Petrographic and Geochemical
Characterization of ArchaicHellenistic Tableware Production
at Solunto, Sicily
Giuseppe Montana,1 Ioannis Iliopoulos,2,* Valeria Tardo,3
and Caterina Greco4
1
Dipartimento di Chimica e Fisica della Terra ed Applicazioni alle Georisorse
e ai Rischi Naturali (C.F.T.A.), Università di Palermo, 90123 Palermo, Italy
2
Department of Geology, University of Patras, 26500 Rio, Greece
3
Dipartimento di Beni Culturali, Storico-Archeologici, Socio-Antropologici
e Geografici, Università di Palermo, 90128 Palermo, Italy
4
Soprintendenza per i Beni Culturali e Ambientali di Trapani (Sezione
Archeologica), 91100 Trapani, Italy
A selected assortment of Archaic-Hellenistic tableware samples from Solunto, a PhoenicianPunic site located 20 km east of Palermo (Sicily), has been subjected to thin-section petrography
and chemical analysis (XRF). In this settlement several ceramic kilns remained operative over
a long time period (7th to 3rd century B.C.). The main goal of this analytical study is to distinguish the ceramics manufactured locally from regional and off-island imports. Analytical
results were matched to similar data concerning local natural clay sources and to coeval tableware productions from other sites in the same area. The ceramic pastes used by the ancient
craftsmen of Solunto in the case of this class of pottery could be differentiated clearly by their
petrochemical characteristics. We conclude that ceramics were locally produced far beyond
satisfying just internal consumption needs, indicating interaction of Solunto with neighboring
Greek colonies, indigenous people, and Phoenician-Punic colonies of Sicily. © 2009 Wiley
Periodicals, Inc.
INTRODUCTION
Pottery is usually found in great amounts at archaeological sites and therefore represents an important tool for the archaeologist in understanding cultural identities
and decoding economic relationships of past civilizations. Much can be learned
through the physical, chemical, and mineralogical analysis of this abundant material culture. As is well exemplified by Tite (2008, p. 216) in his review on this topic,
the primary aim of the application of the physical sciences to the study of ancient
ceramics “. . . is to contribute to the reconstruction of their life cycle from production through distribution to use, and then to help in the interpretation of this reconstructed life cycle in terms of behavior of the people involved. . . .”
*Corresponding author; E-mail: [email protected].
Geoarchaeology: An International Journal, Vol. 24, No. 1, 86–110 (2009)
© 2009 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
Published online in Wiley Interscience (www.interscience.wiley.com). DOI:10.1002/gea.20251
ARCHAIC-HELLENISTIC TABLEWARE PRODUCTION AT SOLUNTO, SICILY
Sicily represents an important crossroads for ceramic-producing cultures; thus,
scientific analysis of local pottery can help archaeologists understand changes in
social interaction through time (Niemeyer, 1995). In recent years a number of parallel
studies have been conducted in the western part of the island aiming to localize and
characterize the ceramic production centers which were operating during the Archaic
(7th–6th century B.C.), Classical (5th–4th century B.C.) and Hellenistic (late 4th–2nd
century B.C.) periods. Their primary aim was to clarify the close contacts and to
record the transcultural dialogue which occurred between the civilizations that met
in this part of the Sicilian territory, including Phoenicians, Greeks, and indigenous
people. Unique to the Mediterranean, Phoenician, and Greek settlements coevally
existed in proximity on the island of Sicily (Anello, Martorana, & Sammartano, 2006;
Kolb & Speakman, 2005), with Phoenicians withdrawing from their early trading
posts toward the western parts of the island, in reaction to the conquering arrival of
the Greek colonists (Niemeyer, 1995). Individuation and characterization of the
ceramic production centers of the area were accomplished mainly through mineralogical, petrographic, and chemical analysis of ceramic artifacts belonging to different typological-functional ceramic classes, which were recovered from the most
important local ancient settlements (Alaimo, Greco, & Montana, 1998a; Alaimo et al.,
2000; Alaimo, Montana, & Iliopoulos, 2003, 2005; Iliopoulos, Alaimo, & Montana,
2002; Montana et al., 2006a, 2007; Azzaro et al., 2006). Meanwhile, similar analyses
were performed on natural clay sources available in the same area, which were identified and selected through geological and ethnographic field survey (Alaimo et al.,
1998b, 2002a; Montana et al., 2006b, Montana et al., 2007). A similar approach has
proved successful in a number of case studies concerning ceramic productions in
insular areas of the Mediterranean (Day et al., 1999; Tsolakidou et al., 2002).
In this framework, Solunto (Figure 1), a Phoenician-Punic site located 20 km east
of Palermo (Sicily), has been considered of major importance since it stands out
together with Mothia and Panormo as the main Phoenician settlements of Sicily,
which were founded between the 8th and the 7th century B.C. (Parrot, Chehab, &
Moscati, 1982; Niemeyer, 1995; Chiai, 2002; Bonnet, 2004). The exact location of
ancient settlements of the Archaic period at Solunto has long been enigmatic for
Phoenician-Punic scholars. Excavations during the 1950s through the 1970s in the
Hellenistic part of the city failed to give any archaeological evidence for occupation
prior to the mid 4th century B.C. However, during the 1990s, the Soprintendenza per
i Beni Culturali of Palermo finally managed to identify several pre-Hellenistic structures assigned to craftsman and general residence activities in the site of Contrada
San Cristoforo, close to the shoreline and only 2 km away from the Hellenistic city
(Greco, 2000). A plethora of indigenous Phoenician and imported Greek ceramic
wares dating between the 7th and 6th century B.C. were found, generating great
research interest, as this was the first concrete evidence of Archaic Phoenician
settlement at Solunto.
The relationship between the Phoenician colonies in Sicily and the native population residing at the hinterland during Archaic and Classical times (7th–5th
century B.C.) remains an important archaeological question. By recognizing and
defining the ceramic manufactures of Solunto in terms of compositional markers
GEOARCHAEOLOGY: AN INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL, VOL. 24, NO. 1
87
MONTANA, ILIOPOULOS, TARDO, GRECO
Figure 1. Geological map (modified after Montanari & Rizzotto, 2000) of the study area, including the main
geographical annotations made in the text.
88
GEOARCHAEOLOGY: AN INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL, VOL. 24, NO. 1
ARCHAIC-HELLENISTIC TABLEWARE PRODUCTION AT SOLUNTO, SICILY
it is possible to understand the relationship between the Phoenician city and the
indigenous settlements in the same area. In fact, evidence of cultural influence and
commercial trade with Phoenician people has already been attested by archaeological excavations in several indigenous sites located within a radius of several
dozen kilometers from Solunto, such as Pizzo Cannita, Monte Porcara, and
Montagnola of Marineo (Anello, 1991; Spanò Gemmellaro, 2000; Spatafora, 2003;
Anello, Martorana, & Sammartano, 2006).
As is well known, mineralogical-petrographic and chemical analysis of ceramic
samples can be used to determine ceramic provenance and exchange patterns
(Bishop, Rands, & Holley 1982; Williams, 1983; Rice, 1987, 1996). Distribution or
provenance studies usually aim to establish, on the basis of thin-section petrography and chemical composition, whether pottery was locally produced or
imported (Schubert, 1986; Day, 1989; Tite, 1999; Cau et al., 2004; Harrad, 2004).
The classification of a ceramic paste and its assignment to a specific production
center can be solved in a straightforward manner if ceramic sherds, kiln wasters
(if available), and raw material are studied in conjunction with each other (AdanBayewitz & Perlman, 1985; Picon, 1992; Gliozzo & Memmi Turbanti, 2004; Tite, 2008).
In this way, if a statistically significant sample is considered, it becomes possible
to form “compositional reference groups” (Schneider, Hoffmann, & Wirz, 1979),
particularly in the case of coarse ceramic pastes in which chemistry by itself can be
obscured by factors such as the dilution effect (Mommsen, Kreuser, & Weber, 1988;
Whitbread, 1995; Day et al., 1999; Schwedt, Mommsen, & Zacharias, 2004).
