B. Šegvić: The role of archaeometry in the study of production them are characterized by narrow spans, except for Ba, Rb, Sr, and Zn (Table 2). Rubidium is a mobile element probably affected by post-depositional processes (Drever 2005), while Ba, Sr, and Zn readily substitute Ca in carbonates (Menadakis et al. 2009), which explains their oscillations in analyzed potsherds.

(Šegvić et al. 2012; 2016) we compared their respective geochemical data using the PCA statistical multivariate data analyses (Figure 5). Unfortunately, the X-ray fluorescence technique used to acquire chemical composition of Issean artefacts analysed in Šegvić et al. (2016) yields a less comprehensive number of elemental concentrations (most of trace elements), which made the comparison efforts less reliable.

The elemental correlation matrix shown in Table 2, and a PCA diagram constructed thereof showing the projections of the variables (chemical elements) in the PC1 vs. PC2 space (Figure 3), are especially illustrative, depicting the nature of some key elements in the clayey paste. Thus silica is strongly correlated with Al2O3 and partly with Fe2O3 and TiO2. A strong correlation of SiO2 is also reported for trace elements such as REE, Zr, Hf, and Ga. On the other hand a clear inverse relationship of SiO2 is documented for K2O, Na2O and MnO. These trends may be taken as strong indicators of the compositional characteristics of clayey paste. It further follows that inclusions and/or temper material, such as K-feldspars and plagioclase, had only minor impacts on the overall chemical budget of analysed ceramics. Furthermore, the clay minerals that are somewhat deficient in the ferromagnesian component and alkalis, such as illite and mixed-layered phases (e.g. illite/smectite), must have strongly controlled the geochemical behaviour of most of the major and trace elements. This is clearly demonstrated by the positive correlation of REE with SiO2 and Al2O3 , which is a common feature for clay minerals that tend to accommodate REE (e.g. Andersson et al. 2004; Šegvić et al. 2014).

Our inquiry has shown a lack of clear compositional resemblance of analysed material with the literature data (Figure 5). And yet a certain correspondence can be established. Thus, a detailed overview of the projection area (Figure 6) indicates a partial overlapping of the Kopila (dark squares) and Resnik samples (yellow circles). Conversely, the majority of the samples from Cape Ploča (blue circles) shows compositional similarities with the artefacts recovered at Trogir (asterisks) and Krk (empty squares). Archaeological implications In combination with the archaeological morphological and stylistic traits one could hypothesize regional production for most of the investigated grey-ware, while imports, although seeming to be less commonly present, are also appearing. Furthermore, the results could be used to support the idea of at least two, but perhaps even three, regional workshops in Dalmatia that in the course of the advanced 2nd century BCE and until Augustan times manufactured greyslipped grey-ware. If this were the case, the mouldmade hemispherical bowls, as well as the kantharoi (also articulated kantharoi), appear to have been made in more than one of these workshops, while at the same time some examples might have been imported. Two samples of plates with a vertical rim seem to originate from different presumed regional workshops as well. Samples from the island of Krk seem to indicate a single provenance that could be used as an argument suggesting that this area has perhaps been supplied from a single workshop whose products were also distributed to Trogir and Cape Ploča. Based on the geography of the dispersal area, as well as the above-mentioned considerations, we can further speculate that the workshop at Zadar (Iader) might serve as one of the main potential candidates. Unfortunately, apart from the mould find nothing is thus far known of this production. Among the analysed material the Trogir examples exhibit the highest degree of heterogeneity in terms of the prevailing provenance of recovered material. This includes the regional products but imports as well. For example, sample no. 87 appears as a statistical outsider, indicating a completely different production centre. This conceivable imported table amphora is also macroscopically differentiated from the rest of

The PCA case diagram based on the variance-covariance matrix is presented in Figure 3 (left), where the first two components account for 96.40% of the total variance (54.80% and 41.60%, respectively). Analyzing the space formed by the first (PC1) and the second (PC2) principal component one can infer that most of the samples form a dense projection cloud, weighting positively and negatively both principal components. A more detailed look into the projection space (Figure 4) may reveal the following: (1) most of the Kopila samples (dark squares) form a relatively homogenous projection cloud that largely overlaps with the projection area of the Soline samples (dark circles); (2) samples from the Krk locality (empty squares) also form a projection space of its own, weighting negatively both PCs; and (3) samples originating from Trogir (asterisks) do not form a cohesive projection space but are rather spread, partly overlapping with Krk samples. Comparison with literature data To test the correspondence of analysed potsherds with those originating from other localities recovered along the eastern Adriatic coast in Hellenistic times 101

Pottery Production, Landscape and Economy of Roman Dalmatia

Figure 3 (a). Biplot showing results of discrimination analysis in a space defined by two canonical variables – case study data; (b) the principal component biplot (PC1 and PC2) depicting projection of discriminating variables (elements) (author: B. Šegvić).

Figure 4. Biplot with a more detailed look into the projection space shown in Figure 3 (author: B. Šegvić).

