Late Roman Glazed Pottery in Carlino and in Central-East Europe.: Production, Function and Distribution 9781407304779, 9781407336015

Table of contents :
Front Cover
Title Page
Copyright
Contents
SECOND INTERNATIONAL MEETING OF ARCHAEOLOGY IN CARLINO
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
RINGRAZIAMENTI
INTRODUCTION
SOME REMARKS ON THE USE OF GEOCHEMICAL TRACERS FOR METAL PROVENANCING
WHY IS CERAMIC TECHNOLOGY OFTEN NEGLECTED?
AQUILEIA AND ITS TERRITORY IN THE FOURTH CENTURY AD
ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND ARCHAEOMETRIC CHARACTERISATION OF LATE ROMAN GLAZED POTTERY (4TH - 6TH CENTURIES AD) FROM THE VENETIAN LAGOON
NEW ARCHAEOMETRIC DATA ON LATE ROMAN GLAZED POTTERY. CASE-STUDIES FROM SAVARIA (HUNGARY) AND ROUSSE (BULGARY)
CHEMICAL ANALYSIS BY WD-XRF OF POTTERY AND CLAY FROM CARLINO
SOME NOTES ABOUT THE PRODUCTION OF LATE ROMAN GLAZED POTTERY IN VINDOBONA
LATE ROMAN GLAZED POTTERY PRODUCTION SITES IN CENTRAL-EAST EUROPE: SOME REMARKS ON PANNONIA I AND VALERIA
LATE ROMAN GLAZED POTTERY IN RURAL CEMETERIES IN EASTERN NORICUM
LATE ROMAN GLAZED POTTERY IN THE CEMETERIES OF THE PANNONIAN LIMES: GERULATA, TOKOD AND SOLVA
GLAZED POTTERY OF KESZTHELY-FENÉKPUSZTA IN THE SPECTRUM OF THE CERAMICS OF THE LATE ROMAN FORTRESS
LATE ROMAN GLAZED POTTERY FROM THE LOWER DANUBE. SOME CASE-STUDIES FROM BULGARIA
LATE ROMAN GLAZED POTTERY FROM HORREUM MARGI (CENTRAL SERBIA)
GLAZED POTTERY AS GRAVE GOODS (SHOWN ON THE EXAMPLES FROM VIMINACIUM)
CONCLUSIVE REMARKS
Colour Plates

Citation preview

BAR S2068 2010 MAGRINI & SBARRA LATE ROMAN GLAZED POTTERY IN CARLINO & C-E EUROPE

B A R

Proceedings of the Second International Meeting of Archaeology in Carlino (March 2009)

Late Roman Glazed Pottery in Carlino and in Central-East Europe Production, Function and Distribution

Edited by

Chiara Magrini and Francesca Sbarra

BAR International Series 2068 2010

Late Roman Glazed Pottery in Carlino and in Central-East Europe.

Proceedings of the Second International Meeting of Archaeology in Carlino (March 2009)

Late Roman Glazed Pottery in Carlino and in Central-East Europe. Production, Function and Distribution

Edited by

Chiara Magrini and Francesca Sbarra

BAR International Series 2068 2010

Published in 2016 by BAR Publishing, Oxford BAR International Series 2068 Proceedings of the Second International Meeting of Archaeology in Carlino (March 2009) Late Roman Glazed Pottery in Carlino and in Central-East Europe. © The editors and contributors severally and the Publisher 2010 COVER IMAGE

Glazed beaker from Brest (Tapavički-Ilić, fig. 8)

The authors' moral rights under the 1988 UK Copyright, Designs and Patents Act are hereby expressly asserted. All rights reserved. No part of this work may be copied, reproduced, stored, sold, distributed, scanned, saved in any form of digital format or transmitted in any form digitally, without the written permission of the Publisher. ISBN 9781407304779 paperback ISBN 9781407336015 e-format DOI https://doi.org/10.30861/9781407304779 A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library BAR Publishing is the trading name of British Archaeological Reports (Oxford) Ltd. British Archaeological Reports was first incorporated in 1974 to publish the BAR Series, International and British. In 1992 Hadrian Books Ltd became part of the BAR group. This volume was originally published by John and Erica Hedges Ltd. in conjunction with British Archaeological Reports (Oxford) Ltd / Hadrian Books Ltd, the Series principal publisher, in 2010. This present volume is published by BAR Publishing, 2016.

BAR PUBLISHING BAR titles are available from: BAR Publishing 122 Banbury Rd, Oxford, OX2 7BP, UK E MAIL [email protected] P HONE +44 (0)1865 310431 F AX +44 (0)1865 316916 www.barpublishing.com

CONTENTS Programme of the Second International Meeting of Archaeology in Carlino (March 27th-29th, 2009)

iii

Presentations

v

TATJIANA CVJETIĆANIN Introduction

1

Section 1 – Introductory round table PAOLO NIMIS Some remarks on the use of geochemical tracers for metal provenancing

3

NININA CUOMO DI CAPRIO Why is ceramic technology often neglected?

11

CLAUDIO ZACCARIA Aquileia and its territory in the fourth century AD

13

Section 2 – Archaeometry CLAUDIO CAPELLI, ELENA GRANDI, ROBERTO CABELLA, MICHELE PIAZZA Archaeological and archaeometric characterisation of Late Roman glazed pottery (4th - 6th centuries AD) from the Venetian lagoon

21

CLAUDIO CAPELLI, ROBERTO CABELLA, MICHELE PIAZZA New archaeometric data on Late Roman glazed pottery. Case-studies from Savaria (Hungary) and Ruse (Bulgary)

33

GERWULF SCHNEIDER, MAŁGORZATA DASZKIEWICZ Chemical analysis by WD-XRF of pottery and clay from Carlino

39

Section 3 – Production RITA CHINELLI Some notes about the production of LateRoman glazed pottery in Vindobona. Appendix by ROMAN SAUER

43

CHIARA MAGRINI, FRANCESCA SBARRA Late Roman glazed pottery production sites in central-east Europe: some remarks on Pannonia I and Valeria

71

Section 4 – Function and distribution EVA HÖLBLING Late Roman glazed pottery in rural cemeteries in eastern Noricum

79

EDUARD KREKOVIČ Late Roman glazed pottery in the cemeteries of the Pannonian limes:Gerulata, Tokod and Solva

87

FRIDERIKA HORVÁTH Glazed pottery of Keszthely-Fenékpuszta in the spectrum of the ceramics of the Late Roman fortress

93

DIANA DOBREVA Late Roman glazed pottery from the Lower Danube. Some case-studies from Bulgaria

103

SNEZANA ČERNAČ-RATKOVIĆ Late Roman glazed pottery from Horreum Margi (central Serbia)

113

MILICA TAPAVIČKI-ILIĆ Glazed pottery as grave goods (shown on the examples from Viminacium)

123

CHIARA MAGRINI, FRANCESCA SBARRA Conclusive remarks

131 133

Colour plates i

ii

II INCONTRO INTERNAZIONALE DI ARCHEOLOGIA A CARLINO SECOND INTERNATIONAL MEETING OF ARCHAEOLOGY IN CARLINO LA CERAMICA INVETRIATA TARDOROMANA A CARLINO E NELL’EUROPA CENTRO-ORIENTALE. PRODUZIONE, FUNZIONE E DISTRIBUZIONE. LATE ROMAN GLAZED POTTERY IN CARLINO AND IN CENTRAL-EASTERN EUROPE. PRODUCTION, FUNCTION AND DISTRIBUTION. Carlino, 27-29 marzo 2009 – March 27th-29th, 2009 Venerdì 27 marzo 16.00 Saluti delle autorità – Greetings by the Authorities 16.30 Tavola rotonda introduttiva – Opening Round Table Paolo Nimis (Università degli Studi di Padova) Traccianti geochimici per studi di provenienza - Geochemical tracers for provenance studies Ninina Cuomo di Caprio (Milano, Italia) Perchè la tecnologia ceramica è spesso trascurata ? – Why is ceramic technology often neglected ? Claudio Zaccaria (Università degli Studi di Trieste) Introduzione storica – Historical introduction 18.00 Presentazione degli Atti del I Incontro Internazionale di Archeologia a Carlino – Presentation of the First International Meeting of Archaeology in Carlino Proceedings

Sabato 28 marzo I . Archeometria - Archaeometry 9.00 Claudio Capelli, Roberto Cabella, Michele Piazza (Università degli Studi di Genova) Il dato delle analisi mineralogiche e petrografiche su alcuni contesti di ceramica invetriata tardoantica dell'Italia settentrionale alla luce del confronto con Carlino e l'area dell'Europa centro-orientale – Mineralogical and petrographic analyses on some Late Roman glazed pottery contexts from northern Italy in comparison with Carlino ones and Central East Europe area 9.30 Christiane Römer-Strehl (Lindlar, Deutschland) Ceramica invetriata, tecnologia e ricette di produzione - Lead glazed pottery, technology and receipe 10.00 Małgorzata Daszkiewicz, Gerwulf Schneider (Freie Universität Berlin) Analisi chimica al WD-XRF e ricottura (analisi MGR) della ceramica di Carlino – Chemical analysis by WD-XRF and refiring (MGR-analysis) of pottery and clay from Carlino 10.30 Coffee break

II . Produzione - Production 11.00 Wolfang Czsyz (Bayerisches Landesamt für Denkmalpflege) La ceramica invetriata tardoromana nella provincia della Raetia. Produzione, funzione, distribuzione – Late Roman glazed pottery in the province of Raetia: production, function and distribution 11.30 Rita Chinelli (Museen der Stadt Wien – Stadtarchäologie), Roman Sauer (Institut für Kunst und Technologie/Archäometrie-Universität für angewandte Kunst Wien)

iii

Alcune osservazioni sulla produzione di ceramica invetriata tardoromana nell’antica Vindobona – Some notes about Late Roman glazed pottery production in ancient Vindobona. 12.00 Chiara Magrini (Udine, Italia), Francesca Sbarra (Firenze, Italia) Centri di produzione della ceramica invetriata tardoromana in Europa Centro-orientale: alcune osservazioni – Late Roman glazed pottery production sites in Central-East Europe: some remarks 12.30 Pranzo - Lunch

III. Funzione e distribuzione – Function and Distribution 14.00 Eva Hölbling (Wien, Österreich) Sepolture tardoromane con ceramica invetriata nel Noricum – Late Roman Burials containing glazed pottery in Noricum 14.30 Eduard Krekovič (Univerzita Komenského v Bratislave) Ceramica invetriata nel limes: le necropoli della Pannonia I e della Valeria – glazed pottery on limes: the cemeteries of Pannonia I and Valeria 15.00 Friderika Horváth (Magyar Tudományos Akadémia) La ceramica invetriata da Keszthely-Fenékpuszta nel quadro della ceramica rinvenuta nella fortezza tardoromana – Glazed pottery of Keszthely-Fenékpuszta in the spectrum of the ceramic of the Late Roman fortress 15.30 Coffee break 16.00 Diana Dobreva (Università degli Studi di Padova) Qualche annotazione sulle lucerne tardoantiche e proto-bizantine della Bulgaria – Some remarks on the study of the Late Roman and Early Bizantine lamps from Bulgaria 16.30 Snezana Černač-Ratković (Beograd, Srbija) La ceramica invetriata tardoromana di Horreum Margi (Serbia centrale) – Late Roman glazed pottery from Horreum Margi (central Serbia) 17.00 Milica Tapavički-Ilić (Arheološki Institut, Beograd) Ceramica invetriata nei corredi funerari delle necropoli romane di Viminacium – Glazed pottery as grave goods on the Roman necropoles of Viminacium

Domenica 29 marzo 9.00-10.30 Introduzione sul territorio delle fornaci di Carlino in età romana (a cura di Fabio Prenc) e visita al sito della Chiamana – Introduction to the Carlino kilns territory in the Roman period (by Fabio Prenc) and excursion to Chiamana area 11.00 Chiara Magrini (Udine, Italia), Francesca Sbarra (Firenze, Italia) Considerazioni conclusive e linee di ricerca future: la prospettiva di un progetto europeo – Conclusions and future prospects for an European project 12.00 Conclusioni delle autorità – Authorities conclusions

iv

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS In this book the Proceedings of the “Second international Meeting of Archaeology in Carlino”, which took place in Carlino at the end of March 2009, are published. This meeting, as the first one, was possible thanks to the Administration of Carlino which supported, not only with financial resources, our scientific project about Late Roman glazed pottery. First of all we are grateful to Claudio Paiaro, Major of Carlino until 2009, who believed in our research and helped us also in difficult times. We would also like to thank all the people who work in Carlino Administration and, above all, Diego Navarria, now Major in Carlino, who supported our project with enthusiasm right from the beginning of our research on Carlino glazed pottery, in 1999. We are grateful also to Carlino “Pro Loco” and “Chiamana” Association which made our Meeting more pleasant and made us know the food-and-wine resources of the Carlino territory. Most important our thanks must go to all the scholars who came in Carlino from different countries of Central-East Europe to discuss about Late Roman glazed pottery issues and supplied interesting papers for the publication in a very short time. This book couldn’t be possible without Paolo Dall’Aglio who typeset all the papers with a lot of accuracy and patience. To him go our affectionate thanks. Udine-Firenze, January 2010 CHIARA MAGRINI AND FRANCESCA SBARRA Editors

RINGRAZIAMENTI In questo libro sono pubblicati gli atti del Secondo Incontro Internazionale di Archeologia a Carlino, che ha avuto luogo a Carlino alla fine di marzo 2009. Questo, incontro, così come il primo, è stato possibile grazie all’amministrazione comunale di Carlino che ha sostenuto, non solo con le risorse finanziarie, il nostro progetto scientifico sulla ceramica invetriata tardoromana. Prima di tutto siamo grate a Claudio Paiaro, sindaco di Carlino fino al 2009, che ha creduto nella nostra ricerca e ci ha anche aiutato nei periodi difficili. Vorremmo anche ringraziare tutto il personale dell’amministrazione comunale di Carlino e, soprattutto, Diego Navarria, attualmente sindaco di Carlino, che ha sostenuto il nostro progetto con entusiasmo fin dall’inizio della ricerca sulla ceramica invetriata di Carlino, nel 1999. Siamo riconoscenti anche alla Pro Loco di Carlino e all’associazione “Chiamana” che hanno reso il nostro incontro più piacevole e ci hanno fatto conoscere le specialità eno-gastronomiche del territorio di Carlino. Ma soprattutto il nostro ringraziamento va a tutti le studiose e gli studiosi che si sono riuniti a Carlino da diversi paesi dell’Europa centro-orientale per discutere delle questioni riguardanti la ceramica invetriata tardoromana e hanno fornito contributi interessanti per questa pubblicazione, in un tempo molto breve. Questo libro non sarebbe stato possibile senza Paolo Dall’Aglio, che ha formattato tutti gli articoli con grande cura e pazienza. A lui vanno i nostri affettuosi ringraziamenti. Udine-Firenze, gennaio 2010 CHIARA MAGRINI E FRANCESCA SBARRA Curatrici