The present study aims to characterize the composition of a selected assortment of fine-grained tableware samples from Solunto by employing petrographic
and chemical techniques. In the ancient city of Solunto, several ceramic kilns
remained operative over a long time period, starting from the Archaic–Classical
period (7th–5th century B.C.) up to the Hellenistic period (end of the 3rd century
B.C.). Tableware analyzed in this study was mainly recovered from archaeological excavations conducted by one of us (Greco, 2000) under the auspices of the
Soprintendenza per i Beni Culturali of Palermo in the area of Contrada San
Cristoforo (SAS I and SAS III); it consists of form models inherited from the
Greek colonial tradition. Based on stylistic grounds, many of the studied samples
may be locally produced, representing local potters’ efforts to imitate the original Greek forms. If so, then the mineralogical and chemical composition of these
tablewares should match local raw source materials. In this case, we seek to
objectively distinguish ceramics manufactured in the kilns of Solunto from shortrange or long-range regional imports and from off-island imports as well.
Therefore, we conducted thin-section petrography and chemical analysis in order
to investigate the composition of ceramic samples. Analytical results were
matched with previously documented chemical and mineralogical data from natural clay sources and coeval tableware productions from other sites in the same
area (Alaimo et al., 2000; Montana et al., 2006b) in order to differentiate the compositional characteristics of the ceramic pastes used by the ancient craftsmen
of Solunto for this class of pottery. This paper complements previous studies
that have demonstrated a local production of specific types of Phoenician-Punic
GEOARCHAEOLOGY: AN INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL, VOL. 24, NO. 1
89
MONTANA, ILIOPOULOS, TARDO, GRECO
transport amphorae during the Archaic and Classical ages (Alaimo, Greco, &
Montana, 1998a; Alaimo, Montana, & Iliopoulos, 2003). Petrographic and chemical evidence presented below strongly indicates a flourishing and systematic
local ceramic production that was imitating Greek pottery.
ARCHEOLOGICAL BACKGROUND AND SAMPLE DESCRIPTION
Archaeological investigations conducted during the 1990s in the area of the Archaic
settlement of Solunto generated questions regarding the Phoenician presence in
Sicily and cultural exchanges among the different populations who inhabited the
island since the 8th century B.C. The topographic position of the early Phoenician
settlement, lying on the promontory of Sòlanto on the north-western coast of Sicily
(Figure 1), between the Zafferano promontory and the coast of Casteldaccia, is
already well known (Greco, 1997c, 2000). The choice of the site appears to fit well
with the founding models reported in literary sources, and it is comparable with
other known Phoenician settlements of southern Andalusia (Greco, 1997a). The historical importance of the Phoenician colony of Solunto has to be emphasized together
with its relationships with the neighboring Phoenician city of Panormos (Palermo)
and the numerous Phoenician settlements along the northern Mediterranean routes
(southern Andalusia, Sardinia). Likewise, the trade competition with the Chalcidian
colony of Himera (Figure 1), which is only 40 km eastward on the same coast, should
not be overlooked.
The first occupation of the settlement of Solunto is traced back to the Archaic
period and dated as early as the 7th century B.C. (Greco, 1997b, 2000). It persisted
for the entire 5th century B.C. up to the end of the Classical period and concluded
with the Hellenistic period (4th through 3rd century B.C.). An issue of particular
interest, which constitutes the core argument of this paper, is linked to the excavation conducted on the area of the promontory of Sòlanto, which revealed a variety
of ceramic workshop structures. Ceramic workshops active between the 6th and
5th centuries B.C. were excavated in the central area of Contrada San Cristoforo
(Figure 2), whereas handicraft structures of Hellenistic age together with kilns of
Archaic age and cavities used as kiln dumps were found at the top of the promontory of Sòlanto (Greco, 1997b, 2000). The starting point of this research has been
the hypothesis that tableware production had been active at Solunto from the 6th century B.C. up to the Hellenistic age, an archaeological hypothesis that is primarily
based on the careful macroscopic evaluation of ceramics from numerous local excavations. Do the morphological similarities of the studied sherds with coeval Greekcolonial manufactures (Bisi, 1970; Ciasca, 1987), and their clay paste differences
(mainly in color and texture) with ceramic wares imported from Greek poleis of the
Eastern Mediterranean, reveal a local ceramic production that tried to imitate
Greek forms?
Since the 1970s, archaeologists have tried to decode social and economic interaction between ancient Mediterranean settlements through an analysis of ceramic
production and consumption (van der Leeuw & Pritchard, 1984; Rice, 1996; Crielaard,
Stissi, & van Wijngaarden, 1999). Key to the present research has been the identification
90
GEOARCHAEOLOGY: AN INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL, VOL. 24, NO. 1
ARCHAIC-HELLENISTIC TABLEWARE PRODUCTION AT SOLUNTO, SICILY
Figure 2. Remnants of ancient ceramic workshops (kiln structures) excavated in the ancient settlement
of Solunto: (a) Hellenistic-Roman kiln; (b) Archaic kiln; (c) kiln remains of the Classical period.
of ceramic classes by distinguishing the various functions attributed to the vessels—
that is to say forms used as tableware and forms served for food preparation and storage (Greco, 1997b; Tardo, 1997; Termini, 1997). The archaeological research cited
above suggests that between the 6th and the 5th centuries B.C., a specific ceramic
production had occurred at Solunto that was inspired, in terms of style and form, by
the coeval manufactures of the Greek colonies in Sicily, yet revised through a
Phoenician-Punic perspective.
Therefore, our sampling strategy in terms of petrography and chemistry was
mainly based on the macroscopic features of the paste and shape of the pottery
(Table I). This latter aspect has been of particular importance and has permitted us
GEOARCHAEOLOGY: AN INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL, VOL. 24, NO. 1
91
MONTANA, ILIOPOULOS, TARDO, GRECO
Table I. List of the archaeological artifacts considered in this study.
Sample
Form
Date
(century B.C.)
Context
So/Im10
So/Im 23
So/Im 29
So/Im 11
So/Im 22
So/Im 4
So/Im 9
So/Im 12
So/Im 13
So/Im 14
So/Im 15
So/Im 16
So/Im 17
So/Im 18
So/Im 19
So/Im 30
So/Im 34
So/Im 31
So/Im 2
So/Im 27
So/Im 28
So/Im 5
So/Im 6
So/Im 7
So/Im 8
So/Im 20
So/Im 21
So/Im 26
So/Im 1
So/Im 24
So/Im 32
So/Im 33
So/Im 36
So/Im 35
foot of type B1 Ionic cup
rim of type B1 Ionic cup
rim of type B1 Ionic cup
black glazed skyphos
food of louterion
skyphos with bands
skyphos
handle of hydria “a”
wall of hydria “b”
wall of hydria “c”
neck of hydria “d”
skyphos with bands “e”
cup with bands “f”
cup with bands “g”
rim and neck of hydria with bands “h”
body and rim of carinated cup
bottom of small black glazed crater
rim of lekane
small amphora
body of small cup with high foot
rim of type B2 Ionic cup
small footless cup
bottom of cup
bottom of cup
skyphos
neck of hydria
rim of basin
body of small black glazed cup
type B2 Ionic cup
body of basin
small cup
small cup (kiln waster)
black-glazed plate
black-glazed cup
early 6th
first half of 6th
first half of 6th
6th
6th
6th–5th
6th–5th
6th–5th
6th–5th
6th–5th
6th–5th
6th–5th
6th–5th
6th–5th
6th–5th
6th–5th
6th–5th
late 6th
late 6th–5th
late 6th–5th
late 6th–480 B.C.
5th
5th
5th
5th
5th
5th
5th
480 B.C.–460 B.C.
mid 5th
late 4th–early 3rd
3rd
3rd
3rd–2nd
SAS III
SAS III
SAS III
SAS III
SAS I
SAS III
SAS III
SAS III
SAS III
SAS III
SAS III
SAS III
SAS III
SAS III
SAS III
SAS III
Solunto
SAS III
Tomba 115
SAS III
SAS III
SAS III
SAS III
SAS III
SAS III
SAS III
SAS III
SAS I
Tomba 36
SAS I
Sòlanto funerary context
Sòlanto funerary context
Sòlanto funerary context
Sòlanto funerary context
Note: Presumed date of manufacture and excavation context (see text) are also specified.
to individuate local productions of Phoenician-Punic tradition as well as those of
Greek styles, i.e., ware of Ionic tradition and black glazed ware, oil lamps, and
amphorae of western Greek type. In fact, it was expected that through petrographic
and chemical analysis it would be possible to shed light on provenance issues (local
reproductions or imports), on the one hand, for those manufactures which from a
stylistic point of view are of typical eastern Mediterranean origin (such as torpedoshaped amphorae, bilobate jugs, plates, and pots), and on the other hand, for ceramic
92
GEOARCHAEOLOGY: AN INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL, VOL. 24, NO. 1
ARCHAIC-HELLENISTIC TABLEWARE PRODUCTION AT SOLUNTO, SICILY
Figure 3. Representative ceramic forms included in the present study: (a) a small table amphora of the
closed forms category, dated from to the end of the 6th to the 5th century B.C. (context: SAS III); (b) a
type B2 Ionian cup of the open forms category.
forms of the Greek-colonial vase repertoire, which were manufactured according
to the pottery tradition of the Phoenician-Punic settlements of the western
Mediterranean.