102

M. Ugarković and B. Šegvić: The role of archaeometry in the study of production the material in visible abundant mica, indicating, perhaps, an Eastern Mediterranean provenance. The urban character and geostrategic position surely facilitated the participation of this community in different and vivid cultural interactions. This does not mean other communities were not involved in dynamic contacts as well, but only that such are more indicative in the case of Trogir, where only the evidence of grey-ware material is observed. Finally, samples from Kopila indicate a single workshop source, which to an extent supplied the island of Sv. Klement, and is furthermore comparable to Resnik as well. The stylistic and morphological analyses of pottery from the Kopila necropolis were interpreted as indicative for the Issean-Resnik production circle (Borzić 2017: 78), while at the same time local production was argued for analyzed samples of Resnik

pottery (Šegvić et al. 2012). In any event this would favour the notion of the ‘Issean-Siculi workshop(s)’ as having been mostly oriented towards the middle eastern Adriatic (central and southern Dalmatia) in terms of the dispersal of its grey-ware products. Although we cannot precisely define different regional workshops and their traits relying to this study only, the presented small study is a first scientific confirmation on previously archaeological argued regional cultural connectivity in the advanced Hellenistic period. Further archaeological work, accompanied by scientific analyses, is, however, needed to shed more light on identifying local ceramic workshops, along with different traits of production and the dispersal of their products in the context of the dynamic cultural interactions of eastern Adriatic communities.

Figure 5 (a). Biplot showing results of discrimination analysis in a space defined by two canonical variables – combination of literature and case study data; (b) the principal component biplot (PC1 and PC2) depicting projection of discriminating variables (elements) (author: B. Šegvić).

103

Pottery Production, Landscape and Economy of Roman Dalmatia

Figure 6. Biplot with a more detailed look into the projection space shown in Figure 5 (author: B. Šegvić).

Čargo, B. and Miše, M. 2010. Lončarska proizvodnja u Isi. Vjesnik za arheologiju i povijest dalmatinsku 103: 7-40. Čondić, N. and Vuković, M. 2017. U temeljima antičkog grada. Iz arheoloških slojeva liburnskog Zadra. Zadar: Arheološki Muzej Zadar. Drever, J. I. 2005. Surface and Ground Water, Weathering, and Soils: Treatise on Geochemistry (second Edition). Oxford: Elsevier. Forti, L. 1965. La ceramica di Gnathia. Napoli: G. Macchiaroli. Freestone, I. C., Meeks, N. D. and Middleton, A. P. 1985. Retention of Phosphate in Buried Ceramics: An Electron Microbeam Approach. Archaeometry 27: 161-177. Heimann, R. B. and Maggetti, M. 2014. Ancient and Historical Ceramics. Stuttgart: Schweizerbart Science Publishers. Jeličić Radonić, J. and Katić, M. 2015. Faros osnivanje antičkog grada. Split: Književni krug. Jolliffe, I. T. 2002. Principal component analysis. New York: Springer-Verlag. Kamenjarin, I. 2014. Helenistička reljefna keramika iz Sikula (Resnika). Vjesnik za arheologiju i historiju dalmatinsku 107: 129-160. Kamenjarin, I. 2017. Helenistička reljefna keramika iz Sikula. Exhibition catalogue. Kaštela: Muzej grada Kaštela. Katić, M. 2000. Uvod u proučavanje keramičkih radionica Farosa. Opuscula Archaeologica 23-24: 49-58. Katić, M. 2002. Proizvodnja kasno korintskih B amfora u Farosu. Prilozi povijesti umjetnosti u Dalmaciji 39: 51-59. Kirigin, B. 1983. Issa- antička nekropola na Vlaškoj Njivi. Obavijesti Hrvatskog arheološkog društva 15-3: 27-30. Kirigin, B. 1986. Issa, Otok Vis v helenizmu. Ljubljana: Narodni muzej. Kirigin, B. 1990. Late Gnathian: A Glimpse at the Issa Case, in: S. Drougou (ed), B/ Episthmonikh Sunanthsh gia ten Ellhnistikh Kerameikh: 58-65. Athens: Kv’ Eforia Proistorikon kai Klasikon Arhaisteton.

