Chemical Classification and Provenance of Some Roman Glazed Ceramics Author(s): Helen Hatcher, Alexander Kaczmarczyk, Agns Scherer,

Robin P. Symonds Source: American Journal of Archaeology, Vol. 98, No. 3 (Jul., 1994), pp. 431-456 Published by: Archaeological Institute of America Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/506438 Accessed: 14/11/2008 09:35
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use. Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=aia. Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission. JSTOR is a not-for-profit organization founded in 1995 to build trusted digital archives for scholarship. We work with the scholarly community to preserve their work and the materials they rely upon, and to build a common research platform that promotes the discovery and use of these resources. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Archaeological Institute of America is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to American Journal of Archaeology.

http://www.jstor.org

Chemical Classification and Provenance of Some Roman Glazed Ceramics

HELEN HATCHER, ALEXANDER KACZMARCZYK, AGNES SCHERER, AND ROBIN P SYMONDS Abstract
Within the large corpus of publications devoted to Roman pottery, few provide analyses of the clay body or glaze of lead-glazed ceramics. To gain some idea if widely separated workshops used similar glaze formulations we subjected over 100 specimens, mostly recovered from two corners of the Roman world, Roman Britain and Asia, to spectroscopic analysis.The variability of glaze compositions is small enough to suggest that a standard recipe combining lead with the traditional ingredients developed for alkaline glazes probably served as a model throughout the Empire. We have detected the first case of the use of chromite as black underglaze pigment in a pre-Islamic ceramic. Glaze analyses proved less useful than body fabric analyses for correlating unprovenanced specimens with wares from known findspots and known or suspected workshops. The analytical data are consistent with stylistic arguments that attribute the overwhelming majority of our Romano-British fragments to workshops in Gaul. Specimens from the Ionian coast show affinities with Smyrna wares, which are distinctly different from vessels from Tarsus. No single origin is indicated for vessels from Cyprus, Alexandria, or Syria-some may have come from Italy, others from Tarsus or elsewhere. The analytical groupings correlate well with stylistic classifications proposed by Hochuli-Gysel for wares from Asia Minor.* INTRODUCTION This paper is an expanded and full version of a preliminary report on Romano-British glazed ceramics from Colchester published in 1989.1 The work presented below arises out of the confluence of two initially separate projects at Oxford and at Colchester. Investigations into the history and nature of Roman pottery glazing were begun by one of the authors (AK) as a sequel to his work on Egyptian faience.2 The project was intended to extend the published faience work geographically, to other parts of the Near East, and in time to after the first century B.C. A study of Roman glazed clay ceramics seemed indispensable since they formed a bridge between the pre-Islamic faience and Islamic clay glazing traditions of the Near East. Examination of the voluminous literature devoted to ancient clay ceramics reveals that over 99% were unglazed, for reasons that are well known to most ceramiciststhe dominant ancient alkaline glazes, developed for high-silica ceramics (usually referred to as "faience"), adhere poorly to clay. Sporadic attempts to glaze clay using the traditional alkaline recipes are attested by scattered specimens from northern Syria and Mesopotamia,3 some dating to the Middle Bronze Age,4 but there is at the present time no evidence that lead glazing of clay, which gives a satisfactory coating that adheres well, was practiced prior to the first century B.C. Extensive search by one of the authors (AK), who has examined over 2,000 pre-Roman glazed specimens from several American, European, and three Egyptian museums (Cairo, Alexandria, and Coptic), failed to turn up a single example of a clay object bearing a lead glaze. On the other hand, among Islamic ceramics leadglazed examples predominate.

* We wish to thank Catherine Metzger, Curator of Greek and Roman Antiquities, and Annie Caubet, Head Curator of Oriental Antiquities, for their help and cooperation in the selection of material from the Musee du Louvre. We are also grateful to M.G. Fulford and Jane Timby for allowing us to sample the Silchester and Gloucester specimens discussed in this paper. We are most grateful to Jack Ligot, former director of the Laboratoire de Recherche des Musees de France, for giving us access to the analytical facilities of his Laboratory.A 1987 National Endowment for the Humanities Summer Stipend awarded to A. Kaczmarczyk,for which we are most thank431 AmericanJournal of Archaeology (1994) 431-56 98

ful, helped support some aspects of this work. R.P Symonds and H. Hatcher, "La ceramique a glacure plombifere de l'epoque romaine trouvee a Colchester et ailleurs: quelques analyses recentes," Sociite franfaise d'tude de la ceramique antiqueen Gaule,Actesdu de Congres Lezoux(1989) 85-92. 2 A. Kaczmarczyk and R.E.M. Hedges, Ancient Egyptian Faience(Warminster1983). 3 I.C. Freestone, "Technical Examination of NeoAssyrianGlazed Wall Plaques,"Iraq 53 (1991) 55-58. 4 A. Kaczmarczyket al., Pre-Islamic Ceramics Syriaand of Mesopotamia, forthcoming.

432

HATCHER, KACZMARCZYK, SCHERER, AND SYMONDS

[AJA98

An additional stimulus to this undertaking was the paucity of complete quantitative analyses of Roman glazes and the supporting body fabrics. For example, the two most complete analytical reports on Roman glazes5 do not include body analyses while other publications give body fabric analyses without including quantitativedata on glaze compositions.6 In most articles on Roman lead-glazed ware, the analytical data consist of a laconic statement to the effect that analysis showed the glaze to be lead-based instead of alkaline. The project was initiated by analyzing all 13 glazed Roman clay objects from the Ashmolean Museum, Oxford. The collection consisted of lamps, vessels, and vessel fragments. The Ashmolean collection was supplemented by the Graeco-Roman glazed vessels and 49 fragments from the Louvre. The vessels in both collections consisted primarilyof Hellenistic-derived forms, such as skyphoi and other open bowl and beaker forms that were thought to have been produced in Asia Minor, at either Smyrna or Tarsus.7The choice of the two museums was dictated in part by their proximity to suitable laboratory facilities. Simultaneously, an interest in lead-glazed wares was developing at Colchester, in the course of processing pottery from recent excavations. Out of some 15 tons of Roman pottery excavated by the Colchester Archaeological Trust since 1971, only 700 g were accounted for by glazed vessels, and out of the 37 glazed vessels represented, only three add up to some 570 g: the rest are all rather small sherds. The analyses of the glazes and body fabrics of 31 Colchester fragments were supplemented by body fabric analyses of five samples from the Colchester and Essex Museum, four from Silchester, and two from Gloucester.These 11 specimens were selected because they were agreed (on stylistic grounds) to be typical products of workshops in Gaul and would, therefore, provide a good chemical "fingerprint" for comparison with the Col5 E.R. Caley, "Results of a Chemical Examination of Some Specimens of Roman Glaze from Tarsus,"AJA 51 (1947) 389-93; A. Hochuli-Gysel, Kleinasiatische glasierte Reliefkeramik v. Chr. 50 n. Chr)und ihreoberitalischen bis (50 Acta Nachahmungen, Bernensia(Bern 1977) 18-20. 6 M. Picon and A. Desbat, "Note sur l'origine des ceramiques a glacure plombifere, generalement bicolore, des IIemeet IIIemesiecles, de Vienne et Saint-Romain-enGal,"Figlina7 (1986) 125-27; A. Desbat, "Ceramiquesromaines a glacure plombifere des fouilles de Lyon (Hauts-de-Saint-Just, Rue des Farges, La Solitude)," Figlina 7 (1986) 105-24.

chester sherds that showed clear stylistic and petrographic similarities with wares generally accepted to have been manufactured in Central Gaul.8 A total of 106 specimens were subjected to analysis, though in a few instances only the glaze or only the body were analyzed for a variety of technical reasons. All the body fabrics were analyzed using the atomic absorption spectrometer (AAS)at the Research Laboratory for Archaeology at Oxford University. An X-ray fluorescence (XRF) spectrometer at the same laboratorywas used to analyze the glazes of the Ashmolean and Colchester material; the Louvre glazes were analyzed using similar equipment at the Laboratoire de Recherche des Musees de France in Paris. The results are tabulated in Appendices A and B.
DESCRIPTION OF ANALYZED MATERIAL

A catalogue of objects analyzed is presented in tables 1-4, in which the descriptions are accompanied by several numbers. The first column in each table invariably has numbers preceded by RG (Roman glaze); these are the numbers assigned to the fabric samples analyzed by AAS. In tables 1 and 2, museum numbers refer to the accession numbers at the Ashmolean and Louvre Museums, respectively, while the H-G numbers are those from the HochuliGysel catalogue.9 The letter preceding the H-G number indicates the site of manufacture postulated by that author: S = Smyrna, T = Tarsus, and W = Western Asia Minor. Finally,the LRMF numbers are those assigned by the Laboratoire de Recherche des Musees de France when the glazes of the Louvre material were being analyzed. The additional numbers in tables 3 and 4 are explained in the subheadings. All four tables list colors of body fabricsand of the glazed exteriors as seenbythehumaneye.In Appendix B, however, instead of the range of apparentglaze colors noted in tables 1-4 only two colors are listed: green and clear. The explanation for this apparent
7 EE Jones, "The Pottery,"in H. Goldman ed., Excavationsat Gzlii Kule,Tarsus TheHellenistic Roman I: and Periods (Princeton 1950) 191-96; D. Pinkwart, "Hellenistischromische Bleiglasurkeramik aus Pergamon," PergamenischeForschungen (1972) 140-63; Hochuli-Gysel (supra n. 1 5) 107-37.
8 R.P Symonds and S.M. Wade, The Roman Potteryfrom Excavations at Colchester, 1971-85 (Colchester Archaeologi-

cal Report 10, forthcoming); Symonds and Hatcher (supran. 1). 9 Hochuli-Gysel (supra n. 5) 107-37, 145-74.

1994]

CHEMICAL CLASSIFICATION

OF ROMAN GLAZED CERAMICS

433

Table 1. Material from the Ashmolean Museum

Oxford No. RG 1 Museum No. 1953.63 H-G No. & Illustration Findspot Littlemore, Oxfordshire Body Color pinkbuff Exterior Color yellowgreen Interior Color (unglazed) Dimensions (cm) diam. 4.0 (footring) Description Pot base and footring found at Heyford Hill, in vicinity of Roman kilns with other Romano-British pottery. Circular moldmade oil lamp with one burner and loop handle, two unpierced side lugs; gladiator design on discus; found in a tomb in 1842 (RJ. Charleston, Roman Pottery[London 1955] pl. 30B). Circular moldmade oil lamp with one burner and loop handle, ovolo molding around outer edges of discus; marked with foot-stamp. Circular moldmade oil lamp with one burner and loop handle, laurel leaf chaplet around hole in disk. Small pot, flared rim; bought at Sothebys on 4 May 1970: lot 99. Fragment with Silenus mask over handle attachment. Skyphos with two strap handles, two rouletted bands on exterior; broken and mended. Two-handled (bottom of one handle restored) skyphos on footring made in regular diamond cut mold; bought at Sothebys in June 1963: lot 149. Spouted jug with strap handle from blocked neck, applied decoration in three bands-oak leaves, oval scarabs, rosettes; a similar bottle, described as from Asia Minor, was sold at Sothebys in March 1963: lot 124. Small jug with handle; bought with RG 5 at Sothebys in May 1970: lot 99. Two-handled skyphos (one handie broken off) with flower/ tendril ornament on two sides in relief, found in tomb, presented by committee of the Cyprus Expedition, 1888. Skyphos with two handles; acorn and oak leaf decoration in relief on outside; uneven rim from glazing; tripod/stilt marks inside footring. Skyphos on footring, two handles; exterior decorated with ovolo band and relief of vine leaves, tendrils between florets below.

RG 2

C155 Fortnum collection

Pozzuoli, Italy

gray/ pink

dark green

diam. 9.3

RG 3

C156 Fortnum collection

pale pink

green

diam. 9.0

RG 4

C157 Fortnum collection 1970.361 NP T182 table 9.54 T205 ? Alexandria, Egypt

pale pink

green

diam. 8.5

RG 5

pale pink gray gray

green

gold

RG 6 RG 7

1878.228 1947.233 Sir Francis Cook collection 1963.761 (1990.145)

green dark green

clear honey

diam. 8.5 (mouth) ht. 5.2 ht. 5.8 diam. 9.5 ht. 6.5

RG 8

W18 table 13.61

Xanthos, Lycia

pink

dark green

gold

diam. 8.5 (rim) ht. 8.2

RG 9

1970.1060 NP

W91 table 16.64

Asia Minor

gray

green

ht. 15.5

RG 10

1970.362 NP

~?
T26 table 2.45 Paphos, Cyprus

pale pink

green

ht. 8.0

RG 11

1888.1304

white

green

gold

diam. 7.5 (rim) ht. 7.0

RG 12

C198 Fortnum collection

T148 table 7.52

pale pink

green

gold

diam. 9.0 ht. 8.0

RG 13

1977.240

pale pink

green

gold

diam. 8.3

Nos. RG 3 and 4 resemble types 0 and P, respectively, in D.M. Bailey, Catalogueof the Lampsin the British Museum (London 1975), where they are considered to be of Central Italian origin and dated to between the second half of the first and early second century A.D.