v

vi

L’attenzione e le risorse che il Comune di Carlino in questo ultimo decennio ha dedicato all’archeologia, e in particolare allo studio della ceramica invetriata, hanno prodotto un quadro complesso ed articolato, di notevole spessore scientifico. Il tutto ebbe origine nel 1999, quando le dott.sse Chiara Magrini e Francesca Sbarra si presentarono al sottoscritto, allora bibliotecario di Carlino, proponendo di condurre uno studio sulle ceramiche invetriate rinvenute nel sito della fornace della Chiamama. Grazie al sostegno accordato da allora alle due archeologhe dalle varie Amministrazioni Comunali, venne condotto un lavoro di ricerca che ha permesso alle stesse di pubblicare nel 2005 il volume “Le ceramiche invetriate di Carlino: nuovo contributo allo studio di una produzione tardoantica” per i tipi dell’editore All’Insegna del Giglio di Firenze. Il Comune poi proseguì la ricerca archeologica aderendo al progetto “Antiche fornaci del Friuli” sostenuto dalla Provincia di Udine con la supervisione della Soprintendenza e ha organizzato il 1° Incontro Internazionale di Archeologia a Carlino il 14 e 15 dicembre 2007 “La ceramica invetriata tardoromana nell’arco alpino orientale e nelle province danubiane: Primi risultati di un progetto internazionale” i cui atti furono pubblicati dal Comune stesso, a cura di Chiara Magrini e Francesca Sbarra, nel 2009. Nel medesimo anno il Comune organizzò il 2° incontro Internazionale di Archeologia a Carlino nei giorni 27-30 marzo 2009 “La Ceramica Invetriata Tardoromana a Carlino e nell’Europa CentroOrientale. Produzione, Funzione e Distribuzione” Oggi, a nome dell’Amministrazione che ho l’onore di guidare, è con grande piacere che saluto la pubblicazione degli atti di quel 2° incontro Internazionale di Archeologia a Carlino, ancora curati da Magrini e Sbarra. Il volume offre alla comunità scientifica un aggiornamento sulle ricerche e in particolare rafforza la notorietà di Carlino in campo scientifico, cercando di dare risposta agli interrogativi sulle relazioni tra la produzione della Chiamana e quelle del limes nord-orientale dell’Impero. Le prospettive non mancano e l’Amministrazione di Carlino intende investire ancora nell’archeologia. Quale primo passo ha reperito le risorse per acquistare il sito archeologico della Chiamana, per poter così avviare al più presto una campagna di scavi, anche per inserire il luogo “simbolo” della fornace entro una più ampia campagna di valorizzazione naturalistico-paesaggistico-enogastronomica del territorio. Il Comune ha inoltre in programma di dare a Carlino un museo, sperando di trasferirvi parte dei reperti ora esposti al Museo Nazionale di Aquileia ed ha allo studio l’inserimento dell’attività in un progetto Interreg, teso a creare una rete museale europea sulla ceramica invetriata. Gli “Atti” che oggi sono pubblicati, oltre a costituire un evento scientifico specialistico di indubbio spessore, mettono anche in luce una realtà possibile apportatrice di una concreta ricaduta territoriale che, parallelamente alla prosecuzione della ricerca, diffonda l’importanza dell’unicum ceramico carlinese, rendendo partecipe la popolazione locale di quali relazioni quella antica produzione avesse prodotto. Ringrazio tutti gli illustri studiosi partecipanti al convegno e che con le loro relazioni hanno dato il loro concreto apporto allo studio, ed esprimo un grazie particolare alle curatrici Chiara Magrini e Francesca Sbarra, cui va il merito di avere posto all’attenzione della comunità scientifica internazionale gli interrogativi posti dalla ceramica invetriata di Carlino. Carlino, gennaio 2010 DIEGO NAVARRIA Sindaco di Carlino

vii

viii

La tempestiva pubblicazione degli Atti del Secondo incontro internazionale di archeologia, tenutosi a Carlino nel marzo del 2009, a distanza di un anno dal precedente, rappresenta un’altra significativa tappa di un percorso, iniziato ormai una decina di anni fa a cura di Chiara Magrini e Francesca Sbarra, ma ampliatosi successivamente a numerose e prestigiose collaborazioni. Lo spunto offerto dalla ripresa dello studio della ceramica invetriata di Carlino, classe ceramica più appariscente fra quelle portate alla luce nelle fornaci indagate in circostanze fortunose fra gli anni ’70 e gli anni ’80 del secolo scorso da parte di Luisa Bertacchi, si è configurato fin dall’inizio quale tentativo di inquadrare un’importante nucleo di materiali, allora avulso sia dal contesto stratigrafico (gran parte dei reperti proveniva peraltro da uno scarico), sia dalla documentazione nota da Aquileia e dal territorio circostante: ne derivava l’esigenza di basarsi su confronti con produzioni e flussi commerciali coevi, dovendosi però collocare entro un lungo arco cronologico, fra IV e V secolo, a fronte di quella che, proprio per il suo relativo isolamento, almeno in ambito locale, aveva tutte le caratteristiche di un’impresa ben circoscritta nella committenza, nei destinatari, e presumibilmente anche nel tempo. Lo studio analitico dei materiali, nei loro aspetti tipologici e tecnologici (MAGRINI, SBARRA 2005), ha consentito così di riformulare su basi più documentate le ipotesi, avanzate fin dagli anni della scoperta, di rapporti con i rinvenimenti di ambito militare in area danubiano-balcanica: da qui la necessità di procedere alla verifica, che ha portato al coinvolgimento di studiosi di tali aree geografiche, nel primo degli incontri (MAGRINI, SBARRA 2009) provenienti da Austria, Slovenia, Ungheria e Serbia, nel secondo – che qui si pubblica – anche da Germania, Slovacchia e Bulgaria. Si deve essere grati al Comune di Carlino, che sostenendo la ricerca non si è limitato a riportare all’attenzione un contesto archeologico certamente importante per la storia del suo territorio, ma ha consentito, nel prosieguo del progetto, uno scambio di conoscenze ad ampio raggio. Questa nuova visuale della problematica suscitata dal singolo complesso ben si inserisce infatti – come evidenziato in diversi saggi introduttivi sia di questo che dei precedenti volumi – in uno sviluppo degli studi sull’invetriata tardo-antica che ha visto intrecciarsi negli ultimi decenni, in una vasta area geografica, molteplici apporti, quasi sempre integrati dalle indagini archeometriche e più in generale relative alla tecnologia ceramica (tematiche non coincidenti, come ben evidenziato in questa sede dalle brillanti osservazioni di N. Cuomo di Caprio). Lo stato attuale della ricerca evidenzierebbe quindi ora una pluralità di aree produttive all’interno di una koiné tecnologica, escludendo tuttavia corrispondenze puntuali fra il vasellame di Carlino e quello rinvenuto nelle province: ciò impedisce per il momento di trarre conclusioni sui problemi di inquadramento sopra accennati (committenza e destinazione) per tale materiale. Si fa sentire a questo punto l’esigenza di restringere – per quanto possibile – la forchetta cronologica (IV-V sec. d.C.) di riferimento, proprio perché in questo lasso di tempo pare collocarsi lo iato fra le produzioni medioimperiali, con continuità dal II al IV secolo, e le successive a partire dal V, che vengono ora ricollegate a quelle altomedievali. Poiché tale cesura viene istituita principalmente su base tecnologica (e da questo punto di vista le ceramiche invetriate di Carlino si collocherebbero nella seconda fascia), risulta fondamentale per “spiegare” questa produzione l’incrocio con i dati storici (si rimanda al contributo di C. Zaccaria su Aquileia nel IV secolo e sul territorio fra IV e V secolo, nei loro aspetti istituzionali, sociali ed economici). Rappresentando qui un’ottica più istituzionale ed attenta alla tutela ed alla conservazione, si ripropone però in parallelo l’interesse per una ripresa dell’analisi degli altri materiali recuperati nel sito: le ceramiche comuni più antiche, numericamente consistenti, sono caratterizzate – a differenza di quelle invetriate - da utilizzo di argilla calcarea, simile a quella campionata nei giacimenti in loco (cfr. Schneider, Daszkiewicz, in questa sede), così una precisa definizione del loro termine finale potrebbe essere utile ad identificare il mutamento dei processi produttivi. Purtroppo anche questo studio (che si sta avviando, anche grazie a tesi in corso di svolgimento) è destinato a basarsi solamente su confronti tipologici, in assenza di un contesto indagato stratigraficamente. A maggior ragione resta quindi negli auspici la possibilità di una verifica in situ di quanto delle strutture parrebbe ancora conservato: lo proverebbero le indagini geofisiche condotte nell’ambito del “Progetto fornaci romane in Friuli” (20052007), promosso dalla Provincia di Udine assieme alla Soprintendenza, progetto cui il Comune aveva dato la sua adesione, facendovi confluire il proprio già avviato in precedenza. Si confida che la volontà dell’Ente locale di proseguire ulteriormente nell’iniziativa possa contare sulla stessa collaborazione e sostegno da parte di tutti i soggetti interessati, che ora rendono possibile la presentazione degli atti in questa prestigiosa sede editoriale, segno della valenza internazionale della ricerca. Trieste, gennaio 2010 PAOLA VENTURA Soprintendenza per i Beni Archeologici del Friuli Venezia Giulia ix

x

INTRODUCTION TATJANA CVJETIĆANIN

Studies of the Roman pottery changed considerably in last several decades. From examinations mostly directed towards the problems of chronology, with the identification and classification of the pottery, predominantly luxurious, now necessary wider synthesis concerned more with questions of provenience and production are by far more common, and structural analyses are becoming a basic starting point for a complete research. However, there are still categories and classes of pottery requiring widely based and more detailed research, especially among so-called utilitarian pottery. Late Roman glazed pottery is one of those classes needing full scholars’ attention.

et al. a) and Carlino remains at the moment almost isolated (Zaccaria). Analysed vessels from different sites are chemically clearly distinguishable from the products of Carlino (Schneider, Daszkiewicz), and examination by geochemical tracers is defining recycling as probable origin of a lead in Carlino glazed evidence (Nimis). And it is important to consider that variations in the approach of a potter during the selection of raw material and processing of clay are numerous; we are faced with a wide spectre of possibilities which mostly depend on social-economic and technological traditions, and that is certainly true for the Late Roman glazed pottery.

Researchers' interest for the problems of the Late Roman glazed pottery was not limited, but the studies were based mostly on a presentation of wares, either as a part of the finds at the certain site or certain periods, with rare attempts of a systematic analysis. But from 1990-ies different research dynamics and focuses can be observed, and more articles, books, congresses, etc. have been dedicated to the glazed pottery. From general attention to this type of ceramics, with only basic typological and chronological data, rarely technological ones, focus moved to thorough analysis and questions of production sites and technology, consumers as well as distribution circles (CVJETIĆANIN 20061).

Although with homogeneous technical knowledge, plurality of production is confirmed again for the Late Roman glazed pottery in North-Eastern Italy and Central-Eastern Europe (Capelli et al. b), as well as in Leopoldau, where review of material even in preliminary stage, showed distinct local production (Chinelli, Sauer). Understanding rightly need to reconsider previous finds in the region that is the most abundant with glazed pottery evidence, a context of findings and preserved objects were re-examined not just for kiln sites in Pannonia (Magrini, Sbarra) but for cemeteries in Noricum and Pannonia (Hölbling; Krekovič), and other sites in Pannonia (Horváth), Moesia Prima (Černač-Ratković) and Moesia Secunda (Dobreva) as well.

This volume presents a selection of papers delivered at the Second International meeting of Archaeology in Carlino, dedicated to the Late Roman glazed pottery production in Eastern Alpine area and Danubian provinces. It presents the last results of an international project aimed to re-examine glazed pottery evidence and production of Carlino, not only as one of the most important production sites - and one that started more than 30 years ago fruitful discussion on glazed ceramics (ARTHUR 19812), but one connecting different production and distributional circles, confirming that overall similarities undeniably hide specifics of an each site and assemblage. Precede the new contribution to the studies of one Late Roman production in Carlino (MAGRINI, SBARRA 20053), as well as the first results of the mentioned project (MAGRINI, SBARRA 20094).

Results presented verify again that the numerousness of these products, their diffusion and richness of the repertoire, which seems generally identical but with specifics in every region, demands a revision of conclusions over its appearance and production, changing some of the so far established viewpoints on glazed pottery of the Late Roman and Early Byzantine era. Either being the question of production methods and production sites, provenience, the problems of chronology or connections with glazed pottery from the 2nd – 3rd centuries (Tapavički-Ilić), function and distribution, what becomes more visible with each study is that Late Roman glazed pottery is certainly a phenomenon in which different elements contributed to its appearance and existence. Army supply system seems still the most important one, limes being a specific structure with its own mechanisms.

Carlino production can securely be distinguished from those from other sites producing Late Roman glazed pottery, even in its vicinity, as new archaeometric data show (Capelli

This volume confirms that these elements still need further research and publications.

1

T. CVJETÍCANIN, Late Roman Glazed Pottery, Belgrade 2006. P. ARTHUR, D. WILLIAMS, “Pannonische glasierte Keramik”: an assessment, in Roman Pottery Research in Britain and North-West Europe. Papers presented to Graham Webster, British Archaeological Reports International Series, 123, II, Oxford, pp. 481-510. 3 C. MAGRINI, F. SBARRA, Le ceramiche invetriate di Carlino. Nuovo contributo allo studio di una produzione tardoantica, Ricerche di Archeologia Altomedievale e Medievale, 30, Firenze 2005. 2

4

MAGRINI, SBARRA 2009a – C. MAGRINI, F. SBARRA (eds.), Late Roman glazed pottery productions in Eastern Alpine Area and Danubian Provinces. First results of an international project, Proceedings of the First International Meeting of Archaeology in Carlino (Carlino 14-15 December 2007), Campoformido (UD) 2009.

1 1

2 2

SOME REMARKS ON THE USE OF GEOCHEMICAL TRACERS FOR METAL PROVENANCING PAOLO NIMIS Abstract. If properly used, geochemical tracers represent a powerful tool for metal provenance studies. Their discriminatory potential depends upon several factors, including the geological nature of the ore deposits, the availability of a comprehensive reference database, the nature of the artefact and, for trace elements, the evolution of manufacturing techniques. In some cases, an artefact can be traced back to its original metal source (an ore deposit or district) with very high confidence. In other cases, the interpretation may remain ambiguous, owing to geochemical overlaps between the different potential sources, use (or recycling) of metals of mixed origin, or scarcity of adequate reference data. In many cases, the geochemical analysis may at best allow one to reduce the number of possible sources by testing their geochemical compatibility with the investigated object. Combining various types of tracers, such as different isotopic ratios and trace elements, may significantly enhance the discriminant potential of the method. In any case, a correct geological understanding of the geochemical signatures of the different metal deposits is essential to avoid over-interpretations of the results and to constrain more effectively the area of metal provenance. Riassunto. Se correttamente utilizzati, i traccianti geochimici costituiscono un potente ausilio per gli studi di provenienza dei metalli. Il loro potere di discriminazione dipende da diversi fattori, tra cui la natura geologica del giacimento, la disponibilità di un database di riferimento ampio e rappresentativo, la natura del manufatto e, per gli elementi in traccia, l’evoluzione delle tecniche metallurgiche e di produzione degli oggetti. In alcuni casi, un oggetto può essere ricondotto alla sua fonte di metallo primaria (un giacimento o un distretto minerario) con un elevato grado di confidenza. In altri casi, l’interpretazione può rimanere ambigua, a causa di sovrapposizioni tra i caratteri geochimici delle diverse fonti, utilizzo (o riciclo) di metalli di diversa provenienza, o scarsità di dati di riferimento adeguati. In molti casi, l’analisi geochimica può al più permettere di ridurre il numero delle possibili fonti verificandone la compatibilità geochimica con l’oggetto in esame. La combinazione di vari tipi di traccianti, quali rapporti isotopici di diversi elementi e concentrazioni di vari elementi in traccia, può migliorare significativamente il potere discriminante del metodo. In ogni caso, una corretta interpretazione geologica dei caratteri geochimici dei diversi depositi metalliferi è essenziale per interpretare correttamente i risultati e circoscrivere in maniera più efficace l’area di provenienza del metallo.

1. Introduction

Ore deposits have been forming on Earth for several billion years and the often complex combinations of geological processes which built them up may differ strongly from one deposit to the other. Hence, both large variability and high specificity can generally be expected. Nevertheless, Mother Nature provided us with such a large number of deposits (Fig. 1) that geochemical overlaps can also obviously occur. The role of geochemistry in provenance studies is to indicate the most powerful combination of tracers for the specific type of material under investigation.

Geochemical tracers are any kind of geochemical “fingerprint” that can be used to identify sources of metals/minerals used for artefact production. In practice, geochemical tracers are chemical components which are contained in characteristic proportions both in the extracted ore and in the final object. Two types of tracers are available: isotopes and accessory elements. Isotopes are atoms of the same chemical element which have a different mass owing to a different number of neutrons in their nucleus. Accessory elements are chemical elements which accompany the main metals in minor to trace amounts (down to parts per million or lower). The isotope and accessory element compositions of an ore/object are independent data which can be used separately or can be combined to allow more robust discrimination. Current analytical techniques allow sufficiently accurate and precise analyses of both isotopes and minor/trace elements to be acquired in most cases.

