SEM–EDS ANALYSIS AS A RAPID TOOL FOR

DISTINGUISHING CAMPANIAN A WARE AND

SICILIAN IMITATIONS*

G. MONTANA,1† E. TSANTINI,1,2 L. RANDAZZO1 and A. BURGIO3

1Dipartimento di Scienze della Terra e del Mare (DiSTeM), Università degli Studi di Palermo, Via Archirafi 36,

Palermo 90123, Italy2Equip de Recerca Arqueològica i Arqueomètrica, Universitat de Barcelona, Montalegre 8-0, Bercelona, Spain

3Dipartimento di Beni Culturali Storico-Archeologici, Socio-Antropologici e Geografici, Università degli Studi di Palermo,

Palermo, Italy

The aim of this work is to examine whether it is possible to find chemical markers that allow

a distinction to be made between the imported black glossed ‘Campanian A’ and the Sicilian

imitation (end of fourth to first century BC) of these productions by carrying out quantitative

chemical microanalysis of the slip using the SEM–EDS technique. The efficiency of the

proposed analytical method has been tested on a set of ceramic samples corresponding to

Sicilian black gloss imitations whose ceramic body has already been characterized petro-

graphically by thin-section microscopy and chemically by XRF. The analytical data point to

Na2O as a suitable chemical marker to distinguish between original ‘Campanian A’ imported

from the Gulf of Naples area and Sicilian imitations of the same forms of Hellenistic pottery.

In order to verify the above result, the enrichment factors (EFs) between the raw clays, the

corresponding ceramic body and black gloss slip were calculated. Some differences in the

patterns of EFs between original ‘Campanian A’ and Sicilian imitations were recognized and

explained. Therefore, the obtained results can help to accomplish a first distinction between

imported and local material on a firm analytical basis, working on a statistically significant

number of individuals.

KEYWORDS: HELLENISTIC BLACK GLOSS POTTERY, ‘CAMPANIAN A’, IMITATIONS,

ARCHAEOMETRY, SEM–EDS, SICILY

ARCHAEOLOGICAL BACKGROUND AND AIMS

In the field of archaeology, ‘Campanian pottery’ represents a class of tableware covered with

glossy black slip widely produced in Italy between the end of the fourth and the first century bc.

Campanian pottery is generally considered as an imitation of the well-known Attic black gloss

pottery, and it was largely distributed to both the western and the eastern Mediterranean. At

the beginning of the 1950s, Nino Lamboglia distinguished Campanian pottery into three basic

categories that he called A, B and C, according to the quality of the slip and the colours of the

ceramic body. He also established the main morphological types within each of these categories

(Lamboglia 1952). Later on, Campanian pottery was typologically studied and classified in much

more detail by J. P. Morel (1981). It is now accepted by archaeologists, in general, that the

‘Campanian A’ is characterized by a red ceramic body, ‘Campanian B’ by a light brown or

yellowish ceramic body, and finally ‘Campanian C’ by a grey one. The existence of numerous

local imitations has also been archaeologically documented, during Hellenistic and Late Repub-

lican periods, all over the Italian and Sicilian territories and, consequently, two further categories

*Received 21 September 2011; accepted 21 August 2012

†Corresponding author: email giuseppe.montana@unipa.it

bs_bs_banner

Archaeometry 55, 4 (2013) 591–608 doi: 10.1111/j.1475-4754.2012.00723.x

© 2012 University of Oxford

labelled ‘B-oid’ and ‘g/g wares’ (grey wares) were established (Leveque and Morel 1987;

Caflisch 1991; Burgio 1993; Morel and Picon 1994; Campagna 1998; Bechtold 1999; Niro 1999;

Mazzeo et al. 2000).

Since the 1970s, several archaeometric studies dealing with the provenance and technology of

Campanian A, B, B-oid, C and g/g wares have been carried out (e.g., Picon et al. 1971; Picon

1977; Maggetti et al. 1981, 1986; Vendrell-Saz et al. 1991; Mirti et al. 1996; Mirti and Davit

2001, 2004; Gliozzo et al. 2004a,b). According to both the archaeological and the archaeometric

information, Campanian A, which is characterized by a typical low-Ca red paste (CaO generally

lower than 4 wt%), has finally been defined as being produced exclusively in the Gulf of Naples,

while Campanian C, with grey calcareous paste, originates only from Syracuse. Regarding

Campanian B, which has a light brown colour paste, the obtained information is that it was

generally produced in different parts of Italy, and particularly in Etruria.

Black slip wares are considered to be important chronological markers in archaeological

contexts (both excavations and field surveys) dated from the end of the fourth to the first

century bc. In Sicily, however, one of the main problems is that a significant part of these wares

corresponds to local and regional imitations of several forms of Campanian A. The main

macroscopic characteristic of these Sicilian imitations consists of red brownish paste and black

to black-greyish glossy finishing; thus they can easily be confused with the distinctive Campanian

A produced within the restricted area of the Gulf of Naples. During the second and first centuries

bc in western Sicily, the diffusion of Campanian A seems to be very extended. The plate tagged

Lamboglia 36, or also Morel F 1310–1320, become dominant not only in Sicily and Italy, but

throughout the whole Mediterranean. It began to be imitated locally and regionally much more

frequently (Mirti et al. 1998; Belvedere et al. 2006). Thus, typological or morphological distinc-

tion between original imports and local or regional Sicilian imitations is not easy. Sometimes, the

chronological and/or typological separation of the different sub-typologies is also difficult.

Starting from this framework, the present paper focuses expressly on the import and imitations

of Campanian A in north-western Sicily. In order to solve these archaeological issues, some

archaeometric studies have already been successfully carried out on Hellenistic black slip wares

recovered from some significant archaeological contexts of north-western Sicily (Belvedere et al.

1993, 2006). These studies specifically considered the sites of Marineo, Palermo, Monte Iato and

Termini Imerese, where both archaeological and archaeometric evidence demonstrated the exist-

ence of importation of black gloss Campanian A forms from the area of Naples, as well as the

parallel existence of local imitations (Belvedere et al. 2006). In the above-mentioned study, the

archaeometric approach was based on petrographic (polarized light thin-section microscopy) and

chemical (X-ray fluorescence, XRF) analyses of the ceramic body. Even if the above-cited

analytical methods are fairly suitable for distinguishing between Sicilian imitations of Campa-

nian A and imports, in general they need a large quantity of sample (including fragments for

thin-section preparation and powder for XRF—overall at least 2–3 g of ceramic material are

required) and they are also time-consuming procedures. The factors discussed above normally

limit the number of individual samples selected for the analytical routine.

In the present work, the focus is on a faster method that merely involves the analysis of the

external surface of the glossy black finishing. Given limited time and/or economic resources, this

can have a significant advantage as an application to the analysis of a statistically significant

number of samples. Therefore in the frame of this work, only the quantitative chemical analysis

of the external surface of the black gloss has been carried out using the SEM–EDS technique.

Specifically, this study uses the same pottery sherds of Campanian A imports and Sicilian

imitations that have been successfully archaeometrically characterized by Belvedere et al.