434

HATCHER, KACZMARCZYK, SCHERER, AND SYMONDS

[AJA 98

Table 2a. Material from the Musee du Louvre

Oxford No. RG RG RG RG RG RG RG 14 15 16 17 18 18b 19 LRMF No. 17814 17816 17815 17817 17813a 17813b 17822 17823b 17809 21142 17823a 17829 17825 17831b 17826 17834 17838 17833 17837 17836 21135 17831e 17831a 17832 17835 21136 21137 17827b 17827a 21138 17831c 17831d 17828 21139 17824 17819 17820 17818 17821 17830 21141 21140 17810 17811 17812a 17812b 17613 17634 Museum No. Ca 696a(I) Ca 696c(II) Ca 696b(III) Ca 696e(IV) Ca 696(V) Ca 696(VI) MNC 430 S 1685d(I) Ca 1294(I) Ca 1294(11) Ca 2994 Ca 1294(111) MNC 308 Ca 1351 Ca 1615(I) Ca 1247(I) +1095(I) S 1685f(II) S 1685h(III) S 1685(IV) S 1685j(V) S 1685i(VI) Ca 1095e(II) Ca 1615(11) Ca 1615(111) Ca 1559 S 1685g(VII) S 1685b(VIII) S 1685(IX) Ca 1247(111) Ca 1247(11) Ca 1615(IV) Ca 1615(V) Ca 1615(VI) Ca 1353(56?) S 1685(X) Ca 1294bis(IV) Ca 1095d(III) Ca 1095c(IV) Ca 1095(V) MNC 427 Ca 2247 MNC 302 Ca 1294(V) MNC 431 Ca 1486 Ca 2926(I) Ca 2926(11) AO 28997 AM 1452 H-G No. S61 S56 S77 S60 S82 S22 T211 S59 S20 T136 W26 W45 S29 S86 T43 Findspot Smyrna Smyrna Smyrna Smyrna Smyrna Smyrna ? Tarsus Smyrna Smyrna ? Smyrna Smyrna ? Clazomenae Smyrna Tarsus Tarsus Tarsus Tarsus Tarsus Smyrna Clazomenae Clazomenae Smyrna Tarsus Tarsus Tarsus Smyrna Smyrna ?W62 ?W22 ?W24 T8 Clazomenae Clazomenae Clazomenae ? Tarsus ? Smyrna Smyrna Smyrna ? Asia Minor ? Smyrna Smyrna Troad or Smyrna Ain Tab (Cilicia) Ain Tab (Cilicia) Dura Europos Kition (Cyprus) Body Color ocher ocher pink-gray ocher pink-gray pink-gray tan tan tan pink-gray tan pink-gray tan pink-gray pink-gray gray pink-gray pink-gray pink-gray pink-gray pink pink-gray pink-gray tan pink-gray tan tan pink-gray tan pink-gray pink-gray gray tan pale gray pink-gray pink-gray pink-gray tan pink-gray pink pink-gray pink-gray Glazed Surface Color Interior Exterior yellow, olive yellow, olive grayish yellow, brown ocher grayish yellow, brown grayish yellowish brown dark green dark green green, gold dark green dark green yellow, brown yellow yellow yellowish blue-green dark green brown-yellow yellow, olive green, gold yellowish dark green dark green green olive-green yellow, brown traces of green green dark green olive, gold green green blue-green blue-green olive-green yellow, brown yellow, brown green sleeve, yellow arm yellow, olive yellow, brown yellow, brown green green (top) yellow, black green exterior, gold handle dark brown dark brown dark brown dark brown gold yellow dark brown (unglazed) gold brown brown dark green gold dark green gold dark brown yellow grayish-pink yellow (unglazed) (unglazed) brown olive-brown brown dark brown yellowish (unglazed) yellow brown dark brown gold (unglazed) (unglazed) olive, gold yellow yellowishgreen brown (unglazed) (unglazed) brown brown Dimensions (cm) 2.5 3.5 4.0 2.3 4.6 5.6 6.5 x x x x x x x 2.3 2.6 3.5 3.8 5.2 3.9 3.8

RG 20 RG 21 RG 21b RG 22 RG 23 RG 24 RG 25 RG 26 RG 27 RG 28 RG 29 RG 30 RG 31 RG 32 RG 33 RG 34 RG 35 RG 36 RG 37 RG 38 RG 39 RG 40 RG 40b RG41 RG42 RG 43 RG 44 RG 45 RG 46 RG 47 RG 47b RG 48 RG 49 RG 50 RG 51 RG 52 RG 53 RG 54 RG 55 RG 55b RG 58 RG 59

S23 T153

T42

6.7 x 6.0 2.2 x 2.2 4.5 x 3.1 6.5 x 8.6 11.2 x 7.5 5.2 x 4.9 4.3 x 5.3 diam. 9.0 4.5 x 3.8 +5.5 x 3.7 5.2 x 2.2 5.2 x 2.4 diam. 9.5 4.8 x 2.2 4.7 x 2.5 5.4 x 4.3 3.0 x 3.5 4.0 x 2.7 4.5 x 4.1 3.4 x 2.6 5.1 x3.8 diam. 9.0 4.6 x 9.4 8.0 x 8.0 3.0 x 2.8 2.9 x 2.7 diam. 9.0 6.3 x 8.9 2.5 x 4.4 2.5 x 4.5 14.5 x 17.5 5.8 x 5.3 6.1 x4.8 5.0 4.3 6.0 2.8 3.0 x x x x x 4.1 3.4 4.1 3.6 3.2

S85

S69 S76 S73 S53 S83 T228 T228

brown dark brown brown yellow-orange yellow (underside) (unglazed)

4.5 x 3.1 6.3 x 5.0 ht. 9.4 diam. 11.1

white white tan pink-gray

3.6 x 3.8 ht. 31

1994]

CHEMICAL CLASSIFICATIONOF ROMAN GLAZEDCERAMICS Table 2b. Material from the Musee du Louvre

435

Oxford No. RG 14 RG 15 RG 16 RG 17 RG 18 RG 18b RG 19 RG 20 RG 21 RG 21b RG 22 RG 23 RG 24 RG 25 RG 26 RG 27 RG 28 RG 29 RG 30 RG 31 RG 32 RG 33 RG 34 RG 35 RG 36 RG 37 RG 38 RG 39 RG 40 RG 40b RG 41 RG 42 RG 43 RG 44 RG 45 RG 46 RG 47 RG 47b RG 48 RG 49 RG 50 RG 51 RG 52 RG 53 RG 54 RG 55 RG 55b RG 58 RG 59

Description Body sherd, frontal view of Pan's face (missing top). Body sherd, Silenus profile facing right. Body sherd, unrecognizable design. Body sherd, upper half of Silenus mask, frontal view. Body sherd, cloaked stooped man, leaning on staff, facing another man. Body sherd, unrecognizable design. Body sherd, a couple in coitu. Body sherd with shoulder, three persons walking and carrying object. Body sherd, Silenus mask (missing jaw), frontal view. Body sherd, woman walking to the right away from a column. Restored skyphos, top circled by a ribbon of vine leaves. Fluted patera handle with ram head end, attached to rim fragment. Skyphos rim, ivy wreath, bay leaves, and flowers under rim. Body sherd, woman's head with a headband, frontal view. Skyphos rim with a laurel-leaf molding under lip. Body sherds with shoulder, decorated with oak leaves and acorns. Jug handle with part of vessel decorated with vertical and diagonal incisions. Handle fragment decorated with palm leaves and triangles. Skyphos ring handle with thumbplate and part of vessel. Body sherd, decorated with plant design (?grapes). Body sherd, center and parts of petals of a four-leaf flower. Body sherd, acorn and oak leaves. Rim sherd, two incised lines and applied acorns below the lip. Rolled rim of open vessel, decorated with a fillet and Silenus mask. Body sherd, naked youth standing with left hand stretched over altar. Rolled rim of skyphos decorated with oak leaves and acorns. Body sherd decorated with barbotine trails. Mouth of oinochoe decorated with oak leaves and acorns. Body sherd, upper half of leaning male in profile. Lower part and base of vessel decorated with a quadriga. Rim sherd, underlip has incised concentric circles and pinecones. Skyphos ring handle with thumbplate and part of rim. Skyphos ring handle with thumbplate and part of rim. Body sherd, Pan holding in his left hand a drum and in his right a vine branch surrounded by vines and bunches of grapes. Body sherd, Pan and goats (applied?). Body sherd of skyphos, Maenad mask with veiled head and neck. Body sherd, branch with leaves and rows of knobs. Body sherd, unidentifiable design. Body sherd, unidentifiable design. Body sherd, woman's head in profile facing left. Body sherd, Pan mask. Sculpture fragment, human arm with clenched fist and shirt sleeve near top. Body sherd, person facing right. Body sherd, flowers around Mercury facing a crater, holding a purse and caduceus. Restored kantharos, silhouette of bacchantes holding a thyrsos. Two-handled pyxis, Helios in his chariot across from vine leaves and flowers. Pyxis lid, oval knob encircled by fillets, laurel leaves, and wreath of vine leaves. Body sherd, Herakles carrying the Erymanthian boar (R.J. Charleston, Roman Pottery[London 1955] pl. 45). Complete undecorated amphora.

Decoration is in relief unless indicated otherwise.

contradiction is that only in copper-colored green glazes is the observed color truly that of the glaze. The other "glaze" colors of tables 1-4 reflect the nature of the surface underlying a clear or very faintly green or amber transparent glaze. Thus, in nearly all of our specimens, a virtually colorless

glaze when applied directly over the body fabrics produces the various shades of amber and brown cited in the tables. A glaze of similar composition overlying a white or creamy undercoat (engobe) yields the various shades of yellow or gold. Most of the designs in relief, molded or applied, were cov-

436

HATCHER, KACZMARCZYK, SCHERER, AND SYMONDS

[AJA 98

Table 3. Roman Material from Recent Excavations at Colchester

Date (A.D.) Oxford No. RG 60 RG 61 RG 62 Context No. 181J 347/349 181C 273 181B 1613 Drawing No. P2943 P1752 P1750 Stratigraphy ca. 44-49 60-ca. 100 60-ca. 100 Pottery ClaudianNeronian 1st century pre-Flavian Coins Description Description and discussion in text. Handle of flagon/kantharos. Buff/white fabric with yellow-green glaze. Body sherd of beaker/flagon with white barbotine (large dots) decoration under glaze. Buff/white fabric with pale green glaze. Small unidentifiable body sherd. Buff/white fabric with light brown glaze, similar in color and texture to RG 60. Shoulder of flagon. Buff/white fabric with pale green glaze. Base of beaker/flagon. Buff/light gray fabric with olive-green glaze. Body sherd of (relatively) thick-walled beaker with rouletting under glaze. Buff/light gray fabric with dark green glaze. Body sherd of bowl/beaker. Buff/light gray fabric with olive-green glaze. Body sherd of beaker with barbotine scale decoration under glaze. Gray fabric with dark olive-green glaze. Thick, flat rim of bowl. Pale gray fabric with yellow-green glaze. Similar in fabric and texture to RG 61. Base of thin-walled beaker/flagon. Buff/white fabric with olive-brown glaze. Neck of narrow-mouthed flagon. Buff/light gray fabric with olive-green glaze. Handle of flagon. Buff/green fabric with hard granular olive-green glaze. Body sherd of molded-decorated thin-walled bowl/flagon, including two connected arches surrounding a rosette. Pale buff fabric with olive-green glaze. The mold decoration is notably finer than others, comparable to that found on mold-decorated Samian ware made at La Graufesenque; no close parallels known. Flat rim of thin-walled beaker. Buff/light green fabric with dark/olive-green glaze. Cornice-rim of thin-walled beaker. Buff/light green fabric with light olive-green/yellow glaze. Body sherd of beaker/flagon with white barbotine (small dots) decoration under glaze. Buff/white fabric with olive-brown glaze. Cornice-rim of thin-walled beaker. Buff/white fabric with uneven pale olive-green glaze. Flat, flaring rim of narrow-mouthed flagon. Buff/white fabric with pale olive-green glaze. Flat, flaring rim of narrow-mouthed flagon. Buff/light green fabric with pale olive-green glaze. Base of beaker/flagon. Gray fabric with olive-green glaze.

RG 63

SPT 46

not drawn not drawn P5521 P5519

unstratified

pre-Flavian

RG 64 RG 65 RG 66

BKCJ 134 BKCJ 142 TSC 30

ca. 150ca. 250 ca. 150ca. 250 unstratified

mid-2nd-3rd century mid-2nd-3rd century Flavian and post-Roman HadrianicAntonine Hadrianic

RG 67 RG 68

BKCE 255 CPS 887

not drawn P1755

60-ca. 125 ca. 225ca. 400+ post-Roman

RG 69

LWCB 125

P1748

HadrianicAntonine 1st century 3rd-4th and post-Roman mid-2nd-3rd century Hadrianic

260-268

RG 70 RG 71 RG 72 RG 73

BKCT 131 BKCD 66 BKCJ 134 BKCJ 295

P1751 P5496 P5523 P1754/ P5497

60-ca. 75/80 Anglo-Saxon ca. 150ca. 250 60/61-ca. 150

RG 74 RG 75

181C 318 GBSB 52

P5522 P5498

60-ca. 75 unstratified

1st century FlavianTrajanic

69-79 -

RG 76

LWCK 430

P5520

60-ca. 100

Hadrianic

RG 77 RG 78 RG 79

BKCG 125 BKCJ 114 181K 100

P1753 P1757 P5486

ca. 150ca. 300 ca. 150ca. 400+ unstratified

Hadrianic lst-mid-2nd century 3rd-4th century 3rd-4th and post-Roman 4th century

RG 80

CPS 602

P1758

1 th-end 12th century

1994]

CHEMICAL CLASSIFICATION

OF ROMAN GLAZED CERAMICS

437

Table 3. (continued)
Date (A.D) Oxford No. RG 81 RG 82 Context No. BKCG 434 181E 855 Drawing No. P1749 P1756 Stratigraphy 60-ca. 125 ca. 49-60/61 Pottery HadrianicAntonine 1st century Coins Description Body sherd of mold-decorated thin-walled flagon. Buff fabric with olive-green glaze. Top of hare-shaped flagon, with two eyes, and two ears. Buff/white fabric with olive-green glaze. Top part of what Thomas May calls a "hare couchant," three such vessels were found in Grave 3 of the Joslin Collection, Colchester & Essex Museum (R.P Symonds, Rhenish Wares[Oxford 1992] 251-53, pl. LXXV). Description and discussion in text.