From an archaeological standpoint, the materials considered herein can be divided
into two categories, all classified as tableware. The first one comprises closed forms,
such as the small table amphora (Figure 3a) and the hydria, dated between the 6th
and 5th centuries B.C., while the second encompasses open forms like skyphoi,
lekanae, basins, and cups of various types (one- and two-handled, with low or high
foot). In addition, ritual objects such as Ionian cups of type B1 (Figure 3b) and B2,
footless cups, small kraters, and small cups with outward-curving rims, have been
GEOARCHAEOLOGY: AN INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL, VOL. 24, NO. 1
93
MONTANA, ILIOPOULOS, TARDO, GRECO
included. The presence of both unpainted and band-painted cups, as well as cups
entirely black-varnished but with opaque tonality or metallic luster, highlights a significant variation in design. According to the data available, such ceramic production activity is well documented at Solunto from as early as the end of the 7th or the
start of the 6th century B.C. and lasting up to the end of the 5th century B.C., based
on trash middens at the stratigraphic sequence SAS III (Greco, 1997b). For the following periods, from the 4th up to the 2nd century B.C., numerous artifacts of supposed Soluntine production have been revealed from the funerary context and from
trash middens at SAS III (Greco, 1997b). These are not only small cups, but also vessels that have often been considered to represent their owners’ socio-political status (Luke, 1994), such as small kraters and black-varnished skyphoi, all resembling
the forms of the coeval Attic (mainland Greece) or Campanian (southern Italy) wares,
which were widespread in the Sicilian territory (Belvedere et al., 2006). Therefore,
this analytical study aims to demonstrate that these Greek-style vessels were locally
reproduced as well, giving concrete evidence of local potters’ increasing skill through
centuries and further adoption of cultural practices inherited from the Greek poleis
of the Eastern Mediterranean.
ANALYTICAL METHODS
Soluntine ceramic artifacts were characterized in terms of petrography and chemistry. Thin sections made from 34 selected samples were analyzed through a Leica DM
LSP polarizing microscope equipped with a digital imaging system. The petrographic
assessment was made following Cau et al. (2004), which was founded on Whitbread’s
proposal (1995) for an integrated descriptive system and led to the compositional and
textural characterization of the paste (the aplastic inclusions and the groundmass).
Due to restrictions imposed by archaeological authorities, only 27 of these 34 artifacts were chemically analyzed through X-ray fluorescence spectrometry (XRF),
Analysis of the major elements (Si, Ti, Al, P, Fe, Mg, Mn, Ca, Na, K) was performed
on pellets with a diameter of approximately 4 cm on a support of ultra-pure boric acid,
after pressing with a hydraulic press of an aliquot of approximately 0.5 g of powdered material milled in an agate mortar. These pellets were analyzed through a
Philips PW 1400 spectrometer, which permitted reporting of the intensity of each
measured chemical element in reference to one of the standard reference materials
(SRM: IAEA/Soil 7, IAEA/SL-1, NIST/679, NIST/2711) considered for data calibration. The average relative standard deviations evaluated (%RSD) from five replicate
runs of the SRMs for each of the determined element concentrations were:
SiO2 ⫽ 0.26%, TiO2 ⫽ 0.44%, Al2O3 ⫽ 0.49%, Fe2O3 ⫽ 0.76%, MnO ⫽ 0.53%,
MgO ⫽ 0.45%, CaO ⫽ 0.50%, Na2O ⫽ 0.39%, K2O ⫽ 0.71%, P2O5 ⫽ 0.74%, LOI ⫽ 1.21%.
A detailed description of the methodology followed for the XRF analysis can be
found in Hein et al. (2002).
Chemical data are presented through binary diagrams and statistical summaries.
Dispersion of the chemical data is evaluated with respect to the central tendency.
Multivariate statistical methods such as principal component analysis (PCA) and
linear discriminant analysis (LDA) were also applied. The first method (PCA) was
94
GEOARCHAEOLOGY: AN INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL, VOL. 24, NO. 1
ARCHAIC-HELLENISTIC TABLEWARE PRODUCTION AT SOLUNTO, SICILY
used with the aim of revealing any possible structure in the data. Through the use
of simple binary diagrams, PCA managed to reveal relationships among the samples
in regard to the principal components, which are linear functions of the original
chemical variables. The newly generated variables are formed in such a way as to
be reciprocally uncorrelated among each other and oriented in the direction of the
maximum relative variation. On the other hand, discriminant analysis (LDA) aims to
separate already established chemical “groups.” In the case of archaeological ceramics, these can represent production centers and particular typological classes of artifacts, even for samples that were indistinguishable when subjected to statistical
techniques such as PCA or cluster analysis. LDA proceeds by calculating simple linear functions, which are necessary in order to verify the congruence of the groups
previously established. Moreover, employing binary graphs makes it possible to calculate and outline “confidence ellipses,” which, in the present case study, circumscribe
the statistical space in which a probability of 95% exists for every sample included
to be assigned to a defined fabric group (production center).
RESULTS
Thin-Section Petrography
Examination of the thin sections made from the 34 pottery samples under the
polarizing microscope helped to define their compositional and textural characteristics. Comparative evaluation of these results permitted us to gather samples into
different paste groups, based upon similarities in mineralogy, grain size distribution,
packing, and sorting of the aplastic inclusions (Table II). This could be indicative of
Table II. Diagnostic features of the four main petrographic groups defined, displayed in terms of textural
characteristics, rock, mineral, and other fragments.
Diagnostic
Feature
Textural
features
packing (%)
prevailing size (mm)
sorting
Group I
n⫽5
(So/Im: 2, 6,
7, 11, 26)
Group II
n⫽6
(So/Im: 1, 8, 10,
23, 29, 34)
Group III
n ⫽ 17
Group IV
(So/Im: 4, 5, 9,
n⫽3
12–20, 27, 30–33) (So/Im: 21, 22, 24)
1–5
5–7
15–20
0.06–0.15
0.03–0.25
0.10–0.30
Well sorted moderately sorted very well sorted
10–15
0.10–2.0
Poorly sorted
Rock
acid metamorphics
fragments chert
⫻
—
—
—
—
⫹
—
⫹
Mineral
mica laths
fragments biotite
K-feldspar
plagioclase
secondary calcite
⫹
—
—
—
⫻
⫻
—
⫻
⫻
⫻
—
—
—
⫻
⫹
⫻
⫻
⫻
⫻
—
Other
pore casts/micritic
fragments clots grog (chamotte)
⫻
—
⫻
—
⫹
—
⫻
⫹
Note: ⫹ : abundant/common; ⫻ : sporadic/ few; —: absent. Monocrystalline quartz is the predominant
constituent in all four groups. Sample size and individuals identity of each group is also shown.
GEOARCHAEOLOGY: AN INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL, VOL. 24, NO. 1
95
MONTANA, ILIOPOULOS, TARDO, GRECO
Figure 4. Photomicrographs of the four main petrographic groups distinguished (scale bar ⫽ 0.5 mm; all
in crossed Nicol): (a) group I (sample So/Im 11); (b) group II (sample So/Im 8); (c) group III (sample
So/Im 9); (d) group IV (sample So/Im 22). See text for discussion.
the similarity of the raw materials used for the manufacture of the ceramic artifacts
and probably of the paste recipes used in a particular production center. Samples with
entirely comparable mineralogical and petrographic aspects (in spite of small differences in texture) were organized in four different groups of pastes (Figure 4),
which are described in the text below. Moreover, three “singletons” (i.e., single samples that have peculiar textural and compositional characteristics, conspicuously
dissimilar to any of those defined for the four main paste groups), are also discussed.
Group I is represented by five sherds (Table II) that exhibit a prevalence of aplastic inclusions falling in the class size of very fine sand (0.06–0.125 mm), particularly
low packing (1–5%), and a homogeneous groundmass. Micromass is optically active
and the macroporosity (pores with diameter greater than 0.05 mm) is less than 10%.