So far, metal provenancing has mostly relied on lead isotope analysis. In principle, this method can be applied to metal objects containing lead in major to trace concentrations, as well as to materials which required the addition of lead for their manufacture, such as some pigments, glasses and glazes. There has been a very hot debate in recent years on the pros and cons of this method. A fairly well balanced account can probably be found in Gale and Stos-Gale (GALE, STOS-GALE 2000). Further discussion can be found in the recent papers by Pollard (POLLARD 2009) and Gale (GALE 2009). A detailed examination of the controversial questions is beyond the aim of the present paper, and the reader is referred to the above papers for a thorough overview of lead isotope analysis in archaeology and of its strengths and drawbacks. Here, after a brief introduction on the method, a few specific issues will be discussed, which are often little considered in the archaeometric literature. A few comments on the use of accessory minor and trace elements and of isotopes of elements other than lead will also be provided.

For a chemical component to become a useful tracer it must have both a large overall variability and a high specificity. These requirements are fulfilled when the tracer is related to particular properties of the ore which are achieved at the moment of its genesis and are not significantly modified by smelting. Potential factors that may contribute to produce a specific geochemical signature in the ore are the geological age, the temperature of formation, the nature of the host rocks, and the nature of the medium (in most cases an acqueous solution or a magma) from which the metals were deposited. 3 3

Paolo Nimis

Fig. 1. Location of the main European lead-producing mining districts. Many of these districts are known to have been exploited since Roman times and before. In many cases lead has been a by-product of silver mining.

2. Rationale of lead isotope analysis

isotopes) must remain constant. At first approximation, the lead isotope composition of the deposit will then simply depend on its geological age.

Natural lead consists of four isotopes, which are labelled according to their atomic mass, i.e. the number of protons + neutrons in their atoms. These are 204Pb, 206Pb, 207Pb and 208 Pb. The heaviest three isotopes (206Pb, 207Pb and 208Pb) are “radiogenic”, i.e. they are continuously produced by radioactive decay of uranium (238U and 235U) and thorium (232Th). The lightest isotope (204Pb) is not radiogenic, therefore its abundance on Earth has remained constant since its early accretion about 4.5 billion years ago. It follows that: (i) the ratios of the concentrations of radiogenic isotopes over the non-radiogenic 204Pb must have increased during geological time; (ii) the average isotopic composition of the Earth at any time of its history can be exactly predicted if we know the original 238U/204Pb, 235U/204Pb and 232Th/204Pb ratios. These ratios are reasonably well known from geochemical evidence.

Complications arise because the Earth has not remained homogeneous since its creation, so that different portions (e.g. the upper crust, the lower crust, the mantle,…) have achieved different U/Pb and Th/Pb ratios at various times during Earth’s evolution. As a consequence, different rock units have followed different lead isotope evolution curves. Therefore, the isotope composition of an ore deposit will depend not only on its age but also on the nature of the rocks from which lead was extracted. This can be an important source of isotopic variability within an ore district. The good thing is that this type of variability is again predictable to some extent, so that deposits formed at the same time should plot along lines (isochrons) in bivariate diagrams of, say, 207Pb/204Pb vs. 206Pb/204Pb (Fig. 2).

All rocks contain some Pb, U and Th in generally small to very small concentrations. For a typical lead deposit to develop, the metal must be extracted by acqueous fluids from the rocks in which it is contained, and redeposited in much more concentrated form at a specific site. From this very moment, Pb is separated from U and Th and its isotopic composition (i.e. the relative proportions of the four lead

Further complications may arise from geological processes such as metal remobilization and mixing, which may occur before, during and after the formation of the deposit. One of the possible consequences is that lead isotopes may simulate an “age” much younger or much older than real.

4 4

Some Remarks on the Use of Geochemical Tracers for Metal Provenancing

Fig. 2. Lead isotope ratios for Roman water pipes from Pompeii (after BONI et al. 2000), compared with the compositions of lead ore from major deposits from the circum-Mediterranean region. The two upper plots use the isotope ratio combination which has been mostly favoured by geologists. The two lower plots use the combination that has been adopted in most archaeological studies. Apart from a single object, which is probably made of Sardinian lead only, all other artefacts probably involved mixing/recycling of a heterogeneous Mediterranean lead supply of poorly defined origin. See text for further explanation. Dashed and solid lines in the 207Pb/204Pb vs. 206Pb/204Pb and 206Pb/204Pb vs. 207Pb/206Pb plots are lead isochrons and, respectively, growth curves calculated according to the simplified lead evolution model of Stacey and Kramers (STACEY, KRAMERS 1975) for different 238U/204Pb (µ2) ratios. Note the elongated shapes of most fields, which suggest natural mixing of various "types" of lead. Error bars indicate the typical analytical uncertainty of 0.1% (cf. GALE, STOS-GALE 2000). Data for Sierra Morena after KLEIN et al. 2009. Other data after the compilation of Scaife (SCAIFE 1995), with additional data for the Apuane Alps (northern Tuscany) after LATTANZI et al. 1992. The complex combination of factors which control the isotopic signature is likely to be different for each ore deposit. As a result of all the above geochemical processes, however, the isotopic composition of a deposit will not generally be a point, but rather a “cloud”, which may or may not be elongated along an isochron or mixing line (Fig. 2). Geochemical overlaps between different deposits may thus occur.

the relative source can be excluded. Conversely, if an object falls within a certain field in both diagrams, the relative source cannot be excluded. The reader should note that “cannot be excluded” is not the same as “is identified”. This is because of the above mentioned overlap problems, which are a rule rather than an exception. Of the several possible combinations of isotope ratios, the most commonly used are (i) 207Pb/204Pb vs. 206Pb/204Pb and 208 Pb/204Pb vs. 206Pb/204Pb, and (ii) 208Pb/206Pb vs. 207Pb/206Pb and 204Pb/206Pb vs. 207Pb/206Pb (Fig. 2). The first option is mostly used by geologists, while archaeologists generally prefer the second one. In principle, both choices are correct, in that both of them contain necessary information on all four isotopes. However, Fig. 2 shows that there are differences in the graphical output depending on the chosen combination. With the “archaeological” combination, the effect of analytical uncertainties is reduced, but the lead growth curves intersect the isochrons at a low angle. As a result, the apparent scatter is reduced, and the points tend to form a common, roughly linear array. The plots look smoother and individual fields are easily outlined, but overlap problems may be amplified. This may hamper correct evaluations if the compositions of the objects are visually compared with those

3. Isotopes ratios in bivariate diagrams The use of isotope ratios rather than their absolute concentrations has two advantages: first, the ratios are independent on the amount of lead and may therefore be used to characterise and compare a large range of materials, from pure lead ingots to copper artefacts in which lead is present only in trace concentrations; second, only three properly selected ratios will be necessary to fully describe the isotopic fingerprint. These ratios are generally used to construct two companion bivariate diagrams sharing the same x-axis. Data from different ore deposits are then plotted as clouds of individual points or as contoured fields. These clouds/fields provide the graphical basis for provenancing studies. Very simply put, if an object falls outside a certain field in any of the two diagrams (even allowing for analytical uncertainties), 5 5

Paolo Nimis

of their potential sources. With the “geological” combination of isotope ratios, the variability within the same ore district is emphasised: different sources may produce elongated arrays of points (corresponding to specific isochrons or mixing lines) or, in some cases, fields with apparently irregular shapes. A more careful examination will often show that an irregular field results from the union of several, more regular arrays, i.e. the field encompasses deposits (or portions of the same deposit) of different age and, possibly, different genesis (see south Sardinia in Fig. 2). Although the “geological” combination may be less easy to read to the non-geochemist, it allows more sensitive visual discrimination between the different potential sources. Furthermore, it provides a more suitable basis for the geological understanding of observed isotopic signatures and variability. As it will be shown below, this is often essential for a correct interpretation of the results in terms of metal provenancing, especially in the not uncommon case of a poor data coverage.

South-western Sardinia is another good example of a territory which experienced a very long (ca. 200 million years) and complex metallogenic history across relatively small geographical distances (e.g. B ONI et al. 1992; CARON et al. 1997); this translates into the wide and apparently irregular lead isotope fields shown in Fig. 2. Moreover, similar to Tuscany, there seems to be a systematic shift of lead isotope ratios from the south to the north-east and north-west sectors of the island (P INARELLI 2004), although data for the northern area so far refers only to copper ores from three localities (STOS-GALE et al. 1995, 1997) and to lead ore from a single locality (SWAINBANK et al. 1982). Although metallogenic provinces may show a large internal variability, individual deposits most often show very restricted isotopic compositions. This is particularly true for several so-called strata-bound deposits, a class of deposits which represent one of the major sources of lead. An example is provided by a cluster of deposits (Bleiberg, Mežica, Raibl, Salafossa), which are located along a restricted, ca. 150-km-long belt straddling the ItalianAustrian-Slovenian borders, and were formed at about the same time by similar geological processes (BRIGO et al. 1977). In this case, the overall variation in lead isotope ratios is less than 0.1%, i.e. comparable to the analytical uncertainty!

There has been some controversy as to how the isotopic “similarity” between an object and a source should be quantified. The recent papers by Pollard (POLLARD 2009) and Gale (GALE 2009) summarized the relevant critical issues. The point-to-point method of Stos-Gale et al. (STOSGALE et al. 1997) may rely on simple computer-based calculation routines and is probably preferable for very large numbers of data, in that it requires no external assumptions on their statistical distribution. Many archaeological provenance studies, however, have relied on a qualitative analysis of isotope plots, i.e. the visual comparison between data points and source fields, which remains a viable practice at least for limited numbers. Whatever the method used, it should be considered that the availability of a comprehensive database, extracted from well characterized ore samples, and an appropriate geological background, which allows discrimination of geological (not statistical!) outliers from truly representative data, remain unrenounceable requirements. As pointed out by Pollard (POLLARD 2009) and Gale (GALE 2009), the distribution of isotope compositions is the result of geological processes that cannot generally be described by statistical models. Excluding outliers on a mere statistical basis may thus lead to gross misinterpretations.

Conversely, ore deposits which are spread over a wide geographical area and were formed by independent geological processes may still show indistinguishable lead isotope compositions (see for instance the wide overlap between some Spanish and Sardinian or between some Spanish and Greek ores; Fig. 2), whereby it will be impossible to discriminate the metal sources from lead isotope data alone. In some cases, the overlap has a precise geological explanation and is therefore largely predictable. The above mentioned Bleiberg–Mežica–Raibl–Salafossa district is one of such cases. As a further example, many copper deposits from the Piedmont Nappe (a geologic unit which crops out for ca. 200 km on the Italian side of the Western Alps, from Val d’Aosta to south-western Piedmont) show fairly similar lead isotope compositions (ARTIOLI et al. 2009), as expected from their common origin: they were all formed in a Jurassic oceanic environment with seafloor volcanism, and underwent subsequent high-pressure metamorphism during Alpine orogeny.

4. Ore districts and ore deposits The concept of ore “district” can be very different depending on whether geological or archaeological criteria are adopted. From the archaeologist’s point of view, the geographical and historical aspects will be the most relevant, so that for example all lead deposits in Tuscany might well be considered as part of the same district. Identifying a Roman lead-bearing object as being made of lead from Tuscany rather than from Sardinia, southern Spain or Greece will already be a big achievement, whereas it will probably be of lesser relevance to decide whether the lead was extracted from the Apuane Alps or from the Campiglia Marittima area some 100 kilometres to the south. Yet the lead isotope compositions would be very different in the two cases, owing to the much younger geological age of the southern deposits (LATTANZI et al. 1992).

Indeed, the geological knowledge may allow one to predict the likely isotope composition of a deposit of known geological significance and yet unknown isotopic signature. A correct geological reading of lead isotope data may thus help to include as potential metal sources deposits for which analyses are scarce or not yet available, or even to limit the most likely area in which a yet undiscovered source should be found.

6 6

Some Remarks on the Use of Geochemical Tracers for Metal Provenancing

5. Mixing, recycling or lack of data?

alternative, but rather a complement to lead isotope analysis. Similar to lead isotopes, they can be used to define compositional groups of artefacts. Different from lead isotopes, they may be sensitive to fractionation during smelting processes and may thus be influenced by metallurgical skills; their interpretation is thus generally less straightforward. The reader is referred to PERNICKA 1999 and PERNICKA 2004 for a thorough review on the use of minor and trace elements in archaeological provenance studies.

Boni et al. (BONI et al. 2000) investigated Roman water pipes from Pompeii by lead isotope analysis. They compared their data with the isotopic signatures of several potential sources in the circum-Mediterranean area, including important ore districts from Spain, Sardinia, Tuscany and Greece. They found that only one of their objects was compatible with a single metal source, namely Sardinia. All other data plotted within what appeared to be a gap in lead isotope ratios for the Mediterranean region (Fig. 2). The gap derives from the fact that the ore deposits considered were formed in two distinct geological periods, namely the Paleozoic–Triassic (ca. 500 to 200 million years ago; Sardinia, northern Tuscany, and south-western Spain) and the Late Cretaceous–Tertiary (less than 100 million years ago; southern Tuscany, Greece, and south-eastern Spain). Since most of the points fell outside the potential source fields and showed a significant spread in 208Pb/204Pb and 207 Pb/204Pb ratios, Boni et al. (BONI et al. 2000) reasonably concluded that most of the analyzed Roman lead came from mixing or recycling of lead from at least three different original sources.

Recent works have shown that a combination of a large number of geochemical tracers, including for instance isotopes of elements other than lead (e.g. copper and tin for bronze objects) and trace elements occurring at partsper-million level or lower, can permit more powerful discrimination of metal sources. Artioli et al. (ARTIOLI et al. 2008a, ARTIOLI et al. 2008b) successfully introduced the use of advanced multivariate statistical analysis of lead isotopes and a large number of trace elements for provenancing of copper in the Alpine region: in the case study area of Agordo (south-eastern Alps, Italy), copper ore and historical slags were found at the same site, and the method allowed the metal to be traced during the whole process from mining to smelting. Conversely, a fragment of prehistoric copper (Final Bronze Age) from the same area proved geochemically incompatible with local ores, but showed a very similar signature as some copper ores from Val dei Mocheni, some 60 kilometres away.

The fields used by Boni et al. (BONI et al. 2000) to contour potential metal sources were somewhat smaller than shown in Fig. 2, which incorporates several additional data. The updated diagrams allow for more possible mixing combinations than previously envisaged: e.g. the three samples with the highest 207Pb/204Pb ratios, which according to Boni et al. (BONI et al. 2000) most likely required a major contribution from deposits in southern Tuscany, might as well have been produced with Spanish lead alone (from two distinct localities) or by mixing of some Spanish and Greek sources (Fig. 2).

Another successful example of the use of combined geochemical tracers, aided by careful geological interpretation of the data, is provided by Artioli et al. (ARTIOLI et al. 2009), who investigated copper objects from M. Cavanero, near Chiusa di Pesio, in southern Piedmont, Italy. Lead isotope analysis allowed to exclude several potential sources from the Italian and French Western Alps and Ligurian Apennine, and to limit the quest to mineralizations characterized by a strong highpressure metamorphic overprint. The significant contents of zinc and very low contents of arsenic and antimony then allowed to exclude some Ligurian deposits dominated by the so-called fahlerz minerals (tetrahedrite– tennantite, which are naturally enriched in As and Sb), which were among the closest to the archaeological site, and to designate the northerly deposits of the Piedmont Nappe, which are dominated by the copper-mineral chalcopyrite and zinc-mineral sphalerite, as the most likely source. Although, the exact locality of metal extraction could not be indicated, the potential provenance region could be restricted to a well-defined geological unit and relatively restricted geographical area.