RG 83 RG 84

BKCG 22 GBSA 800

P850 P5487

ca. 250ca. 300 60-ca. 250/275

3rd-4th century early 2nd-early 3rd century

RG 85 RG 86

GBSA 2299 GBSA 2391

P5492 P5490

49-60/61 44-60/61

probably pre-Flavian 1st century

RG87

GBSA440

P5495

60-ca. 110

Ist-mid 2nd century

RG 88

GBSA 1942

P5489

60-ca. 150

1st century

RG 89/92

181G 3157

P5488

60-ca. 150

Flavian-Trajanic

RG 90

GBSB 145

P5494

60-ca. 250/275

probably Flavian-Trajanic

RG 91

181W 89

P5491

ca. 44-60/61

1st century

RG 93

181G 1529

P5493

ca. 150ca. 350/400+

early 2nd-early 3rd century

Body sherd of mold-decorated bowl, showing two rows of semicircles bracketed by rows of dots. Buff/white fabric with pale olive-green glaze. Base of thin-walled flagon/beaker. Buff/white fabric with olive-brown glaze. - Rounded cornice rim of folded beaker, just the top of a single depression visible. Buff/white fabric with pale yellow-green glaze. - Body sherd of beaker/flagon with white barbotine (medium-sized dots) decoration under glaze. Buff/white fabric with dark olive-brown glaze. Body sherd of beaker with "hairpin" barbotine decoration under glaze. Buff/white fabric with pale olive-green glaze. Diagonally aligned "hairpin" barbotine is rare on glazed wares, but not uncommon on contemporary color-coated beakers from Central Gaul. - Drilled twice; everted rim, handle, and about one-fifth of the body of a hemispherical bowl. Buff fabric with dark olive-green glaze. Body sherd of mold-decorated flagon, showing circular motifs, bracketed by horizontal rows of dots and vertical bars, under glaze. Buff/white fabric with pale yellow-green glaze. Rim and neck of flaring, cornice-rimmed, mold-decorated beaker. Decoration shows the tops of two arches below a band of dots delineated by two grooves. Buff/gray fabric with pale olive-green glaze. Body sherd of beaker/flagon with white barbotine (small dots) decoration under glaze. Buff/white fabric with pale olive-brown glaze.

Pottery dates of RG 60 and 68 are based solely on the presence of glazed wares, which were the only datable items in the contexts; in the rare case of RG 60, the vessels were the only pottery in the context, but they have been dated by their stratigraphic position immediately above natural soil within a military barrack block. For published illustrations and comparanda, see K. Greene, in Early Fine Waresin Roman Britain (Oxford 1978) fig. 3.4, no. 3.3 (RG 73); fig. 3.4, no. 3.15 (RG 84); fig. 3.4, no. 4.3 (RG 91); and K. Greene, Reporton the Excavationsat Usk 1965-1976 (Cardiff 1979) fig. 40.2 (RG 81); fig. 41.10 (RG 89); fig. 40.4 (RG 91); and fig. 43.8 (RG 93).

438

HATCHER, KACZMARCZYK, SCHERER, AND SYMONDS

[AJA98

Table 4. Additional Specimens of Roman Glazed Clay Ceramics Oxford No. RG 94 RG 95 RG 96 RG 97 RG 98 RG 99 RG 100 RG 101 RG 102 RG 103 RG 104 Inventory No. JOS 1113 JOS 1114 JOS 1112 ROM970.380.7 SILCH 80/30 459 SILCH 80/30 936 SILCH 80/30 903 Provenance Colchesterand Essex Museum Colchesterand Essex Museum Colchesterand Essex Museum RoyalOntario Museum Silchester Silchester Silchester Smallflagon. Small flagon, thin brownishglaze, figures on shoulders. Small,pear-shapedflagon, molded decoration. Skyphosbase, glazed all over without stilt marks;surface find from Troy. Small fragmentof foot with thin greenish-brownglaze and pinkish fabric. Smallbody sherd of CentralGaulishflask;thin greenishbrown glazed exterior and white fabric. CentralGaulishflagon with ribbed decoration;brown glaze and creamyfabric. Small rim fragmentwith "scale" decoration;cream fabric. Thick body sherd; dull khaki green glazed exterior and white fabric. Veryfine small rim; green glazed interior and exterior; Claudio-Neroniancontext. Smallbody sherd; good qualitykhaki green glaze and offwhite fabric. Description

SILCH 80/30 1306 Silchester SILCH 80/30 136 Silchester GLOS9/83 XII 58 Kingsholm GLOS77/69 XXXVI 294 TF 14A 881 BerkeleyStreet

ered with such an engobeto set them apart from the brown background. The faintly green or amber glazes owe their pigmentation to iron in different oxidation states.10For readers not versed in the chemistry of colored glasses and glazes we can cite the example of modern amber and greenish bottles, both of them colored by iron but with different proportions of ferrous and ferric forms. No attempt was made to list the thickness of the vessel fragments themselves since it was highly variable in any one vessel depending on how far a sherd was from the rim or bottom. The glaze thicknesses are listed with the analytical data in Appendix B. These thicknesses represent only the range measured in the general area where the analytical Xrays impinged and do not represent the entire range of the original vessel. Nevertheless, it is apparent that the glazes of these Roman vessels were very much thinner than those of ancient Near Eastern and Egyptian or contemporary Achaemenid or slightly later Sasanian faience." The distribution of thicknesses and the clearly visible drips on the rims of some vessels (cf. RG 5 or 7) indicate that the glazes were applied as a slop and the vessels fired upsidedown.

The tables include additional information such as findspots, dimensions, and broad descriptions of decoration. The findspots are given with as much detail as could be gathered from available documentation. Not surprisingly,most details are given in table 3 since these sherds are from recent excavations. Unless stated otherwise, the designated findspots for wares from the two museum collections indicate surface finds at the indicated locations. In none of the cases can the findspot be automatically construed to represent the site of manufacture. Attempts are made below, however, to determine the most probable sites of origin of the analyzed wares on the basis of combined stylistic and analytical considerations. The map in figure 1 shows that our findspots are heavily concentrated at two extremes of the Roman world: Britain and Asia Minor, several thousand kilometers apart. The descriptions in table 3 are supplemented by drawings in figure 2. The determination of terminal dates for Early Roman pottery types is alwaysproblematic with material from recent excavations at Colchester, owing to the high levels of residuality in later contexts. In general, for glazed wares the dating must conform

10 W.A.

Kaczmarczyk and Hedges (supra n. 2) 14; Kacz-

Weyl, Coloured Glasses (Sheffield 1978) 89-120.

marczyket al. (supra n. 4).

1994]

CHEMICAL CLASSIFICATIONOF ROMAN GLAZEDCERAMICS

439

Fig. 1. The Roman Empire in the first century A.D., with sites mentioned in the text indicated by arrows to the view expressed by Kevin Greene: "The vessels found in Britain occur on sites and in contexts similar to those where Lyon ware is found, and its currency in this province may be dated to c. A.D. 43-70. Survivals naturally occur.... Whether production for a local market continued after A.D. 70 is unknown but there seem to be no exports after this date to Germany. Excavations in France should eventually provide the answer to this question."" The dates given in table 3 reflect this view, in the sense that of the 33 samples, only eight (RG 62, 70, 74, 76, 82, 85, 86, and 91) appear to have come from well-stratified contexts, but five of these were in pre-Boudican contexts. The dating of material from the Ashmolean and Louvre Museums is even more problematic since in most instances the findspot, where known, consists of the name of town or village without archaeological context. Of great help in this case was the work of Anne Hochuli-Gysel;13 after examining and classifying a large corpus of glazed ware, she provided convincing arguments, based on meticulous comparisons between provenanced and unprovenanced material, assigning most of the HellenisticRoman glazed vessels of the type included in our Ashmolean and Louvre selections to between the middle of the first century B.C. and the first century A.D.
ANALYTICAL RESULTS

Experimental Considerations The glazes were analyzed in situ by the non-destructive technique of X-ray fluorescence (XRF) in the manner described in an earlier publication.14 Only elements having atomic numbers in excess of argon are detected by the XRF equipment used. While Appendix B lists the data for only nine elements, at least 20 were looked for: K, Ca, Ti, V, Cr,

12 K. Greene, Report on the Excavations at Usk 1965-1976: The Pre-Flavian Fine Wares (Cardiff 1979) 99-100.

13

Hochuli-Gysel (supra n. 5) 101-106, 110-36. 14Kaczmarczykand Hedges (supra n. 2) 10-19.

440

HATCHER, KACZMARCZYK, SCHERER, AND SYMONDS

[AJA 98

,(-T

,\r

RG 60 P 2943

//

1
RG 61 P1752 F

!,

RG62 P 1750

V-_

Y /RG65
P 5521

RG66 P 5519
I, I

"

RG68
P 1755

RG69 P 1748
-

'

J-

Y'RG 70 PF1751

RG71 P 5496
J/^

''

-I-R 72
P 5523

RG73
P 5497

RG74
P 5522

RG75

^ -R P.5520

P 5498

G526

t/

RG77 P 1753
5
, I I I I

RG78 P 1757

RG79
P 5486

17RG80 P 1758 RG81 P 1749

0
I

10cm
I

RG82
P 1756

RG83 P 850
I

RG 84 P 5487 I

RG85
P 5492

( /
RG86 P 5490

I/ -\

I?09)

P
RG88
P 5489

RG87
P 5495

^.

oo?3

P'89/2

P-5494

P 5491R93

P 5493

Fig. 2. Potsherds and vessels found at Colchester

1994]

CHEMICAL CLASSIFICATIONOF ROMAN GLAZEDCERAMICS

441

Mn, Fe, Co, Ni, Cu, Zn, As, Rb, Sr, Ag, Sn, Sb, Ba, Pb, and Bi. The elements not listed in Appendix B, if present, must have been at levels below the detection limits of our spectrometers, which are discussed in the reference just cited. We have no doubt that some of the undetected elements are probably present at low concentrations and would have been detected if the glazes contained less lead, a very potent absorber of X-rays. This is particularly true of low atomic number elements below iron, few of whose X-rays have a chance to reach the detector. For example, in the case of potassium no value lower than 1.6% was recorded indicating that contents lower than ca. 1.5% gave a signal at the detector noise background limit. An additional problem with high-lead glazes is that the lead matrix correction for potassium and calcium is very large, and a given uncertainty in the lead concentration introduces errors several-fold greater into the computed concentrations of these two elements. Another important source of error is the exceptional thinness of many glazes: few exceeded 200 Itm! Consequently itm and some were as thin as 10 the calculations had to include a thickness factor that corrected the detected secondary X-ray emission for the fraction of incident radiation that passed through the glaze without exciting any of its components. The deleterious effects of thin glazes are twofold: 1) They can inflate the true concentrations of certain elements by adding to whatever the glaze emits fluorescence from elements found in the body at levels high enough to pass through the glaze. Of course, in such cases high lead levels help because radiation from the excited lower atomic number components of the body will be absorbed in passing through the glaze. As a result the values for iron and to a lesser extent calcium may be inflated, as is most likely the case in RG 72, which has a leadfree alkaline glaze. 2) Thin glazes can produce an underestimate or even conceal the presence of high atomic number elements, such as tin, antimony, and barium, too few of which will be excited by the small fraction of primary radiation absorbed along its short path through the glaze. The reason for this is that radiation meant to excite these elements has a higher penetrating power, and hence much less of

it will be absorbed by thin glazes. For a detailed discussion of these and other problems the interested reader is referred to more specialized literature.15

Hence, it is likely that in high-lead glazes the reported concentrations have uncertainties on the order of ?15% of the cited value. If the ceramics show evidence of weathering, frequently signaled by abnormally low alkali levels, systematic errors of unknown proportion are introduced into estimates of the original compositions. In such cases ratios are more reliable criteria of similarity than are pure percent compositions. With all this in mind, we rounded off the concentrations of K20 to one significant figure and all the others to two. The compositions tabulated in Appendix B are given as weight percentages of the indicated oxides. The abbreviation "tr."denotes trace concentrations in the 0.02 to 0.1% range. The two above-discussed problems encountered in the XRF analyses of thin lead glazes are absent when the AAS technique is applied to our body fabric samples in the manner described elsewhere.'6 That is why much greater emphasis is placed on body fabriccompositions than on those of the glazes when subjecting the chemical data to statistical analysis. All the body fabrics were analyzed by the same individual (HH) and on the same spectrometer.The XRF analyses of glazes were also done by a single individual (AK)but on two different spectrometers: one in Oxford, another in Paris. To reduce to a minimum any systematicdiscrepancies in values recorded on different machines, the same set of standards was used to calibrate the two spectrometers. Since the computer program developed by Kaczmarczyk to transform the spectrometric data into percent compositions involves primarily interpolation between calibrationstandards, the results from the two spectrometers can be compared with little risk of the two sets of values being incompatible. Bodyand GlazeCompositions Even a cursory look at the data in Appendices A and B reveals that the compositional variability of the body fabrics is much greater than that of the glazes. All the clays represented in our samples are

ray FluorescenceAnalysis (London 1982).