Among the aplastic inclusions, monocrystalline quartz is the predominant mineral.
Very fine elongated mica laths are abundant, while pore casts and micritic clots (i.e.,
aggregates of microcrystalline calcite derived from the thermal decomposition of
calcareous microfossils, their subsequent transformation to CaO, and their final
recarbonatation during the cooling phase) were sporadically identified (Figure 4a).
Small metamorphic rock fragments of acid composition (consisting of K-feldspar,
quartz, and micas) were observed in samples So/Im 2 and So/Im 6. In sample So/Im 26,
it is worth noting the significant presence of “secondary calcite,” that is, micritic up
to sparitic calcite, which precipitated in the pores of the ceramic sherd during burial
96
GEOARCHAEOLOGY: AN INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL, VOL. 24, NO. 1
ARCHAIC-HELLENISTIC TABLEWARE PRODUCTION AT SOLUNTO, SICILY
conditions (Cau, Day, & Montana, 2002). This is reflected in its elevated calcium carbonate content compared to the rest of the samples belonging to the same group.
The six sherds assigned to group II, among which four belong to the same ceramic
class (B1-B2 Ionic cups), have aplastic inclusions that mainly consist of coarse silt
to very fine sand (0.03–0.250 mm), quite low packing (5–7%), and moderate to good
sorting (Table II). Monocrystalline quartz is the predominant mineral constituent,
and it is accompanied by sporadically present mica laths, plagioclase, and K-feldspar.
The presence of micritic clots and pore casts is sporadic to common (Figure 4b).
Samples So/Im 8 and So/Im 10 have a slightly lower packing (3–5%), and samples
So/Im 8 and So/Im 34 contain microcrystalline “secondary calcite” diffused as irregular plaques in the groundmass. In this case, the microcrystalline calcite might have
derived from retrograde transformation (i.e., mineral transformations occurring due
to decrease in temperature conditions) of “firing neoformed minerals” such as gehlenite and Ca-pyroxenes (Cau, Day, & Montana, 2002).
Unlike the apparent similarity encountered between the first two groups, group
III is more mineralogically distinct (Table II). With 17 sherds, it is the most common
group, encompassing various ceramic classes (hydriae, small cups, skyphoi, and
lekanae), among which is a kiln waster (small cup). The size of the aplastic inclusions
ranges mainly between fine and medium sand (0.1–0.3 mm), packing is noticeably
higher (15–20%), with very good sorting visible through the homogeneous groundmass. Monocrystalline quartz is the predominant mineral (showing its highest frequency in the fine fraction). Chert is a common constituent as well as pore casts
and micritic clots. Plagioclase was only rarely found (Figure 4c). Pores are refilled
by secondary calcite due to burial in all of the samples. Sample So/Im 33 exhibits
higher packing (20–30%) than average, better sorting than the rest of the samples, and
grain size of the aplastic inclusions that ranges from coarse silt to very coarse sand.
Only three samples fall into group IV. The grain size of the aplastic inclusions
varies widely, ranging from coarse silt (0.03–0.06 mm) to very coarse sand (1–2 mm),
with some grains reaching even coarser size (fine gravel). Packing is medium to high
(10–15%), sorting is poor, and the groundmass appears homogeneous. Only in sample So/Im 21 is the size range more restricted (from coarse silt to medium sand).
Monocrystalline quartz is once more the predominant mineral, mainly in the fine
fraction. Chert is common as well as is grog (deliberately crushed ceramic fragments). K-feldspars, plagioclase, and mica laths were only rarely or sporadically
identified, while the contribution of pore casts and micritic clots was sporadic to
common (Figure 4d).
The three singletons are samples So/Im 28 (type B1 Ionic cup), So/Im 35 (blackglazed cup), and So/Im 36 (black-glazed plate). Each of these has textural and compositional characteristics that inhibit their assignment to any of the groups already
described. The main reason for treating sample So/Im 28 as a petrographic outlier
is the heterogeneity of the distribution of aplastic inclusions and its bimodal character. Its packing is significantly higher (10–15%) than that observed in sample So/Im
35 (3–5%). The latter is moderately sorted and has as its main constituent the
monocrystalline quartz, together with abundant pore casts and micritic clots. Sample
So/Im 36 is compositionally singular due to the appearance of sanidine and green
GEOARCHAEOLOGY: AN INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL, VOL. 24, NO. 1
97
MONTANA, ILIOPOULOS, TARDO, GRECO
clinopyroxene crystals, minute mica laths, and volcanic rock fragments with trachytic texture in its groundmass.
Chemical Analysis
Oxide concentration (in wt%) of major elements normalized versus loss on ignition (LOI) are reported in Table III. What readily emerges is the chemical variability
of the ceramic manufactures studied, which is attributed to qualitative and, principally, quantitative differences of the aplastic inclusions, as has been already
outlined through the petrographic assessment. As can be seen, SiO2 is the most abundant oxide, ranging approximately from 50% to 65%; CaO varies similarly between 4.8%
and 12%. Such values are a first indication for a different provenance of the clay and
the temper in the analyzed sherds. Even though the chemistry is restricted to the
major elements, the petrographic grouping of the samples seems to be further
Table III. Major and minor elements concentration (in wt %) obtained through XRF.
So/Im 4
So/Im 5
So/Im 6
So/Im 7
So/Im 8
So/Im 9
So/Im 10
So/Im 11
So/Im 12
So/Im 13
So/Im 14
So/Im 15
So/Im 17
So/Im 18
So/Im 19
So/Im 21
So/Im 22
So/Im 23
So/Im 24
So/Im 26
So/Im 27
So/Im 30
So/Im 32
So/Im 33
So/Im 34
So/Im 35
So/Im 36
SiO2
TiO2
Al2O3
P2O5
Fe2O3
MgO
MnO
CaO
Na2O
K 2O
63.25
64.59
54.68
53.53
57.13
62.02
56.43
53.97
61.81
64.61
63.03
63.78
62.66
63.05
63.45
63.87
61.49
57.00
61.54
50.29
65.11
64.28
62.05
65.61
57.36
60.37
60.70
0.98
0.87
0.81
0.85
0.99
0.96
1.14
0.78
0.95
0.95
0.95
0.83
0.97
0.92
0.93
0.94
1.01
1.01
0.87
0.74
0.95
0.86
0.88
0.84
0.99
0.92
0.78
16.09
15.92
22.59
23.23
18.61
17.23
17.10
21.47
16.61
15.85
16.71
14.64
17.11
16.29
16.24
16.41
17.82
18.96
16.40
20.68
16.32
14.44
15.61
13.02
17.44
15.82
18.09
0.17
0.22
0.26
0.21
0.12
0.17
0.12
0.13
0.14
0.15
0.18
0.31
0.22
0.17
0.17
0.18
0.10
0.18
0.19
0.13
0.14
0.27
0.19
0.19
0.14
0.17
0.12
7.53
7.19
8.90
9.20
8.19
7.60
9.25
8.82
6.89
7.24
6.93
6.64
7.82
7.32
6.99
6.94
7.82
8.14
6.95
8.37
7.37
6.89
7.29
6.93
8.92
7.74
6.06
2.23
2.08
2.99
3.05
3.28
1.91
2.88
3.40
2.61
2.12
2.24
2.42
2.35
2.63
2.42
2.11
2.13
3.11
2.31
3.43
2.12
2.01
1.97
1.92
2.41
2.34
1.86
0.05
0.04
0.09
0.10
0.06
0.09
0.06
0.08
0.04
0.05
0.04
0.04
0.06
0.03
0.04
0.04
0.05
0.06
0.05
0.08
0.04
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.13
0.10
0.14
7.08
6.41
4.78
5.26
7.91
7.74
8.98
6.17
8.41
6.46
7.37
8.72
6.48
6.98
6.87
6.40
6.90
7.69
7.80
11.79
5.61
8.47
9.48
9.00
8.99
10.17
4.08
0.61
0.71
0.90
0.79
1.03
0.50
1.10
1.39
0.63
0.57
0.61
0.73
0.50
0.66
0.90
0.97
0.60
1.16
0.83
1.21
0.61
1.02
0.59
0.57
1.14
0.55
2.91
2.02
1.96
4.00
3.77
2.69
1.79
2.94
3.79
1.91
2.01
1.94
1.89
1.82
1.94
1.99
2.14
2.07
2.70
2.06
3.27
1.74
1.72
1.86
1.86
2.48
1.81
5.26
Note: Reported values are normalized versus loss on ignition (LOI).