Fig. 2 also shows recent data by Klein et al. (KLEIN et al. 2009) for the Sierra Morena ore district, southern Spain. The new data partly fill the above isotopic gap. Indeed, several objects of Boni et al. (BONI et al. 2000) with low 207Pb/204Pb ratios might have been produced using lead from Sierra Morena alone, without any need for mixing with other sources. Mixing remains a likely hypothesis anyway, given the large overall variability in lead isotope data in the objects analysed. Even so, lead from Sierra Morena might have been a major, previously neglected component for all objects analysed by Boni et al. (BONI et al. 2000). Only historical data or other types of evidence might exclude this geochemically compatible source from the list of potential metal supplies. This exercise highlights the importance of using comprehensive databases and, whenever possible, historical constraints before any conclusion is drawn from lead isotope studies.

6. Other geochemical tracers 7. Concluding remarks

Minor and trace accessory elements may provide indications on the geological nature of the minerals from which the metals were extracted, on the geological nature of their host rocks, as well as on the smelting techniques adopted. In this respect, accessory elements are not an

Despite the fiery debates of the last two decades, geochemical tracers remain among the most powerful tools for metal provenance studies. However, the potential of the geochemical methods relies on the availability of 7 7

Paolo Nimis

comprehensive and well characterized databases and on a sound geological interpretation of the data. It must always be considered that geochemical analysis alone can only indicate the compatibility or incompatibility of a particular source and, whenever possible, should be supported by historical and archaeological evidence. Mixing and recycling, especially in historical times, may confuse the isotopic record and interpretations may become very difficult or even impossible.

2000, pp. 201-208. BRIGO et al. 1977 – L. BRIGO, L. KOSTELKA, P. OMENETTO, H.-J. SCHNEIDER, E. SCHROLL, O. SCHULZ, I. ŠTRUCL, Comparative reflections on four Alpine Pb-Zn deposits, in D.D. Klemm, H.-J. Schneider (eds.), Time- and Strata-Bound Ore deposits, Berlin-Heidelberg 1977, pp. 273-293. CARON et al. 1997 – C. CARON, J. LANCELOT, P. OMENETTO, J.-J. ORGEVAL, Role of the Sardic tectonic phase in the metallogenesis of SW Sardinia (Iglesiente): lead isotope evidence, “European Journal of Mineralogy”, 9, 1997, pp. 1005-1016.

In the case of the Carlino glazed pottery, the origin of the lead used to prepare the glaze remains as yet unexplored. In fact, it is difficult to predict whether a geochemical study could ever provide significant information on its provenance until a preliminary geochemical characterization of the glazes is made. Given the small amounts of metal required to produce the glaze, one may reasonably envisage that all the lead came from recycling rather than from a direct mine supply. A large variability in the lead isotope composition of the glazes would support this hypothesis. It is also noteworthy that some of the nearest potential sources of lead (e.g. Bleiberg, Mežica, Raibl, Salafossa; Fig. 1) have such a restricted range of lead isotope compositions that a direct provenance from that area could easily be verified. Significant concentrations of elements such as bismuth or silver, which typically accompany lead in several important European ore districts, but are virtually absent in these particular Alpine deposits (BRIGO et al. 1977), would provide additional constraints on the lead sources. The behaviour of these elements during metallurgical processing, however, should be properly considered.

GALE 2009 – N.H. GALE, A response to the paper of A.M. Pollard: What a long, strange trip it’s been: lead isotopes and archaeology, in A.J. Shortland, I.C. Freestone, T. Rehren (eds.), From mine to microscope. Advances in the study of ancient technology, Oxford 2009, pp. 192-196. GALE, STOS-GALE 2000 – N.H. GALE, Z. STOS-GALE, Lead isotope analyses applied to provenance studies, in E. Ciliberto, G. Spoto (eds.), Modern analytical methods in art and archaeology, New York 2000, pp. 503-584. KLEIN et al. 2009 – S. KLEIN, C. DOMERGUE, Y. LAHAYE, G.P. BREY, H.-M. VON KAENEL, The lead and copper isotopic composition of copper ores from the Sierra Morena (Spain), “Journal of Iberian Geology”, 35, 2009, pp. 59-68. LATTANZI et al. 1992 – P. LATTANZI, W. HANSMANN, V. KOEPPEL, P. COSTAGLIOLA, Source of metals in metamorphic ore-forming processes in the Apuane Alps (NW Tuscany, Italy): Constraints by Pb-isotope data, “Mineralogy and Petrology”, 45, 1992, pp. 217-229. PERNICKA 1999 – E. PERNICKA, Trace element fingerprinting of ancient copper: A guide to technology or provenance?, in S.M.M. Young., A.M. Pollard, P. Budd, R.A. Ixer (eds.), Metals in antiquity, BAR International Series 792, Oxford 1999, pp. 163-171.

Bibliography ARTIOLI et al. 2008a – G. ARTIOLI, B. BAUMGARTEN, M. MARELLI, B. GIUSSANI, S. RECCHIA, P. NIMIS, I. GIUNTI, I. ANGELINI, P. OMENETTO, Chemical and isotopic tracers in Alpine copper deposits: geochemical links between mines and metal, “Geo.Alp”, 5, 2008 pp. 139-148.

PERNICKA 2004 – E. PERNICKA, Archaeometallurgy: Examples of the application of scientific methods to the provenance of archaeological metal objects, in M. Martini, M. Milazzo, M. Piacentini (eds.), Physics methods in archaeometry, Bologna-Oxford 2004, pp. 309-329.

ARTIOLI et al. 2008b – G. ARTIOLI, P. NIMIS, GRUPPO ARCA, S. RECCHIA, M. MARELLI, B. GIUSSANI, Geochemical links between copper mines and ancient metallurgy: the Agordo case study, “Rendiconti Online della Società Geologica Italiana”, 4, 2008, pp. 15-18.

POLLARD 2009 – A.M. POLLARD, What a long, strange trip it’s been: lead isotopes and archaeology, in A.J. Shortland, I.C. Freestone, T. Rehren (eds.), From mine to microscope. Advances in the study of ancient technology, Oxford 2009, pp. 181-189.

ARTIOLI et al. 2009 – G. ARTIOLI, I. ANGELINI, I. GIUNTI, P. OMENETTO, I. VILLA, La provenienza del metallo degli oggetti di Monte Cavanero: considerazioni basate sugli isotopi del Pb e sulla geochimica delle mineralizzazioni cuprifere limitrofe. In M. Venturino Gambari (ed.), Il ripostiglio del Monte Cavanero di Chiusa di Pesio (Cuneo), Alessandria 2009, pp. 167-178.

SCAIFE 1997 – B. SCAIFE, Lead isotope ratios for Mediterranean ores, Edited database, available at http://www.brettscaife.net/lead/data/index.html [Accessed: 5 September 2009]. STACEY, KRAMERS 1975 – J.S. STACEY, J.D. KRAMERS, Approximation of terrestrial lead isotope evolution by a two stage model, “Earth and Planetary Science Letters”, 26, 1975, pp. 207-221.

BONI et al. 1992 – M. BONI, A. IANNACE, V. KOEPPEL, G. FRÜH-GREEN, W. HANSMANN, Late to Post-Hercynian hydrothermal activity and mineralization in Southwest Sardinia (Italy), “Economic Geology”, 87, 1992, pp. 21132137.

STOS-GALE et al. 1995 – Z.A. STOS-GALE, N.H. GALE, J. HOUGHTON, R. SPEAKMAN, Lead isotope data from the Isotrace Laboratory, Oxford: Archaeometry data base 1, ores from the Western Mediterranean, “Archaeometry”, 37, 1995, pp. 407-415.

BONI et al. 2000 – M. BONI, G. DI MAIO, R. FREI, I.M. VILLA, Lead isotopic evidence for a mixed provenance for Roman water pipes from Pompeii, “Archaeometry”, 42, 8 8

Some Remarks on the Use of Geochemical Tracers for Metal Provenancing

STOS-GALE et al. 1997 – Z.A. STOS-GALE, G. MALIOTIS, N.H. GALE, N. ANNETS, Lead isotope characteristics of the Cyprus copper ore deposits applied to provenance studies of copper oxhide ingots, “Archaeometry”, 39, 1997, pp. 83-123.

SWAINBANK et al. 1982 – I.G. SWAINBANK, T.J. SHEPHERD, R. CABOI, R. MASSOLI-NOVELLI, Lead isotopic composition of some galena ores from Sardinia, “Periodico di Mineralogia” 51, 1982, 275-286.

9 9

10 10

WHY IS CERAMIC TECHNOLOGY OFTEN NEGLECTED? NININA CUOMO DI CAPRIO Abstract. In recent years archaeometry has gained an important place in archaeology. Methods of mineralogy, chemistry and physics are increasingly used to characterize archaeological vessels and to find out how they were produced and what their function was. In many occasions it has been pointed out the importance of combining mineralogical-petrographic and chemical investigations to provide wide range and relevant information on vessels and relate pottery from archaeological sites to possible provenance contexts. While laboratory analyses have now stable place in archaeology pottery technology, on the contrary, is often neglected: it seems that there is not much interest in the tools and techniques used by the ancient potter to make the vessel and often the link is missing between laboratory analysis and ancient craft. Sometimes archaeologists seem to accept laboratory results without considering technological implications; composition and technological characteristics (such as thickness, porosity, permeability, durability of the vessels and also their decorative style) may give some significant information indirectly, particularly on the specific needs vessels have been producted to. That’s why archaeologist should be expert in the whole production sequence of ceramic ware, from clay to firing. Riassunto. Il principale obiettivo del presente contributo è quello di focalizzare l’attenzione, attraverso una significativa serie di esemplificazioni, sull’importanza della tradizione tecnologica nello studio delle ceramiche archeologiche. Spesso infatti si può osservare una sorta di atteggiamento di “passività”da parte degli archeologi nel recepire i risultati delle analisi mineralogico-petrografiche e chimiche sui manufatti; talvolta non viene adeguatamente considerata l’utilità, quando non la necessità di adottare anche una prospettiva tecnologica nel valutare i risultati archeometrici. L’archeometria, infatti, ormai rappresenta un utile quanto generalizzato strumento di ausilio alla comprensione delle produzioni ceramiche antiche; tuttavia la conoscenza approfondita delle diverse fasi del ciclo produttivo della ceramica, dall’argilla utilizzata alla cottura dei vasi, può consentire all’archeologo di valutare nella maniera più efficace i dati delle analisi scientifiche, fornendo anche elementi utili per indirizzarne gli obiettivi.

In recent years archaeometry has gained an important place in archaeology, also because it is “fashionable” to add laboratory analysis to archaeological data. Methods of mineralogy, chemistry and physics are increasingly used to characterize archaeological vessels and to find out how they were produced and what their function was.

measurements. Physicochemical techniques are based on changes in the elements when energy is introduced into them, for instance by bombarding them with X rays or other sources of energy. XRF, PIKE, PIGE, SEM-EDS, INAA, and other new techniques have high sensitivity, accuracy and are very rapid, which may justify their high cost.

In provenance studies, which relate pottery recovered from archaeological sites to the possible sources of local clay and temper, the most widely used methods are mineralogicalpetrographic and chemical analysis. Petrographic techniques allow qualitative (and also semi-quantitative) description of the mineral components of the vessel (but cannot identify its chemical composition). Chemical analysis may identify chemical elements present in the vessel (major and minor elements, trace elements), but cannot provide information as to how the elements became a part of the vessel, whether in the minerals forming the clay or in its compounds. Hence the importance of combining mineral and chemical investigations.

Laboratory analysis now has a stable place in archaeology and it is easy to expect increasing interest. Pottery technology, on the contrary, is often neglected. It seems that archaeologists are less concerned with pottery making, from obtaining and preparing clay, to forming, throwing, finishing, decorating the pot and firing. Generally speaking, it seems that there is not much interest in the tools and techniques used by the ancient potter to make the vessel and often the link is missing between laboratory analysis and ancient craft. This is the point to which I would like to draw your attention. It may happen, in fact, that an archaeologist accepts the results of laboratory analysis without questioning them from a technological perspective. Here comes an example.

As a rule, petrography uses traditional instruments: the binocular microscope and the polarizing microscope on thin sections which allow identification of different kinds of minerals and their main features (size, shape, percentage, etc.). A more complex technique is XRD (X-ray diffraction), a method of ceramic characterization based on identifying minerals (mainly temper) by their crystalline structure.

Chemical analysis of a vessel shows a very high content of SiO2 (about 75%), extremely poor in CaO (less than 1%), poor in alkali Na2O, K2O (1-2%), rich in iron (over 5%). In examining these results a number of technological questions arise. The first relates to the characteristics of the clay used by the ancient potter to make the vessel, particularly the clay’s plasticity. Such a high content of SiO2 made the clay very sandy, so rich in quartz as to make it difficult to throw a big pot on the wheel. Are we to infer that the pot was hand built? does the thickness of the sherd confirm this hypothesis? Is the thickness even (which may point to hand-building) or is the

Chemical analysis has a long tradition in the history of chemistry, but it is only in recent decades that a number of analytical instruments have been developed, which can analyze a bulk sample of a vessel, or a particular tiny point of it (point analysis), increasing the accuracy and the speed of 11 11

Ninina Cuomo Di Caprio

upper part thinner than the lower part (which may point to throwing on a potter’s wheel)?

relationship between the form of a vessel and its function. In fact, not only the form of the vessel but also its composition and technological characteristics contribute to make a product that meet specific needs. It is thus crucial to check thickness of the vessel (which is related to form, size, clay used in forming the vessel); porosity and permeability (i.e. presence of pores within the wall which allow liquid to move through the wall), durability (which is related to shape and wall thickness), stability (i.e. its resistance to being upset which is determined by shape, breadth of the base, center of gravity), and, last but not least, colour of the clay after firing. Some of these properties may give some information indirectly, for instance the thickness of the wall of a jar may indicate its weight and combined with porosity may indicate if it is suitable for transferring liquids (water/wine/oil).

Further questions regard colour. Such a high content of iron (over 5%) should produce a dark red colour, all the more so without the bleaching effect of calcium oxide (let us remember that colour is the result of the bleaching effect of calcium versus the reddening effect of iron). Is it so ? Another example may regard samples of clay from an archaeological site which are to be submitted to laboratory analysis in order to relate the clay to ceramic ware recovered in excavations in that same site. It would be best to check the characteristics of the clay in advance, i.e. if it is a good pottery clay, neither extremely fine textured and sticky, not extremely rich of minerals and coarse. Such checking would require measuring plasticity, workability, shrinkage, size of inclusions, etc. If the ancient potter had to modify the clay’s properties (adding temper to make it suitable for pottery forming, or, on the contrary, removing inclusions from coarse clay) the results of laboratory analysis might be misleading and of little use. When the clay is not suitable for pottery making, the sample should be eliminated.

Also decorative style may have a function: surface treatment may modify the thermal properties of a vessel as a rough exterior wall draws in more heat from a fire, thus making a better cooking pot. To fully appreciate these and other properties, archaeologists should be expert in pottery making. Knowing ceramic technology is a must, and it should never be neglected.

Knowing the production sequence of ceramic ware, from clay to firing, may help archaeologists to determine the

12 12

AQUILEIA AND ITS TERRITORY IN THE FOURTH CENTURY AD CLAUDIO ZACCARIA Abstract. In spite of the main opinion, new archaeological and epigraphical evidences show that during the fourth century Aquileia didn’t decline. Its political and economic importance grew in consequence of the administrative reform carried out by Diocletian and of its importance in the struggles between the rulers as well as of its location on the route of invasions. Actually the story of Aquileia in Late Antiquity is above all a story of great urban transformation: a new renovated forum, city walls, circus, new baths, market places and monumental storehouses and christian church buildings mark the new urban look of late antique Aquileia. Imported late roman wares (amphoras, ceramics an so on) from Eastern Mediterranean and from Africa witness the importance of the adriatic harbour. On the territory there is evidence of continuity in the distribution of rural settlements, even if the archaeological researches show structural transformations of the former villas and there are scanty evidences of late antique factories on the territory. So that the case of Carlino remains at the moment almost isolated. Riassunto. Diversamente da quanto si credeva, le nuove scoperte archeologiche ed epigrafiche mostrano che durante il IV secolo Aquileia non decadde. La sua importanza politica ed economica crebbe in seguito alle riforme realizzate da Diocleziano, alla sua importanza nelle lotte per il potere e alla sua posizione sulla direttrice delle invasioni. A ben vedere, la storia di Aquileia nel IV secolo è soprattutto storia di una grande trasformazione urbanistica: un foro rinnovato, le mura urbane, il circo, nuove terme, piazze di mercato e granai monumentali e soprattutto gli edifici per il culto cristiano segnano il nuovo aspetto urbanistico di Aquileia nella tarda antichità. Le importazioni di merci dal Mediterraneo orientale e dall’Africa (soprattutto anfore e ceramica) testimoniano l’importanza del porto anche in questo periodo. Sul territorio vi è evidenza di continuità insediativa, anche se la ricerca archeologica ha evidenziato notevoli trasformazioni strutturali nelle ville precedenti e ci sono scarse presenze di impianti produttivi sul territorio. Il caso di Carlino si presenta pertanto come un fenomeno isolato.

opinion of some scholars it was merely the residence of the governor (corrector Venetiae et Histriae)8, in which many emperors after the time of Diocletianus frequently resided9. Others believe that there was actually an imperial palace, and propose to identify it in the archaeological structures of a great and rich domus found in proximity to ancient circus10.