16

15 R. Tertian and E Claisse, Principles of Quantitative X-

H. Hatcher, R.E.M. Hedges, A.M. Pollard, and PM.

of Kenrick, "Analysis Hellenistic and Roman Fine Pottery from Benghazi,"Archaeometry (1980) 135-36. 22

442

HATCHER, KACZMARCZYK, SCHERER, AND SYMONDS

[AJA 98

Table 5. Regional Variations in Body Fabric Compositions

Findspot Colchester Max. Min. Mean of 41 o Max. Min. Mean of 17 o Max. Min. Mean of 6 o Max. Min. Mean of 10 o Max. Min. Mean of 13
a

Na2O 2.28 0.19 0.57 +0.36 2.63 0.31 0.71 +0.56 1.05 0.43 0.69 +0.22 0.90 0.31 0.59 +0.19 1.24 0.58 0.72 +0.16 -

Primary constituents expressed as weight % of indicated oxides CaO MnO TiO2 Fe2O3 MgO A1203 K20 1.19 0.42 0.83 0.19 4.15 0.90 1.73 0.72 2.24 1.23 1.63 0.37 8.29 3.07 5.32 1.27 5.28 2.32 3.31 0.77 3.5 30.64 18.90 25.87 2.54 24.57 13.09 20.95 3.46 22.11 19.85 21.10 1.11 15.69 10.77 13.26 1.37 15.50 10.77 12.70 1.41 16.9 4.19 1.99 3.46 0.48 4.82 2.47 3.97 0.58 4.22 3.37 3.88 0.29 3.13 1.69 2.54 0.38 2.94 1.21 1.99 0.53 2.9 7.99 0.24 0.92 1.19 8.25 1.58 3.41 1.92 5.60 1.89 3.37 1.62 24.48 16.04 19.84 2.98 17.49 6.48 12.25 2.88 13.6 1.70 0.73 1.25 0.27 1.20 0.47 0.88 0.19 0.95 0.70 0.83 0.10 0.82 0.54 0.66 0.10 0.98 0.58 0.73 0.11 0.76 0.063 0.009 0.026 0.013 0.124 0.010 0.041 0.027 0.063 0.014 0.034 0.020 0.107 0.082 0.091 0.009 0.138 0.062 0.080 0.019 0.096 4.51 1.97 3.24 0.55 7.18 1.58 4.88 1.61 5.63 3.17 4.31 1.12 7.74 5.63 6.73 0.63 7.93 4.79 5.66 0.85 6.6

MgO/CaO 2.96 0.11 1.28 0.54 1.41 0.21 0.61 0.32 0.69 0.34 0.54 0.14 0.49 0.15 0.28 0.09 0.69 0.17 0.29 0.13 0.26

Smyrna

Clazomenae

Tarsus

Taranto

LatiumCampania

Mean of 12

The Colchester sample includes five Silchester and two Gloucester fragments. RG 69, RG 72, RG 83, and Picon's Italian no. 23 were excluded from analysis.

ferruginous but only those in ceramics from Tarsus are highly calcareous. The least calcareous are those in material excavated in Colchester. The most unusual composition is that of the clay in RG 69. Its potassium concentration is only a fraction of the next lowest value exhibited by any of the remaining 101 specimens and several other components had concentrations differing from the mean by four or five standard deviations! The exceptional composition of the body and glaze of RG 69 is consistent with the effects of leaching due to burial in an unusually wet spot. In two other Colchester fragments, RG 72 and 83 (to be discussed later), the concentrations of at least four clay components had values removed from the mean (for the group) by more than three standard deviations (30). Without RG 83 only one representative of a Colchester green glaze remained (RG 66) and was not listed to avoid comparing a single analysis with the averages of several. Consequently, all three were left out of the averages listed

in table 5 and out of the Colchester group in subsequent multivariate analysis. Over a dozen findspots are represented in our collection but only four-Tarsus, Smyrna, Clazomenae, and Colchester-provided enough fragments each to be useful as reference sites. In table 5 the concentration ranges and means of body fabrics of objects from the four sites are compared with published data for two sets of South Italian ceramics-Italian (Campanian) black-glaze wares from Taranto, which had been analyzed by one of the authors (HH) on the spectrometer used in current work,'7 and lead-glazed ware demonstrated convincingly by Picon to have come from southern Italy.18 It is in their CaO and MgO concentrations that the clays from various findspots differ most sharply. Examination of table 5 shows unambiguously that the Smyrna and Clazomenae ceramics were most likely made of the same clay. The clays making up the Smyrna-Clazomenae, Tarsus, or Colchester

17 Hatcher et al. (supra n. 16) 133-51.

18 Picon and Desbat (supra n. 6).

1994]

CHEMICAL CLASSIFICATIONOF ROMAN GLAZEDCERAMICS Table 6. Regional Variations in Glaze Compositions

443

Findspot Clearglazes Colchester Smyrna Clazomenae Tarsus Mean o Mean 6 Mean Mean a of 27 of 17 of 2 of 6

CaO

TiO2

Primary constituents expressed as weight % of indicated oxides PbO CuO PbO/Fe203 PbO/CuO SnO2 Fe203

Fe203/CuO

4.9 ?3.5 3.2 ?1.2 3.0 2.9 +1.5

0.4 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.0

2.2 1.5 2.7 1.2 2.4 3.4 1.6

0.02 0.05 0.02 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.00

62. 14. 56. 5.4 58. 54. 4.4

0.02 0.05 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.2

37. 24. 26. 19.

>400 >600 >1000 >1000

>17 >44 >1000 >1000

green glazes Copper-colored Mean of 7 Smyrna o Clazomenae Mean of 5 o Mean of 6 Tarsus c

4.1 ?2.6 2.8 ?1.7 3.2 ?1.0

0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.02 0.04

1.0 0.5 0.8 0.7 0.9 0.8

4.2 1.5 5.7 2.6 4.1 1.4

53. 3.5 53. 4.6 59. 5.7

1.0 0.4 0.7 0.6 0.4 0.2

58. 65. 39.

14. 12. 16.

0.28 0.30 0.31

RG 69, RG 72, RG 83, and Picon's Italian no. 23 were excluded from analysis.

wares are all distinguishable from each other. The Italian clays resemble most closely those found in objects from Tarsus. All but one (RG 72) of the vessels discussed in this paper were coated with lead glazes (table 6). The PbO concentrations spanned a wide range of values with the majority having percentages between those reported by Caley (50-64%) and Hochuli-Gysel (59-81%) for Roman lead-glaze wares.19 The glazes had the compositions that might have been expected from their colors. As explained earlier, iron plays a ubiquitous role in the determination of glaze color, but within the range of concentrations encountered here and in the absence of adequate amounts of other pigments it produces translucent glazes ranging from pale green to olive or amber.20 Glazes containing over 1% CuO were invariably deep green, the normal color in high-lead vitreous media, even in the absence of iron. The purple patches on the dark green jug RG 9 had the composition and appearance typical of victims of accidental spot reduction (from Cu20 to CuO) caused by exposure to high temperature (accidental fire?) in a poorly ventilated space while in contact with organic material.21 As in the case of most ancient ceramics,22 a frequent source of copper pigment appears to have been bronze scale since tin at more than trace amounts is most often found in copper-colored

green glazes and the tin/copper ratios fall in the range expected from the 10-20% tin bronzes common during the early centuries of the Roman Empire. At the concentration levels seen in glazes labeled "clear," copper could not have been intended as a pigment but must have been introduced unintentionally as an impurity. Table 6 lists the mean concentrations of key components and several oxide ratios in glazes of objects from the four sites. The tabulated means show the similarity of the glazes on wares made in Asia Minor, regardless of where they were found. The mean of the Colchester glazes does differ somewhat from those of Asia Minor but not dramatically so, when one considers that in most instances the standard deviations accompanying each mean were considerably larger than the differences between the means for different findspots. In general, yellowish transparent glazes from Asia Minor tend to have less copper and lead but more iron, which explains the large difference in the Fe203:CuO ratios that so impressed Hochuli-Gysel when she compared the glazes from Asia Minor with those from Gaul.23 The observed regional differences may reflect different glazing recipes or the use of minerals of geographically different origins in similar glaze-making recipes. Different recipes can usually be recognized by major variations in the proportions of principal

Caley (supra n. 5) 391; Hochuli-Gysel (supra n. 5) 19. Kaczmarczykand Hedges (supra n. 2) 142-43; Weyl (supra n. 10).
20

19

21
22

23

Kaczmarczykand Hedges (supra n. 2) 155-56. Kaczmarczykand Hedges (supra n. 2) 86-94. Hochuli-Gysel (supra n. 5) 20.

444
I 5 I I I

SCHERER, AND SYMONDS HATCHER, KACZMARCZYK,

I I I I t I I I

[AJA 98

can2
4

4 ob.scivalions e hiddeln dile iar to superp) ositio/ of Iciters

I t I ! I 7he lcrtlrs reprcscilltlie follo|wingfilnd,spots:

B Bitain: C'olchcsttr,Gloucester, Silchicster
C Clazo/itcll(. Ileatr S/n171yrna

D Dura Europl/os iitae) t/h Parthiianborder o0/ (S

s s

E Elasrlcn LLvantl liltoral: C'ypnis (ind AlCexandria G Cazi(/llail) (forlmier Aii Tab) inl SE Tulrkey

I
J
s s w S C C s S s C UU

towis of Troanto and Pozzlioli Itali(anl

Soihlll ltlli(a lead-((liazed ware Iz/iir) on lhe Ionian coast

s s

c c

L Lilllclleor, Oxford(lhire, England

S
u

Sni,Oyna (i/odtrn

w
S 2 u B B 1 B S w W w

7' Tarsus inI Cilicia

U Unknlown

V1Ot/ir A'.sia towns west of Tarsus AMlinor

J u

47 -*
..................................................

s U
E U J E J U J J J JJ I E IJ UI UI JI

B BB B B 0 B

B <- 83
T T D U T T T T

-1

_-

2 -

B B BB B BB B B B B B B B BBB B B B B *B B B B B B B

Z -*

P)

78
G I U u

B +-' 66

72
3

I/ -6

69
I
-5

I
-4

I
-3 -2

I
-1

I 4' I
0 1

I
2

I
3

I
4

I
5

I
6

I
7

1 I
8

canzl

Fig. 3. Canonical discriminant analysis of Roman ceramic body fabrics. Scatter plot of percent composition data.

ingredients: lead, sand, calcium, iron (and copper in deep green glazes). Depending on its source and the nature of mineral processing that a lead ore undergoes, it will introduce into the glaze variable amounts of zinc, copper, and iron impurities. Sands of different origins vary in their iron, titanium, manganese, and calcium contents, but most contain enough calcium and iron to account for the concentrations observed by us. This fact was explicitly recognized by Caley,24 who after analyzing Tarsus glazes showed that their compositions could be reproduced by the use of impure ferruginous sand without adding either iron or calcium. Consequently, the compositional variations detected in our glazes suggest that workshops in different parts of the Roman Empire used the same standard glazemaking recipes, possibly with some minor regional modifications.

Multivariate Analysis of CompositionalData One of the original aims of this study was to see if wares of the same provenance yield distinct clusters when their compositions are subjected to a statistical multivariate analysis. The preliminary report demonstrated that Hochuli-Gysel's Western Asia Minor and Smyrna groups were distinguishable from the Colchester and two different Italian groups, while her Tarsus group overlapped the Italian.25 The results shown in tables 5-6 induced us to redo the statistical work on the basis of known findspots instead of Hochuli-Gysel's presumedplace of origin. Using the SAS System statistical software,26 we performed multivariate analyses on six sets of data: 1) body fabric compositions expressed as percent concentrations of nine oxides (see Appendix A); 2) eight oxide ratios in body fabrics (Na/K, Mg/Ca, Al/Ca, Al/Fe, Ti/Fe, Mn/Fe, Al/Si, Ca/Si); 3) green glaze components

24
25

Caley (supra n. 5) 392.

Symonds and Hatcher (supra n. 1) fig. 2.

26 SAS/STAT Guide for Personal Computers, Version 6 (Cary, N.C. 1987).

1994]
t

CHEMICAL CLASSIFICATIONOF ROMAN GLAZEDCERAMICS

I
!