592 G. Montana et al.

© 2012 University of Oxford, Archaeometry 55, 4 (2013) 591–608

(2006). The SEM–EDS analysis was also extended to a second documented local production

decorated with black glossy slip (Belvedere et al. 2006), although not recognized as a form of

Campanian A, represented by a deep drinking cup dated to the end of the fourth or the first half

of third century bc and associable with the skyphos type Morel F4731. The results obtained from

the quantitative SEM–EDS analyses of the black gloss were also compared with an analogous

set of data concerning, in particular, samples of Campanian A from the Hellenistic context of

southern Italy (Mirti and Davit 2001). Our final aim is to examine whether it is possible to define

by means of a routine and easily available technique such as SEM–EDS a set of chemical markers

that might permit us to distinguish, at least, between the imported Campanian A and the Sicilian

imitations without the need to fully analyse the pottery paste.

The feasibility of the method was tested and verified comparing the chemical composition of

the black gloss acquired by SEM–EDS with the composition of the ceramic body that had already

allowed an attribution of provenance of the Sicilian imitations of Campanian A and of other

Sicilian productions. Such an approach would allow relatively cheap and rapid preliminary

examination of a great number of samples in the future, with obvious implications for archaeo-

logical research.

BLACK GLOSS TECHNOLOGY: A SCHEMATIC REVIEW

Concerning the study of the black gloss itself, many works have been devoted to the character-

ization and full understanding of various aspects of the Attic black gloss manufacture (e.g.,

Bimson 1956; Farnsworth and Wisely 1958; Winter 1959; Noble 1960; Hofmann 1966; Oberlies

1968; Noll et al. 1974; Pavicevic 1974; Maggetti et al. 1981; Tite et al. 1982; Kingery 1991;

Maniatis et al. 1993; Aloupi 1994). All these studies have pointed out that gloss finish was

produced using a fine suspension of illitic clay applied to the dry pot surface followed by an

oxidizing–reducing–oxidizing single firing cycle at 800–950°C. The colour is, accordingly, due

to the transformation of hematite (Fe2O3) into magnetite (Fe3O4), wustite (FeO) or hercynite

(FeAl2O3) during the reducing cycle.

Even though there are many works on pottery provenance dealing with the production of the

different types of Campanian pottery in various geographical areas of Italy, as described before,

publications specifically concerning chemical and technological studies of black gloss are com-

paratively limited (Maggetti et al. 1981; Vendrell-Saz et al. 1991; Mirti and Davit 2001, 2004;

Gliozzo et al. 2004a,b). Amongst the latest works, those of Mirti and Davit (2001) and Gliozzo

et al. (2004a,b) can be considered the most important regarding the technology of Campanian A

black gloss. These works gave explicit details about the relation between technological proce-

dures and slip quality, and also explored whether the different productions can be distinguished

from each other. It has been pointed out that the firing conditions (performance of oxidizing–

reducing cycles and temperatures) are the most important aspects influencing both the quality and

the colour of the black gloss with respect to chemical composition.

Regarding the analytical procedures for studying black gloss technology, SEM–EDS

(sometimes combined with TEM) has been successfully applied in different studies (Tite et al.

1982; Vendrell-Saz et al. 1991; Maniatis et al. 1993; Mirti and Davit 2001; Gliozzo et al.

2004a,b) due to the high-resolution and microchemical analytical facilities that it offers.

MATERIALS

A set of 39 black gloss samples selected from a wider set of 55 pottery samples previously subject

to accurate petrographic and chemical studies concerning only the ceramic body (Belvedere et al.

SEM–EDS analysis to distinguish Campanian A ware and Sicilian imitations 593

© 2012 University of Oxford, Archaeometry 55, 4 (2013) 591–608

2006) have been analysed for the purpose of this work. In Table 1, the analysed samples are coded

depending on the archaeological site at which they were originally found and, on the basis of the

preceding archaeometric analyses, are classified into chemical groups (XRF composition of

the ceramic body) known as imports or local productions (Belvedere et al. 2006). Group I,

established by Belvedere et al. (2006), is represented here by 16 Campanian A samples, all

Table 1 A list of the analysed individuals, with their analytical codes, the archaeological sites at which they were

sampled, their chemical groups according to the XRF analysis of the ceramic body (after Belvedere et al. 2006), their

typological classification and their production symbols (see text)

Code Archaeological site Production Typology Group Symbol of

production

PA/ML3 Palermo Campanian A Plate Lamboglia 36 Group I A

TI/ML15 Termini Imerese Campanian A Plate Lamboglia 36 Group I A

TI/ML9 Termini Imerese Campanian A Plate Lamboglia 36 Group I A

TI/ML11 Termini Imerese Campanian A Plate Lamboglia 36 Group I A

TI/ML5 Termini Imerese Campanian A Plate Lamboglia 36 Group I A

TI/ML1 Termini Imerese Campanian A Plate Lamboglia 36 Group I A

TI/ML10 Termini Imerese Campanian A Plate Lamboglia 36 Group I A

PA/ML4 Palermo Campanian A Plate Lamboglia 36 Group I A

TI/ML7 Termini Imerese Campanian A Plate Lamboglia 36 Group I A

MR/ML3 Marineo Campanian A Plate Lamboglia 36 Group I A

MR/ML2 Marineo Campanian A Plate Lamboglia 36 Group I A

TI/ML8 Termini Imerese Campanian A Plate Lamboglia 36 Group I A

MI/ML25 Monte Iato Campanian A Plate Lamboglia 36 Group I A

MI/ML21 Monte Iato Campanian A Plate Lamboglia 36 Group I A

TI/ML4 Termini Imerese Campanian A Plate Lamboglia 36 Group I A

TI/ML2 Termini Imerese Campanian A Plate Lamboglia 36 Group I A

TI/ML6 Termini Imerese Local 1 Plate Lamboglia 36 Group II A L1

TI/ML17 Termini Imerese Local 1 Plate Lamboglia 36 Group II A L1

TI/ML16 Termini Imerese Local 1 Plate Lamboglia 36 Group II A L1

MI/ML32 Monte Iato Local 1 Plate Lamboglia 36 Group II A L1

TI/ML12 Termini Imerese Local 1 Plate Lamboglia 36 Group II A L1

MR/ML4 Marineo Local 1 Plate Lamboglia 36 Group II A L1

TI/ML3 Termini Imerese Local 1 Plate Lamboglia 36 Group II A L1

PA/ML5 Palermo Local 1 Plate Lamboglia 36 Group II A L1

TI/ML13 Termini Imerese Local 1 Plate Lamboglia 36 Group II A L1

PA/ML7 Palermo Local 1 Plate Lamboglia 36 Group II A L1

MI/ML27 Monte Iato Local 1 Plate Lamboglia 36 Group II A L1

MR/ML1 Marineo Local 1 Plate Lamboglia 36 Group II A L1

MI/ML29 Monte Iato Local 1 Plate Lamboglia 36 Group II A L1

MI/ML24 Monte Iato Local 1 Plate Lamboglia 36 Group II A L1

MI/ML31 Monte Iato Local 1 Plate Lamboglia 36 Group II A L1

MNTE13 Marineo Local 2 Deep drinking cup Group II B L2

PA/BG2 Palermo Local 2 Deep drinking cup Group II B L2

PA/BG4 Palermo Local 2 Deep drinking cup Group II B L2

MNTE12 Marineo Local 2 Deep drinking cup Group II B L2

MNTE14 Marineo Local 2 Deep drinking cup Group II B L2

MNTE15 Marineo Local 2 Deep drinking cup Group II B L2

MNTE11 Marineo Local 2 Deep drinking cup Group II B L2

MI/BG1 Monte Iato Local 2 Deep drinking cup Group II B L2

594 G. Montana et al.

© 2012 University of Oxford, Archaeometry 55, 4 (2013) 591–608

typologically classified as Lamboglia 36 (or Morel 1310–1320) plates, which were demonstrated

to be imports from the area of the Gulf of Naples and dated back to the second to first century bc.