References Andersson, P. O. D., Worden, R. H., Hodgson, D. M. and Flint, S. 2004. Provenance evolution and chemostratigraphy of a Palaeozoic submarine fancomplex: Tanqua Karoo Basin, South Africa. Marine and Petroleum Geology 21: 555-577. Baxter, M. J. and Freestone, I. C. 2006. Log-ratio compositional data analysis in Archaeometry.* Archaeometry 48: 511-531. Bilich, I. 1994. Helenistička reljefna keramika u zbirkama Ivice Svilana i Nevena Leta. Kaštelanski zbornik 4: 145-157. Borzić, I. 2017. Ceramic finds, in: I. Fadić and A. Eterović Borzić (eds), The city of the dead above the field of life. Necropolis of Kopila hillfort on the island of Korčula: 6185. Zadar: Muzej antičkog stakla. Brusić, Z. 1999. Hellenistic and Roman Relief Pottery in Liburnia (North-East Adriatic, Croatia). British Archaeological Reports International Series 817. Oxford: Archaeopress. Brusić, Z. (ed) 2004. Resnik, hidroarheološka istraživanja. Exhibition catalogue. Kaštela: Muzej grada Kaštela. Cultrone, G., Rodriguez-Navarro, C., Sebastian, E., Cazalla, O. and De La Torre, M. J. 2001. Carbonate and silicate phase reactions during ceramic firing. European Journal of Mineralogy 13: 621-634. Cambi, N. 1991. Amfore kasnorepublikanskog doba i njihova produkcija u Dalmaciji, in: B. Čović (ed), Zbornik radova posvećen akademiku Alojzu Bencu: 5565. Sarajevo: Akademija nauka i umjetnosti Bosne i Hercegovine. Čargo, B. 2007. Grčko-helenistička keramika u Arheološkom muzeju u Splitu. Split: Arheološki muzej u Splitu. Čargo, B. 2008. Nove spoznaje o proizvodnji terakotnih figura u Issi. Archeologica Adriatica 11: 191-200. Čargo, B. 2016. O urbanizmu Ise u svjetlu novih arheoloških istraživanja. Vjesnik za arheologiju i povijest dalmatinsku 109: 25-56. 104

M. Ugarković and B. Šegvić: The role of archaeometry in the study of production Kirigin, B. 1996. Issa. Grčki grad na Jadranu. Zagreb: Matica hrvatska. Kirigin, B. 2004. Faros, parska naseobina. Prilog proučavanju grčke civilizacije u Dalmaciji. Vjesnik za arheologiju i historiju dalmatinsku 96: 9-301. Kirigin, B. 2012. Prilog proučavanju pitosa / dolija s otoka Visa, Biševa, Sveca i Palagruže, in: B. Migotti, Ph. Mason, B. Nadbath and T. Mulh (eds) Scripta in honorem Bojan Djurić: 285-304. Ljubljana: Zavod za varstvo kulturne dediščine Slovenije. Kirigin, B. 2016. Pithoi / Dolia from central Dalmatian islands, in: S. Japp and P. Kögler (eds.) Traditions and innovations: tracking the development of pottery from the late classical to the early imperial periods : proceedings of the 1st conference of IARPotHP, Berlin, November 2013, 7th – 10th: 185-190. Wien: Phoibos Verlag. Kirigin, B. 2017. Pithoi from Pharos, in: M. B. Vujnović (ed.) Ante portam auream: studia in honorem professoris Aleksandar Jovanović: 53-68. Belgrade: Faculty of Philosophy. Kirigin, B. 2018. Pharos, Greek amphorae and wine production, in: D. Katsonopoulou (ed.), Paros IV. Paros and its colonies. Proceedings of the fourth international conference on the archaeology of Paros and the Cyclades paroikia, Paros, 11-14 june 2015: 397-419. Athens: The Institute for Archaeology of Paros and the Cyclades. Kirigin, B., Hayes, J and Leech, P. 2002. Local pottery production at Pharos, in: N. Cambi, S. Čače and B. Kirigin (eds), Grčki utjecaj na istočnoj obali Jadrana. Zbornik radova sa znanstvenog skupa održanog od 24.-26. Rujna 1998. godine u Splitu: 241-260. Književni krug: Split. Kirigin, B., Katunarić, T. and Šešelj, L. 2005. Amfore i fina keramika (od 4.- 1. st. pr. Kr. ) iz srednje Dalmacije: preliminarni ekonomski i socijelni pokazatelji. Vjesnik za arheologiju i povijest dalmatinsku 98: 721. Kirigin, B. and Marin, E. 1985. Issa 80- preliminarni izvještaj sa zaštitnih arheoloških iskopavanja helenističke nekropole Martvilo u Visu: Novi i neobjelodanjeni natpisi iz Visa. Vjesnik za arheologiju i historiju dalmatinsku 78: 45-72. Menadakis, M., G. Maroulis, and P. G. Koutsoukos 2009. Incorporation of Mg2+, Sr2+, Ba2+ and Zn2+ into aragonite and comparison with calcite. Journal of Mathematical Chemistry 46: 484. Miše, M. 2013. Prilog proučavanju isejske keramike tipa Gnathia. Vjesnik za povijest i arheologiju dalmatinsku 106: 99-130. Miše, M. 2015. Gnathia and Related Hellenistic Ware on the East Adriatic Coast. Oxford: Archaeopress. Miše, M., Seernels, V. and Kirigin, B. 2016. Provenience studies of type-B amphorae from the Greek colony of Pharos on the island of Hvar, Croatia, in: 41st International Symposium on Archaeometry, May 15-21, 2016, Kalamata, Greece. Poster presentation (DOI. 10.13140/RG.2.2.33763.14883), viewed 20 September