1. The Town Even if the ancient buildings of Aquileia have served as stone quarries for centuries1, and no edifices of the Roman period remain above ground, most recent researches brought to light important archaeological and epigraphical evidences for the story of Aquileia in the 4th century2.

Aquileia became a station of the high Adriatic fleet’s offices11 (it was seat of the praefectus classis Venetum Aquileiae12). A mint was established here from about 295 to 402 AD.13. In addition to the governors the city hosted several imperial officers (for example the praepositus thesaurorum Aquileiensium Venetiae and other palatini equites14) as well as the high commands of the imperial troops (comitatenses and limitanei)15. New granaries (public and private) were built in order to store provisions for the city and the soldiers16. An imperial cloth factory (gynaecium,

It is now clear that during the 4th century Aquileia – as many other towns of Roman Italy3 – didn’t decline4. On the contrary its political and economic importance grew in consequence of the administrative reform carried out by Diocletian at the end of the 3rd century5. In this period a basically middle-ranking city was promoted to capital of the new provincia Venetia et Histria6. In the ancient sources there is evidence of a “palatium”7: in the 1

MAINARDIS, ZACCARIA 1993; GIOVANNINI, MASELLI SCOTTI 2009, p. 37, and n. 1. 2 A review of some recent historiography in BUORA 1997b. The standard work is now Sotinel 2005 (with some caveats: see R. Bratoz, “Quaderni Giuliani di Storia”, XXVIII, 1, 2007, pp. 7-50; G. Cuscito, “Aquileia Nostra”, LXXVIII, 2007, cc. 553-562 and “Rivista di Archeologia Cristiana”, LXXXIII, 2007, pp. 469-489; S. Tavano, “Memorie Storiche Forogiuliesi”, LXXXV, 2007, pp. 327-335; L. Grig, “Bryn Mawr Classical Review”, 2007.05.24). 3 CRACCO RUGGINI 1977; CRACCO RUGGINI 1985a; CRACCO RUGGINI 1985b; GIARDINA 1986; WARD PERKINS 1988; CRACCO RUGGINI 1989; GENTILI 1992; PAVOLINI 1993; GIARDINA 1993; HUMPHRIES 1999; BROGIOLO, WARD-PERKINS 1999; WITSCHEL 2001 4 The bibliography (starting from CALDERINI 1930, pp. 65-66) is summarized in CANTINO WATAGHIN 2004; see also ZACCARIA 2008; MARANO 2009. 5 KOLB 1987; GIARDINA 1993; ARCE 1994; CECCONI 1994; CECCONI 1998; CECCONI 2000; KUHOFF 2001; CECCONI 2003. 6 ZACCARIA 1986; HAENSCH 1997; CECCONI 2000, pp. 45-49; RIEß 2001, p. 276; CECCONI 2003, pp. 416-417 and n. 65; SOTINEL 2005, pp. 16-17. 7 Pan. Lat. 6, 2 and 7, 6: in Aquileiensi palatio.

8 DUVAL 1973; BERTACCHI 1990a; JÄGGI 1990, pp. 171-172; CECCONI 1994, p. 53, n. 14; KUHOFF 2001, p. 567 and 723; RIEß 2001, pp. 274-278; SOTINEL 2005, pp. 18-20. 9 B ONFIOLI 1973; KUHOFF 2001, p. 716; RIEß 2001; SOTINEL 2005, pp. 1724. 10 LOPREATO 1987; MIAN 2004; MIAN 2006; TIUSSI 2009, p. 80. 11 PANCIERA 1978, pp. 133-134; REDDÉ 1986, p. 216; SOTINEL 1998; REDDÉ 2001; CECCONI 2003, p. 415; SOTINEL 2005, p. 17. 12 Not. Dign. Occ. XLII. 13 PANVINI ROSATI 1978; GORINI 1980, pp. 707-721; GORINI 1987, pp. 269270; CRACCO RUGGINI 1987, pp. 209-216; see also CECCONI 1994, p. 53, nt. 17; KUHOFF 2001, p. 532; SOTINEL 2005, pp. 16-17; PONZELLINI 2009. 14 Not. Dign. Occ. X. Perhaps also the patronus of Aquileia Q. Axilius Urbicus, vir perfectissimus, magister sacrarum cognitionum, a studiis et a consiliis Augg. (BRUSIN, InscrAq, 478): PLRE, I, 1971, s.v. Urbicus 3; CECCONI 2003, p. 415; ZACCARIA 2008, p. 134, n. 19. 15 ZACCARIA 1981, p. 80 e ntt. 98, 99; LETTICH 1982; TAVANO 1985, c. 528; PAVAN 1987; SPEIDEL 1990; B RIZZI 1992; LE BOHEC 2002. 16 MANDRUZZATO, MASELLI SCOTTI 1994; CARRE, MASELLI SCOTTI 1998, pp. 211-243; TIUSSI 2004; SOTINEL 2005, pp. 34-35.

13 13

Claudio Zaccaria

directed by a procurator) was also established to supply the court and the army17.

The first half of the 4th century (in particular the age of Constantine I32) was a key period for building activity.

Aquileia and its territory often played a part in the struggles between the rulers of the 4th century. The town was besieged by Constantine I in 312 during his campaign against Maxentius18. In 340, emperor Constantine II was killed under its walls while attempting to take the city from his younger brother Constans19. Aquileia and ‘an ancient fort’ on the Alpine route (Castra or Ad Pirum) were the bulwark of Magnentius’ resistence against Constantius II20. Later the town was besieged during the civil war between Constantius II and Iulianus21. In 388 the usurper Magnus Maximus was defeated and executed in Aquileia by order of Theodosius I22. Not far from Aquileia, in the valley of river Frigidus (Vipacco/Vipava), the army of the Christian emperor Theodosius defeated the pagan troops of Eugenius23. The last presence of a Roman emperor in Aquileia is recorded during the civil war of 424-425 AD24.

A great Christian basilica – in the form of two linked intramural basilicas, forming a recognisable monumental complex, whose magnificent floor mosaics with the donors’ inscriptions were brought to light at the beginning of the 19th century33 – was erected under the bishop Theodorus less than thirty years after the great persecution of Diocletianus and Maximianus against the Christians (302-303) and only a few years after the Edict of Milan of Constantine, who proclaimed religious toleration for christians (313 AD)34. Other basilicas and cult buildings were built in Aquileia and in the neighbouring territory in the 4th and 5th centuries35. But church building is only a part of a wider building activity36. The city retained its classical form, focused on the newly renovated forum, where reliefs, statues and inscriptions celebrated the glorious past of the Roman colony37, surrounded again by a considerably enlarged circuit of walls38.

Aquileia was on the road of the invasions25. So Rome, beginning from the second century (Marcomannic wars of Marcus Aurelius26), start fortifying the area where Alps descend to the Adriatic sea. By the last quarter of the 3rd century the fortifications evolved into an independent administrative zone secured by an extensive system of forts and defensive walls (claustra Alpium Iuliarum)27. Its centre were fortress Castra (Ajdovščina in Vipava Valley) and Ad Pirum (Selva del Pero, Hrušica, Birnbaumwald)28.

New baths39 (called thermae felices Constantinianae as in Rome40) and a great circus41 joined to the amphitheatre and the theatre (or theatres)42. New storehouses, erected under Constantine I in proximity to the river harbour, and two market areas near the forum and in proximity to the late antique walls43 witness the importance of maritime commerce in late antique Aquileia as it is attested also by the frequency of the mention of Aquileia in Diocletian’s Edictum de pretiis44 and by the archaeological evidence of imported

Notwithstanding it was besieged by Alaric and the Vandals in 401 and again unsuccessfully in 408 AD29. The Adriatic city was also a hot point of the religious controversies: the well known council held in the city in 381 was only the first of a series of Councils of Aquileia that have been convoked over the centuries30.

2004; SOTINEL 2005, pp. 28-47. See also ZACCARIA 2000; ZACCARIA 2005; ZACCARIA 2008. 32 RIEß 2001. 33 CAILLET 1993; ZETTLER 2001; CAILLET 2006. 34 CANTINO WATAGHIN 1995; PIVA 1998; BERTACCHI 2000; SOTINEL 2005, pp. 41-47. 35 BERTACCHI 1980; CANTINO WATAGHIN 1989; TAVANO 2000; VILLA 2000b; BERTACCHI 2002 ; CUSCITO 2004, pp. 514-523; VILLA 2004; SOTINEL 2005, pp. 72-76 ; CUSCITO 2009. 36 CANTINO WATAGHIN 1996. 37 ZACCARIA 1996; MASELLI SCOTTI, ZACCARIA 1998; ZACCARIA 1998; ZACCARIA 2000; SOTINEL 2000; BUORA 2000; ZACCARIA 2001; SOTINEL 2003; SOTINEL 2005, pp. 37-41; JANNIARD 2006; TIUSSI 2009, p. 79 ; MASELLI SCOTTI, RUBINICH 2009, pp. 99-100. 38 BONETTO 2004, pp. 187-189; SOTINEL 2005, pp. 29-33; BONETTO 2009, pp. 89-92. 39 Grandi Terme 2003; LOPREATO 2004; REBAUDO 2004; REBAUDO 2006; TIUSSI 2009, p. 80; MASELLI SCOTTI, RUBINICH 2009, pp. 108-110. 40 AE 1996, 694; AE 2001, 1008; a better reading in RIEß 2001, pp. 271-272, n° 2: [Restitutori operum publi]/corum [d(omino) n(ostro) Fl(avio) Constantino] / Maximo [Pio Felici Victori] / semper Augusto / Septimius Aelianus v(ir) c(larissimus) et F[l(avius)] / Mucianus v(ir) p(erfectissimus) p(rae)p(ositi) operis / [f]elicium thermarum / [Co]nstantiniarum pieta[ti] / [eius] semper dicatissi[mi]. See also RIEß 2001, pp. 272-274, n° 3; AE 2001, 1009: [Imp(eratori) Cae]s(ari) Flavi[o] / [Constant]ino Maxim[o] / [Victori s]emper Au[g(usto)] / [--- therm]as indulgent[ia] / [eius vetusta]te conla[bsas] / ------. 41 BUORA 1988a; BERTACCHI 1994; BASSO 2004; SOTINEL 2005, pp. 36-37; MASELLI SCOTTI, RUBINICH 2009, pp. 101-103; see also HUMPHREY 1986. 42 BERTACCHI 1994; BASSO 1999; BASSO 2004; SOTINEL 2005, pp. 36-37. 43 MIRABELLA ROBERTI 1973; CARRE, MASELLI SCOTTI 1998, pp. 228-234; MASELLI SCOTTI, TIUSSI 1999; TIUSSI 2004, pp. 292-297; SOTINEL 2005, pp. 33-36; CARRE et al. 2007, p. 543; TIUSSI 2009, pp. 77-79; MASELLI SCOTTI, RUBINICH, p. 108. 44 BISCARDI 1987; SOTINEL 1998, pp. 56-61; KUHOFF 2001, p. 562. See Iulian., Orat., II, 17.

But the story of Aquileia in Late Antiquity is above all a story of great urban transformation31.

17 Not. Dign. Occ., XI, 49: procurator gynaecii Aquileiensis Venetiae inferioris; WILD 1976. 18 SOTINEL 2003, pp. 376-377 and 394; SOTINEL 2005, pp. 47-48. 19 Epit. De Caes., 41: in fluvium cui nomen Alsa est, non longe ab Aquileia; an epigraphic evidence in RIEß 2001, pp. 282-283. See BLECKMANN 2003; SOTINEL 2003, p. 378 and 394; SOTINEL 2005, p. 48. 20 BUORA 1996b; BLECKMANN 1999; SOTINEL 2003, pp. 378-383 and 395397; SOTINEL 2005, pp. 49-54; C ONTI 2006; VANNESSE 2007, cc. 321-322. 21 SZIDAT 1977, pp. 51-52; SOTINEL 2003, pp. 383-387 and 397-399; SOTINEL 2005, pp. 55-59. 22 BRATOŽ 2003, pp. 484-493; SOTINEL 2003, pp. 388-391 and 399-401; SOTINEL 2005, pp. 59-62. 23 BRATOŽ 1996; BRATOŽ 2003, pp. 496-503. 24 BRATOŽ 2003, pp. 509-512; SOTINEL 2005, pp. 239-240. 25 DUVAL 1976. 26 ZACCARIA 2002; BIGLIARDI 2007. 27 BOSIO 1979; ZACCARIA 1981; RODA 2000; VILLA 2000a; MARCONE 2004; BIGLIARDI 2004a, BIGLIARDI 2004b, VANNESSE 2007. 28 ULBERT 1981; VIDRIH PERKO 1993; VEDALDI IASBEZ 1994, pp. 101-103, 432, 449 (Ad Pirum summas Alpes, in Alpe Iulia), 444-46 (Castra, Fluvio Frigido). 29 BRATOŽ 2003, pp. 504-508; SOTINEL 2005, pp. 235-237. 30 Concilio 1981; CUSCITO 1982; SOTINEL 2005, pp. 142-169. 31 BERTACCHI 1980, pp. 185-274; FÉVRIER 1981; BERTACCHI 1982; BUORA 1988a; JÄGGI 1990; BERTACCHI 1990; GENTILI 1992; CECCONI 1994, p. 53, nt. 14; BUORA 2000; SOTINEL 2003; CANTINO WATAGHIN 2004; VILLA

14 14

Aquileia and Its Territory in the Fourth Century AD

late Roman wares (amphoras, ceramics an so on) from eastern Mediterranean and from Africa found in recent excavations in the port areas45.

We are expecting some answers from the contributors to this international meeting.

Bibliography

So we can share the opinion of Paul Février that in the rich and decorated domus of the 4th century Aquileia “life continued in the frame of the heritage of the Roman past”46.