Group II, according to Belvedere et al. (2006), is composed here of 23 samples, all identified as

local productions, of which 15 (Group II A) are imitations of the Lamboglia 36 plate (second–first

century bc) and the remaining eight (Group II B) are representative of deep drinking cups

associable with the skyphos type Morel F4731, dated back to the end of the fourth and the third

century bc (Fig. 1 (a)). The analysed pottery samples were discovered at four different archaeo-

logical sites, Palermo (samples coded PA), Termini Imerese (samples coded TI), Marineo (sample

coded MR and MNTE) and Monte Iato (samples coded MI), all located in north-western Sicily

(Fig. 1 (b)). They were chemically and petrographically compared with local clays previously

treated with experimental firings (Belvedere et al. 2006). As a result of this approach, the Lower

Pleistocene clays locally called Argille di Ficarazzi have been recognized as the most plausible

local raw materials used for the manufacture of both the local imitation of Campanian A and the

cups. The main reason for dealing with this specific typology, as has been mentioned before, is

the fact that during the second century the Lamboglia 36, or Morel 1310–1320, plate was traded

not only in Sicily and Italy but throughout the whole Mediterranean, and it corresponds to the

main type that has been most frequently imitated locally and regionally. Therefore, typological

and morphological distinction between original imports and local/regional imitations is

difficult. The above archaeometrical study showed the contemporaneous existence of Campanian

A with local and regional imitation as well, in conformity with the prior archaeological

hypothesis.

Figure 1 (a) The studied typologies (after Belvedere et al. 2006). (b) The locations of the archaeological sites under

consideration.

SEM–EDS analysis to distinguish Campanian A ware and Sicilian imitations 595

© 2012 University of Oxford, Archaeometry 55, 4 (2013) 591–608

ANALYTICAL PROCEDURE

In the present work, quantitative microchemical analyses were carried out by a SEM–EDS Leica

LEO 440 equipped with a Link Analytical ISIS energy-dispersive spectrometer on flat tiny black

gloss fragments previously sputter-coated with ultrapure carbon and glued with an isobutyl

methyl ketone suspension of colloidal silver on aluminium stubs. In order to obtain statistically

representative measurements, up to 10 single analytical runs were performed on each single

sample, under reduced raster conditions, on different areas approximately corresponding to

100 mm2. The operating settings were as follows: 20 kV accelerating voltage, 1.2 nA beam

current, 100 s live-time, and a working distance equal to 25 mm. Natural mineral standards were

used to calibrate quantitative analyses together with an internal standard (synthetic glass obtained

by the experimental melting of basaltic scoriae in air at 1400°C), which was specifically used for

better control of the instrumental effectiveness in measuring concentrations of alkali metals. ZAF

correction of matrix effects was routinely applied. Values of precisions, expressed as relative

standard deviations (RSD), for each element were as follows: Na (7.8), Mg (1.7), Al (2.3), Si

(1.3), P (42.1), K (5.7), Ca (3.1), Ti (16.6), Mn (53.2) and Fe (3.5). Accuracies, expressed as

relative errors, for each element were as follows: Na (0.19), Mg (0.05), Al (0.04), Si (0.01),

P (0.34), K (0.09), Ca (0.03), Ti (0.20), Mn (0.69) and Fe (0.10). Principal Components Analysis

(PCA) was carried out using the commercial software S-Plus (MathSoft 1999).

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

The SEM observation of the fresh fractures of representative samples for each identified produc-

tion, according to the previous provenance study (Belvedere et al. 2006), allowed the character-

ization of black gloss under examination (Fig. 2). The secondary electron images (SEIs) show

only slight differences concerning the gloss microstructure and porosity between the original

Campanian A Lamboglia 36 plates (Group I) and the local imitations (Group II A). The thickness

of the coating varies considerably among the different types of gloss considered in the present

study, as well as within the same samples from area to area. It can be appreciated, for example,

that the thickness of the glossy slip of the locally produced drinking cups (Group II B) is much

more irregular, even though the porosity was found to be fairly similar to those of the previous

types. Although accurate definition of the microstructural characteristics of the glosses is not the

main subject of this specific work, we foresee the need for very detailed study of these specific

aspects in the near future.

Results of chemical composition of the glossy slip of each analysed sample obtained by the

SEM–EDS quantitative microanalysis are shown in Table 2 (a). We also calculated the minimum,

maximum, mean and standard deviation for each element within each chemical group (Table 2

(b)). Looking at the mean chemical composition of each production, the most important differ-

ence can be seen in the Na2O content between the original Campanian A (production A in Table 2,

which corresponds to Group I after Belvedere et al. 2006) and both local productions (L1 and L2,

corresponding to Group II A and Group II B, respectively, after Belvedere et al. 2006). Smaller

differences can be observed in other elements. The gloss of the drinking cups (L2), for instance,

has relatively higher CaO and TiO2 contents.

In order to better investigate the sources of variance in the whole data set, a Compositional

Variation Matrix (CVM), one of the ways to measure variability in a data set (Aitchison 1986;

Buxeda and Kilikoglou 2003), was calculated on the following subcomposition: Na2O, MgO,

Al2O3, SiO2, K2O, CaO and TiO2 (Table 3). It shows all log ratio variances and the total variation

596 G. Montana et al.

© 2012 University of Oxford, Archaeometry 55, 4 (2013) 591–608

(vt). The log ratio variances can be used to understand the relationship between the variables (in

this specific case, the elements or oxides): how one varies with respect to the others. The

variability indexes obtained, and in particular the comparatively higher t.i. values, suggest that

CaO, followed by Na2O, MnO and TiO2, introduces the major variability in the data set (Table 3).

However, comparison of the t.i. index with the equivalent mean concentration values (reported

for each production in Tables 2 (a) and 2 (b)) allows further consideration. In fact, it should be

noted that while the variability of MnO responds to very similar mean values in all the studied

productions (A = 0.20 wt%, L1 = 0.16 wt% and L2 = 0.19 wt%, respectively), in contrast, the

variabilities of Na2O, CaO and TiO2 all involve significant differences in the mean concentration

values between these productions. Moreover, whereas the Na2O difference reflects a clearly

(a) (b)

(c) (d)

(e) (f)

Figure 2 SEM images of cross-sections (fresh fracture) of selected samples representative of each identified production:

(a, b) Imported Lamboglia 36—original Campanian A (Group I); (c, d) local imitation of Lamboglia 36 (Group II A); (e,

f) locally produced Hellenistic deep drinking cups (Group II B).