2018,

Migotti, B. 1989. Grčko-helenistička keramika iz Starog Grada na Hvaru (II.). Vjesnik Arheološkog muzeja u Zagrebu XXII: 19-43. Mommsen, H. 2001. Provenance determination of pottery by trace element analysis: Problems, solutions and applications. Journal of Radioanalytical and Nuclear Chemistry 247: 657-662. Nikolanci, M. 1976. Jadranski Grci kao periferija helenskog svijeta. Materijali 12: 149-168. Papachristodoulou, C., Gravani, K., Oikonomou, A. and Ioannides, K. 2010. On the provenance and manufacture of red-slipped fine ware from ancient Cassope (NW Greece): evidence by X-ray analytical methods. Journal of Archaeological Science 37: 21462154. Popović, S. 2010. Rezultati novih zaštitnih istraživanja u Starome Gradu na otoku Hvaru, in: S. Ivčević (ed.) Arheološka istraživanja na srednjem Jadranu. Znanstveni skup, Vis, 13.-16. listopada 2009 (Izdanja Hrvatskog arheološkog društva 26): 137-149. Split: Hrvatsko arheološko društvo. Starac, R. 2011. Izvještaj o rezultatima zaštitnog arheološkog sondiranja na istočnom dijelu bedema Grada Krka. Unpublished report. Šegvić, B., Šešelj, L., Slovenc, D., Lugović, B and Ferreiro Mahlmann, R. 2012. Composition, technology of manufacture and Circulation of Hellenistic Pottery from the Eastern Adriatic: A case study of three archaeological sites along the Dalmatian coast, Croatia. Geoarchaeology 27: 63-87. Šegvić, B., Mileusnić, M., Aljinović, D., Vranjković, A., Mandic, O., Pavelić, D., Dragičević, I. and Ferreiro Mählmann, R. 2014. Magmatic provenance and diagenesis of Miocene tuffs from the Dinaride Lake System (the Sinj Basin, Croatia). European Journal of Mineralogy 26: 83-101. Šegvić, B., Ugarković, M., Süssenberg, A., Ferreiro Mählmann, R. and Moscariello, A. 2016. Compositional properties and provenance of Hellenistic pottery from the necropolis of Issa with evidences on the cross-Adriatic and the Mediterranean-scale trade. Mediterranean Archaeology and Archaeometry 16-1: 23-52. Šešelj, L. 2005. Bradavičasti kantharosi s helenističkog svetišta na rtu Ploči. Vjesnik za arheologiju i historiju dalmatinsku 97: 381-400. Šešelj, L. 2008. The influence of the Dyrrachium pottery workshops in central and south Dalmatia. Rei Cretaria Fautores Acta 40: 105-112. Šešelj, L. 2009. Promunturium Diomedes: Svetište na rtu Ploča i jadranska pomorska trgovina u helenističkom 105

Pottery Production, Landscape and Economy of Roman Dalmatia razdoblju. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Zadar: University of Zadar. Šuta, I. 2011. Organizacija i arhitektura naselja iz 2. i 1. st. pr. K, in: I. Kamenjarin and I. Šuta (eds), Antički Sikuli. Exhibition catalogue: 31-38. Kaštela: Muzej grada Kaštela. Ugarković, M. 2013. Red-figure fish plate from Issa. Vjesnik za arheologiju i povijest dalmatinsku 106: 7598. Ugarković, M. 2015. Pogrebni običaji grčke Isse na temelju arheoloških iskopavanja nekropole na položaju Vlaška njiva u Visu. Unpublished PhD dissertation. Zagreb: University of Zagreb. Ugarković, M. 2016. Trouble in paradise? Among the last comedy scene in red-figure: an oinochoe from Issa and its cultural context. Vjesnik za arheologiju i historiju dalmatinsku 109: 57-97. Ugarković, M. 2017. On funerary rites of Hellenistic Issa – an early pilum find and its cultural significance. Vjesnik za arheologiju i historiju dalmatisnku 110-1: 135-172. Ugarković, M. and Šegvić, B. 2017. Tableware of the living or pots for the dead? An introduction to the 2nd and 1st c. BC greyware from the tombs of Issa

(Eastern Adriatic), in: G. Lipovac Vrkljan, B. Šiljeg, I. Ožanić Roguljić and A. Konestra (eds), Roman Pottery and Glass manufactures. Production and trade in the Adriatic region. Proceedings of the 3rd International Archaeological Colloquium (4-5 November 2014, Crikvenica): 161-183. Zagreb: Institut za arheologiju. Ugarković, M. and Konestra, A. 2018. Hellenistic and Roman fine-wares from Soline bay on St. Clement island near Hvar, in: M. Ugarković (ed.), Praetoria longe lateque lucentia. Zbornik radova posvećen Vlasti Begović povodom 65. obljetnice života (Serta Instituti archaeologici 8): 71-107. Zagreb: Institut za arheologiju. Ugarković, M. and Šegvić, B. forthcoming. New insights into the far-flung markets of Levantine products: Phoenician Hellenistic amphoriskoi from the eastern Adriatic, in: A. Peignard Giros (ed.), Daily Life in a Cosmopolitan World: Pottery and Culture during the Hellenistic Period. Proceedings of the 2nd Conference of IARPotHP conference, Lyon, November 2015, 5th to 8th. Vienna (forthcoming). Velde, B. D. and Druc, I. 1999. Archaeological Ceramic Materials – Origin and Utilization. Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag.