ARCE 1994 – X. ARCE, La transformación administrativa de Italia: Diocleciano, in L'Italie d’Auguste à Dioclétien, Actes du Colloque International (Rome, École Française, de 25-28 mars 1992), Roma 1994, pp. 399-409. BASSO 1999 – P. BASSO, Architettura e memoria dell’antico. Teatri, anfiteatri e circhi della Venetia romana, Roma 1999. BASSO 2004 – P. BASSO, Topografia degli spazi ludici di Aquileia, “Antichità Altoadriatiche”, LIX, 2004, pp. 317337. BERTACCHI 1976 – L. BERTACCHI, La ceramica invetriata di Carlino, “Aquileia Nostra”, XLVIII, 1976, cc. 181-194. BERTACCHI 1980 – L. BERTACCHI, Architettura e mosaico, in Da Aquileia a Venezia. Una mediazione tra l’Europa e l’Oriente dal II secolo a.C. al VI secolo d.C., Milano 1980, pp. 97-274. BERTACCHI 1982 – L. BERTACCHI, Edilizia civile nel IV secolo ad Aquileia, “Antichità Altoadriatiche”, XXII, 1982, pp. 337-357. BERTACCHI 1990a – L. BERTACCHI, Aquileia, l’organizzazione urbanistica, in Milano capitale dell’impero romano. 286-402 d.C., Milano 1990, pp. 209-212. BERTACCHI 1990b – L. BERTACCHI, La ceramica di Carlino, in Milano capitale dell'Impero romano. 286-402 d.C., Milano 1990, pp. 215-226. BERTACCHI 1994 – L. BERTACCHI, Aquileia: teatro, anfiteatro e circo, “Antichità Altoadriatiche”, XLI, 1994, pp. 163-181 BERTACCHI 2000 – L. BERTACCHI, Le fasi architettoniche del complesso episcopale di Aquileia nelle variazioni dei mosaici, in S. Tavano, G. Bergamini, S. Cavazza (eds.), Aquileia e il suo patriarcato, Atti del Convegno Internazionale di Studio (Udine, 21-23 ottobre 1999), Pubblicazioni della Deputazione di Storia Patria per il Friuli, 29, Udine 2000, pp. 67-74. BERTACCHI 2002 – L. BERTACCHI, Recenti testimonianze archeologiche paleocristiane ad Aquileia tra il 1983 e il 1993, “Atti e Memorie della Società Istriana di Archeologia e Storia Patria”, CII, 2002, pp. 361-369. BIGLIARDI 2004a – G. BIGLIARDI, Alpes, id est claustra Italiae: la trasformazione dei complessi fortificati romani dell’arco alpino centro orientale tra l’età tardorepubblicana e l’età tardo-antica, “Aquileia Nostra”, LXXV, 2004, cc. 317-372. BIGLIARDI 2004b – G. BIGLIARDI, L’insediamento fortificato d’altura nel Caput Adriae: dati distributivi e problemi di continuità cronologica, “Antichità Altoadriatiche”, LVI, 2004, pp.135-148. BIGLIARDI 2007 – G. BIGLIARDI, La Praetentura Italiae et Alpium alla luce di nuove ricerche archeologiche, “Aquileia Nostra”, LXXVIII, 2007, cc. 297-312. BISCARDI 1987 – A. BISCARDI, Il porto di Aquileia ed i noli marittimi nel calmiere dioclezianeo, “Antichità Altoadriatiche”, XXIX, 1987, pp. 169-181.

No wonder that in the Ordo urbium nobilium of Ausonius (composed in 388) Aquileia is mentioned as one of the greatest cities in the Roman Empire: moenibus et portu celeberrima, “universally renowned for its walls and its harbour” seems not to be a literary cliché47. Aspects and chronology of urban transformation in 5th century Aquileia are yet under discussion48.

2. The Territory Most recent researches (summarized by Chiara Magrini in a useful contribution49) improved our knowledge on the territory of Aquileia in the 4th and 5th century. In the 4th century there is evidence of continuity in the distribution of rural settlements, in form of medium-great villas with their annexes, concentrated in the southern area of the territory50. The archaeological evidences of structural transformations witness that by the 4th century, these villas were no more connoted as pleasure houses and became progressively only agricultural holdings51. However an actual decline seems to occur only by the mid of the 5th century52. Handicraft workshops (for cloths, ceramics, glass, iron and bronze production) were located in the suburbium of Aquileia, in proximity to river and channels53. Even if many hypotheses were advanced about local production of glass, bronze, iron, ceramics, there are scanty evidences of late antique factories on the territory54. So that the case of Carlino remains at the moment almost isolated55. Who reopened the ceramic kilns on the area of the former brick factory? Why glazed pottery? Where came the technology from? Who were the consumers of these products? How large was the distribution area? And, to conclude, how does this ceramic production fit with the social and economic context of the late 4th century Aquileia, which I have tried to draw in my short paper? 45

SOTINEL 2005, pp. 24-28; CARRE et al. 2007, pp. 593, 597-598, 605-620, 628. 46 FÉVRIER 1981. 47 AUSON, Ordo urbium nobilium, 9, 64-72: DI SALVO 2001. 48 CANTINO WATAGHIN 2004; VILLA 2004; CUSCITO 2004; SOTINEL 2005, pp. 250-270. 49 MAGRINI 1997; see also MAGRINI 2004. 50 See e.g. VILLA 2003. 51 DE FRANCESCHINI 1998; BUSANA 2009, pp. 178-179. See also MAFFEIS, NEGRO PONZI MANCINI 1995. 52 BUORA 1991; MAGRINI 1997, pp. 162-164; BUSANA 2009, p. 179. 53 BUCHI 1979; BUORA 1991; SANTORO BIANCHI 1998. 54 Glass: TERMINI STORTI 1994; BUORA 1996a; BUORA 1997a; STIAFFINI 2006. Bronze: C ASSANI 1999; CASTOLDI 2002. Ceramics: BUORA, C ASSANI 2002; Glazed pottery: LAVIZZARI PEDRAZZINI 1998, pp. 359-360 and pp. 385-386, IV.31-37 (C. Tagliaferro, S. Cipriano). 55 BERTACCHI 1976; BERTACCHI 1990b; MAGRINI 2000; MAGRINI, SBARRA 2000a; MAGRINI, SBARRA 2000b; MAGRINI, SBARRA 2002; MAGRINI, SBARRA 2005; MAGRINI, SBARRA 2009.

15 15

Claudio Zaccaria

BLECKMANN 1999 – B. BLECKMANN, Die Schlacht von Mursa und die zeitgenössische Deutung eines spätantiken Bürgerkrieges, in H. Brandt (ed.), Gedeutete Realität. Krisen, Wirklichkeiten, Interpretationen (3.-6. Jh. n. Chr.), Historia Einzelschriften, 134, Stuttgart 1999, pp. 47-101. BLECKMANN 2003 – B. BLECKMANN, Der Bürgerkrieg zwischen Constantin II. und Constans (340 n.Chr.), “Historia”, LII, 2, 2003, pp. 225-250 BONETTO 2004 – J. BONETTO, Difendere Aquileia, città di frontiera, “Antichità Altoadriatiche”, LIX, 2004, pp. 151196. BONETTO 2009 – J. BONETTO, Le mura, in F. Ghedini, M. Bueno, M. Novello (eds.), Moenibus et portu celeberrima: Aquileia. Storia di una città, Istituto Poligrafico e Libreria dello Stato, Roma 2004, pp. 83-92. BONFIOLI 1973 – M. BONFIOLI, Soggiorni imperiali a Milano e ad Aquileia da Diocleziano a Valentiniano III, “Antichità Altoadriatiche”, IV, 1973, pp. 125-149. BOSIO 1979 – L. BOSIO, Le fortificazioni tardoantiche del territorio di Aquileia, “Antichità Altoadriatiche”, XV, 2, pp. 515-536. BRATOŽ 1996 – R. BRATOŽ (ed.), Westillyricum und Nordostitalien in der Spätrömischen Zeit, Ljubljana. BRATOŽ 2003 – R. BRATOŽ, Aquileia tra Teodosio e i Longobardi (379-568), “Antichità Altoadriatiche”, LIV, 1979, pp. 477-527. BRIZZI 1992 – G. BRIZZI, La presenza militare romana, in S. SANTORO BIANCHI (ed.), Castelraimondo: scavi 1988-1990. I. Lo scavo, Cataloghi e monografie dei Civici Musei di Udine, 2, Roma 1992, pp. 111-124. BROGIOLO, WARD-PERKINS 1999 – G. P. BROGIOLO, B. WARD-PERKINS (eds.), Idea and Ideal 1999 – The Idea and Ideal of the Town between Late Antiquity and the Early Middle Ages, The Transformation of the Roman World, 4, Leiden 1999. BRUSIN, InscrAq – J.B. BRUSIN, Inscriptiones Aquileiae, I, Udine 1991; II, Udine 1992; III, Udine 1993. BUCHI 1979 – E. BUCHI, Impianti produttivi del territorio aquileiese in età romana, “Antichità Altoadriatiche”, XV, 2, 1979, pp. 439-459. BUORA 1988a – M. BUORA, Contributo alla conoscenza di Aquileia nel periodo tetrarchico. I medaglioni aquileiesi con busti di divinità e il loro probabile reimpiego nella facciata del circo, “Memorie Storiche Forogiuliesi”, LXVIII, 1988, pp. 63-79. BUORA 1988b – M. BUORA, Le mura medievali di Aquileia, “Antichità Altoadriatiche”, XXXII, 1988, pp. 335-361. BUORA 1991 – M. BUORA, Continuità e discontinuità degli insediamenti in Aquileia e nell'immediato suburbio, in G.P. BROGIOLO, L. CASTELETTI (eds.), Il territorio tra tardoantico e altomedioevo. Metodi di indagine e risultati 3° seminario sul tardoantico e l'altomedioevo nell'area alpina e padana (Monte Barro – Galbiate, Como, 9-11 settembre 1991), Firenze 1991, pp. 73-83. BUORA 1996a – M. BUORA, La circolazione vetraria nell’Italia nord-orientale nel periodo tardoantico e la produzione di un maestro vetraio a Sevegliano, in G. Meconcelli Notarianni, D. Ferrari (eds.), Il vetro dall’antichità all’età contemporanea, Atti della giornata

nazionale di studio (Venezia, 2 dicembre 1995), Suppl. a “Giornale Economico”, 5, 1996, pp. 165-172. BUORA 1996b – M. BUORA (ed.), I soldati di Magnenzio. Scavi nella necropoli romana di Iutizzo, Codroipo, Archeologia di frontiera, 1, Trieste 1996. BUORA 1997a – M. BUORA, Una produzione artigianale di un vetraio a Sevegliano (agro di Aquileia, Italia settentrionale) nel IV sec. d.C., “Journal of Glass Studies”, XXXIX, 1997, pp. 23-31. BUORA 1997b – M. BUORA, Nuovi studi sul periodo tardoantico nell’area altoadriatica, “Aquileia Nostra”, LXVIII, 1997, cc. 277-286 BUORA 2000 – M. BUORA, L’immagine di Aquileia attraverso i secoli, in S. Tavano, G. Bergamini (eds.), Patriarchi. Quindici secoli di civiltà fra l’Adriatico e l’Europa Centrale. Catalogo delle Mostre “Nel segno di Giona” (Aquileia, 3 luglio – 10 dicembre 2000) e “Il pastorale e la spada” (Cividale del Friuli, 3 luglio – 10 dicembre 2000), Ginevra – Milano 2000, pp. 23-29. BUORA, CASSANI 2002 – M. BUORA, G. CASSANI, Osservazioni sulla ceramica grezza del Friuli. Il caso delle terrine, in 1° Incontro di studio sulle ceramiche tardoantiche e altomedievali, Atti del Convegno (Manerba, 16 ottobre 1998), Mantova 2002, pp. 55-63. BUSANA 2009 – M.S. BUSANA, Le ville, in F. Ghedini, M. Bueno, M. Novello (eds.), Moenibus et portu celeberrima: Aquileia. Storia di una città, Istituto Poligrafico e Libreria dello Stato, Roma 2009, pp. 171-182. CAILLET 1993 – J.-P. CAILLET, L’évergétisme monumental chrétien en Italie et à ses marges d'après l'épigraphie des pavements de mosaïque (IVe-VIIe s.), Collection de l’École Française de Rome, 175, Rome 1993. CAILLET 2006 – J.-P. CAILLET, Valorizzazione dell’epigrafia dedicatoria nel sistema decorativo dei pavimenti di Aquileia e Grado, “Antichità Altoadriatiche”, LXII, 2006, pp. 519534 CALDERINI 1930 – A. CALDERINI, Aquileia romana. Ricerche di storia e di epigrafia, Milano 1930. CANTINO WATAGHIN 1989 – G. CANTINO WATAGHIN, Problemi e ipotesi sulla basilica della Beligna di Aquileia, in Quaeritur inventus colitur, Miscellanea in onore di Padre Umberto Maria Fasola, Studi di Antichità Cristiana, XL, Città del Vaticano 1989, pp. 73-90. CANTINO WATAGHIN 1995 – G. CANTINO WATAGHIN, Una nota sui gruppi episcopali paleocristiani di Milano e Aquileia, in Orbis romanus christianusque. Travaux sur l’Antiquité Tardive rassemblés autour des recherches de N. Duval, Paris 1995, pp. 75-87. CANTINO WATAGHIN 2004 – G. CANTINO WATAGHIN, La città tardoantica: il caso di Aquileia, “Antichità Altoadriatiche”, LIX, 2004, pp. 101-119. CARRE, MASELLI SCOTTI 1998 – M.-B. CARRE, F. MASELLI SCOTTI, Il porto di Aquileia: dati antichi e ritrovamenti recenti, “Antichità Altoadriatiche”, XLVI, 1998, pp. 211243. CARRE et al. 2007 – M.-B. CARRE, P. MAGGI, R. MERLATTI, C. ROUSSE, L’évolution des importations à Aquilée – L’evoluzione delle importazioni ad Aquileia, “Antichità Altoadriatiche”, LXV, 2, 2007, pp. 539-632. 16 16

Aquileia and Its Territory in the Fourth Century AD

CASSANI 1999 – G. CASSANI, I recipienti in bronzo del periodo tardoantico in Aquileia. Un nuovo contributo, “Quaderni friulani di archeologia”, IX, 1999, pp. 7-10. CASTOLDI 2002 – M. CASTOLDI, I recipienti in bronzo in Italia settentrionale tra III e V secolo d.C., “Antichità Altoadriatiche”, LI, 2002, pp. 289-308 CECCONI 1994 – G.A. CECCONI, Governo imperiale e élites dirigenti nell’Italia tardoantica. Problemi di storia amministrativa (270-476 d.C.), Biblioteca di “Athenaeum”, 24, Como 1994. CECCONI 1998 – G.A. CECCONI, I governatori delle province italiche, “Antiquité Tardive”, VI, 1998, pp. 149-179. CECCONI 2000 – G.A. CECCONI, Istituzioni e politica nella Venetia et Histria tardoromana, “Antichità Altoadriatiche”, XLVII, 2000, pp. 45-70. CECCONI 2003 – G.A. CECCONI, Aquileia come centro amministrativo in età imperiale, “Antichità Altoadriatiche”, LIV, 2003, pp. 405-423. Concilio 1981 – AA.VV., Il Concilio di Aquileia del 381, “Antichità Altoadriatiche”, XXI, Udine 1981. CONTI 2006 – S. CONTI, L’usurpazione di Magnenzio e Aquileia: testi letterari, monete e iscrizioni, “Aquileia Nostra” LXXVII, 2006, cc. 141-158. CRACCO RUGGINI 1977 – L. CRACCO RUGGINI, Changing fortune of the Italian city from Late Antiquity to Early Middle Ages, “Rivista di Filologia e Istruzione Classica”, CV, 1977, pp. 448-475. CRACCO RUGGINI 1985a – L. CRACCO RUGGINI, Arcaismo e conservatorismo, innovazione e rinnovamento (IV – V secolo), in Le trasformazioni della cultura nella tarda antichità, Atti del Convegno (Catania, 27 settembre – 2 ottobre 1982), Roma 1985, pp. 133-156. CRACCO RUGGINI 1985b – L. CRACCO RUGGINI, Conservatism and Innovation in the Culture of the Fourth/Fifth Century, “Quaderni Ticinesi. Numismatica e Archeologia Classica”, XIV, 1985, pp. 287-303. CRACCO RUGGINI 1987 – L. CRACCO RUGGINI, Roma, Aquileia e la circolazione monetaria del IV secolo, “Antichità Altoadriatiche”, XXX, 1987, pp. 201-223. CRACCO RUGGINI 1989 – L. CRACCO RUGGINI, La città imperiale, in Storia di Roma 4. Caratteri e morfologie, Torino 1989, pp. 201-266. CUSCITO 1982 - G. CUSCITO, Il Concilio di Aquileia (381) e le sue fonti, “Antichità Altoadriatiche”, XXII, 1, 1982, pp. 189-253. CUSCITO 2004 – G. CUSCITO, Lo spazio cristiano nell’urbanistica tardoantica di Aquileia, “Antichità Altoadriatiche”, LIX, 2004, pp. 511-559. CUSCITO 2009 – G. CUSCITO, Lo spazio cristiano, in F. Ghedini, M. Bueno, M. Novello (eds.), Moenibus et portu celeberrima: Aquileia. Storia di una città, Istituto Poligrafico e Libreria dello Stato, Roma 2009, pp. 133-151. DE FRANCESCHINI 1998 – M. DE FRANCESCHINI, Le ville romane della X Regio (Venetia et Histria). Catalogo e carta archeologica dell’insediamento romano nel territorio, dall’età repubblicana al tardo impero, Studia Archaeologica, 93, Roma 1998. DI SALVO 2001 – L. DI SALVO, Ordo urbium nobilium