SEM–EDS analysis to distinguish Campanian A ware and Sicilian imitations 597

© 2012 University of Oxford, Archaeometry 55, 4 (2013) 591–608

Table 2 (a) The results of EDS microanalysis: A, Group I; L1, Group II A; L2, Group II B. (b) The values of the

mean, minimum, maximum and standard deviation: A, Group I; L1, Group II A; L2, Group II B

(a)

Code Symbol of

production

Na2O MgO Al2O3 SiO2 K2O CaO TiO2 MnO FeO

PA/ML3 A 1.53 1.64 29.5 41.95 4.74 1.03 0.73 0.24 18.65

TI/ML15 A 1.59 2.69 34.6 39.42 4.56 1.22 1.12 0.22 14.59

TI/ML9 A 1.51 2.24 32.27 42.62 4.78 0.8 0.99 0.19 14.59

TIML11 A 1.67 4.3 33.46 40.65 3.89 1.17 0.57 0.33 13.96

TIML5 A 2.05 2.32 36.35 39.26 4.27 0.87 0.88 0.19 13.82

TIML1 A 1.57 4.34 34.34 38.9 4.82 2.16 0.62 0.2 13.06

TI/ML10 A 1.57 3.13 30.12 45.74 4.83 1.06 0.53 0.37 12.66

PA/ML4 A 1.96 2.42 30.13 46.02 5.05 1.1 0.65 0.33 12.35

TI/ML7 A 1.8 4 34.29 40.21 5.48 1.11 0.6 0.23 12.29

TI/ML10 A 1.55 3.01 30.77 46.28 4.86 0.82 0.67 0.16 11.94

MR/ML3 A 1.5 1.86 31.8 45.69 5.09 0.97 1.24 0.13 11.75

MR/ML2 A 2.02 2.88 31.57 45.01 5.36 1.24 0.58 0.26 11.1

TI/ML8 A 0.92 2.96 31.94 45.85 6.51 0.48 0.5 0.17 10.67

MI/ML25 A 1.78 2.73 31.86 48.45 4.04 0.54 0.46 0.08 10.08

MI/ML21 A 1.86 3.05 30.84 49.2 5.06 0.5 0.54 0.11 8.85

TI/ML4 A 1.98 2.75 31.62 48.4 5.05 0.68 0.63 0.14 8.77

TI/ML2 A 1.77 2.98 31.38 50.12 4.63 0.68 0.36 0.13 7.96

TI/ML6 L1 1.14 3.24 38.89 35.04 3.45 0.62 0.66 0.16 16.85

TI/ML17 L1 1.07 4.14 34.37 38.86 3.36 1.04 0.63 0.18 16.36

TIML16 L1 0.96 2.6 32.18 41.57 3.51 1.92 0.99 0.29 16.05

MI/ML32 L1 0.59 2.68 31.49 45.67 2.79 0.51 0.62 0.19 15.52

TI/ML12 L1 1.48 2.92 36.53 39.01 3.19 0.41 0.92 0.13 15.42

MR/ML4 L1 0.7 1.8 30.65 44.64 4.58 1.49 0.97 0.09 15.13

TI/ML3 L1 0.72 2.83 32.2 45.21 2.86 0.38 0.92 0.12 14.77

PA/ML5 L1 0.85 2.69 32.5 45.26 3.38 0.25 0.5 0.15 14.42

MI/ML32 L1 0.76 2.95 32.87 44.64 3.36 0.88 0.5 0.22 13.86

TI/ML13 L1 0.7 2.81 30.86 44.69 5.13 1.3 0.71 0.14 13.69

PA/ML7 L1 1.06 2.71 30.62 46.8 4.82 0.67 0.44 0.18 12.7

MI/ML27 L1 0.54 2.14 32.3 47.19 3.7 0.64 0.72 0.25 12.63

MR/ML1 L1 0.98 2.47 32.25 46.39 4.22 0.75 0.63 0.11 12.21

MI/ML29 L1 0.99 3.13 29.91 46.13 5.28 2.14 0.48 0.24 11.77

MI/ML24 L1 1.14 2.8 31 45.96 6.29 0.56 0.53 0.07 11.64

MI/ML31 L1 0.64 2.27 31.61 50.1 4.6 1.05 0.5 0.06 9.16

MNTE/13 L2 1.01 2.86 31.57 37.57 3.92 2.41 0.95 0.16 19.55

PA/BG2 L2 1.54 2.52 29.35 40.82 6.29 2.34 0.67 0.4 16.11

PA/BG4 L2 1.33 2.54 32.3 42.16 3.61 1.15 0.88 0.16 15.88

PA/BG2 L2 0.84 2.04 32.62 43.76 3.29 1.15 0.84 0.11 15.39

MNTE/12 L2 1.11 2.64 29.91 44.48 4.54 1.23 0.82 0.16 15.11

MNTE/14 L2 0.48 2.27 30.57 46.83 2.82 1.12 0.89 0.2 14.82

MNTE/15 L2 0.63 1.45 30.93 46.92 3.69 1.05 1.12 0.1 14.15

MNTE/11 L2 1.08 2.22 31.27 45.29 4.54 1.35 0.78 0.2 13.28

MI/BG1 L2 0.84 3.09 30.58 48.51 4.66 1.14 0.6 0.25 10.5

598 G. Montana et al.

© 2012 University of Oxford, Archaeometry 55, 4 (2013) 591–608

higher Na2O wt% mean value of the imported Campanian A with regard to the lower Na2O wt%

mean value for both local productions L1 and L2, higher concentrations of both CaO and TiO2

exclusively differentiate the L2 production from A and L1.

Principal Components Analysis (PCA) was applied to chemical data and performed on log-ratio

transformed subcompositions of Na2O, SiO2, CaO, FeO, MgO, K2O and TiO2, using Al2O3 as

divisor, which introduces less variability in the data set. The bi-plot shown in Figure 3 represents

the ‘factor scores’ corresponding to the first and second principal components, which account for

the 73.4% of the total variance. Factor scores permit a clear distinction of the samples assigned to

production A (Campanian A from the Gulf of Naples), which form a quite homogeneous cluster,

from those belonging to L1 (local imitations of plate Lamboglia 36/Morel F 1310–1320) and L2

(local production of Hellenistic deep drinking cups, Morel F4731). They are well separated along

Table 2 (Continued)

(b)