106

Archaeometric characterisation of pottery and ceramics from Dalmatian Roman pottery workshops and possible clay raw material by multivariate statistical analysis Tea Zubin Ferri Abstract Samples of pottery and ceramics from Dalmatian Roman pottery workshops, as well as supposed raw materials for their production, were subject to ICP-MS in order to analyse their chemical composition. The results were analysed by cluster analysis, the main aim of which was to recognise the existence of groups among the analysed objects. In this paper the first results of this multivariate statistical analysis will be presented, with particular regard to the Crikvenica pottery workshop. Keywords: Roman pottery and ceramics, clay raw material, ICP-MS, multivariate statistical analysis

Introduction

archaeological reconnaissance has narrowed down to a few locations the sites from where the raw material may have been initially taken. On the other hand, since many potsherds found in other sites along the Adriatic coast are considered to have been produced in the Crikvenica workshop, so far the best studied one, the aims of this archaeometric study expanded and were geared to help answer more than one issue. First, it was hoped to check the similarities and differences in the chemical composition between the clays and the ceramic produced in each workshop; and then to determine if the presumably exported potsherds, found along the Adriatic coasts, could have been actually produced in the Crikvenica workshop. To this end, inductively coupled plasma-mass spectrometry (ICPMS) was applied on collected potsherds. This analytical technique is considered to be one of the most relevant for material characterisation (Marengo et al. 2005). Its results are considered as ‘fingerprints’ of each analysed sample (Marengo et al. 2005), which can be used for provenance studies as well as for classification purposes.

Archaeological ceramics represent the most widespread and varied material that man produces from prehistory until the modern era. Finds of ceramic vessels and objects are characteristic material of any archaeological research and have a direct impact on the overall interpretation of an archaeological site. In the elaboration of ceramic finds in the last few decades an interdisciplinary approach was introduced which involves the application of methods for the characterization of the chemical composition of the ceramic finds themselves, as well as of the raw materials used for their production (clay and admixtures) (Belfiore et al. 2007; Gutsuz et al. 2017; Harrison and Hancock 2005; Pollard et al. 2006; Santos et al. 2006; Schwdet and Hommsen 2007). The analysis of the chemical composition of the ceramic fragments and the application of the chemometric methods in the processing of the collected data has often proved to be of great help in classifying ceramic objects in terms of provenance or production workshops.1 Recent archaeological researches carried out for four identified ancient ceramic workshops along the Adriatic coast, Crikvenica, Podšilo, Uvala Plemići and Mahućina have provided much information about the selection of raw materials, the technology of firing (see also Grizelj in this volume), as well as the use or distribution of produced ceramic items.

Methodology For the aim of the present study, ICP-MS was conducted on a total of 60 Crikvenica samples of ceramic fragments (40 found in Crikvenica – LOCAL, and 20 found at other sites along the Adriatic coast – DISTRIBUTION), and 11 samples of clay, four of which were also fired at 700° and 800°C. From the sites of Uvala Plemići, Podsilo and Mahućina, a total of 10 samples were analysed, three samples of clay and seven potsherds (Table 1).

Beside the abundance in running water and firewood, the four mentioned ceramic workshops are situated in zones rich in clay deposits, and the conducted For the use of chemometric methods in archaeology, see: Antonelli et al. 2004; Baklouti et al. 2016; Barone et al. 2005; De Benedetto et al. 2002; Madejova 2003; Maggetti and Galletti 1980; Martineau et al. 2007; Musumarra and Fichera 1998; Papachristodolou et al. 2006; SarhaddiDadian et al. 2015; Šegvić et al. 2016. 1 

The ICP-MS analysis was conducted at the Bureau Veritas Commodities Canada Ltd laboratory in five 107

O.N.