Decimo Magno Ausonio, Napoli 2001. DUVAL 1973 – N. DUVAL, Les palais impériaux de Milan et d’Aquilée: réalité et mythe, “Antichità Altoadriatiche”, IV, 2001, pp. 151-158. DUVAL 1976 – Y.-M. DUVAL, Aquilée sur la route des invasions (350-452), “Antichità Altoadriatiche”, IX, 1976, pp. 237-298. FEVRIER 1981 – P.A. FEVRIER, Remarques sur le paysage d’une ville à la fin de l’antiquité: l’exemple d’Aquilée, “Antichità Altoadriatiche”, XIX, 1981, pp. 163-212. GENTILI 1992 – S. GENTILI, Politics and Christianity in Aquileia in the Fourth Century A.D., “L'Antiquité Classique”, LXI, 1992, pp. 192-208. GIARDINA 1986 – A. GIARDINA, Le due Italie nella forma tarda dell'impero, in Società romana e impero tardoantico, I. Istituzioni, ceti, economia, Roma-Bari 1986, pp. 1-36 [rist. in L'Italia romana. Storie di un'identità incompiuta, Roma-Bari 1997, pp. 265-321]. GIARDINA 1993 – A. GIARDINA, La formazione dell'Italia provinciale, in Storia di Roma. III. L'età tardoantica. I. Crisi e trasformazioni, Torino 1993, pp. 50-68. GIOVANNINI, MASELLI SCOTTI 2009 – A. GIOVANNINI, F. MASELLI SCOTTI, Dalle prime scoperte ai recenti scavi stratigrafici, in F. Ghedini, M. Bueno, M. Novello (eds.), Moenibus et portu celeberrima: Aquileia. Storia di una città, Istituto Poligrafico e Libreria dello Stato, Roma 2009, pp. 37-49. GORINI 1980 – G. GORINI, La monetazione, in Da Aquileia a Venezia. Una mediazione tra l’Europa e l’Oriente dal II secolo a.C. al VI secolo d.C., Milano 1980, pp. 697-752. GORINI 1987 – G. GORINI, Aspetti monetali: emissione circolazione e tesaurizzazione, in Il Veneto nell’età romana. 1. Storiografia, organizzazione del territorio, economia e religione, Verona 1987, pp. 225-286. Grandi Terme 2003 – AA.VV., Università di Udine. Aquileia. Scavi dell’edificio pubblico detto ‘delle Grandi Terme’. Campagne 2002-2003, “Aquileia Nostra”, LXXIV, 2003, cc. 181-288. HAENSCH 1997 – R. HAENSCH, Capita provinciarum. Statthaltersitze und Provinzialverwaltung in der römischen Kaiserzeit, Kölner Forschungen, 7, Mainz 1997. HUMPHREY 1986 – J.H. HUMPHREY, Roman Circuses. Arenas for Chariot Racing, London 1986. HUMPHRIES 1999 – M. HUMPHRIES, Communities of the Blessed: Social Environment and Religious Change in Northern Italy, A.D. 200-400, Oxford 1999. JÄGGI 1990 – C. JÄGGI, Aspekte der städtebaulichen Entwicklung Aquileias in frühchristlicher Zeit, “Jahrbuch für Antike und Christentum” XXXIII, 1990, pp. 158-196. JANNIARD 2006 – S. JANNIARD, La résistance d’Aquilée (IIIeVe siècle): entre motif littéraire et réalité, , in Les cités de l’Italie tardo-antique (IVe – VIe siècle): institutions, économie, société, culture et religion, Rencontre organisée par l’Ecole française de Rome et l’Université de Paris XNanterre (Roma, 11-13 marzo 2004), Collection de l'École française de Rome, 369, Rome 2006, pp. 75-89. KOLB 1987 – F. KOLB, Diocletian und die Erste Tetrarchie, Berlin-New York 1987. 17 17

Claudio Zaccaria

KUHOFF 2001 – W. KUHOFF, Diokletian und die Epoche der Tetrarchie. Das römische Reich zwischen Krisenbewältigung und Neuaufbau (284-313 n. Chr.), Frankfurt 2001. LAVAN 2001 – L. LAVAN, The praetoria of Civil Governors in Late Antiquity, in L. Lavan (ed.), Recent research in Late Antique Urbanism, “JRA”, Suppl. Series 42, Portsmouth (Rhode Island), 2001, pp. 39-56. LAVIZZARI PEDRAZZINI 1998 – M.P. LAVIZZARI PEDRAZZINI, Una forma di tradizione ellenistica: i rhyta, in Tesori della Postumia. Archeologia e storia intorno a una grande strada romana alle radici dell’Europa, Milano 1998, pp. 359-360. LE BOHEC 2002 – Y. LE BOHEC, Dioclétien et l'armée. Reforme ou révolution?, in M. Buora (ed.), Miles Romanus. Dal Po al Danubio nel Tardoantico, Atti del convegno Internazionale (Pordenone – Concordia Sagittaria, 17-19 marzo 2000), Pordenone 2002, pp. 13-20. LETTICH 1982 – G. LETTICH, Concordia e Aquileia: note sull’organizzazione difensiva del confine orientale d’Italia nel IV secolo, “Antichità Altoadriatiche”, XXII, 1, 1982, pp. 67-87. LOPREATO 1987 – P. LOPREATO, La villa imperiale delle Marignane in Aquileia, “Antichità Altoadriatiche”, XXX, pp. 137-149. LOPREATO 2004 – P. LOPREATO, Le grandi terme di Aquileia. I sectilia e i mosaici del frigidarium, ““Antichità Altoadriatiche”, LIX, 1987, pp. 339-377. MAFFEIS, NEGRO PONZI MANCINI 1995 – L. MAFFEIS, M.M. NEGRO PONZI MANCINI, La ceramica comune nei siti dell’Italia settentrionale dall’età tardo antica al medioevo: variazioni tipologiche e funzionali del corredo domestico, in N. Christie (ed.), Settlement and Economy in Italy 1500 BC – AD 1500, Papers of the Fifth Conference of Italian Archaeology, Oxbow Monograph, 41, Oxford 1995, pp. 591602. MAGRINI 1997 – C. MAGRINI, Il territorio di Aquileia tra tardoantico e altomedioevo, “Archeologia Medievale”, 24, 1997, pp. 155-171. MAGRINI 2000 – C. MAGRINI, Progetto di revisione della ceramica invetriata di carlino, in G.P. Brogiolo, G. Olcese (eds.), 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 (Desenzano del Garda, 8- 10 aprile 1999), Mantova 2000, pp. 199-206. MAGRINI 2004 – C. MAGRINI, Archeologia del paesaggio suburbano di Aquileia tra Tarda Antichità e Alto Medioevo, “Antichità Altoadriatiche”, LIX, 2004 , pp. 651-672. MAGRINI, SBARRA 2000a – C. MAGRINI, F. SBARRA, Le fornaci di Carlino: revisione dei dati acquisiti e nuove prospettive di ricerca. Primi risultati, “Rivista di Archeologia”, XXIV, 2000, pp. 114-125. MAGRINI, SBARRA 2000b – C. MAGRINI, F. SBARRA, Le fornaci di Carlino: nuovi dati di una possibile interpretazione, “Bollettino del Gruppo Archeologico Aquileiese”, 10, 2000, pp. 4-10. MAGRINI, SBARRA 2002 – C. MAGRINI, F. SBARRA, Studio sulla produzione e sulla circolazione della ceramica tardoantica di Carlino (UD), “Gruppo Cer.am.Is, Bollettino n. 3”, febbr. 2002. MAGRINI, SBARRA 2005 – C. MAGRINI, F. SBARRA, Le

ceramiche invetriate di Carlino. Nuovo contributo allo studio di una produzione tardoantica, Ricerche di archeologia altomedievale e medievale, 30, Firenze 2005. MAGRINI, SBARRA 2009 – C. MAGRINI, F. SBARRA, Late Roman glazed pottery productions in Eastern Alpine area and Danubian provinces: first: first results of the project, in C. Magrini, F. Sbarra (eds.), Late Roman glazed pottery productions in Eastern Alpine Area and Danubian Provinces. First results of an international project, Proceedings of the First International Meeting of Archaeology in Carlino (Carlino 14-15 December 2007), Campoformido (UD) 2009, pp.83-93. MAINARDIS, ZACCARIA 1993 – Le iscrizioni dagli scavi di Aquileia. Contributo alla storia e alla topografia della città, “Antichità Altoadriatiche”, XL, 1993, pp. 59-81. MARCONE 2004 – A. MARCONE, L’Illirico e la frontiera nordorientale dell’Italia nel IV secolo d.C, in Dall’Adriatico al Danubio. L’Illirico nell’età greco-romana, Atti del Convegno internazionale (Cividale, 25-27 settembre 2003), Pisa 2004, pp. 343-359. MANDRUZZATO, MASELLI SCOTTI 1994 – L. MANDRUZZATO, F. MASELLI SCOTTI, Notizario archeologico. Aquileia. Horrea, “Aquileia Nostra”, LXV, 1994, cc. 354-358. MARANO 2009 – Y.A. MARANO, La città tardoantica, in F. Ghedini, M. Bueno, M. Novello (eds.), Moenibus et portu celeberrima: Aquileia. Storia di una città, Istituto Poligrafico e Libreria dello Stato, Roma 2009, pp. 23-33 MASELLI SCOTTI, ZACCARIA 1998 – F. MASELLI SCOTTI, C. ZACCARIA, Novità epigrafiche dal Foro di Aquileia. A proposito della base di T. Annius T.f. tri. vir, in G.Paci (ed.), Epigrafia romana in area adriatica, Actes de la IXe Rencontre franco-italienne sur l’épigraphie du monde romain (Macerata, 10-11 novembre 1995), Ichnia 2, Pisa-Roma 1998, pp. 113-159. MASELLI SCOTTI, TIUSSI 1999 – F. MASELLI SCOTTI, C. TIUSSI, Notiziario archeologico. Aquileia. Area occidentale dei cosiddetti mercati a sud del fiume Natissa. Scavo 1998, “Aquileia Nostra”, LXX, 1999, cc. 398-406. MASELLI SCOTTI, RUBINICH 2009 – F. MASELLI SCOTTI, M. RUBINICH, I monumenti pubblici, in F. Ghedini, M. Bueno, M. Novello (eds.), Moenibus et portu celeberrima: Aquileia. Storia di una città, Istituto Poligrafico e Libreria dello Stato, Roma 2009, pp. 93-110. MIAN 2004 – G. MIAN, I programmi decorativi dell’edilizia pubblica aquileiese. Alcuni esempi, “Antichità Altoadriatiche”, LIX, 2004, pp. 425-509. MIAN 2006 – G. MIAN, Riflessioni sulla residenza imperiale tardoantica, “Antichità Altoadriatiche”, LXII, 2006, pp. 423444. MIRABELLA ROBERTI 1973 – M. MIRABELLA ROBERTI, Architettura civile tardoantica fra Milano e Aquileia, “Antichità Altoadriatiche”, IV, 1973, pp. 159-170. PANCIERA 1978 – S. PANCIERA, Ravenna e la flotta militare ad Aquileia, “Antichità Altoadriatiche”, XIII, 1978, pp. 107134 (repr. in S. Panciera, Epigrafi, epigrafia, epigrafisti. Scritti vari editi e inediti (1956-2005) con note complementari e indici, Vetera, 16, Roma 2006, pp. 13391355). PANVINI ROSATI 1978 – F. PANVINI ROSATI, La zecca di 18 18

Aquileia and Its Territory in the Fourth Century AD

Aquileia, “Antichità Altoadriatiche”, XIII, 1978, pp. 289-298 [repr. in F. Panvini Rosati, Monete e medaglie, 2. Dal tardo antico all'età moderna, “Bollettino di Numismatica, Roma”, XXXVII, 2004, Suppl. to n. XXXVII, 2, pp. 263-268]. PAVAN 1987 – M. PAVAN, Presenze di militari nel territorio di Aquileia, “Antichità Altoadriatiche” XV, 2, 1987, pp. 461513. PAVOLINI 1993 – C. PAVOLINI, Le città dell’Italia suburbicaria, in Storia di Roma III. L’età tardoantica, 2. I luoghi e le culture, Torino 1993, pp. 177-198. PIVA 1998 – P. PIVA, Le aule teodoriane di Aquileia. Un gruppo episcopale nell’età della pace della Chiesa, “Studi Medievali”, I, 1998, pp. 285-306. PONZELLINI 2009 – M. PONZELLINI, La zecca, in F. Ghedini, M. Bueno, M. Novello (eds.), Moenibus et portu celeberrima: Aquileia. Storia di una città, Istituto Poligrafico e Libreria dello Stato, Roma 2009, pp. 289-292. REBAUDO 2004 – L. REBAUDO, Thermae Felices Constantinianae. Contributo all’interpretazione dell’edificio pubblico della Braida murada (Aquileia), “Aquileia Nostra”, LXXV, 2004, cc. 273-314. REBAUDO 2006 – L. REBAUDO, Il frigidarium delle Thermae Felices. Caratteri strutturali e osservazioni sulla decorazione pavimentale, in Aquileia dalle origini alla costituzione, “Antichità Altoadriatiche”, LXII, 2006, pp. 445-476. REDDE 2001 – M. REDDE, Le rôle militaire des ports de l’Adriatique sous le haut-empire, “Antichità Altoadriatiche”, XLVI, 2001, pp. 43-54. RIEß 2001 – W. RIEß, Konstantin und seine Söhne in Aquileia, “Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik”, 135, 200, pp. 267-283. RODA 2000 – S. RODA, I problemi militari al confine nordorientale, “Antichità Altoadriatiche”, XLVII, 2000, pp. 71-90. SANTORO BIANCHI 1998 – S. SANTORO BIANCHI, Aquileia: area urbana, suburbio e “submontana castella” alla luce della produzione fittile, in R. Bedon (ed.), Suburbia. Les faubourgs en Gaule romaine et dans le régions voisines, “Caesarodunum”, 32, Tours 1998, pp. 259-275. SOTINEL 1998 – C. SOTINEL, L’utilisation des ports dans l’arc adriatique à l’époque tardive (IVe-VIe siècles), “Antichità Altoadriatiche” XVLI, 1998, pp. 55-71. SOTINEL 2000 – C. SOTINEL, La mémoire de la ville: Aquilée et son passé à la fin de l'antiquité, “Cahier VII du Centre de Recherche pour l'Antiquité Tardive et le Moyen Age”, Nanterre 2000, pp. 25-36. SOTINEL 2003 – C. SOTINEL, Aquilée de Diocletien à Théodose, “Antichità Altoadriatiche” LIV, 2003, pp. 375392 [transl. by A. Vigi Fior, pp. 393-401]. SOTINEL 2005 – C. SOTINEL, Identité civique et christianisme. Aquilée du IIIe au VIe siècle, Bibliothèque des Écoles Françaises d'Athènes et de Rome, 324, Rome 2005. SPEIDEL 1990 – M.P. SPEIDEL, The Army at Aquileia, the Moesiaci Legion and the Shield Emblems in the Notitia Dignitatum, “Saalburg Jahrbuch”, XLV, 1990, pp. 68-72. STIAFFINI 2006 – D. STIAFFINI, Produzione e diffusione dei manufatti vitrei ad Aquileia tra IV e IX secolo d.C., “Antichità Altoadriatiche”, LXII, 2006, pp. 657-671.