Symbol of

production

Na2O MgO Al2O3 SiO2 K2O CaO TiO2 MnO FeO

A Min. 0.92 1.64 29.5 38.9 3.89 0.48 0.36 0.08 7.96

Max. 2.05 4.34 36.35 50.12 6.51 2.16 1.24 0.37 18.65

Mean 1.68 2.9 32.17 44.34 4.88 0.96 0.69 0.2 12.18

s.d. 0.27 0.75 1.86 3.73 0.59 0.4 0.24 0.08 2.61

L1 Min. 0.54 1.8 29.91 35.04 2.79 0.25 0.44 0.06 9.16

Max. 1.48 4.14 38.89 50.1 6.29 2.14 0.99 0.29 16.85

Mean 0.89 2.76 32.51 44.2 4.03 0.91 0.67 0.16 13.89

s.d. 0.25 0.52 2.33 3.77 0.99 0.55 0.19 0.07 2.08

L2 Min. 0.48 1.45 29.35 37.57 2.82 1.05 0.6 0.1 10.5

Max. 1.54 3.09 32.62 48.51 6.29 2.41 1.12 0.4 19.55

Mean 0.98 2.4 31.01 44.04 4.15 1.44 0.84 0.19 14.98

s.d. 0.33 0.48 1.06 3.42 1.01 0.54 0.15 0.09 2.42

Table 3 The Compositional Variation Matrix

Oxides Na2O MgO Al2O3 SiO2 K2O CaO TiO2 MnO FeO

Na2O 0 0.1605 0.1612 0.1883 0.1267 0.3957 0.281 0.2706 0.2481

MgO 0.1605 0 0.0473 0.0722 0.0935 0.3068 0.2036 0.1857 0.1088

Al2O3 0.1612 0.0473 0 0.0171 0.0595 0.2707 0.0817 0.1958 0.0392

SiO2 0.1883 0.0722 0.0171 0 0.0472 0.2845 0.1092 0.2174 0.0716

K2O 0.1267 0.0935 0.0595 0.0472 0 0.2435 0.1653 0.2159 0.1275

CaO 0.3957 0.3068 0.2707 0.2845 0.2435 0 0.2579 0.2695 0.2387

TiO2 0.281 0.2036 0.0817 0.1092 0.1653 0.2579 0 0.2746 0.0574

MnO 0.2706 0.1857 0.1958 0.2174 0.2159 0.2695 0.2746 0 0.1806

FeO 0.2481 0.1088 0.0392 0.0716 0.1275 0.2387 0.0574 0.1806 0

t.i 1.8321 1.1784 0.8725 1.0074 1.0791 2.2673 1.4308 1.8101 1.0719

vt/t.i 0.3805 0.5916 0.7991 0.6921 0.6461 0.3075 0.4873 0.3852 0.6504

r v,t 0.8777 0.9233 0.9828 0.9904 0.8727 0.5459 0.8508 0.7896 0.8631

vt 0.6972

SEM–EDS analysis to distinguish Campanian A ware and Sicilian imitations 599

© 2012 University of Oxford, Archaeometry 55, 4 (2013) 591–608

Component 2 (negative values). Moving to consideration of the factor loadings, which quantify the

weight of each single chemical variable in the selected principal components, it is clear that

Campanian A is separated from L1 and L2 productions mainly because of its higher Na2O content.

In order to verify whether the above consideration concerning the Na2O concentration is

confirmed by other analytical studies on Campanian A black gloss, a comparison was made with

a set of archaeologically ascertained Campanian A samples analysed by Mirti and Davit (2001).

The quantitative chemical composition was obtained by Mirti and Davit with SEM–EDS as well,

although on a rather small number of analysed Campanian A individuals (four in total). In

Figure 4 (a), the weight percentages of Na2O (mean values) of the integrated data are plotted for

the different productions. On this graph, the Campanian A pottery certainly made in the area of

Figure 3 The plot of the PCA scores in the plane of the first two principal components: A, Campanian A from the Gulf

of Naples; L1, local imitations of plate Lamboglia 36 (Morel F 1310–1320); L2, local production of Hellenistic deep

drinking cups (Morel F4731).

600 G. Montana et al.

© 2012 University of Oxford, Archaeometry 55, 4 (2013) 591–608

the Gulf of Naples (all individuals from both the present paper and that of Mirti and Davit) can

be clearly separated from Sicilian imitations by the highest Na2O contents (higher than 1.6 wt%

on average). It should be underlined that the above-cited authors have already noted a higher

content of alkali metals for Campanian A than for the slips of other black gloss productions (Mirti

and Davit 2001). They have stated that this may be related to the way in which the clayey raw

material was refined for the manufacture of the slip. Nevertheless, the parallel existence of a

higher amount of high-melting aplastic inclusions in the body, together with the use of low-

calcareous clays (the CaO content is less than 5 wt% on average) strongly defines the chemical

characteristics of this pottery production and also has a clear consequence for the gloss compo-

sition. Therefore, these specific results seem to support the previously stated assumption; that is,

that the Na2O concentration of the slip, even when measured by surface SEM–EDS spot or area

analysis, is appropriate and sufficient for the identification of Campanian A produced in the Gulf

of Naples and is perfectly suitable to distinguish Campanian A from the local imitations and from

other black gloss wares produced in Sicily. Furthermore, to see whether other elements can be

discriminant for any of the local productions (both the imitations of the plate type Lamboglia 36

and the drinking cup associable with the skyphos type Morel F4731), we repeated the graphs,

taking into consideration the mean contents of both CaO and TiO2 (Figs 4 (b) and 4 (c)). It is clear

that the slip of the local drinking cups can be easily distinguished from the other production

glosses, even though no further distinction between the local imitations of the plate Lamboglia 36

Figure 4 The mean (a) Na2O, (b) CaO and (c) TiO2 compositions of the black gloss finishings analysed in this work,

compared with those published by Mirti and Davit (2001).

SEM–EDS analysis to distinguish Campanian A ware and Sicilian imitations 601

© 2012 University of Oxford, Archaeometry 55, 4 (2013) 591–608

and the imported Campanian A can be observed. Considering that it has been previously dem-

onstrated by the study of the ceramic body that both the Sicilian Lamboglia 36 and the drinking

cups were manufactured using the same raw clay (the Lower Pleistocene Argille di Ficarazzi—

after Belvedere et al. 2006; Montana et al. 2009), these partial chemical divergences may be

interpreted as the result of differences in the corresponding technological procedures, such as

relatively shorter or longer settling times during gloss production. This hypothesis could be

sufficiently convincing especially if it is taken into consideration that these productions were

manufactured by workshops operating at the same site, although in quite different cultural and

chronological contexts (production L2 is around two centuries older than production L1).

A further topic of discussion is to try to give an explanation for the relatively higher Na2O

abundance that precisely characterizes the slip of Campanian A wares manufactured in the Gulf

of Naples with respect to the studied Sicilian productions. The existence of kilns specializing

in the production of Campanian A on the island of Ischia (located 33 km offshore of Naples to

the south-west), as well as in the palaeopolis of Naples, is attested in various works (Accorona

et al. 1985; Morel 1986; Morel and Picon 1994; Olcese et al. 1996; Olcese 1999). Yet the only

raw clays compositionally suitable for the production of fine tablewares in the area of the Gulf

of Naples are those outcropping on Ischia (Montana 2010). Actually, on this island, beside the

renowned volcanic products (mainly composed of alkali trachytes with subordinate trachyba-

salts, latites and phonolites, according to Vezzoli 1988), some marine clayey deposits are also

present. The latter are derived from the submarine alteration, during the Quaternary, of the

Green Tuff ignimbrite of Mount Epomeo and are characterized by a fairly variable content of

calcareous microfossils (Rittmann and Gottini 1981). These clay beds were chiefly quarried

along the northern slope of Mount Epomeo, next to the village of Casamicciola, and their use

for local ceramic production (in both Ischia and Naples) has been carefully documented from

antiquity up to recent times (Buchner and Rittmann 1948; Buchner 1994). The Green Tuff

deposits of Mount Epomeo, whose submarine alteration produced Ischia’s clay, are character-

ized by low CaO and quite high abundances of alkali metals: CaO = 1.44%, Na2O = 4.91% and