98
GEOARCHAEOLOGY: AN INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL, VOL. 24, NO. 1
ARCHAIC-HELLENISTIC TABLEWARE PRODUCTION AT SOLUNTO, SICILY
Figure 5. Scatter diagrams based on: (a) SiO2 /CaO ratios and (b) SiO2 /K2O ratios. Symbols show assignment of samples to petrographic groups.
supported. The use of simple scatter diagrams (Figure 5) highlights this fairly acceptable correspondence between petrographic and chemical aspects. Samples of petrographic group I have the lowest content of SiO2 (⬍55%) and are the richest in Al2O3
(⬎20%) and K2O (⬎3%). These values are coupled with relatively low CaO content
(from ⬃5% to ⬃6%). The chemical signature of sample So/Im 26 is the only exception to this general trend and is considered an outlier. Its abnormal CaO content
(⬃12%) is evidently related to the contribution of the secondary calcite which precipitated in the pores under burial conditions. Samples included in petrographic
group II are richer in SiO2 content than those from group I (but do not exceed 60%),
and are also characterized by relatively elevated contents of CaO (7–8%). Group III
GEOARCHAEOLOGY: AN INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL, VOL. 24, NO. 1
99
MONTANA, ILIOPOULOS, TARDO, GRECO
Table IV. Values expressing the dispersion of oxide contents of the
elements around the mean of the samples assigned to petrographic
group III (14 samples).
Group III (n ⫽ 14)
SiO2
TiO2
Al2O3
P2O5
Fe2O3
MgO
MnO
CaO
Na2O
K2O
Minimum
%
Maximum
%
Mean
%
␴
%
61.8
0.8
13.0
0.1
6.6
1.9
0.03
5.6
0.5
1.8
65.1
1.0
17.2
0.3
7.8
2.6
0.1
9.5
1.0
2.0
63.5
0.9
15.9
0.2
7.2
2.2
0.1
7.5
0.7
1.9
1.9
5.5
6.9
25.0
4.2
9.1
15.3
16.0
14.3
5.3
comprises samples which have relatively high SiO2 (⬎60%), while CaO content ranges
between about 6 and 10%. As shown by chemical analysis, sample So/Im 33, which
stood out petrographically due to its high packing, has the highest SiO2 content
among the 17 samples that constitute this group. From this most frequently encountered group, 14 individual sherds were chemically analyzed and dispersion of the
concentration of the major elements around their arithmetic mean was evaluated
(Table IV). This table records an ample interval in the variation of CaO as well as a
significant dispersion around its mean value (␴% ⫽ 16), which is probably linked to
the variation of the content of the calcareous microfossils (at the fraction of fine
and very fine sand) in the clayey raw material or during deliberate tempering by the
potter. The Na2O and P2O5 dispersion is probably due to compositional modifications that occurred during burial, whereas the rest of the elements highlight the
chemical homogeneity of this group (␴% ⬍ 10). The chemical data of group IV display a high content of SiO2 (⬎60%), though its average value is slightly lower than in
the previous group. The CaO content is also slightly higher (around 7%). The apparent chemical affinity between the two last groups is well illustrated in the relative
scatter diagrams (see Figure 5), which combine CaO, SiO2, and K2O. This relationship
is compatible with the compositional and textural similarity identified through petrographic analysis, where the only substantial difference was the presence of grog
in group IV. Thus, it appears probable that the clayey raw material used for the manufacture of the three samples assigned to this group was refined through the addition of fine sand.
As regards the singletons, sample So/Im 35 seems in good accord with samples
of group III, with a slight, yet consistent, difference in its SiO2 content (around 60%).
However, thin-section analysis hampers its assignment to this group, mainly due to
its dissimilar textural aspects. Second, the chemical signature of Sample So/Im 36 does
100
GEOARCHAEOLOGY: AN INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL, VOL. 24, NO. 1
ARCHAIC-HELLENISTIC TABLEWARE PRODUCTION AT SOLUNTO, SICILY
Figure 6. Projection of the factor scores on the 2-D plane defined by the first two components (68.4% of
the total variance) obtained through principal component analysis (PCA) and considering all the elements available. The inset bar chart shows the respective loadings. (1: group I; 2: group II; 3: group III; 4:
group IV).
not enable it to be ascribed to any of the groups previously described, supporting
petrographic analysis. Its relatively high SiO2 content (around 60%) is coupled with
a significantly low CaO (ca. 4%) and an extremely high K2O content (⬎5%). Last, sample So/Im 28 was not analyzed chemically due to insufficient material being available.
Multivariate statistical analysis of the chemical data further supports the groupings based on the petrographic assessment. This is well illustrated through principal component analysis (PCA), which is graphically represented in Figure 6. The
projection of the principal component scores on the 2-D plane defined by the first
two components, which account for the 68.4% of the total variance, permits a clear
distinction of the samples assigned to groups I and II from those belonging to groups
III and IV. The latter are plotted together and have values close to zero for the PC2
and slightly negative for PC1. In order to further amplify the existing grouping structure in the data, linear discriminant analysis was applied (Figure 7), employing the
canonical discriminant function (using as grouping variable SiO2, and as independent variables the remaining nine element oxides). On the graph obtained through
the projection of the first two discriminant functions, the confidence ellipses (95%)
have also been calculated in order to better delimit the compositional fields of the
single groups. Once more, the clear separation between group I and group II as well
as the overlapping of groups III and IV, are illustrated.
GEOARCHAEOLOGY: AN INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL, VOL. 24, NO. 1
101
MONTANA, ILIOPOULOS, TARDO, GRECO
Figure 7. Projection of the first two discriminant functions obtained through linear discriminant analysis (LDA). The confidence ellipses (95%) which delimit the compositional fields of the single groups are
also plotted.
DISCUSSION
Local Clay Sources
Distinction between the Soluntine ceramic artifacts studied that were locally produced and those which were imported necessitates, first, their compositional comparison with local ceramic materials and with clayey raw materials outcropping in
the vicinity of the kilns. Local clays, cropping out in the area within a 1–2 km radius
of the kilns, have been recently characterized petrographically and chemically and
compared with kiln wasters recovered during kiln excavation at ancient Solunto as
well as with numerous sherds representative of locally produced Archaic and Classical
amphorae (Alaimo, Greco, & Montana, 1998a; Alaimo et al., 1998b; Alaimo, Montana, &
Iliopoulos, 2003, 2005). These studies identified the source of the raw material used
in the Soluntine kilns in a series of Pleistocene marine fossiliferous deposits of
the Argille di Ficarazzi formation. Such deposits once outcropped in many localities of the coastal zone that stretches from the eastern outskirts of Palermo (estuary of river Oreto) to the promontory of Sòlanto (see Figure 1), but the uncontrolled
expansion of the modern city of Palermo during the last 50 years has obscured most
of them. Nevertheless, these clays can still be procured today close to the shoreline
by the beach named Olivella (see Figure 1), quite close to the Archaic-Hellenistic
kiln structures of C. da S. Cristoforo (Figure 8). Their sand content (mainly calcareous with minor silicates) is rather variable along the stratigraphic column
102
GEOARCHAEOLOGY: AN INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL, VOL. 24, NO. 1
ARCHAIC-HELLENISTIC TABLEWARE PRODUCTION AT SOLUNTO, SICILY
Figure 8. Outcrop of Pleistocene marine fossiliferous clay deposits of the Argille di Ficarazzi at the
beach of Olivella, an area between the promontory of Solunto and the suburb of Porticello and 1–2km far
from the kiln structure of S. Cristoforo.
(intradeposit variability) as much as between different outcrops (interdeposit variability), affecting their technological properties. This geological formation played a
key role for local ceramic production from Archaic antiquity to historical times. In
fact, the same clay deposit was used for ceramic manufacture (pottery, majolica,
roof tiles, floor tiles, etc.) in Palermo and its neighboring area for more than two
millennia, up to the end of the 1950s (Cipolla, 1931). In general, especially in the
basal part of the succession, there is a dark gray layer of a relatively fat clay (with
high plasticity, poor in sand and calcareous fossils) that was named “il nero” by the
miners of the last century. Towards the top, the content of the sand increases gradually resulting to a sandy clay layer (known as “il misto”) and to very rich in calcareous macro- and microfauna layers (called for this reason “crocchiola”). Although
the latter are extensively sought by paleontologists, they can only be rejected for
the manufacture of pottery due to their insufficient clay content and their high
calcium carbonate content.