445
I
I I I

*I 72

I I

F, I 1

I I

I I

I I

T 5

can2
4 T

3 u u TT 2
T

B C D E G I J L S T U W

The letters relresclnt tlhefollowing filtsl)pots: Britain,: Colcllcster, (Glouccstr, Silch/ster ClazoimncIle, iecar Smyr1na Dlra Eulropos (Syria) onl the Pairto(uil border Al/l( llla ria Eas,ter Lcevant littoral: C(.1rs oz'ld Gazianlep (formcr Ain Tab) in SE Tu'kecy d Pozzloli Italian towns of Taranto t1(1 Souilt Italioai lead-glazed ware Littlemllore, Otfordshire, Engl(land
S71vrulla (71od0 rn Izniir) on /lie Ioni(i coast

due 7 obsciv' ont/is tire hliddCen to supeZl)Coitio/nof Ihlcte:s

69

61 -*

Tarsus in Cilicia Unklnown OltherAsia Alinor towns west of Tarsu.s

B B B B B B B B JU J

B B BBB B

D T T 1
.........................

J J I
U

78 -- B

BB

21 -*S

83+
-1

J J JI J E IJ I IJE BU uu

B U

BB B BB

B B B B BB B B B B B

I ,E W E

...................... ........................

u
-2

c s

c c c
s

s su
Sc

u su

s w

47 ,,
-3
I I I I I I I I I I I t I I I

I i
-1

I
0

i
1

I I
4

! 1 !
6

canl

-1
I

-6

-5

-3

-2

Fig. 4. Canonical discriminant analysis of Roman ceramic body fabrics. Scatter plot of concentration ratios.

(eight variables); 4) clear glaze components (nine variables); 5) green glaze ratios (seven variables: Pb/Ca, Cu/Ca, Fe/Cu, Pb/Cu, Sn/Cu, Ti/Fe, Pb/Fe); and 6) clear glaze ratios (three variables: Pb/Ca, Ti/Fe, Pb/Fe). Each variable represented a percent concentration or concentration ratio and the variables selected were those that had values greater than zero in the majority of analyzed objects. For each set of data a dendrogram and scatter plots of principal components and canonical variables were recorded. After examining the various dendrograms and scatter plots we decided to rely primarily on the body fabric data since the scatter plots based on glazes could not separate the different findspots in Asia Minor and we had only one glaze analysis for our Italian reference material. Figures 3 and 4 reproduce the scatter plots resulting from canonical discriminant analysis, and the coordinates of points plotted are listed in tables 7 and 8. Canonical discriminant analysis gave a much

sharper separation of groups than a principal component analysis. When the previously published preliminary "principal component" scatter plot27is compared with that in figure 3, one can also see that the clusters based on actual findspots are more compact and have fewer problems of overlap than do those based on Hochuli-Gysel's workshop attributions. The scatter plots show that with the exception of RG 83, which falls in the Italian clusters, the vessels from Colchester,Silchester,and Gloucester form an ellipsoidal group that does not overlap any others. The intermingling of letters S, C, and W graphically confirms the previously noted similarity between Clazomenae and Smyrna clays and suggests that all of our Asia Minor material found in Western Anatolia (Troad or LycianXanthos, for example) might have originated near or in Smyrna. The scatter plot of the percent composition data (fig. 3) has the large, loose 23-member Smyrna-Clazomenae clus-

27

Symonds and Hatcher (supra n. 1).

446

HATCHER, KACZMARCZYK, SCHERER, AND SYMONDS

[AJA98

Table 7. Coordinates of Points Plotted in Figure 3

Item No. RG3 RG4 RG5 RG 7 RG 10 RG 12 RG 13 RG 19 RG22 RG25 RG 44 RG46 RG49 RG51 RG8 RG 9 RG 50 RG97 RG 11 RG 59 RG 6 RG 55 RG 58 RG 14 RG 15 RG 16 RG 17 RG 18 RG21 RG 23 RG 24 RG 27 RG 33 Group U U U U U U U U U U U U U U W W W W E E E G D S S S S S S S S S Can2 -0.10 -2.10 -0.78 -0.28 1.55 1.49 1.52 1.50 2.01 -2.22 -0.85 -1.58 1.26 0.21 2.21 1.57 2.65 1.16 -0.24 0.00 -0.59 -2.17 -0.53 4.07 1.48 2.77 1.18 2.80 2.63 2.84 2.75 3.47 3.37 Canl 2.90 3.75 2.81 2.27 -1.93 1.62 1.02 1.24 2.18 4.84 3.94 4.63 1.86 2.04 -1.04 -1.04 0.88 -1.25 2.05 2.87 2.82 -0.89 5.06 1.83 1.65 -0.37 -0.20 -0.33 -2.29 -1.46 -1.50 -0.69 -0.90 Item No. RG 36 RG 40 RG 47 RG 48 RG 52 RG 53 RG 54 RG 26 RG 34 RG 35 RG 41 RG 42 RG 43 RG 20 RG28 RG 29 RG 30 RG31 RG 32 RG 37 RG 38 RG 39 RG 45 RG 1 RG60 RG 61 RG62 RG 63 RG 64 RG 65 RG 66 RG 67 RG 68 Group S S S S S S S C C C C C C T T T T T T T T T T L B B B B B B B B B Can2 1.35 1.78 0.78 2.07 1.73 2.31 1.50 3.01 1.79 1.26 3.06 1.88 2.12 0.51 -0.29 -0.80 -0.23 -0.31 -0.67 -0.05 -0.66 -0.01 0.33 -0.90 1.42 -1.83 -1.24 -0.36 -1.09 0.34 -2.32 -1.12 0.19 Cani -1.19 0.36 1.60 -1.10 -0.87 -0.21 0.13 -1.08 -0.45 -1.21 -1.38 0.71 -0.25 5.93 5.42 6.96 6.88 5.10 6.06 6.54 5.55 5.85 5.49 -1.15 -3.40 -5.41 -5.44 -4.05 -5.01 -3.90 -4.13 -4.51 -4.06

ter clearly separated from any other, but the oxide ratio plot (fig. 4) has one Smyrna sample (RG 47) hugging the Italian cluster and another (RG 21) shifted to the vicinity of the Colchester cluster. Both figures 3 and 4 have the 10 objects from Tarsus within a cluster that does not overlap any others, but in the case of figure 4, one end hugs the Italian. The two Italian clusters (denoted by I andJ) overlap extensively, even though one represents clay in the so-called Campanian black-glaze ware and the other in a collection of lead-glazed vessels from southern Italy (most likely Latium and Campania). The overlap is consistent with the arguments advanced by Picon and Desbat on the basis of their extensive data bank showing that the geology of the Apennines, particularly the southern half, produced clays that had much more in common with each other than with those of either Gaul or Asia

Minor.28One of Picon's original specimens (no. 23) was excluded from our reference sample since four of its constituents had percent values more than three standard deviations away from the mean for the original group of 13. Together, the two sets of Italian data provide a good reference cluster for identifying possible Italian imports among objects found elsewhere. The only one of our glazed specimens to have been acquired in Italy, RG 2 from Pozzuoli, falls comfortably within the orbit of the Italian clays (see figs. 3-4). Of the five objects from south and east of Tarsus, the one from Dura Europos (RG 58) is attached to Tarsus while the Alexandrian (RG 9) and Cypriot (RG 11 and 59) vessels sit on the periphery of the Italian; RG 55 from Gaziantep (former Ain Tab) stands apart, most strikingly in the ratio scatter plot of figure 4. On figures 3-4, RG 55 is somewhat close

28 Picon and Desbat (supra n. 6).

1994]

CHEMICAL CLASSIFICATION

OF ROMAN GLAZED CERAMICS

447

Table 7. (continued) Item No.

RG70 RG 71 RG73 RG 74 RG 75 RG76 RG 77 RG 78 RG 79 RG 80 RG81 RG 82 RG 83 RG 84 RG 85 RG 86 RG 87 Campanianwarea 4a/11 4a/12 4a/13 4a/14 4a/15 4c/2 4c/4 Italian glazed ware 13 14 15 16 17 18

Group
B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B I I I I I I I J J J J J J

Can2
-1.52 -0.28 -1.02 0.26 -1.25 -0.41 0.40 -1.39 -1.09 -0.39 0.07 0.62 0.33 -0.85 -1.96 -2.39 -1.26 0.84 -0.82 -2.15 -2.44 -3.13 -3.16 -2.12

Cani
-5.57 -3.67 -4.63 -3.78 -4.00 -4.10 -3.31 -3.41 -4.25 -4.14 -3.27 -3.09 3.13 -3.91 -5.68 -5.97 -4.89 3.24 2.95 2.30 2.20 0.88 2.96 2.95 3.40 3.46 2.91 3.52 3.16 3.19

Item No.
RG 88 RG 89 RG 90 RG 91 RG 92 RG 93 RG 94 RG 95 RG 96 RG 98 RG 99 RG 100 RG 101 RG 102 RG 103 RG 104 RG 2

Group
B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B I

Can2
1.47 -0.28 -1.57 -1.32 -0.66 -0.76 -1.59 -0.29 -1.13 -0.42 -0.12 -1.43 -0.56 0.14 0.74 1.12 -0.93

Canl
-3.19 -4.59 -4.82 -5.69 -4.48 -4.86 -5.91 -4.72 -5.26 -4.72 -4.43 -4.84 -3.79 -4.28 -3.47 -3.45 2.37

~~b
-0.46 -1.20 -0.32 -0.47 -0.58 -0.37

4c/5 4c/7 4c/8 4c/9 4c/10 4c/11 44c/4 24 46 47 48 49

I I I I I I I J J J J J

-0.62 -1.75 -0.76 -1.15 -0.39 -0.46 -2.12 -0.11 1.41 0.03 0.65 -0.23

3.02 3.85 2.93 3.57 3.19 2.66 2.95

3.21 3.92 3.75 3.54 3.49

aFrom H. Hatcher et al., Archaeometry (1980) 135-36. 22 bFrom M. Picon and A. Desbat, Figlina 7 (1986) 125-27.

to the Italian cluster and particularly the "possible" Cyprus-Alexandria East Levantine subgroup, but still far enough away from both to suggest an origin other than the reference findspots included in our study. It must be pointed out that the ordinates and abscissas in figures 3 and 4 are not on the same scale and therefore the vertical separations are exaggerated. For example, when we calculated the probability of the Gaziantep vessel (RG 55) belonging to the same subgroup as the vessels from Alexandria and Cyprus, it was greater than figure 3 would suggest. The samples without known findspots (U) are scattered among Smyrna, Tarsus, and Italian ceramics, with a number very close to the Alexandrian and Cypriot vessels. We lastly subjected the body-composition data to linear discriminant analysis29 to calculate the poste29 SAS (supra n. 26) 378-80.

rior probability of each of the analyzed ceramics belonging to one of five possible groups: Gallo-Roman from Britain, Smyrna-Clazomenae, Tarsus, Italian, or a hypothetical "East Levant group" as represented by Cyprus and Alexandria. Out of the 78 objects found in Britain, Tarsus, Smyrna, or Clazomenae, fewer than a handful were not assigned by discriminant analysis to the parent group formed by other wares from the shared findspot. Most of the outliers in figures 3 and 4 still had a higher probability of belonging to their parent group than to any other. For example, if RG 1 (to be discussed later) is excluded from the British finds, only RG 83 has a higher probability of belonging to the Italian than to the parent Colchester cluster on the basis of both the percent concentration and oxide ratio data. The other British outliers had a higher prob-

448

HATCHER, KACZMARCZYK, SCHERER, AND SYMONDS

[AJA98

Table 8. Coordinates of Points Plotted in Figure 4

Item No. RG 3 RG 4 RG 5 RG 7 RG 10 RG 12 RG13 RG 19 RG22 RG 25 RG44 RG46 RG49 RG51 RG 8 RG 9 RG 50 RG 97 RG 11 RG 59 RG 6 RG 55 RG58 RG 14 RG 15 RG 16 RG 17 RG 18 RG 21 RG 23 RG24 RG 27 RG 33 Group U U U U U U U U U U U U U U W W W W E E E G D S S S S S S S S S S Can2 -0.40 2.73 -0.30 -0.34 -1.89 -2.12 -1.79 -0.68 -2.17 0.68 0.79 2.42 -0.80 -0.68 -2.44 -2.57 -2.35 -2.14 -0.89 -0.07 -0.11 4.71 1.47 -2.76 -1.37 -1.97 -3.14 -2.45 0.61 -2.08 -2.19 -2.28 -2.28 Canl -2.51 -4.86 -2.95 -2.38 0.69 -1.46 -1.01 -0.88 -1.92 -3.69 -2.83 -5.01 -1.12 -2.45 0.26 0.07 -0.80 0.88 -2.23 -3.12 -2.71 2.31 -4.14 -0.85 -0.95 0.18 -1.00 0.05 2.40 0.68 0.70 0.82 0.89 Item No. RG 36 RG 40 RG 47 RG 48 RG 52 RG 53 RG54 RG 26 RG 34 RG 35 RG 41 RG 42 RG 43 RG 20 RG 28 RG 29 RG 30 RG 31 RG 32 RG 37 RG 38 RG 39 RG 45 RG 1 RG 60 RG 61 RG62 RG 63 RG 64 RG 65 RG 66 RG 67 RG 68 Group S S S S S S S C C C C C C T T T T T T T T T T L B B B B B B B B B Can2 -1.84 -2.12 -2.16 -1.55 -1.91 -2.37 -1.40 -2.37 -2.08 -2.23 -2.04 -1.86 -1.74 1.99 1.95 1.29 5.21 2.48 3.62 5.74 2.25 2.29 1.11 -3.20 -0.40 3.81 2.11 0.26 1.28 0.99 1.60 0.24 0.80 Cani 0.50 -0.53 -1.51 0.58 0.61 0.30 -0.30 0.37 0.13 0.34 0.81 -0.54 -0.11 -4.68 -4.30 -4.46 -6.18 -5.03 -5.67 -5.81 -4.26 -4.32 -3.86 -0.33 3.18 7.12 5.65 3.77 4.53 3.87 3.91 3.77 4.19