Sample Provenance

Labels

Description

Crikvenica site – clay, local ceramic and distribution 1

Crikvenica workshop – local

CL2

potsherd

2

Crikvenica workshop – local

CL12

potsherd

3

Crikvenica workshop – local

CL3

potsherd

4

Crikvenica workshop – local

CL11

potsherd

5

Crikvenica workshop – local

CL6

potsherd

6

Crikvenica workshop – local

CL7

potsherd

7

Crikvenica workshop – local

CL17

Plate with orlo bifido

8

Crikvenica workshop – local

CL10

Separator

9

Crikvenica workshop – local

CL20

Tegula

10

Crikvenica workshop – local

CL18

Imbrex

11

Crikvenica workshop – local

CL19

Tubul

12

Crikvenica workshop – local

CL28

Floor tile

13

Crikvenica workshop – local

CL32

Rounded tiles for hypocaust’s pilae

14

Crikvenica workshop – local

CL33

Weight type 1

15

Crikvenica workshop – local

CL35

Brick

16

Crikvenica workshop – local

CL16

Amphora Type 2

17

Crikvenica workshop – local

CL14

Amphora Type 3

18

Crikvenica workshop – local

CL13

Amphora Type 4

19

Crikvenica workshop – local

CL4

Amphora Type 6, possibly not local

20

Crikvenica workshop – local

CL15

Amphora Type 6

21

Crikvenica workshop – local

CL23

Amphora Type 7

22

Crikvenica workshop – local

CLA8

Amphora Type 8

23

Crikvenica workshop – local

CL24

Amphora Type 9

24

Crikvenica workshop – local

CL37

Amphora Type 10

25

Crikvenica workshop – local

CL25

Amphora Type 11

26

Crikvenica workshop – local

CL26

Amphora Type 12

27

Crikvenica workshop – local

CL27

Amphora Type 13

28

Crikvenica workshop – local

CL1

Amphora Type 13

29

Crikvenica workshop – local

CL36

Amphora Type 14

30

Crikvenica workshop – local

CLL17

Amphora Type 1

31

Crikvenica workshop – local

CLL174

Amphora Type 2

32

Crikvenica workshop – local

CLLTG

Tegula with stamp

33

Crikvenica workshop – local

CLL31

Tegula with stamp

34

Crikvenica workshop – local

CLL2D

Amphora Type 2

35

Crikvenica workshop – local

CLLS149

Amphora

36

Crikvenica workshop – local

CLLON

Potsherd

37

Crikvenica workshop – local

CL U396

Burnt rectangular floor tile

38

Distribution – Nadin

CD1

Amphora Type 1

39

Distribution – Asseria

CD2

Amphora Type 1

40

Distribution – Preko

CD3

Tegula

41

Distribution – Zaton 2909H

CD4

Amfora tip 1 more

42

Distribution – Zaton 2917H

CD5

Amfora tip 1 more

43

Distribution – Zaton 3344H

CD6

Amfora tip 1 more

44

Distribution – Kolovare 1172H

CD7

Amfora tip 1 more

45

Distribution – Tarsatica

CD8

Tegula with seal

46

Distribution – Lokvišće

CD9

Amphora Type 3

47

Distribution – Lokvišće

CD10

Amphora Type 1

48

Distribution – Senj

CD11

Amphora Type 5

Table 1. Description of potsherd and clay samples (author: T. Zubin Ferri).

108

T. Zubin Ferri: Archaeometric characterisation of pottery and ceramics from Dalmatian Roman pottery

O.N.

Sample Provenance

Labels

Description

49

Distribution – Omišalj

CD12

Amphora Type 1 from grave

50

Distribution – Susak

CD13

Tegula ( undersea find)

51

Distribution – Susak 3154

CD14

Imbrex (undersea find)

52

Distribution – Lošinj 3158

CD15

Tegula with seal (undersea find)

53

Distribution – Lošinj 3159

CD16

Tegula (undersea find)

54

Distribution – Lošinj

CD17

Imbrex (undersea find)

55

Distribution – Lošinj

CD18

Tegula (undersea find)

56

Distribution – Susak

CD19

Amphora bottom (undersea find)

57

Distribution – Šibenik

CD20

Amphora Type 1

58

Distribution – Aquileia

AAQ 2.1

Amphora Canale Anfora 2.1

59

Distribution – Aquileia

AAQ 2.2.

Amphora Canale Anfora 2.2

60

Distribution – Aquileia

AAQ 2.3

Amphora Canale Anfora 2.3

61

Clay – Slani potok 2 (Crikvenica hinterland)

GSP2

Raw clay

62

Clay – Slani potok 4 (Crikvenica hinterland)

GSP4

Raw clay

63

Clay – Slani potok 3 (Crikvenica hinterland)

GSP3

Raw clay

64

Clay – Slani potok 1 (Crikvenica hinterland)

GSP1

Raw clay

65

Clay – from excavation site (local)

GLOK

Raw clay

66

Clay – from excavation site (local) upper layer

GSJ

Raw clay

67

Clay – from excavation site (local)

GSJPEČ

Fired clay at 850°C

68

Clay – from excavation site (local) kiln 103

GSJ103700

Fired clay at 700°C

69

Clay – from excavation site (local) kiln 103

GSJ103800

Fired clay at 800°C

70

Clay –Godač (Crikvenica hinterland)

GGOD

Raw clay

71

Clay – Godač pecena (Crikvenica hinterland)

GGOPEČ

Fired clay at 850°C

Mahućina, Podšilo and Plemići sites – local ceramic and clay 72

Uvala Plemići amphora

PLAMF

Amphora

73

Uvala Plemići imbrex

PLIMB

Imbrex

74

Uvala Plemići tegula

PLTEG

Tegula

75

Plemići clay

GLPL

Raw clay

76

Podšilo red tegula

PODTEG17

Tegula

77

Podšilo yellow tegula

PODTEGZ

Tegula

78

Podšilo clay

GPODS

Raw clay

79

Mahućina red tegula

MATEGC

Tegula

80

Mahućina yellow tegula

MATEGZ

Tegula

81

Mahućina clay

GMAC

Raw clay

Table 1. Continued.