Local Productions
Petrographic and chemical analyses indicate compositional and textural affinity
of groups III and IV, with only the sporadic appearance of grog fragments representing a minor petrographic peculiarity of group III. In chemical terms, these two
groups are very similar. Given that in total they constitute around 60% of the artifacts
analyzed, it is logical to hypothesize a priori that they were produced locally. Their
GEOARCHAEOLOGY: AN INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL, VOL. 24, NO. 1
103
MONTANA, ILIOPOULOS, TARDO, GRECO
Figure 9. Comparison of the four main petrographic groups with the clays from the Argille di Ficarazzi
and the Terravecchia formations through the scatter diagrams based on SiO2/CaO rate. The mean composition of the Iato K480 cups has also been plotted.
strong resemblance (in terms of mineralogical composition, grain size, and packing) to the fabrics of Phoenician-Punic amphorae produced in Solunto gives credence to this hypothesis. This is also supported by their chemical compatibility with
the clays from the Argille di Ficarazzi formation (Figures 9, 10). However, in spite of
their similarity in CaO content, groups III and IV are generally characterized by a
relatively higher SiO2 content (approximately 5%) than these clays. This incongruence
could be explained by analogy to what has already been argued for the local manufacture of the Punic amphorae (Alaimo et al., 1998b, 2002a)—tempering of the ceramic
paste with a mainly silicoclastic sandy component, which in the specific case could
derive from the Cefalà, a stream in proximity to Archaic Solunto (see Figure 1).
Mixing a sandy sediment with the clay is a necessary step in order to avoid fissures
generated as a consequence of an excessive linear shrinkage during the drying phase
of a particularly fat clay.
Intra-Island Exchange
Archaeometric data previously acquired on a fine tableware form of Archaic–Classical
age (6th to 5th century B.C.) allow us to plausibly suggest an intra-island exchange
of the ceramic objects assigned to group II. The material used for this comparison
exercise is represented by “Iato K480” cups, an imported Greek Archaic ware appearing in many indigenous Hellenized settlements of northwestern Sicily, among them
Solunto itself (Vassallo, 1999). Nevertheless, the manufacture of the Iato K480 cups
at the nearby ancient city of Himera using local clays of the Upper Miocenic formation of Terravecchia (see Figure 1) has been recently suggested (Alaimo et al., 2000).
104
GEOARCHAEOLOGY: AN INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL, VOL. 24, NO. 1
ARCHAIC-HELLENISTIC TABLEWARE PRODUCTION AT SOLUNTO, SICILY
Figure 10. Mean values and range (90–10% percentiles) of K2O (wt%) of the samples assigned to the four
main petrographic groups (present study) and the Iato K480 cups (Alaimo et al., 2000). The mean values
of the clays from the Argille di Ficarazzi and the Terravecchia formation are also plotted.
Both the Iato K480 cups and the Soluntine artifacts assigned to group II (four cups,
one skyphos, one small krater) do in fact possess similar mineralogical assemblages
and comparable textural characteristics, among which are: (1) the very fine grain size
of the aplastic inclusions (0.06–0.1 mm); (2) the very low or low packing (1–7%); (3)
the predominance of monocrystalline quartz, coupled with the common presence of
mica laths, subordinate amounts of feldspar and calcareous microfossils, and common to few micritic clots or pore casts. The mineralogical similarities of those samples with the Miocene clays of the Terravecchia formation are well illustrated through
their comparison, employing the mineralogical description of these clays by Alaimo
et al. (2000). They described them as clayey sediments not particularly rich in planktonic calcareous microfossils, which contained a moderate sand fraction of prevalently fine to very fine grain size (1–10% of total sample) and composed mainly of
monocrystalline quartz, subordinate white mica laths, K-felspar, plagioclase and
chlorite, and rare fragments of volcanic minerals and rocks. Moreover, the chemical
comparison illustrated in Figures 9 and 10, which includes both the clayey raw materials and the Iato K480 cups, further supports that production of group II ceramics
had very likely taken place in Himera. In fact, the Iato K480 cups are fairly rich in SiO2
(not exceeding though 60%), their CaO content ranges between 7–8%, K2O is around
GEOARCHAEOLOGY: AN INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL, VOL. 24, NO. 1
105
MONTANA, ILIOPOULOS, TARDO, GRECO
2.6%, and their total iron barely reaches 7.5% (mean values from Alaimo et al., 2000),
resembling the chemical composition of the Soluntine ceramics assigned to group
II (see Table III).
Extra-Island Exchange
Contrary to what has already been elucidated for the samples assigned to groups
II, III, and IV, for which intra-island exchange between indigenous production centers (Himera) or the local production in the kilns of Solunto was respectively inferred,
for the samples assigned to group I a similar production in the regional setting could
not be demonstrated. The simultaneous presence of abundant mica laths and crystalline rock fragments (see Table II) brings forward the hypothesis of the manufacture of this paste as well as the source of its raw material beyond the island of Sicily.
The hypothesis of an extra-island manufacture for the five samples assigned to group
I (small amphora, cups, skyphos) appears more plausible if we compare our present data to basic archaeometric data recently obtained (Alaimo et al., 2002b) through
the study of Archaic and Classical ceramic artifacts discovered at the Archaic settlement of Caltagirone in central-eastern Sicily (see Figure 1). These are vascular
forms and glazed decorated cups, characterized by a paste with a low CaO content
(between 4 and 6 wt%, exactly like those of group I of Solunto samples) that is
extremely rich in minute suborientated mica laths and has minor quantities of monoand polycrystalline quartz, K-feldspar, and crystalline rock fragments (acid metamorphics and mica schists). This fabric clearly stood out from the coeval productions
of Caltagirone (referred to the same typological and chronological span) and it was
already individuated as an extra-island import from the Attic area of mainland Greece,
based upon both geological and archaeological inferences (Alaimo et al., 2002b).
Figure 11. Comparison of the petrographic group I with black-varnished Attic ware recovered from
excavation in Caltagirone (Alaimo et al., 2000) based on Al2O3/K2O ratios.
106
GEOARCHAEOLOGY: AN INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL, VOL. 24, NO. 1
ARCHAIC-HELLENISTIC TABLEWARE PRODUCTION AT SOLUNTO, SICILY
The scatter diagram in Figure 11 displays an evident compositional equivalence
between the samples of Attic manufacture from Caltagirone and the ceramic artifacts
of Solunto that were assigned to group I.
Last, one of the three singletons, sample So/Im 36 (the black-glazed decorated
plate), deserves a separate citation due to its special petrographic (abundant sanidine and subordinate clinopyroxene, volcanic rock fragments of trachytic nature,
and minute mica laths) and chemical (around 4% of CaO and 5% of K2O content) signature. This sample exhibits substantial affinities with a ceramic ware known as
“Campana A,” which was being produced in the area of the Gulf of Naples and was
extensively imported into Sicily during the Hellenistic period (Olcese & Picon, 1998;
Belvedere et al., 2006).
CONCLUDING REMARKS
This archaeometric study elucidates local tableware production from the earliest
Archaic period (early 6th century B.C.) at the settlement of Solunto. Local ceramic
production was not only fulfilling internal consumption needs, but was also accommodating the demand of ceramic goods from settlements in the circumscribed territory with which the city of Solunto had well-established contacts. This is documented
by the circulation not only of Greek imported ceramic artifacts but also of indigenous
and Greek colonial manufactures. Although macroscopic evaluation of ceramics from
Solunto has already suggested local production, this was further confirmed through
petrographic and geochemical analyses. Moreover, this research has highlighted the
cultural interaction among various ethnic groups—Greek, indigenous, and Phoenician—
as is recorded by local ceramic production. This line of evidence further reflects the
complexity of the population demographics of the territory, and in particular under a
Phoenician-Punic framework, which up to now has received relatively little attention.
Future research will focus on diachronic distinctions in ceramic production.