ability of belonging to the Colchester group than to one of the other groups. Of course, had we had sufficient analyses of objects from other findspots and consequently more clusters, some of the latter might have coincided with the locations of the outliers. The discriminant analysis gave ambiguous results for only two out of 23 Smyrna samples: RG 21 and 47. The percent composition data assigned both to Smyrna, but the oxide ratio data gave very low probabilities of the objects having the same origin as the other finds from Smyrna or WesternAsia Minor. Table 9 lists the most probable origins (among the five choices given) of the remaining 24 objects as predicted by linear discriminant analysis of body fabric data. versus Hochuli-Gysel's AnalyticalAttributions Stylistic Classification Over half of our specimens from the Ashmolean and Louvre Museums had been examined by Hochuli-Gysel, and her workshop attributions are included in tables 1, 2a, and 9. For wares found in Tarsus or other sites to the west, Hochuli-Gysel's

workshop attributionsare supported by the clustering of our analytical data, with the possible exception of the two Smyrna items just discussed (RG 21 and 47). A look at table 9 shows that for the unprovenanced wares attributed by Hochuli-Gysel to Smyrna or Western Asia Minor, our data provide the best match with Smyrna. On the other hand, six of the vessels listed in table 9 that were classified by Hochuli-Gysel as being Tarsus group 2 or 3 appear to have a higher probability of being of Italian origin. Interestingly enough, four of these particular vessels are statisticallygrouped with our three specimens from Alexandria and Cyprus, which fall on the edge of the Italian cluster in figure 3. Whenever the discriminant analysis indicated a high probability of an object belonging to the same subgroup as the Alexandrian and Cypriot vessels, we appended the letter E to the I in table 9. If the vessels found in Alexandria and Cyprus had indeed been manufactured at some eastern site, including Tarsus, of clays that fall by accident near the Italian cluster, then the analytical and stylistic attributions can be brought into harmony. Only future study of

1994]

CHEMICAL CLASSIFICATION

OF ROMAN GLAZED CERAMICS

449

Table 8. (continued)
Item No. RG 70 RG 71 RG 73 RG 74 RG 75 RG 76 RG 77 RG 78 RG 79 RG 80 RG 81 RG 82 RG 83 RG 84 RG 85 RG 86 RG 87 Campanianwarea 4a/11 4a/12 4a/13 4a/14 4a/15 4c/2 4c/4 Italian glazed wareb 13 14 15 16 17 18 Group B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B I I I I I I I J J J J J J Can2 1.80 -0.12 1.15 0.15 -0.18 0.55 -0.66 0.77 0.11 1.53 -0.29 1.64 -0.27 -0.36 1.88 1.70 1.66 -2.07 0.05 -1.49 -0.33 -1.11 0.86 -0.60 1.13 1.25 0.18 1.04 0.39 0.70 Canl 5.50 2.86 4.12 3.31 3.40 3.55 2.48 1.48 2.62 3.85 2.54 3.58 -3.08 1.98 5.30 5.41 4.17 -1.62 -2.88 -2.15 -2.60 -1.41 -3.64 -2.93 -2.96 -3.13 -2.43 -3.06 -2.46 -2.84 Item No. RG 88 RG 89 RG 90 RG 91 RG 92 RG 93 RG 94 RG 95 RG 96 RG 98 RG 99 RG 100 RG 101 RG 102 RG 103 RG 104 RG 2 4c/5 4c/7 4c/8 4c/9 4c/10 4c/11 Group B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B I I I I I I I Can2 -0.15 0.66 -0.08 1.77 0.50 1.21 1.99 0.46 0.88 1.36 0.90 0.21 -0.99 0.94 -0.74 0.03 -0.74 0.14 -0.47 0.12 -0.10 -0.09 -1.10 Canl 2.56 4.09 4.51 5.47 3.83 4.46 5.77 4.17 4.64 4.22 4.59 3.89 2.65 4.65 2.59 3.07 -2.48 -2.88 -2.96 -2.91 -3.35 -2.90 -2.34

24 46 47 48 49 50

J J J J J J

0.82 -0.08 0.14 0.03 0.08 0.29

-2.85 -2.73 -2.98 -2.83 -2.88 -2.82

aFrom H. Hatcher et al., Archaeometry (1980) 135-36. 22 bFrom M. Picon and A. Desbat, Figlina 7 (1986) 125-27.

a greater number of vessels from Tarsus can resolve the problem.

COMMENTS ON SPECIFIC WARES

Vessels from Roman Britain In view of the comments regarding the scarcity of Roman glazed ware in Britain, it is surprising to find among this small group two vessels-RG 60 and RG 83-that are both extraordinary in themselves and possibly unique in northwestern Europe. RG 60 consists of about a third of the mid-body of a large globular vessel, probably of the Dechelette (Samian)
form 72 (fig. 2, top).30 Three applique figures, all

facing to the right, comprise a winged Cupid or Eros, an unidentified male figure with raised left foot holding an unidentified instrument, and a

gladiator holding a shield and a dagger, appearing above a broad band of rouletting. The fabric is fine and pale buff-colored, with a crisp light brown, finely granular glaze. Dechelette provides the only description known to us of a glazed vessel with similar fabric, glaze, and also with large applique figures,3' but it is difficult to judge the form of that vessel from the drawing. In fact, an examination of the original sherd by one of the authors (RPS) shows that it belongs to the form Dechelette 62. Found in the last days of the Culver Street excavations at Colchester in 1985, which sadly meant that there was inadequate time for an exhaustive search for further joining sherds, this large globular
jar is therefore unique both in the style of its decoration and in its shape: it has an unparalleled ap-

30 J. Dechelette, Les vases ceramiques ornes de la Gaule romaine (Paris 1904, reprinted by Revue archeologique Sites in 1979).

31 J. D6chelette, "Lofficine de Saint-Remy (Allier), et les origines de la poterie sigillee gallo-romaine," RA 1901, 384, fig. 4.

450

HATCHER, KACZMARCZYK, SCHERER, AND SYMONDS

[AJA98 Tarsus, or Italy

Probable Origin Italy Italy or Tarsus Italy Italy or Levant Italy Smyrna Smyrna Smyrna Italy or Levant Italy or Levant Smyrna Smyrna Italy or Levant Italy or Levant Italy Tarsus Italy or Smyrna Smyrna Italy or Levant Smyrna Italy or Levant Tarsus Italy or Levant Smyrna

Table 9. Probable Origins of Objects Found Elsewhere than Britain, Smyrna-Clazomenae,

Oxford No. RG 3 RG 4 RG 5 RG 6 RG 7 RG 8 RG 9 RG 10 RG 11 RG 12 RG 13 RG 19 RG 22 RG 25 RG 44 RG 46 RG 49 RG 50 RG 51 RG 54 RG 55 RG 58 RG 59 RG 97 Findspot Hochuli-Gysel's Attribution Body % Comp. Group I ? Alexandria, Egypt Xanthos, Lycia Asia Minor ? Paphos, Cyprus ? ? ? ? Tarsus, group 3 Tarsus, group 3 West Asia Minor West Asia Minor Tarsus, group 2 Tarsus, group 3 Smyrna, group 3 Tarsus, group 3 Asia Minor ? Troad or Smyrna Gaziantep, Turkey Dura Europos, Syria Kition, Cyprus Troad Smyrna, group 3 Smyrna, group 3 Smyrna, group 3 Tarsus (?) 56%I, 43% T I I or E I S S S I or E S or E S S S or E I I T I S I or E S I () T I or E S T I I or E I S S S I or E I or E S S I or E I or E I T S S I or E S I (?) T I or E S Body Comp. Ratio Group

Probabilities of belonging to a particular group exceed 75% in all cases except RG 4. I = South Italian; E = Eastern Levant littoral; S = Smyrna; T = Tarsus; I or E indicates that the object has a high probability of belonging to the same subgroup as the vessels found in Cyprus and Alexandria and discussed in the text. RG 55 probably from source not included in this study.

plique decoration, and it is the first recorded example of a Dechelette form 72 in glazed ware.32 Like the Colchester vase, and other similarly large and unique vessels at Trier and Alesia,33 it may be suggested that this was a vessel with a specific ceremonial role, rather like the modern sporting trophy. RG 83 is the base of a flagon with deeply cut vertical or near-vertical ribs, and with an applied molded face at the base of the handle (fig. 2). The walls of the vessel are extremely thin (about 1 mm thick) at the inner points of the ribs, but quite thick at the outer points (as much as 6 mm thick in places). The fabric is buff with a deep green glaze, mottled with yellowish patches. Until quite recently we were unaware that this vessel had been previously published in a note by Paul Arthur.34This detailed note discusses the relatively unsuccessful results of a wide-ranging attempt to find similar vessels and includes an appendix on analysis by thin-sectioning and by the use of the

X-ray fluorescence capacities of a scanning electron microscope. The XRF results suggest an Italian origin for the vessel, although the total number of samples involved in the analyses is so small that the results cannot be said to be statistically conclusive. While further searching for similar vessels has not added much to Arthur's work, although pictures of some vessels showing similar attributes have been published,35 we are prepared to accept Arthur's original suggestion that the vessel was made in Italy, although we have still not found any particularly close parallels for it. Analytically RG 83 is not far removed from the Alexandrian and Cypriot vessels. If those vessels do belong to the Italian cluster, then the discriminant analysis of either body concentrations or the oxide ratios yields a 99% probability for RG 83 being Italian. If, on the other hand, Hochuli-Gysel's classification of the three vessels as coming from Tarsus (or somewhere else in Asia Minor) is correct, then the

R.P Symonds and S.M. Wade, "ALarge Central Gaulish Glazed Vessel with Applied-Moulded Decoration from
Colchester,"Journal of Roman PotteryStudies 1 (1986) 55-57. 33 R.P Symonds, Rhenish Wares: Fine Dark-color Pottery from Germany and Gaul (Oxford Committee for Archaeol-

32 RG 60 is also illustrated, described, and discussed by

ogy Monograph 23, Oxford 1992). 34 P Arthur, "An Italian Flagon from Roman Colchester,"AntJ 59 (1979) 382-97. 35 M. Silverto CeVickers, 0. Impey, and J. Allan, From ramic(Oxford 1986) pl. 17; G. Ballardini, Lereditd ceramisticadell'antico mondo romano (Rome 1964) 94, fig. 115.

1994]

CHEMICAL CLASSIFICATIONOF ROMAN GLAZEDCERAMICS

451

probability that RG 83 is Italian falls to 63%, still almost double the probability of its originating in the same workshop as the vessels from Alexandria and Cyprus. While it looks unlikely at the moment, maybe it did travel from as far as Roman Asia. After all, if most of the Colchester vessels did come with the Roman legions, the quality of the Roman transport system was such that the chances of surviving a trip from Asia Minor are not that much smaller than the chance that it made it to Britain from Italy. Apart from the ribbed flagon RG 83 discussed above, the analyses suggest that most of the remaining samples found at Colchester (including the Dechelette form 72 discussed above, and the additional three samples analyzed at the Colchester and Essex Museum),36as well as those found at Silchester and at Gloucester, were made of the same or several similar clays. While stylistic and petrographic data argue in favor of Central Gaul as their place of origin, it is difficult to assess with the data at hand the likelihood that all were in fact from a single production center, such as St. Remy-en-Rollat, near Vichy, or whether some samples may have been made at other Central Gaulish sources. The extended, partly fragmented cluster argues in favor of more than one production center. When our data were compared with AAS analyses of some "Rhenish" wares,37 analyses performed by one of the authors (HH) on the same apparatus that was used in the current work, the closest links (from a multivariate point of view) were with wares from Central rather than Eastern Gaul. On the whole the clustering of the Colchester/Central Gaulish group, as shown in figures 3 and 4, is relatively good, although four other samples in addition to RG 83 are located apart from the main group. Two of these, RG 78 and 66, are only slightly removed from the concentration cluster, with the former significantly outside the oxide ratio cluster (cf. fig. 4). RG 66 looks typologically unusual and has an exceptionally white body fabric, but so does RG 68 and yet it falls comfortably within the Colchester cluster. In both instances the whiteness results from below average iron concentrations. The glaze composition of RG 66 also places it outside the corresponding Colchester cluster. For reasons mentioned earlier,both RG 69 and 72 were left out of our statisticalgroupings. They are true outliers and to include them in figure 3 or 4
36 T. May, Catalogue the RomanPottery the Colchester in of and EssexMuseum(Cambridge 1930). 37 A.M. Pollard, H. Hatcher,and R.P Symonds, "Provenance Studies of 'Rhenish' Wares-A Concluding Re-

would have stretched the scale to over double its present size and compressed accordingly all the other points with an increase of superimposed points. RG 69 owes its exceptional position to the apparent depletion of alkali and magnesia suggestive of weathering loss. While at first glance RG 69 also looks somewhat typologically unusual, visually its body fabric and glaze are hardly distinguishable from those of the handle RG 61, whose composition places it well within the Colchester/CentralGaulish cluster. Interestingly enough, the concentration ratios yield a scatter plot that has both RG 61 and 69 apart from the main cluster. That RG 72, a small double-lobed handle, turns out to be an outlier is less surprising since it is the only example coated with a lead-free glaze. We have no immediate explanation for the presence of a sherd with an alkaline glaze found in a context dated ca. 150-250 A.D. at Colchester,except to suggest that possibly this is a sherd that was accidentally covered with ashes and overfired in such a way as to very convincingly appear glazed. The sherd itself is so small, however, that there is little or no scope for typological comparisons. It is conceivable, although by no means highly probable, that some of the outliers may be of Romano-British origin. None of these outlying samples are paralleled in the paper by Arthur on Romano-British lead-glazed wares.38 is clearly of It some interest, indeed, that there is so little evidence of Romano-British production, at least within this admittedly small number of samples. It is hoped that future analyses can encompass a range of samples found in other parts of Britain, and that these will demonstrate more clearly than was hitherto possible the relative importance of glazed wares imported from Central Gaul versus those produced locally. The other Colchester vessels are similar to types shown in the two publications by Kevin Greene,39 although it ought to be noted that many of the examples illustrated in these two articles are finds from excavations at Colchester prior to 1971. The small number of vessels represented suggests that there was probably never any serious importation of lead-glazed ware to Colchester, nor any nearby manufacture of them. This small number could easily be accounted for as vessels brought in as "hand luggage." The only piece that must have required
38 P Arthur, "The Lead Glazed Ware of Roman Britin ain," in EarlyFine Wares RomanBritain(BAR-BS57, Oxford 1978) 293-355. 39 K. Greene, "Mould-decorated Central Gaulish Glazed Warein Britain,"in EarlyFine Wares RomanBritin ain (supra n. 38) 31-60; Greene (supra n. 12).

port," in Proceedings of the 22nd Symposiumon Archaeometry

(Bradford 1982) 343-54.