K2O = 6.61% (mean values from Vezzoli 1988). The typical local raw clay beds, on the

contrary, are characterized by a notably higher CaO content, as shown in Table 4, especially

because microfossils are common in the 0.06–2.00 mm fraction. In this table, the chemical

compositions of raw clays collected in the vicinity of Casamicciola (mean values from two

samples) are also reported together with the Argille di Ficarazzi (the Sicilian clayey materials

used for both L1 and L2 productions; data according to Montana et al. 2011), the mean com-

positions of the ceramic bodies of both L1 and A (according to Belvedere et al. 2006) and the

chemistry of the slip of both A and L1 productions. Even if the Ischia clay has been widely

used since antiquity in its natural state for the ordinary production of big vessels and coarse

ware (Thirion Merle 2010), the chemical data (Table 4) indicate that it probably underwent

preliminary depuration treatments for the manufacture of fine wares such as the Campanian A

pottery. The depuration of local natural clay, which was probably achieved by the application

of standard sieving and/or settling procedures, could thus have led to enrichment in Na2O and

K2O due to the increasing relative abundance of alkali feldspar within the smaller aplastic

inclusions, in addition to the contemporary depletion of CaO and MgO concentrations due to

the decreasing abundance of calcareous microfossils and clinopyroxenes normally present in

the coarser fractions. On the contrary, the Argille di Ficarazzi, which are the clays employed

for Sicilian productions L1 and L2, were probably applied in their natural state, as no signifi-

cant differences concerning abundances of major elements can be observed between the clayey

material and the corresponding ceramic body.

602 G. Montana et al.

© 2012 University of Oxford, Archaeometry 55, 4 (2013) 591–608

Table 4 The chemical composition (XRF) of the Ficarazzi clays and the Ischia clay compared with productions A (Group I ) and L1 (Group II A)

Sample Symbol of

production

Na2O MgO Al2O3 SiO2 P2O5 K2O CaO TiO2 MnO Fe2O3 LOI

Ischia Clay mean A 1.39 2.45 12.46 44.91 0.15 2.18 11.68 0.56 0.09 4.33 20.69

Ischia Clay mean (normalized versus LOI) A 1.75 3.09 15.71 56.62 0.18 2.74 14.72 0.7 0.11 5.45 –

Production A ceramic body A 2.77 1.75 18.84 60.79 0.15 5.02 4.19 0.75 0.13 5.61 –

Production A gloss A 1.68 2.9 32.17 44.34 – 4.88 0.96 0.69 0.2 12.18 –

Argille di Ficarazzi mean L1 0.54 1.92 14.43 48.5 0.13 1.46 7.67 0.89 0.03 6.04 18.31

Argille di Ficarazzi mean (normalized versus LOI) L1 0.66 2.35 17.66 59.37 0.16 1.79 9.39 1.09 0.04 7.39 –

Production L1 ceramic body L1 0.53 2.19 16.03 59.16 0.26 1.99 11.46 0.92 0.08 7.39 –

Production L1 gloss L1 0.89 2.76 32.51 44.2 – 4.03 0.91 0.67 0.16 13.89 –

SE

M–E

DS

analysis

todistin

guish

Cam

pania

nA

wa

rea

nd

Sicilia

nim

itatio

ns

60

3

©2

01

2U

niv

ersityo

fO

xfo

rd,

Arch

aeo

metry

55

,4

(20

13

)5

91

–6

08

In order to verify the above statements, the enrichment factors (EFs) between both the raw

clays and the corresponding ceramic body and black gloss slip were calculated using a compu-

tational procedure inspired by the one proposed by Reimann and De Caritat (2000), specifically:

EF El SiO El SiOceramic body clay ceramic body clay clay 2= [ ] [ ] [ ] [2 ]]clay,

EF El SiO Elgloss ceramic body gloss ceramic body ceramic= [ ] [ ] [ ]2 body ceramic bodySiO2[ ] ,

where [El] is the concentration of the element oxide under consideration and [SiO2] is the silicon

oxide concentration, chosen here as the conservative or reference element.

Histograms of the EFs of the clay/ceramic body, concerning the most significant major oxides

of elements, calculated for A and L1 productions, are shown in Figures 5 (a) and 5 (b), respec-

tively. In the case of the imported Campanian A (Ischia clay versus the ceramic body of A

production), the above-discussed enrichments (Na2O and K2O) and depletions (CaO and MgO)

are very evident; while in the case of the Sicilian imitation (Ficarazzi’s raw clays versus the

ceramic body of L1 production), only negligible differences can be noted. The EFs between black

slip and ceramic paste for the productions A and L1 have also been calculated following the same

procedure. With regard to Na2O and K2O, the EF histogram representing A production (originally

imported Campanian A) shows a minor reduction in abundance with respect to the corresponding

ceramic body (Fig. 5 (c)). On the contrary, in the case of the L1 production (Campanian A Sicilian

imitation), both of the alkaline metal oxides are clearly enriched in the gloss compared to the

ceramic body (Fig. 5 (d)).

These differences in the patterns of EFs between A and L1 productions can be explained by

considering the different mineralogical and chemical compositions of the corresponding raw

materials as well as the procedure for obtaining the black gloss finishing from the clay used for

the corresponding ceramic body. In fact, in the specific case of production A (imported Campa-

nian A), the chemical composition of the ultra-fine clay suspension used for the manufacture of

the gloss seems to be essentially affected by the relatively higher content of Na2O and K2O of the

original clayey material used for its production. Nevertheless, the already mentioned depuration

procedure for the manufacture of a satisfactorily fine ceramic body can be considered to be more

than an intermediate step, and it is thus predictable that after a longer settling time, no enrichment

of both of the alkali metals, or even EF values slightly lower than unity, occurs in the ultra-fine

suspension, which is highly enriched in submicrometric particles. On the other hand, the glossy

slip of L1 production seems to be only influenced by technological procedures, rather than by the

specific composition of the corresponding raw clay. Indeed, no significant differences have been

revealed between the raw material and the ceramic body, confirming that the clay (Argille di

Ficarazzi) was used without performing preliminary depuration treatments. Consequently, the

settling procedure for manufacturing the glossy slip should lead to the enrichment of the finer

flakes of illite in the ultrafine suspension, which explains, in particular, the greater K2O abun-

dances with respect to the ceramic body. The prevailing influence of the technological features in

this latter case is also confirmed by the behaviour of the Mg, Si, Al, Ca, Ti and Fe oxides, which

show the same EF patterns for both A and L1 productions.

CONCLUDING REMARKS

This study led to a set of inferences based on the chemical differences observed in the slips of the

central southern Tyrrenian black gloss ware productions. The deductions can be summarized as

604 G. Montana et al.

© 2012 University of Oxford, Archaeometry 55, 4 (2013) 591–608

(a) (b)

(c) (d)

Figure 5 Enrichment Factors (EFs): (a) Ischia clay versus Campanian A ceramic body; (b) Ficarazzi clays versus Sicilian imitation (L1) ceramic body; (c) Campanian A

ceramic body versus corresponding black gloss finishing; (d) Sicilian imitation (L1) ceramic body versus corresponding black gloss finishing.