Having acquired knowledge about the existence of local ceramic production, a future
phase of the research should be to individuate the various typologies of the vascular ceramic products of Solunto, distinguishing them in chronological phases. To
achieve this, the circulation of ceramic wares from the surrounding production centers should also be taken into account. At present, among the production centers
which can be considered are: (1) the Greek colony of Himera, stretching from the
Archaic to the Classical period; (2) the Punic Panormo, stretching from the Archaic
to the Hellenistic period; and (3) indigenous centers and cities of Hellenistic-Roman
Sicily, of which the ceramic productions have been already archaeometrically documented, such as, for example, Termini Imerese.
The authors thank three anonymous referees for their helpful comments on earlier drafts of this paper.
We are in debt to Dr. Gary Huckleberry, who used his best effort to help in greatly improving the final version of the manuscript, as well as with perfecting the English. Miss Luciana Randazzo is thanked for her
help in finalizing Figure 1.
GEOARCHAEOLOGY: AN INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL, VOL. 24, NO. 1
107
MONTANA, ILIOPOULOS, TARDO, GRECO
REFERENCES
Adan-Bayewitz, D., & Perlman, I. (1985). Local pottery provenience studies: A role for clay analysis.
Archaeometry, 27, 203–217.
Alaimo, R., Greco, C., & Montana, G. (1998a). Le officine ceramiche di Solunto: Evidenza archeologica ed
indagini archeometriche preliminari. In B. Fabbri (Ed.), Atti della 2a Giornata di Archeometria della
Ceramica, Produzione e circolazione della ceramica fenicia e punica nel Mediterraneo: Il contributo
delle analisi archeometriche, Ravenna, 14 maggio 1998 (pp. 7–26). Faenza: CNR-IRTEC; Ravenna:
Università di Bologna, Facoltà di Conservazione dei Beni Culturali.
Alaimo, R., Greco, C., Iliopoulos, I., & Montana, G. (1998b). Le officine ceramiche di Solunto e Mozia
(VII–III secolo a.C.): Un primo confronto tra materie prime, fabric e chimismo dei prodotti finiti.
Mineralogica e Petrografica Acta, 41, 287–306.
Alaimo, R., Giarrusso, R., Iliopoulos, I., & Montana, G. (2000). Coppe tipo Iato K480: Indagini archeometriche finalizzate alla individuazione del centro di produzione. In M. Martini, C. D’Amico, L. Fassani,
G.L. Garagnani, S. Improta, M. Milazzo, F. Petrucci, & C. Sabbioni (Eds.), Atti del Io Congresso Nazionale
di Archeometria, Verona, Dicembre 1999 (pp. 413–425). Bologna: Pàtron editore.
Alaimo, R., Greco, C., Iliopoulos, I., & Montana, G. (2002a). Phoenician-Punic ceramic workshops in western Sicily: Compositional characterisation of raw materials and artefacts. In V. Kilikoglou, A. Hein, &
Y. Maniatis (Eds), 5th EMAC: Modern trends in scientific studies on ancient ceramics (pp. 207–218).
International Series 1011. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports.
Alaimo, R., Giarrusso, R., Iliopoulos, L., & Montana, G. (2002b). Archaic and Classical ceramic artefacts
from Caltagirone (Sicily): A first attempt for distinguishing imports and local imitation through petrography and chemistry. Periodico di Mineralogia, 71, 17–31.
Alaimo, R., Montana, G., & Iliopoulos, I. (2003). Le anfore puniche di Solunto: Discriminazione tra
produzioni locali ed importazioni mediante analisi al microscopio polarizzatore. In A. Corretti (Ed.),
Atti delle Quarte Giornate Internazionali di Studi sull’Area Elima, Erice, 1–4 dicembre 2000 (pp. 1–9).
Pisa: Scuola Normale Superiore.
Alaimo, R., Montana, G., & Iliopoulos, I. (2005). Contribution of mineralogical petrographic and chemical analysis in the characterization of the ceramic productions of Mozia and Solunto (Sicily). In A. Spanò
Giammellaro (Ed.), Atti del V Congresso Internazionale di Studi Fenici e Punici, Marsala-Palermo,
2–8 ottobre 2000, Vol. 2 (pp. 705–713). Palermo: Università di Palermo.
Anello, P., (1991). Rapporto dei Fenici con Elimi, Sicani, e Greci. Kókalos, 36–37, 175–213.
Anello, P., Martorana, G., & Sammartano, G. (Eds). (2006). Ethne e religioni nella Sicilia antica. Atti del
convegno (Palermo, 6–7 December 2000). Kókalos, 18, 435.
Azzaro, E., Barone, G., Belfiore, C., Mazzoleni, P., Montana, G., Pezzino, A., Spagnolo, G., & Toti, M.P. (2006).
Indagini minero-petrografiche e geochimiche su anfore del V e IV secolo a.C. provenienti da Selinunte. In
C. D’Amico (Ed.), Atti del III Congresso dell’Associazione Italiana di Archeometria: Innovazioni Tecnologiche
per i Beni Culturali in Italia, Caserta, 16–18 febbraio 2005 (pp. 219–228). Bologna: Pàtron Editore.
Belvedere, O., Burgio, A., Iliopoulos, I., Montana, G., & Spatafora, F. (2006). Ceramica a vernice nera di
età ellenistica da siti della Sicilia nord-occidentale: Considerazioni tipologiche ed analisi archeometriche. Mélanges de L’École Française de Rome, Antiquité (MEFRA), 118, 549–571.
Bishop, R.L., Rands, R.L., & Holley, G. (1982). Ceramic compositional analysis in archaeological perspective. In M.B. Schiffer (Ed.), Advances in archaeological method and theory, Vol. 5. New York:
Academic Press.
Bisi, A. M., (1970). La ceramica punica. Aspetti e problemi. Napoli: L’Arte Tipografica S.A.S.
Bonnet, C. (2004). I Fenici. Roma: Carrocci Ed. (ISBN:88-430-3106-6).
Cau, M. A., Day, P. M., Baxter, M. J., Papageorgiou, I., Iliopoulos, I., & Montana, G. (2004). Exploring automatic grouping procedures in ceramic petrology. Journal of Archaeological Science, 31, 1325–1338.
Cau, M. A., Day, P. M., & Montana, G. (2002). Secondary calcite in archeological ceramics: Evaluation of
alteration and contamination processes by thin section study. In V. Kilikoglou, A. Hein, & Y. Maniatis
(Eds), 5th EMAC: Modern trends in scientific studies on ancient ceramics (pp. 9–18). International Series
1011. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports.
Chiai, G. F. (2002). Il nome della Sardegna e della Sicilia sulle rotte dei Fenici e dei Greci. Analisi di una
tradizione storico-letteraria. Rivista di Studi Fenici, 30, 125–146.
108
GEOARCHAEOLOGY: AN INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL, VOL. 24, NO. 1
ARCHAIC-HELLENISTIC TABLEWARE PRODUCTION AT SOLUNTO, SICILY
Ciasca, A. (1987). Note sul repertorio ceramico fenicio di Occidente. Dialoghi in Archeologia, 7–12.
Cipolla, F. (1931). Cave di argilla per laterizi in Sicilia. Bollettino Associazione Mineraria Siciliana 1928–1932,
anno 1931, 31–35, Allegato C.
Crielaard, J.P, Stissi, V.V., & van Wijngaarden, G.J.M. (1999). The complex past of pottery: Production,
circulation and consumption of Mycenaean and Greek pottery (16th to early 5th centuries BC):
Proceedings of the ARCHON international conference held in Amsterdam, November 8–9, 1996.
Day, P.M. (1989). Technology and ehnography in petrographic studies of ceramics. In Y. Maniatis (Ed),
Archaeometry (pp. 139–147). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Day, P.M., Kiriatzi, E., Tsolakidou, A., & Kilikoglou, V. (1999). Group therapy in Crete: A comparison
between analyses by NAA and thin section petrography of Early Minoan pottery. Journal of
Archaeological Science, 26, 1025–1036.
Gliozzo, E., & Memmi Turbanti, I. (2004). Black-gloss pottery: Production sites and technology in ancient
Tuscany. Part I: Provenance. Archaeometry, 46, 201–225.
Greco, C. (1997a). Lucerne greche. In G.B. Palumbo (Ed.), Archeologia e territorio (pp. 71–74), Palermo:
Soprintendenza per i beni culturali e ambientali di Palermo. Zurich: Archäologisches Institut der
Universität Zürich. (ISBN: 2–601-03213-8).
Greco, C. (1997b). La necropoli di Solunto: Problemi e prospettive. In G.B. Palumbo (Ed.), Archeologia
e territorio (pp. 25–34), Palermo: Soprintendenza per i beni culturali e ambientali di Palermo.