452

HATCHER, KACZMARCZYK, SCHERER, AND SYMONDS

[AJA98

some special treatment in order to carry it over any distance without breakage is the large globular Dechelette form 72 (RG 60 discussed earlier). Nothing distinguishes the Silchester and Gloucester finds from the bulk of Colchester material,as can be seen by examining the positions of RG 98-102 and RG 103-104 in figures 3 and 4 (see also tables 7-8). The lonely Littlemore sherd (RG 1), however, sits apart from the Gaulish/Britishcluster in all body and glaze scatter plots. The fact that it was found at a Roman kiln site accompanied by numerous unglazed fragments makes this specimen the most likely, if not the only, product of a Romano-British workshop.
Vessels from Other Parts of the Empire

That lead-glazed ceramics found at Clazomenae and Smyrna should be hardly distinguishable was gratifying but not surprising considering that only 30 km separate the two towns. What proved to be more interesting was the fact that vessels recovered near Troy and from Xanthos in Lycia, RG 97 and RG 8, respectively, had compositions that placed them squarely in the middle of the Smyrna cluster, despite the distance that separates the sites. These two and RG 54, which is recorded as coming from Smyrna or the Troad, had over 98% probability of belonging to the same group as the Smyrna-Clazomenae vessels. The Alexandrian fragment RG 6 and the Cypriot vessels from Kition (RG 59) and Paphos (RG 11), despite very different histories, have compositions so similar that a common workshop for all three cannot be excluded, whether it be in Italy or elsewhere. The small differences in glaze compositions are easily accountable by different burial conditions. The two vessels from east of Tarsus, RG 55 from Ain Tab (modern Gaziantep in Turkey,250 km east of Tarsus) and RG 58 from Dura Europos (in Syria, 600 km from Tarsus), have little in common, either visually or chemically. RG 55 is a pyxis so different from the more common skyphoi and kantharoi of Smyrna or Tarsus that Hochuli-Gysel placed it in a subgroup originating possibly in Tarsus. In Syria, at Mari for example, glazed pyxides were made from at least as early as the Middle Bronze Age, so the Ain Tab vessel may have originated at a site other than Tarsus, possibly at one of the many Hellenistic centers in Syria. from Tarsus as is Ain Tab, RG 58 has a body fabric and glaze, as well as style of decoration, indistinWhile Dura Europos is more than twice as far

guishable from those of most of our specimens from Tarsus. What sets it apart, however, from all other ceramics discussed in this paper is the nature of the black underglaze pigment used to emphasize a part of the molded design-a large black animal (Erymanthian boar?) on the shoulders of a muscular individual (Herakles?)in yellow relief. The pigment is chromite, a mineral containing iron and chromium, which was used extensively for underglaze decorations on 12th-century A.D. Near Eastern ceramics. This represents the first case ever seen by us or recorded in the literature of a pre-Islamic glazed ceramic with minerals other than the traditionaloxides of iron and/or manganese for black decoraWhether this specimen represents a hitherto tions.40 unrecognized technical tradition or an accident in the selection of iron ore will remain uncertain until other similar specimens appear in the future. From the visual point of view, the most interesting item is the large amber human arm with clenched fist and parts of green sleeve near the shoulder, RG 51. It appears to have been a part of a rather large statuette. While on the basis of its position in figures 3 and 4 it could have been made in Italy, the true origin, unfortunately, is as ambiguous as is that of the other items falling near the Alexandrian and Cypriot vessels.
HELEN RESEARCH LABORATORY HATCHER FOR ARCHAEOLOGY

OXFORD UNIVERSITY 6 KEBLE ROAD OXFORD OX1 3QJ KINGDOM ALEXANDER DEPARTMENT OF CHEMISTRY KACZMARCZYK

UNITED

TUFTS UNIVERSITY MEDFORD, MASSACHUSETTS 02155 AGNES DEPARTEMENT DES ANTIQUITES SCHERER

GRECQUES,

ETRUSQUES ET ROMAINES PALAIS DU LOUVRE PARIS 75058 FRANCE ROBIN MUSEUM LONDON LONDON UNITED OF LONDON WALL EC2Y 5HN KINGDOM P. SYMONDS

40

Kaczmarczyk and Hedges (supra n. 2) 161-66.

1994]

CHEMICAL CLASSIFICATION

OF ROMAN GLAZED CERAMICS A Ceramic Bodies TiO2 0.77 0.68 0.71 0.52 0.61 0.68 0.73 0.73 0.73 0.68 0.62 0.57 0.80 1.07 0.85 0.87 0.47 0.78 0.90 0.58 0.80 0.46 0.73 0.73 0.62 0.70 1.07 0.70 0.55 0.66 0.58 0.54 1.07 0.95 0.78 0.98 0.82 0.75 0.75 0.78 0.78 0.90 0.90 0.83 0.70 0.55 0.60 0.93 0.82 0.78 0.58 1.20 1.04 1.04 0.88 0.68 0.54 0.93 1.13 1.60 MnO 0.013 0.081 0.076 0.079 0.055 0.106 0.088 0.026 0.014 0.010 0.083 0.045 0.043 0.054 0.124 0.029 0.027 0.026 0.142 0.085 0.010 0.067 0.015 0.014 0.127 0.019 0.045 0.086 0.084 0.096 0.085 0.082 0.037 0.063 0.022 0.057 0.101 0.098 0.107 0.035 0.014 0.054 0.032 0.093 0.087 0.075 0.052 0.019 0.107 0.046 0.048 0.055 0.054 0.049 0.019 0.070 0.054 0.010 0.010 0.018 Fe203 4.22 5.63 5.65 4.22 4.85 5.42 5.49 4.01 3.52 2.46 4.36 3.86 5.13 7.18 5.91 4.36 3.15 4.15 5.63 6.34 1.58 4.43 3.10 3.17 5.91 3.45 6.34 6.90 5.63 7.18 6.34 6.03 6.05 5.63 3.45 5.07 7.74 7.18 6.90 4.79 3.17 5.63 4.51 6.62 7.04 4.93 4.51 3.73 5.21 5.63 4.17 6.44 6.72 6.73 1.38 6.22 4.07 2.68 2.68 3.24

453

APPENDIX Percent No. RG 1 RG 2 RG 3 RG 4 RG 5 RG 6 RG 7 RG 8 RG 9 RG 10 RG 11 RG 12 RG 13 RG 14 RG 15 RG 16 RG 17 RG 18 RG 19 RG 20 RG 21 RG 22 RG 23 RG 24 RG 25 RG 26 RG 27 RG 28 RG 29 RG 30 RG 31 RG 32 RG 33 RG 34 RG 35 RG 36 RG 37 RG 38 RG 39 RG 40 RG 41 RG 42 RG 43 RG 44 RG 45 RG 46 RG 47 RG 48 RG 49 RG 50 RG 51 RG 52 RG 53 RG 54 RG 55a RG 58 RG 59 RG 60 RG 61 RG 62 Na2O 0.31 0.93 0.60 0.71 1.12 0.88 0.50 0.46 0.40 0.47 1.55 2.65 0.93 0.53 0.38 1.12 0.31 0.98 0.42 0.49 0.33 2.70 0.53 0.51 1.48 0.58 0.55 0.43 0.31 0.90 0.62 0.54 0.49 0.43 0.84 0.35 0.89 0.57 0.69 1.21 0.57 1.05 0.66 0.63 0.43 0.63 2.63 0.78 0.38 0.53 2.14 0.44 0.48 0.49 0.38 0.75 1.56 0.45 0.26 0.81 MgO 0.50 2.50 3.54 2.42 2.69 2.79 2.62 1.49 1.29 1.08 1.91 1.76 2.30 2.32 4.15 1.69 0.90 1.66 4.39 4.97 1.05 1.54 1.28 1.24 4.81 1.23 1.26 5.06 8.29 5.31 3.07 4.74 1.28 1.77 1.48 1.69 5.47 5.47 5.47 1.99 1.31 2.24 1.77 5.31 5.36 3.11 1.77 1.66 4.39 1.79 1.49 1.77 1.94 1.79 0.72 4.79 2.03 0.53 0.61 0.85 Composition A1203 12.66 14.36 15.18 10.77 12.82 13.80 14.93 22.11 18.52 21.74 12.66 14.88 18.09 13.80 20.79 21.74 13.09 20.79 22.68 12.66 22.20 16.20 22.68 22.68 12.10 22.11 24.57 13.80 10.77 13.80 12.10 12.34 24.57 22.11 20.22 23.06 15.69 14.36 13.23 20.22 22.11 19.85 20.22 16.82 13.83 9.45 15.69 21.74 20.22 18.90 14.00 23.04 22.44 23.01 10.63 12.53 11.71 24.57 28.35 25.52 K20 1.93 2.23 2.57 1.81 2.26 2.47 2.59 3.62 3.25 3.37 2.65 3.49 3.50 4.64 3.43 4.34 2.47 4.10 3.62 2.71 4.23 3.62 4.04 3.98 1.69 4.04 4.82 2.47 1.69 2.77 2.53 2.27 4.76 3.80 3.37 3.68 3.13 2.41 2.77 3.68 4.22 3.86 3.98 2.41 2.65 1.93 3.19 4.10 3.37 3.86 2.99 4.17 4.04 3.88 2.26 2.37 2.72 3.80 2.65 3.80

of Roman

CaO 2.73 11.63 11.66 21.69 14.17 12.03 11.19 1.61 2.31 2.31 10.56 7.90 6.98 2.10 2.94 4.34 1.58 3.22 1.82 18.89 2.88 8.20 1.82 1.75 16.09 1.96 2.52 18.19 16.79 24.48 20.99 22.83 2.45 2.80 2.80 2.31 23.78 18.19 18.19 5.74 1.89 5.60 5.18 13.71 16.04 21.69 8.25 4.48 5.60 4.97 13.02 2.99 1.85 6.82 13.56 18.02 14.97 0.67 0.24 0.49

SiO2 <76.8 <61.9 <60.0 <57.7 <61.4 <61.8 <61.8 <65.9 <69.9 <67.8 <65.6 <64.8 <62.2 <68.3 <61.4 <61.5 <78.0 <64.2 <60.4 <53.2 <66.9 <62.7 <65.8 <65.9 <57.1 <65.9 <58.8 <52.3 <55.8 <44.8 <53.6 <50.6 <59.2 <62.4 <67.0 <62.8 <42.3 <50.9 <51.8 <61.5 <65.9 <60.8 <62.7 <53.5 <53.8 <57.6 <63.3 <62.5 <59.9 <63.4 <61.5 <59.9 <61.4 <56.1 <70.1 <54.5 <62.3 <66.3 <64.0 <63.6