SE

M–E

DS

analysis

todistin

guish

Cam

pania

nA

wa

rea

nd

Sicilia

nim

itatio

ns

60

5

©2

01

2U

niv

ersityo

fO

xfo

rd,

Arch

aeo

metry

55

,4

(20

13

)5

91

–6

08

follows. The glosses of original Campanian A (production A, Lamboglia 36 plate) imported from

the Gulf of Naples are generally characterized by higher Na2O wt% and slightly higher K2O wt%

compared to the Sicilian imitations of the same form (production L1, Lamboglia 36 plate). As a

result of this study, however, only the differences seen in Na2O can be clearly associated with the

origin of the clayey raw materials. On the other hand, the glosses of the locally produced drinking

cups (L2), which were manufactured in the same area but are approximately two centuries older

than L1 (imitation of Lamboglia 36 plates), exhibit a slightly higher CaO content. This last result

seems to be related to strictly technological causes rather than to any other explanation, consid-

ering also that they were made using the same raw clay as the production L1 (Lower Pleistocene

Argille di Ficarazzi).

At the present stage, we can say that only the Na2O wt% can be used as a suitable chemi-

cal marker to distinguish between imported Campanian A and the north-western Sicilian

imitations—at least for the Lamboglia 36 plates. This result is important, because distinguishing

between original Lamboglia 36 plates and their imitations is very difficult by the naked eye, since

they are typologically very similar, and in addition both the original Lamboglia 36 plates and

their imitations are fairly diffused in the Late Hellenistic contexts of Sicily.

Higher Na2O concentrations are not only a characteristic of the paste of the original Campanian

A productions (Picon et al. 1969–70) but also a clear peculiarity of their gloss, since they are

related more to the geological origin of the raw materials than to any other technological aspect.

This work also points to the possibility that surface chemical microanalysis using SEM–EDS

may be rapidly used to distinguish the productions. It is important to emphasize that the use of

Na2O as a chemical marker should be undertaken very cautiously, for two significant reasons.

First, it is too light an element for precise quantification by SEM–EDS. Nevertheless, this

problem can be reduced by following specific analytical procedures under specific analytical

conditions that enable its more precise quantification (Kuisma-Kursula 2000). The second reason

is that Na can be involved in important contamination and/or alteration processes (precipitation

of zeolite minerals such as analcime) that might, to some extent, alter its original quantity

(normally it increments). However, in this specific case no contamination processes were

detected. Finally, in the near future, by expanding the data it will also become possible to test to

see whether this finding can be made applicable to distinguishing between other Campanian

productions (such as Campanian B or C).

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Evanthia Tsantini participated in this work as a Marie Curie Senior Researcher of the Diparti-

mento di Scienze della Terra e del Mare (DiSTeM), Università degli Studi di Palermo, within the

European project CETRAWEM, financed by the European Research Agency in the framework of

the Marie Curie Action of the FP7 framework programme. The two anonymous referees are

acknowledged for their useful suggestions, which greatly improved the manuscript.

REFERENCES

Accorona, F., Laforgia, E., Schiamone Palombo, E., and Ziviello, C., 1985, La fornace di Corso Umberto, Napoli Antica,

378–85.

Aitchison, J., 1986, The statistical analysis of compositional data, Chapman and Hall, London.

Aloupi, H., 1994, Nature and morphology of paints on ancient ceramics, Ph.D. thesis (in Greek), Ioannina University,

Greece.

Bechtold, B., 1999, La Necropoli punica di Lilybaeum, Regione siciliana, Assessorato Beni culturali, ambientali e della

pubblica Istruzione, Ed. L’Erma di Bretschneider, Palermo.

606 G. Montana et al.

© 2012 University of Oxford, Archaeometry 55, 4 (2013) 591–608

Belvedere, O., Burgio, A., Macaluso, R., and Rizzo, M. S. (eds.), 1993, Termini Imerese: ricerche di topografia e di

archeologia urbana, Palermo.

Belvedere, O., Burgio, A., Iliopoulos, I., Montana, G., and Spatafora, F., 2006, Ceramica a vernice nera di età ellenistica

da siti della Sicilia occidentale: considerazioni tipologiche e analisi archerometriche, Mélanges de l’école française

de Rome. Antiquité, 118, 549–71.

Bimson, M., 1956, The technique of Greek black and Terra Sigillata red, Antiquaries Journal, 36, 200–5.

Buchner, G., 1994, I giacimenti d’argilla dell’isola di Ischia e l’industria figulina locale in età recente, in Quaderni del

Centro Studi per la Storia della Ceramica Meridionale, 17–45, Bari.

Buchner, G., and Rittmann, A., 1948, Origine e passato dell’isola d’Ischia, Gaetano Macchiaroli Editore, Napoli.

Burgio, A., 1993, Le classi dei materiali, in Termini Imerese: ricerche di topografia e di archeologia urbana (eds. O.

Belvedere, A. Burgio, R. Macaluso and M. S. Rizzo), 217–65, Palermo.

Buxeda i Garrigós, J., and Kilikoglou, V., 2003, Total variation as a measure of variability in chemical data sets, in

Patterns and process, a festschrift in honor of Dr. Edward V. Sayre (ed. L. Van Zelst), 185–98, Smithsonian Center

for Materials Research and Education, Suitland, MD.

Caflisch, R. B., 1991, Die Firniskeramik vom Monte Iato, Funde 1971–1982, Studia Ietina IV, Zurich.

Campagna, L., 1998, La ceramica dalla trincea nell’area del viale di accesso al Palazzo Vescovile, in Meligunìs Lipára

IX: topografia di Lipari in età greca e romana II (eds. L. Bernabò Brea and M. Cavalier), 379–407, Palermo.

Farnsworth, M., and Wisely, H., 1958, Fifth century intentional red glaze, American Journal of Archaeology, 62, 165–73.

Gliozzo, E., and Memmi Turbanti, I., 2004a, Black gloss pottery: production sites and technology in northern Etruria, part

1: provenance studies and technology, Archaeometry, 46, 201–25.

Gliozzo, E., Kirkman, I. W., Patos, E., and Memmi Turbanti, I., 2004b, Black gloss pottery: production sites and

technology in northern Etruria, part 2: gloss technology, Archaeometry, 46, 227–46.

Hofmann, U., 1966, Die Chemie der antiken Keramik, Naturwissenschaften, 53, 218–23.

Kingery, W. D., 1991, Attic pottery gloss technology, Archeomaterials, 5, 47–54.

Kuisma-Kursula, P., 2000, Accuracy, precision and detection limits of SEM–WDS, SEM–EDS and PIXE in the

multi-elemental analysis of medieval glass, X-Ray Spectrometry, 29, 111–18.

Lamboglia, N., 1952, Per una classificazione preliminare della ceramica campana, in Atti del I Congresso internazionale

di Studi Liguri, Bordighera, 139–206.

Leveque, P., and Morel, J. P., 1987, Céramiques hellénistiques et romaines II, Annales Littéraires de l’Université de

Besançon, Paris.

Maggetti, M., Galletti, G., and Schindler, M., 1986, Provenance de la ‘sigillée noire’ (campanienne) du Magdalensberg:

critères chimiques et minéralogiques, Bulletin d’Etudes Préhistoriques Alpines, 18, 237–47.