Greco, C. (1997c). Nuovi elementi per l’identificazione di Solunto arcaica. In Wohnbauforschung in Zentralund Westsizilien (Zurich 28 Februar–3 Marz 1996) (pp. 97–111). Zurich: Archäologisches Institut der
Universität Zürich. (ISBN: 2-601-03213-8).
Greco, C. (2000). Solunto: Nuovi dati dalla campagna di scavo 1997. In Atti delle III Giornate di Studio
Internazionali sull’Area Elima. Scuola Normale Superiore di Pisa, CESDAE (Centro Studi e
Documentazione sull’Area Elima) (pp. 681–700).
Harrad, L. (2004). Gabbroic clay sources in Cornwall: A petrographic study of prehistoric pottery and
clay samples. Oxford Journal of Archaeology, 23, 271–286.
Hein, A., Tsolakidou, A., Iliopoulos, I., Mommsen, H., Buxeda, I., Garrigos, J., Montana, G., & Kilikoglou, V.
(2002). Standardization of elemental analytical techniques applied to provenance studies of archaeological ceramics: An inter laboratory calibration study. The Analyst, 127, 542–553.
Iliopoulos, I., Alaimo, R., & Montana, G. (2002). Analisi petrografica degli impasti delle anfore fenicie e
puniche. In M.L. Famà (Ed.), Mozia: Gli scavi della ‘Zona A’ dell’abitato (pp. 355–363), Marsala: Centro
Internazionale di Studi Fenici, Punici e Romani; Bari: Edipuglia srl.
Kolb, J. M., & Speakman, J.R. (2005). Elymian regional interaction in Iron Age western Sicily: A preliminary
neutron activation study of incised/impressed tableware. Journal of Archaeological Science, 32, 795–804.
Luke, J. (1994). The krater, kratos and the polis. Greece & Rome, Second Series, 41, 23–32.
Mommsen, H., Kreuser, A., & Weber, J. (1988). A method for grouping pottery by chemical composition.
Archaeometry, 30, 47–57.
Montana, G., Fabbri, B., Santoro, S., Gualtieri, S., Iliopoulos, I., & Guiducci, G. (2007). Pantellerian ware:
A comprehensive archeometric review. Archaeometry, 49, 455–481.
Montana, G., Azzaro, E., Polito, A.M., Lavore, A.T., & Vassallo, S. (2006a). Analisi petrografica e chimica
di anfore puniche dagli scavi di Himera. In C. D’Amico (Ed.), Atti del III Congresso dell’Associazione
Italiana di Archeometria: Innovazioni tecnologiche per i beni culturali in Italia, Caserta, 16–18
febbraio 2005 (pp. 145–153). Bologna: Pàtron Editore.
Montana, G., Caruso, A., Lavore, A.T., Polito, A.M., & Sulli, A. (2006b). Inquadramento geologico e
definizione composizionale delle ‘argille ceramiche’ presenti nella Sicilia nord-occidentale: ricadute
di carattere archeometrico. Il Quaternario, 19, 279–298.
Montanari, L., & Rizzotto, M. (2000). Geologia dell’Aspra. Naturalista Siciliano, S. IV, 14, 315–328.
Niemeyer, H.G. (1995). Expansion et colonisation. In V. Krings (Ed.), La civilisation Phénicienne et Punique,
Manuel de Recherche (pp. 247–267). Leyden-New York-Köln: Brill Academic Publishers.
Olcese, G., & Picon, M. (1998). Ceramiche a vernice nera in Italia e analisi di laboratorio: Fondamenti teorici
e problemi aperti. In P. Frontini & M.T. Grassi (Eds.), Atti del Seminario Internazionale di Studio,
Indagini archeometriche relative alla ceramica a vernice nera: Nuovi dati sulla provenienza e sulla
diffusione, Milano, 22–23 novembre 1996 (pp. 141–152). Como: Edizioni New Press.
GEOARCHAEOLOGY: AN INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL, VOL. 24, NO. 1
109
MONTANA, ILIOPOULOS, TARDO, GRECO
Parrot, A., Chehab, M.H., & Moscati, S. (1982). I Fenici. L’espansione Fenicia. Cartagine. Milano: BUR
Biblioteca Univ. Rizzoli (ISBN: 88-172-9522-1).
Picon, M. (1992). L’analyse chimique des céramiques: bilan et perspectives. In R. Francovich (Ed.),
Archeometria della ceramica. Problemi di metodo. Bologna: Atti 8o SIMCER (pp. 3–26). Bologna: Int.
Centro Ceramico, Univ. di Bologna.
Rice, P.M. (1987). Pottery analysis: A sourcebook. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Rice, P.M. (1996). Recent ceramic analysis, 2: Composition, production, and theory. Journal of Archaeological Research, 4, 165–202.
Schneider, G., Hoffmann, B., & Wirz, E. (1979). Significance and dependability of reference groups for
chemical determinations of provenance of ceramic artefacts. Proceedings of the 18th International
Symposium on Archaeometry and Archaeological prospection (Bonn, March 14–17, 1978). ArchaeoPhysika, 10, 269–283.
Schubert, P., (1986). Petrographic modal analysis: A necessary complement to chemical analysis of
ceramic. Archaeometry, 28, 163–178.
Schwedt, A., Mommsen, H., & Zacharias, N. (2004). Post-depositional elemental alterations in pottery:
Neutron activation analyses of surface and core samples. Archaeometry, 46, 85–101.
Spanò Gemmellaro, A. (2000). I Fenici in Sicilia: Modalità di insediamento e rapporti con l’entroterra.
Problematiche e prospettive di ricerca. In A. Gonzalez-Prats (Ed.), Fenicios y territorio: Actas del II
Seminario Internacional sobre Temas Fenicios. Guardamar del Segura, 9–11 de Abril 1999 (pp. 295–335).
Alicante: Direcció General d’Ensenyaments Universitaris i Investigació.
Spatafora, F. (2003). Monte Maranfusa, un insediamento nella media Valle del Belice. L’abitato indigeno.
Palermo: Soprintendenza beni culturali e ambientali di Palermo, Regione Siciliana.
Tardo, V. (1997). Materiali della necropoli punica di Solunto: Studi preliminari. Ceramica d’importazione
e di tradizione greca. In G.B. Palumbo (Ed.), Archeologia e territorio (pp. 75–94). Palermo:
Soprintendenza per i beni culturali e ambientali di Palermo.
Termini, A. (1997). Ceramica di tradizione Fenicio-Punica e ceramiche comuni. In G.B. Palumbo (Ed.),
Archeologia e territorio (pp. 35–56). Palermo: Soprintendenza per i beni culturali e ambientali di Palermo.
Tite, M.S. (1999). Pottery, production distribution and consumption: The contribution of the physical sciences. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory, 6, 181–233.
Tite, M.S. (2008). Ceramic production, provenance and use-a review. Archaeometry, 50, 216–231.
Tsolakidou, A., Day, P.M., Kiriatzi, E., & Kilikoglou V. (2002). Investigating petrological and chemical
groupings of Early Minoan cooking vessels. In V. Kilikoglou, A. Hein, & Y. Maniatis (Eds), 5th EMAC:
Modern trends in scientific studies on ancient ceramics (pp. 19–33). International Series 1011. Oxford:
British Archaeological Reports.
van der Leeuw, S.E., & Pritchard, A.C. (Eds). (1984). The many dimensions of pottery: Ceramics in archaeology and anthropology. Amsterdam: University of Amsterdam.
Vassallo, S. (1999). Coppe Iato K480: Tipologia e diffusione. In S. Vassallo (Ed.), Colle Madore: Un caso
di ellenizzazione in terra sicana (pp. 199–202), Palermo: Regione Siciliana, Assessorato regionale dei
beni culturali e ambientali e della pubblica sstruzione.
Whitbread, I.K. (1995). Greek transport amphorae: A petrological and archeological study. Fitch Laboratory
Occasional Paper 4, The British School at Athens.
Williams, D.F. (1983). Petrology of ceramics. In D.R.C. Kempe & A.P. Harvey (Eds), The petrology of
archaeological artefacts (pp. 301–329). Oxford, UK: Clarendon Press.
Received 11 June 2007
Accepted for publication 18 September 2008
Scientific editing by Marie-Agnes Courty
110
GEOARCHAEOLOGY: AN INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL, VOL. 24, NO. 1