analytical campaigns (in 2007, 2015, 2016, 2017 and 2018). The results were analysed by cluster analysis, the main aim of which is to recognise existence of groups among the analysed objects, i.e. samples. An agglomerative hierarchical method based on Ward linking and Euclidean distances was used and the analysis was performed by Origin Pro 9.1 software on log-transformed and autoscaled dataset.

form one group. The clay collected at the location on the excavation site, fired and raw, also comprise one group, together with the two samples of Godač raw and fired clay. As expected, the analysed samples of fired clay do not form a separate group, indicating that the elemental chemical composition does not change considerably during the firing process. A dendrogram was compiled with all the Crikvenica samples including local ceramic, distribution and clay, in which three main groups are visible (Figure 2). Groups 1 and 2 are the most relevant ones, including approximately 30 objects each. The third group is mainly formed by the potsherds found in the sea (six of the seven samples from potsherds found in the sea)

Results First, the similarity in the composition of the collected samples of Crikvenica clay was observed (Figure 1). The clay gathered in the four locations from Slani Potok 1-4 (in the hinterland of Crikvenica) expectedly 109

Pottery Production, Landscape and Economy of Roman Dalmatia

Figure 1. Dendrogram compiled from the dataset of Crikvenica clays (raw and fired) (author: T. Zubin Ferri).

Figure 2. Dendrogram compiled from the overall dataset of Crikvenica samples (local ceramic, distribution, clay) (author: T. Zubin Ferri).

plus samples GSP2, clay from Slani potok 2, and CD20 (a potsherd of alleged Crikvenica distribution found in Šibenik). This group would be expected to contain

sample CD15, a tegula with stamp found in the waters off Lošinj (Radić Rossi 2011: 23-24, fig. 10), which, however, is placed within the first group. This latter 110

T. Zubin Ferri: Archaeometric characterisation of pottery and ceramics from Dalmatian Roman pottery

Figure 3. Dendrogram compiled from the dataset of Uvala Plemići, Podšilo and Mahućina samples (local ceramic and clay) (author: T. Zubin Ferri).

group encloses local ceramics, distributions, and the other three clay samples from Slani potok; it is formed of two subgroups, where both local and distribution potsherds are present. The second group, including in total 30 objects, seven clay samples, nine samples from distribution potsherds and 14 from local Crikvenica ceramic. According to the ICP-MS results, a sample of a questionable local amphora, CL4, is chemically most similar to the second group.

the Slani potok deposit (GSP1, GSP3, GSP4) and mostly potsherds found locally in Crikvenica in the workshop excavation site, while the second group includes samples of locally collected raw and fired clay: GLOK, GSJ, GSJ103700, GSJ103800, GSJPEC, GGOD, GGOPEC, along with local and distributed ceramics. The differences and similarities in the composition of all clay samples collected in Crikvenica (Figure 1), explicable with the different sampling locations and firing, and their positions within the two main groups of Crikvenica local and distribution ceramics (Figure 2), may indicate that different clay deposits could have been exploited in diverse periods during the activity of the Crikvenica workshop. Further research is being conducted by means of other analytical techniques aimed to help explain the chemical changes that occurred during the firing of the ceramics in order to better understand the procedure and technology, as well as the material used in the production process.

The dendrogram constructed with the samples from the other three workshop sites (Figure 3), illustrates how the elemental chemical composition among the samples is quite similar. Except for the two tegulae from Mahućina, objects MATEGC and MATEGZ, and two samples from Plemići, PLAMF and PLTEG, no other groups that can be reconciled with the provenance of the objects are observed. Conclusions

Acknowledgment

From what has been exposed by the presented results, it is possible to conclude that, based on the elemental fingerprint provide by ICP-MS, and the performed cluster analysis on the selected samples, no clear distinctions are observed among local Crikvenica potsherds and the distributions. This fact suggests that the presence of two main groups could refer to different production moments, where different raw materials and/or firing conditions were applied. Group 1 (Figure 2) comprises three of the four collected samples from

All analyses were carried out within project RED activities (IP-11-2013-3973, HRZZ); the author would like to thank prof. Sanda Rončević from the Faculty of Science (Department of Chemistry), University of Zagreb, for help with data interpretation and statistics. References Antonelli, F., Bernardini, F., Capedri, S., Lazzarini, L. and Montagnari Kokelj, E. 2004. Archaeometric study of 111