Maggetti, M., Galletti, G., Schwander, H., Picon, M., and Wessicken, R., 1981, Campanian pottery: the nature of the black

coating, Archaeometry, 23, 199–207.

Maniatis, Y., Aloupi, E., and Stalios, A. D., 1993, New evidence for the nature of Attic black gloss, Archaeometry, 35,

23–34.

MathSoft, 1999, S-PLUS 2000. User’s Guide, Data Analysis Products Division, MathSoft, Seattle, USA.

Mazzeo Saracino, L., Morandi, N., and Nannetti, M. C., 2000, Ceramica a vernice nera di Ariminum: produzione locale,

rapporti produttivi e commerciali in base allo studio morfologico e archeometrico, in Produzione ceramica in area

padana tra il II secolo a.C. e il VII secolo d.C.: nuovi dati e prospettive di ricerca. Convegno Internazionale di

Desenzano del Garda (8–10 aprile 1999) (eds. G. P. Brogiolo and G. Olcese), 135–44, Mantova.

Mirti, P., and Davit, P., 2001, Technological characterization of Campanian pottery of type A, B and C and of regional

products from ancient Calabria (southern Italy), Archaeometry, 43, 19–33.

Mirti, P., and Davit, P., 2004, New developments in the study of ancient pottery by colour measurement, Journal

of Archaeological Science, 31, 741–51.

Mirti, P., Aceto, M., and Preacco Ancona, M. C., 1998, Campanian pottery from ancient Bruttium (southern Italy):

scientific analysis of local and imported products, Archaeometry, 40, 311–29.

Mirti, P., Casoli, A., and Calzetti, L., 1996, Technology of production of fine pottery excavated on a western Greek site

investigated by scanning electron microscopy coupled with energy-dispersive X-ray detection, X-ray Spectrometry,

25, 103–9.

Montana, G., 2010, La prima serie di analisi mineralogiche sulle anfore di Ischia, in Le Anfore greco italiche di Ischia:

archeologia ed archeometria (ed. G. Olcese), 199–202, Edizioni Quasar, Roma.

Montana, G., Cau Ontiveros, M. A., Polito, A. M., and Azzaro, E., 2011, Characterisation of clayey raw materials for

ceramic manufacture in ancient Sicily, Applied Clay Science, 53, 476–88.

Montana, G., Iliopoulos, I., Tardo, V., and Greco, C., 2009, Petrographic and geochemical characterization of

Archaic–Hellenistic tableware production at Solunto (Sicily), Geoarchaeology, 24(1), 86–110.

SEM–EDS analysis to distinguish Campanian A ware and Sicilian imitations 607

© 2012 University of Oxford, Archaeometry 55, 4 (2013) 591–608

Morel, J. P., 1981, Céramique Campanienne: les formes, Ed., Ecole française de Rome, Rome.

Morel, J. P., 1986, Remarques sur l’art et l’artisanat de Naple antique, in Neapolis: Atti dei XXV Convegno di studi sulla

Magna Grecia, Taranto, 1985, 305–56, Tarente.

Morel, J. P., and Picon, M., 1994, Les céramiques ètrusco-campaniennes: recherches en laboratoire, in Ceramica romana

e archeometria: lo stato degli studi, Atti delle giornate Internazionali di Studio (Castello di Montegufoni—Firenze,

26–27 aprile 1993) (ed. G. Olcese), 23–46, Firenze.

Niro Giangiulio, M., 1999, La ceramica a vernice nera di età Ellenistica, in Chiaramonte Trere’ C. a cura di Tarquinia,

scavi sistematici dell’abitato. I materiali, Roma.

Noble, J. V., 1960, The technique of Attic vase-painting, American Journal of Archaeology, 64, 307–18.

Noll, W., Holm, R., and Born, L., 1974, Die Malerei auf polychromen attischen Lekythoi als Dokument antiker

keramischer Technik, Neues Jahrbuch für Mineralogie Abhandlungen, 122, 119–44.

Oberlies, F., 1968, Keramiche Uberzuge I. Antike, Naturwissenschaften, 55, 277–81.

Olcese, G., 1999, La produzione di anfore e ceramica a vernice nera a Ischia in età ellenistica: il quartiere artigianale sotto

la chiesa di santa Restituta a Lacco Ameno, in Classical archaeology towards the third millennium: reflections

and perspectives, Proceedings of the 15th International Congress of Classical Archaeology (Amsterdam, 12–17 July

1999) (eds. R. F. Docter and E. M. Moorman), 290–3, Amsterdam.

Olcese, G., Picon, M., and Thierrin-Michael, G., 1996, Il quartiere ceramico sotto la chiesa di Santa Restituta a Lacco

Ameno d’Ischia e la produzione di anfore e di ceramica ellenistica. Bollettino di Archeologia, 39/40, 7–29.

Pavicevic, M. K., 1974, Untersuchung der schwarzen Malschicht attischer Vasen mit der Electronenmikrosonde, Berichte

der Deutschen Keramischen Gesellschaft, 51, 61–3.

Picon, M., 1977, Le passage des céramiques culinaires gauloises aux céramiques culinaires romaines, à La Graufesenque

(Aveyron, F): résultats et questions, in Il contributo delle analisi archeometriche allo studio delle ceramiche grezze

e comuni. Il rapporto forma/funzione/impasto, Atti della 1a Giornata di archeometria della ceramica, Studi e scavi,

vol. 4 (eds. S. Santoro Bianchi and B. Fabbri), 71–4, Bologna.

Picon, M., Vichy, M., and Chapotat, G., 1969–70, Note sur la composition des céramiques campaniennes de type A et B,

Rei Cretariae Romanae Fautores Acta, 11–12, 82–8.

Picon, M., Vichy, M., and Meille, E., 1971, Composition of the Lezoux, Iyon and Arezzo Samian ware, Archaeometry,

13, 191–208.

Reimann, C., and De Caritat, P., 2000, Intrinsic flaws of element Enrichment Factors (EFs) in environmental geochem-

istry, Environmental Science and Technology, 34, 5084–91.

Rittmann, A., and Gottini, V., 1981, L’isola d’Ischia: geologia, Bollettino del Servizio Geologico d’Italia, Roma, CI,

131–274.

Thirion Merle, V., 2010, Les analyses chimiques: les résultats, in Le Anfore greco italiche di Ischia: archeologia ed

archeometria (ed. G. Olcese), 191–8, Edizioni Quasar, Roma.

Tite, M. S., Bimson, M., and Freestone, I. C., 1982, An examination of the high gloss surface finishes on Greek Attic and

Roman Samian wares, Archaeometry, 24, 117–26.

Vendrell-Saz, M., Pradell, T., Molera, J., and Aliaga, S., 1991, Proto-‘Campanian A’ and A-Campanian ceramics:

characterization of the differences between the black coatings, Archaeometry, 33, 105–17.

Vezzoli, L., (ed.), 1988, Island of Ischia, Quaderni de La ricerca scientifica, 114(10), C.N.R., Roma.

Winter, A., 1959, Die Technik des grieschischen Topfers in ihrem Grundlagen. Technische Beitrage zur Archaelogie,

1, Römisch–Germanischen Zentralmuseums Mainz, Mainz.

608 G. Montana et al.

© 2012 University of Oxford, Archaeometry 55, 4 (2013) 591–608