454

HATCHER, KACZMARCZYK, SCHERER, AND SYMONDS

[AJA 98

APPENDIX A (continued) Percent Composition of Roman Ceramic Bodies

No. RG 63 RG 64 RG 65 RG 66 RG 67 RG 68 RG 69 RG 70 RG 71 RG 72 RG 73 RG 74 RG 75 RG 76 RG 77 RG 78 RG 79 RG 80 RG 81 RG 82 RG 83 RG 84 RG 85 RG 86 RG 87 RG 88 RG 89 RG 90 RG 91 RG 92 RG 93 RG 94 RG 95 RG 96 RG 97 RG 98 RG 99 RG 100 RG 101 RG 102 RG 103 RG 104 Na2O 0.29 0.40 0.57 0.22 0.82 1.00 0.15 0.77 0.46 1.62 0.50 0.42 0.35 0.53 0.53 0.47 0.25 0.27 0.57 0.38 0.73 0.20 0.75 1.20 0.50 0.49 0.67 2.28 0.67 0.60 0.35 0.74 0.78 0.73 0.62 0.54 0.19 0.34 0.83 0.21 0.53 0.59 MgO 0.49 0.91 0.85 0.70 0.96 0.83 0.24 0.85 0.98 1.06 0.95 0.87 0.59 0.98 0.83 0.87 0.63 0.69 1.08 0.80 2.32 0.70 0.90 1.08 1.03 1.01 1.03 0.63 0.95 0.95 0.90 0.85 0.85 0.75 1.49 1.00 0.42 0.63 0.95 0.43 1.02 1.19 A1203 25.52 27.41 23.63 18.90 23.63 24.19 21.74 25.52 23.06 16.07 27.38 24.13 25.57 22.87 22.87 26.44 26.46 25.58 21.74 20.22 13.23 28.35 26.46 28.35 28.35 28.35 26.46 30.64 27.41 26.00 29.30 26.46 25.52 26.04 23.63 28.35 29.30 26.40 23.58 30.24 26.11 25.56 K20 2.83 3.43 3.86 1.99 3.68 3.86 0.24 3.68 3.62 0.58 3.44 3.61 2.31 3.62 3.49 3.30 2.95 3.46 3.68 3.49 2.71 2.89 3.50 3.62 3.56 3.80 3.98 3.01 3.86 3.63 3.56 3.86 4.10 3.75 3.98 3.98 2.89 2.77 3.57 2.95 3.66 4.19 CaO 0.46 0.57 0.55 0.52 0.57 0.55 0.57 0.64 0.64 18.00 0.53 0.63 0.42 0.62 1.09 7.99 1.64 0.52 0.64 0.27 13.29 1.72 0.80 0.81 0.73 0.70 0.69 0.69 0.63 0.68 0.55 1.24 1.19 1.58 2.41 0.76 0.39 0.78 1.34 0.36 1.09 0.67 TiO2 0.87 1.37 1.25 1.00 1.60 1.25 2.75 1.60 1.37 0.82 1.35 1.17 0.85 1.37 1.05 1.23 1.05 1.18 1.32 1.08 0.60 0.93 1.58 1.70 1.40 0.85 1.47 0.99 1.64 1.38 1.33 1.67 1.50 1.50 1.25 1.42 0.78 1.10 1.36 0.73 1.02 1.25 MnO 0.010 0.026 0.028 0.017 0.024 0.018 0.010 0.018 0.034 0.048 0.041 0.019 0.010 0.023 0.021 0.025 0.042 0.056 0.031 0.018 0.077 0.054 0.030 0.035 0.063 0.031 0.026 0.022 0.021 0.030 0.038 0.019 0.024 0.018 0.056 0.054 0.009 0.011 0.023 0.012 0.017 0.024 Fe203 2.53 3.38 3.10 1.97 4.51 3.03 2.89 3.10 4.36 5.49 3.80 3.29 3.05 3.52 3.03 3.63 2.82 3.18 4.22 3.17 5.49 3.10 3.03 3.45 3.45 2.96 3.80 2.66 3.38 3.72 3.73 2.82 3.38 2.95 6.90 3.52 2.32 2.68 4.18 2.46 3.10 3.83 SiO2 <67.0 <62.5 <66.1 <74.6 <64.2 <65.2 <71.4 <63.8 <65.4 <56.3 <62.0 <65.8 <66.8 <66.4 <67.0 <56.0 <64.1 <65.0 <66.7 <70.5 <61.5 <62.0 <62.9 <59.7 <60.9 <61.8 <61.8 <59.0 <61.4 <63.0 <60.2 <62.3 <62.6 <62.6 <59.6 <60.3 <63.7 <65.2 <64.1 <62.6 <63.4 <62.7

APPENDIX Percent No. RG 1 RG 2 RG 3 RG 4 RG 5 RG 5a RG 6 RG 7b RG 7c Color clear green green green green clear green green clear Thickness (gm) 50-80 300-600 100-300 200-500 50-200 50-100 50-200 30-100 50-100 Composition K20 2. 9. <2 2. <2 <2 4. 7. 4. CaO 6.2 6.5 1.1 3.1 4.0 2.0 5.6 9.6 3.8

B Ceramic Glazes ZnO tr. tr. 0.0 tr. tr. 0.1 0.0 tr. tr. PbO 42. 53. 60. 56. 40. 48. 56. 52. 45. SnO2 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Sb2O5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

of Roman TiO2 0.7 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0

Fe203 6.2 3.4 0.2 0.8 0.3 1.3 2.3 3.3 6.0

CuO 0.0 4.1 6.1 1.6 2.4 0.0 2.2 3.9 0.0

1994]

CHEMICAL CLASSIFICATION

OF ROMAN GLAZED CERAMICS

455

APPENDIX B (continued) Percent Composition of Roman Ceramic Glazes

No. RG 8 RG 8 RG 9 RG 9 RG 10 RG 11 RG 11 RG 12d RG 12 RG 13 RG 13 RG 14 RG 15 RG 16 RG 17 RG 18 RG 18e RG 18b RG 19f RG 21 RG 21b RG 22 RG 23g RG 24 RG 25 RG 26 RG 27 RG 28 RG 29 RG 30 RG 31 h RG 32 RG 33 RG 34 RG 35 RG 35 RG 36 RG 37 RG 37 RG 38 RG 39 RG 39 RG 40 RG 40' RG 40b RG 41 RG 42 RG 43 RG 44j RG 45 RG 45k RG 46 RG 46 RG 47 RG 47 RG 47b RG 48 RG 49 RG 50 Color green clear green purple green green clear green clear green clear clear clear clear clear clear green clear clear clear clear green green green green green clear clear clear clear green green clear clear green clear clear green clear green green clear green clear clear green green green green green clear green clear green clear green green clear clear Thickness (gLm) 50-80 50-80 50-200 30-80 20-80 50-100 50-200 20-50 40-60 50-80 40-60 70-150 70-200 20-80 70-130 40-70 70-100 40-70 70-100 20-130 50-100 40-100 50-100 40-60 70-130 100-130 70-130 70-130 50-200 100-200 70-180 150-300 40-100 60-120 100-150 100-130 50-130 150-200 60-80 60-100 40-100 40-100 70-100 70-130 100-200 20-100 50-80 70-130 50-200 20-60 20-60 50-80 40-60 70-130 40-60 70-120 100-150 60-120 100-150 K20 <2 <2 2. 9. <2 2. 7. 6. 2. <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 2. <2 <2 <2 <2 5. <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 5. <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 5. <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 9. 7. 3. <2 <2 <2 10. <2 <2 <2 CaO 4.9 3.5 3.2 2.0 8.8 2.5 4.2 8.3 3.4 5.4 2.7 2.7 6.4 2.0 2.7 3.6 8.5 3.8 3.3 3.5 2.1 3.5 2.4 1.8 1.2 1.5 2.9 2.5 1.6 1.7 2.8 4.0 1.5 4.0 3.0 1.9 2.7 2.6 2.9 2.0 3.1 5.6 3.2 2.4 5.6 4.7 4.2 0.7 1.7 4.9 3.1 7.2 1.9 2.6 2.5 2.9 7.2 5.2 3.3 TiO2 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.3 0.0 0.2 tr. 0.2 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 tr. 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.3 0.2 Fe203 1.8 4.7 1.6 1.0 1.5 1.4 3.7 5.1 2.4 2.2 3.3 1.9 2.4 3.8 1.9 5.3 1.1 4.8 1.9 1.1 2.3 1.4 0.8 0.8 1.0 0.6 1.7 3.7 2.9 1.8 0.2 1.6 2.2 1.7 0.5 3.1 1.8 0.3 2.1 0.5 1.1 3.8 1.5 3.8 3.1 0.7 2.0 0.2 1.2 2.1 6.1 1.5 0.6 0.4 2.0 2.0 0.6 2.7 1.7 CuO 2.6 0.0 8.5 1.7 4.0 1.9 0.0 2.1 0.0 4.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 3.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.4 6.3 5.1 5.4 6.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.0 3.0 0.0 0.0 7.5 0.0 0.0 6.2 0.0 4.8 3.1 0.0 5.3 0.1 0.0 8.4 2.1 3.9 2.1 2.6 0.0 2.9 0.0 2.2 0.0 2.8 4.4 0.0 0.0 ZnO 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.5 0.4 tr. tr. 0.0 0.0 tr. 0.0 0.1 tr. 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 tr. 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 tr. 0.0 tr. 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 tr. 0.1 0.1 0.2 tr. 0.2 tr. 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 PbO 61. 53. 54. 46. 53. 55. 64. 40. 49. 49. 41. 51. 62. 61. 49. 54. 55. 54. 58. 61. 52. 65. 56. 53. 45. 51. 46. 49. 56. 51. 60. 50. 53. 58. 56. 57. 57. 63. 57. 65. 63. 61. 59. 52. 60. 59. 54. 47. 61. 56. 52. 62. 63. 51. 52. 52. 48. 63. 48. SnO2 0.0 0.0 1.1 0.9 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 1.3 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.3 1.4 0.4 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.4 1.0 1.0 0.1 0.8 0.1 0.4 0.1 0.4 0.3 0.7 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.4 0.1 0.2 0.5 0.5 1.1 0.3 0.1 1.8 0.1 0.7 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.8 0.3 0.3 1.6 0.1 0.1 Sb205 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.2 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.1

456

HATCHER ET AL., CHEMICAL CLASSIFICATION

OF ROMAN GLAZED CERAMICS

APPENDIX B (continued) Percent Composition of Roman Ceramic Glazes

No. RG51 RG51 RG52 RG53 RG54 RG55a RG55b RG55b RG58 RG58m RG59 RG59 RG60n RG61 RG62 RG63 RG64 RG65 RG66 RG67 RG68 RG69 RG70 RG71 RG72? RG73 RG74 RG75 RG76 RG77 RG78 RG79 RG80 RG81 RG82 RG83 RG84 RG88 RG89 RG90 RG91 RG92 RG93 Color green clear clear clear clear green green clear clear black green clear clear clear clear clear clear clear green clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear green clear clear clear clear clear clear clear Thickness (tm) 50-100 50-100 50-150 50-100 70-150 70-300 50-200 50-100 200-300 200-300 100-200 50-200 20-50 70-150 50-150 20-80 40-80 20-100 100-150 30-80 50-150 50-200 50-100 20-80 50-80 70-150 50-200 40-120 50-150 70-200 50-150 50-200 50-200 50-100 100-300 50-300 50-200 20-200 30-200 20-50 20-100 50-100 10-30 K20 <2 3. <2 <2 <2 5. 6. 8. <2 <2 <2 <2 6. 8. <2 6. 4. 6. <2 7. 14. <2 4. 3. <2 <2 7. <2 12. 7. <2 7. 10. 5. 9. <2 4. 5. 11. 6. 7. 8. 4. CaO 3.7 4.4 3.1 3.2 3.9 3.3 3.8 2.5 6.1 2.2 5.3 1.9 8.6 3.5 4.6 3.7 5.0 5.3 5.7 2.3 3.8 0.6 6.3 7.6 19.9 4.3 6.9 2.6 7.6 3.3 7.5 2.4 7.7 3.0 2.7 4.4 3.2 3.1 2.1 3.2 2.2 2.4 2.0 TiO2 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.3 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.4 0.6 0.2 0.4 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.8 0.9 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.2 0.7 0.2 0.9 0.3 0.5 0.5 0.4 tr. 0.4 0.3 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.0 Fe203 1.5 2.5 2.7 2.4 3.3 0.4 0.6 2.3 5.1 10.6 2.5 3.3 2.5 1.3 1.8 1.3 2.2 2.7 3.3 2.4 1.2 1.2 2.0 2.8 8.2 1.4 1.3 1.3 2.1 1.4 2.2 1.5 1.8 2.0 1.5 1.2 1.8 1.6 2.4 1.4 2.2 2.3 2.7 CuO 3.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.7 4.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.4 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 tr. 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 ZnO tr. 0.0 0.1 0.1 tr. 0.0 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.1 tr. 0.0 0.0 tr. tr. 0.0 tr. tr. 0.0 0.0 tr. 0.0 tr. 0.0 tr. tr. 0.0 0.0 0.0 tr. tr. tr. 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 PbO 67. 61. 67. 58. 56. 57. 51. 44. 72. 66. 63. 58. 45. 66. 65. 66. 54. 67. 61. 65. 65. 71. 64. 58. 0. 67. 62. 70. 62. 71. 66. 64. 66. 69. 67. 56. 69. 71. 70. 67. 66. 65. 65. SnO2 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 Sb205 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.0

aSurface analyses include 4-mm-thick glaze drips on the rim. bAlso detected: 0.2% MnO. CSurfaceanalyses include 4-mm-thick glaze drips on the rim. dAlso detected: 0.2% SrO. 'Also detected: 0.2% V205 and 0.1% SrO. fExterior had depressed spots with 500-gm glaze accumulations. gBoth sides had spots with 500-gm glaze accumulations. hExterior had spots with 1-mm glaze accumulations. 'Few spots had glaze accumulations up to 0.5 mm thick. JExterior had glaze accumulations up to 4 mm thick. kAlso detected: ca. 1%As203. 'Also detected: 0.1% MnO. "Also detected: 7% Cr, underglaze with some penetration into the glaze. nAlso detected: ca. 0.8% BaO. ?Also detected: 0.4% SrO.