Pottery Production, Landscape and Economy of Roman Dalmatia protohistoric grinding tools of volcanic rocks found in the Karst (Italy – Slovenia) and Istria (Croatia). Archaeometry 46-4: 537-552. Baklouti, S., Maritan, L., Casas, L., Karihdi Ouazaa, N., Jarrgea, R., Prevosti, M., Mazzoli, C., Fouzai, B., Larabi Kasssaa, S. and Fantar, M. 2016. Establishing a new reference group of Keay 25.2 amphorae from Sidi Zahruni (Nabeul, Tunisia). Applied Clay Science 132-133: 140-154. Barone, G., Lo Giudice, A., Mazzoleni, P., Pezzino, A., Barilaro, D., Crupi, V. and Triscari, M. 2005. Chemical characterisation and statistical multivariate analysis of ancient pottery from Messina, Catania, Lentini and Siracusa (Sicily). Archaeometry 47-4: 745-762. Belfiore, C. M., Day, P. M., Hein, A., Kilikoglou, V., La Rosa, V., Mezzoleni, P. and Pezzino, A. 2007. Petrographic and chemical characterisation of pottery production of the Late Minoan I kiln at Haghia Triada, Crete. Archaeometry 49: 621-653. De Benedetto, G. E., Laviano, R., Sabbatini, L. and Zambonin, P. G. 2002. Infrared spectroscopy in the mineralogical characterisation of ancient pottery. Journal of Cultural Heritage 3: 177-186. Gutsuz, P., Kibaroglu, M., Sunal, G. and Haciosmanoglu, S. 2017. Geochemical characterization of clay deposits in the Amuq Valley (Southern Turkey) and the implications for archaeometrics study of ancient ceramics. Applied Clay Science 141: 316-333. Harrison, T. P. and Hancock, R. G. V. 2005. Geochemical analysis and sociocultural complexity: a case study from early Iron Age Megiddo (Israel). Archaeometry 47: 705-722. Madejova, J. 2003. FTIR techniques in clay mineral studies. Vibrational Spectroscopy: 31, 1-9. Maggetti, M. and Galetti, G. 1980. Composition if Iron Age Fine Ceramics from Chatillon-s-Glane (Kt. Fribourg, Switzerland) and the Heuneburg (Kr. Sigmaringen, West Germany). Journal of Archaeological Science 7: 87-91. Marengo, E., Aceto, M., Robotti, E., Liparota, M. C., Bobba, M. and Panto, G. 2005. Archaeometric characterisation of ancient pottery belonging to the archaeological site of Novalsea Abbey (Piedmont, Italy) by ICP-MS and spectroscopic techniques coupled to multivariate statistical tools. Analytica Chimica Acta 537: 359-375. Martineau, R., Walter-Simonnet, A. V., Grobety, B. and Bautier, M. 2007. Clay resources and technical

choices for Neolithic pottery (Chalain, Jura, France): chemical, mineralogical and grain-size analyses. Archaeometry 49: 23-52. Musumarra, G. and Fichera, M. 1998. Chemometrics and cultural heritage. Chemometric and Intelligent Laboratory System 44: 636-372. Papachristodolou, C., Oikonomou, A., Ioannides, K. and Gravani, K. 2006. A study of ancient pottery by means of X-ray fluorescence spectroscopy and multivariate statistics and mineralogical analysis. Analytica Chimica Acta 573-574: 347-353. Pollard, M., Batt, C., Stern, B. and Young, M. M. 2006. Analytical Chemistry in Archaeology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Radić Rossi, I. 2011. Brodski tereti krovne opeke i proizvodi radionice Seksta Metilija Maksima u jadranskom podmorju, in: G. Lipovac Vrkljan, B. Šiljeg, I. Radić Rossi (eds), Rimske keramičarske i staklarske radionice. Proizvodnja i trgovina na jadranskom prostoru/ Roman pottery and glass manufactures. Production and trade in the Adriatic region. Proceedings of the 1st International Archaeological Colloquy, Crikvenica 23 – 24 October 2008: 19-30. Crikvenica-Zagreb: Muzej Grada Crikvenice, Institut za arheologiju. Santos, J. O., Munita, C. S., Valério, M. E. G., Vergne, C. and Oliveira, P. M. S. 2006. Determination of trace elements in archaeological ceramics and application of Kernel Density, Estimates: Implications of the definition of production locations. Journal of Radioanalytical and Nuclear Chemistry 269: 441-445. Schwedt, A. and Hommsen, H. 2007. On the influence of drying and firing of clay on the formation of trace element concentration profiles within pottery. Archaeometry 49: 495-509. Sarhaddi-Dadian, H., Ramli, Z., Abduli Rahman, N. H. S. N. and Mehrafarin, R. 2015. X-ray diffraction and X-ray fluorescence analysis of pottery shards from new archaeological survey in South Region of Sistan, Iran. Mediterranean Archaeology and Archaeometry 3, 45-56. Šegvić, B., Ugarković, M., Sussenberg, A., Ferreiro Mahlmann, R. and Moscriello, A. 2016. Compositional properties and provenance of Hellenistic pottery from the necropolois of Issa with evidences on the cross-Adriatic and Mediterranean-scale trade. Mediterranean Archaeology and Archaeometry 16: 2352.

112

Mineralogical analyses of Roman pottery from Dalmatian workshops and potential clays sources Anita Grizelj Abstract In this contribution preliminary mineralogical analysis on selected pottery, clay and fired clay samples from eastern Adriatic Roman pottery workshops and possible raw material sources will be presented. Results shed light on their mineralogical composition, as well as possible firing temperatures of ancient pottery. Keywords: X-ray diffraction, clay, Roman pottery, Roman Dalmatia

Introduction1

and clayey materials as potential raw materials. Clayey materials analysed on random mounts of bulk samples and oriented mounts of the