SZIDAT 1977 – J. SZIDAT, Historischer Kommentar zu Ammianus Marcellinus Buch XX-XXI, Teil. I, Historia Einzelschriften, 31, Stuttgart-Wiesbaden 1977. TAVANO 1985 [2001] – S. TAVANO, Aquileia, in Reallexikon für Antike und Christentum, Suppl. 1, Stuttgart 2001, pp. 522-553. TAVANO 2000 – S. TAVANO, Aquileia e il territorio prossimo, “Antichità Altoadriatiche”, XLVII, 2000, pp. 335359. TERMINI STORTI 1994 – A.R. TERMINI STORTI, Una produzione vetraria tardoantica a Sevegliano (agro di Aquileia), “Aquileia Nostra”, LXV, 1994, cc. 209-224. TIUSSI 2004 – C. TIUSSI, Il sistema di distribuzione di Aquileia: mercati e magazzini, “Antichità Altoadriatiche”, LIX, 2004, pp. 257-316. TIUSSI 2009 – C. TIUSSI, L’impianto urbano, in F. Ghedini, M. Bueno, M. Novello (eds.), Moenibus et portu celeberrima: Aquileia. Storia di una città, Istituto Poligrafico e Libreria dello Stato, Roma 2009, pp. 61-81. ULBERT 1981 – T. ULBERT (hrsg.), Ad Pirum (Hrušica): spätrömische Passbefestigung in den Julischen Alpen. Beitrag zu den Slowenisch-Deutschen Grabungen 19711973, Münchner Beiträge zur Vor- und Frühgeschichte, 31, München 1981. VANNESSE 2007 – M. VANNESSE, I Claustra Alpium Iuliarum: un riesame della questione circa la difesa del confine nord-orientale dell’Italia in epoca tardoromana, “Aquileia Nostra”, LXVIII, 2007, cc. 313-340. VEDALDI IASBEZ 1994 – V. VEDALDI IASBEZ, La ‘Venetia’ orientale e l'’Histria’. Le fonti letterarie greche e latine fino alla caduta dell'Impero Romano d'Occidente, Studi e ricerche sulla Gallia Cisalpina, 5, Roma 1994. VIDRIH PERKO 1992 – V. VIDRIH PERKO, La ceramica tardoantica di Hrušica (Ad Pirum), Rei Cretariae Romanae Fautorum Acta, 31-32, 1992, pp. 349-64. VILLA 2000a – L. VILLA, Nuovi dati archeologici sui centri fortificati tardoantichi-altomedievali del Friuli, in P. Chiesa (ed.), Paolo Diacono. Uno scrittore fra tradizione longobarda e rinnovamento carolingio, Atti del Convegno Internazionale (Udine – Cividale del Friuli, 6-9 maggio 1999], Libri e Biblioteche, 9, Udine 2000, pp. 825-862. VILLA 2000b – L. VILLA, Aspetti e tendenze della prima diffusione del cristianesimo nel territorio aquileiese alla luce dei dati archeologici, “Antichità Altoadriatiche”, XLVII, 2000, pp. 391-437. VILLA 2003 – L. VILLA, Tra Tarda Antichità e Altomedioevo: alcuni aspetti sulle forme di popolamento nella destra e sinistra Tagliamento, in G. Tasca (ed.), Giornata di studio sull’archeologia del Medio e Basso Tagliamento in ricordo di Giuseppe Cordenos, San Vito al Tagliamento 2003, pp. 174-206. VILLA 2004 – L. VILLA, Aquileia tra Goti, Bizantini e Longobardi: spunti per un’analisi delle trasformazioni urbane nella transizione fra Tarda Antichità e Alto Medioevo, “Antichità Altoadriatiche”, LIX, 2004, pp. 561632. WARD-PERKINS 1988 – B. WARD-PERKINS, The Towns of Northern Italy: Rebirth or Renewal?, in R. Hodges, B. Hobley (eds.), The Rebirth of Towns in the West. AD 70019 19

Claudio Zaccaria

1050, London 1988, pp. 16-27. WILD 1976 – J.P. WILD, The Gynaecea, in Aspects of the Notitia Dignitatum, British Archaeological Reports, Suppl. 15, Oxford, 1976, pp. 51-58. WITSCHEL 2001 – Ch. WITSCHEL, Rom und die Städte Italiens in Spätantike und Frühmittelalter, “Bonner Jahrbücher”, CCI, 2001 [2004], pp. 113-162. ZACCARIA 1981 – C. ZACCARIA, Le fortificazioni romane e tardoantiche in Friuli, in Castelli del Friuli, Vol. 5. Storia ed evoluzione dell'arte della fortificazione in Friuli, Udine 1981, pp. 61-95. ZACCARIA 1986 – C. ZACCARIA, Il governo romano nella X Regio augustea e nella provincia Venetia et Histria, “Antichità Altoadriatiche”, XXVIII, 1986, pp. 65-103. ZACCARIA 1996 – C. ZACCARIA, Novità epigrafiche dal Foro (Notiziario epigrafico IV.1A, nn. 1-12), “Aquileia Nostra”, LXVII, 1996, cc. 179-194. ZACCARIA 1998 – C. ZACCARIA, Nuovi frammenti delle iscrizioni inserite nella decorazione architettonica del Foro (Notiziario epigrafico IV.1A, nn. 1a-1c), “Aquileia Nostra”, LXIX, 1998, cc. 442-443. ZACCARIA 2000 – C. ZACCARIA, Permanenza dell’ideale civico romano in epoca tardoantica: nuove evidenze da Aquileia, “Antichità Altoadriatiche”, XLVII, 2000, pp. 91113. ZACCARIA 2001 – C. ZACCARIA, La “trasformazione” del messaggio epigrafico tra II e IV secolo d.C. : a proposito di

un palinsesto rinvenuto nel foro di Aquileia, in G. Angeli Bertinelli, A. Donati (eds.), Varia epigraphica. Atti del Colloquio Internazionale di Epigrafia (Bertinoro, 8-10 giugno 2000), Epigrafia e antichità 17, Faenza 2001, pp. 475494. ZACCARIA 2002 – C. ZACCARIA, Marco Aurelio ad Aquileia e provvedimenti dopo la calata dei Marcomanni in Italia, in M. BUORA, W. Jobst (eds.), Roma sul Danubio: da Aquileia a Carnuntum lungo la via dell'ambra. Catalogo della mostra (Udine, ottobre 2002-marzo 2003), Roma 2002, pp. 75-79. ZACCARIA 2005 – C. ZACCARIA, Diocleziano e Massimiano ad Aquileia e nelle regioni limitrofe – Dioklecijan in Maksimijan v Ogleju in sesednijh pokrajinah, in G. Toplikar, S. Tavano (eds.), I Santi Canziani nel XVII centenario del loro martirio – Sveti Kancijani ob 1700letnici mučeništva, Atti del convegno Internazionale di Studi – Razprave mednarodnega simpozija (Pieris 19.10.2003, San Canzian d’Isonzo – Škocjan ob Soči, 8.5.2004), Fonti e Studi per la Storia della Venezia Giulia, Gorizia 2005, pp. 91-125. ZACCARIA 2008 – C. ZACCARIA, Aquileia una città in trasformazione, in S. Piussi (ed.), Cromazio di Aquileia 388408 al crocevia di genti e religioni, Catalogo della Mostra (Udine 2008-2009), Cinisello Balsamo (MI) 2008, pp. 134141. ZETTLER 2001 – A. ZETTLER, Offerenteninschriften auf den frühchristlichen Mosaikfussböden Venetiens und Istriens, Ergänzungsbände zum Reallexikon der germanischen Altertumskunde, 28, Berlin – New York 2001.

20 20

ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND ARCHAEOMETRIC CHARACTERISATION OF LATE ROMAN GLAZED POTTERY (4TH - 6TH CENTURIES AD) FROM THE VENETIAN LAGOON CLAUDIO CAPELLI, ELENA GRANDI, ROBERTO CABELLA, MICHELE PIAZZA Abstract. Archaeometric analyses by optical and electron microscopy (SEM-EDS) have been carried out on glazed pottery samples from San Francesco del Deserto and Torcello (Venice), dated to the 4th-6th centuries AD. Four groups of pastes have been distinguished. They can be related to different local/regional productions, whereas no import from Carlino have been identified. As for the glaze, the various groups show a homogeneous high-Pb, alkali-poor composition and a glazing technique probably related to the application of Pb compounds directly on the raw body. That technique evidences a technical knowledge similar to the coeval glazed pottery productions of the Eastern Alpine area and Danubian provinces. Riassunto. Analisi archeometriche tramite microscopia ottica ed elettronica (SEM-EDS) sono state condotte su campioni di ceramica invetriata rinvenuti nei contesti di San Francesco del Deserto e Torcello (Venezia) e databili tra la fine del IV e il VI secolo d.C. Sono stati distinti quattro diversi gruppi di impasto, probabilmente riconducibili a differenti produzioni locali/regionali, mentre nessuna importazione da Carlino è stata identificata. Per quanto riguarda la vetrina, i diversi gruppi sono accomunati da una composizione piuttosto omogenea, molto ricca in piombo e povera in alcali, e da una tecnica di invetriatura probabilmente legata all'applicazione di composti di piombo direttamente sul corpo ceramico crudo. Questa tecnica sembra trovare riscontro nelle ceramiche invetriate coeve dell’area alpina orientale e delle province danubiane.

materials, firing, glaze recipes and techniques) in the investigated area.

1. Introduction Recent archaeometric analyses (CAPELLI et al. 2009) carried out by optical and electron microscopy on Late Roman glazed pottery recovered in several contexts of the Eastern Alpine area and Danubian provinces (Carlino, Carnuntum, Wien, Tonovcov Grad, Budapest) demonstrated the plurality of local productions, confirming previous hypotheses of Paul Arthur and David Williams (ARTHUR 2009 and references therein). No clear proof of pottery trade was found; in particular, no Carlino (NE Italy) products appear to be exported toward eastern sites.

Further data are provided by Yona Waksman and coworkers, who analysed pastes and glazes of several samples of Roman pottery and “Byzantine Glazed White Ware” (WAKSMAN et al. 2008 and references therein). The type of raw materials and the glaze characteristics of ceramics from Caričin Grad (Serbia), supposed local, seem very similar to those of Carlino and the other Danubian wares. On the basis of the technical resemblances between the “Byzantine Glazed White Ware” and the Late Roman productions from the Balkans and northern Italy, the Authors suggest the possibility of a re-introduction of the glazing technique in Byzantium from the West.

On the other hand, that research evidenced a homogeneous technological knowledge (in terms of choice of raw sample.

Inventory no./Site

Chronology (AD)

Typology

6814

9903/ TOR 9605/ TOR 9712/ SFD 9917/ TOR 9703

end 4th c.

pot

6805

5th c.

open shape with flange on exterior below the rim bottle

6823

lamp

6773

6th c.

mortarium

6808

5th c.

6827

5th c.

open shape with flange on exterior below the rim open shape with flange on exterior below the rim bowl

6812

5th c.

pot

6771

6810 6819 6813 6821 6801 6802 6807 6826

p9709/ TOR 0009/ TOR 9612/ TOR 9601/ TOR

late 5thearly 6th c. residual

5th c.

sample Inventory no./Site Chronology (AD)

6822

6820

p9708/ TOR 9716/ SFD 9717/ SFD 0003/ TOR 9604/ TOR 0006/ TOR 9819/ SFD 0001/ TOR p9710/ TOR

late 5thearly 6th c. 6th c.

bowl

6th c.

mortarium

5th c. 5th c.

open shape with flange on exterior below the rim bowl

5th c.

bowl

half 4thhalf 5th c. 5th c.

bowl

5th c.

open shape with flange on exterior below the rim

Tab. 1. List of the analysed samples with their main archaeological features

21 21

Typology

pot

jug

Claudio Capelli, Elena Grandi, Roberto Cabella, Michele Piazza

Fig. 1. Glazed wares from the Venetian Lagoon (petrographic groups 1 and 2).

22

22

Archaeological and Archaeometric Characterisation of Late Roman Glazed Pottery (4th - 6th Centuries AD) from the Venetian Lagoon

Fig. 2. Glazed wares from the Venetian Lagoon (petrographic groups 3 and 4).

The aim of this paper is to better investigate the Late Roman glazed wares found out at Torcello and San Francesco del Deserto (in the Venetian Lagoon, which is located about 100 kilometres southwest of Carlino), in order to compare an “Italic” context with the eastern productions. A preliminary study by optical microscopy on these wares (CAPELLI 2007; GRANDI 2007a) already suggested the presence of multiple regional productions.

The typology of the archaeological contexts of these two islands is very different but equally important regarding the study of Late Antique fine pottery and, in particular, the glazed ware, which is still poorly known in Veneto region. The excavations lead at San Francesco del Deserto, inside the medieval monastic building, uncovered an interesting sequence of fills and wooden palisades constituting a series of waterfronts, dated by the pottery (especially the African Red Slip Ware) between the end of the 4th/beginning of the 5th c. to the half of the 7th c. AD. In Torcello, in the area of the church of Santa Maria Assunta, evidences of the original phase of the settlement and remains of housing structures that occupied the islands from the mid 5th c. to the half of the 7th c. AD were brought to light (GRANDI 2007a, GRANDI 2007b).

2. Archaeological context and analysed pottery The glazed pottery analysed in this paper (Tab. 1) was found in the islands of San Francesco del Deserto (SFD) and Torcello (TOR), located in the northern part of the Venice Lagoon, where the ‘Soprintendenza per i Beni Archeologici del Veneto’ conducted excavations between 1993 and 2000 (DE MIN 2000a, DE MIN 2000b, DE MIN 2003). 23

23

1.1 6814 X

9903

xx

1.1 6810 X

9605

1.1 6819 X

9712

1.1 6813 X

qz, fs, mi

am, ep, tt, ame, cht

Glaze thickness

Accessory Components

Dominant Components

Inclusions Max Dim. (mm)

Inclusions Average Dimensions Inclusions Sorting Degree

Inclusions Frequency

Oxidation Degree

Vitrification Degree (Firing T)

Inventory no.

SEM analysis

Thin Section no.

Petrographic Group

Claudio Capelli, Elena Grandi, Roberto Cabella, Michele Piazza

x/xxx

xxx xx

x

0.4

20-80

xx

xxx

xxx xx

xx

0.6

qz, fs, mi

am, ep, tt, ame, cht

60-150

x

x?

xxx xx

xx

1

qz, fs, mi

am, ep, rd, tt, ame, cht

30-90

9917

xx

x/xxx

xxx xx

xx

0.8

qz, mi, fs

am, ep, tt, gt, rd, zr, ame, cht, Fnd 70-170

1.2 6821 X

9703

xx

x/xxx

xxx xxx xxx 1.5

qz, mi, fs, ame, cht, lms am, ep, gt, tm, snd, Fnd

30-130

2.1 6801 X

p9709 xxx xxx

xx

xx

x

0.4

qz, mi, fs

am, tt, gt, ame, avo, cht, Fnd

30-60

2.1 6802 X

0009

xx

x/xxx

xx

x

x

0.3

qz, mi, fs

ep, rt, tt, ame, avo, cht, Fnd

50-150

2.1 6807

9612

x

x/xxx

xx

xx

xx

0.5

qz, mi, fs

am, tt, ame, avo, cht, Fnd

50-100

2.1 6826

9601

x

xx

xx

xx

x

0.5

qz, mi, fs

am, tt, ame, avo, cht, Fnd

absent

2.2 6805 X

p9708 xx

xxx

xxx xxx xxx 0.8

2.3 6823 X

9716

xx

xx

xx

2.4 6822

9717

xx

3

6773

0003

xx

4.1 6808 X

9604

x

xx/xxx xx

4.2 6827 X

0006

x

xxx

4.2 6820

9819

4.3 6812

0001

xx

4.3 6771

p9710 xx

qz, mi, fs, ame

am, tt, avo, cht, Fnd

30-100

xx

0.5

qz, mi, fs

am, ep, gt, tm,tt, ame, cht

50-100

x?

xxx xxx xx

absent

xxx

xxx xx

xx

1.5

qz, fs, mi

am, ep, tt, gt, rd, ame, avo, cht

xxx 0.3

qz, fs, mi

am, tt, ame, avo,cht, zr

absent

x

x

0.1

mi, qz, fs

Fnd

40-120

xx

x

x

0.1

qz, mi, fs

cht, tt

xxx xx/xxx xx

x

x

0.2

qz, mi, fs

xx/xxx xx

x

x

0.2

qz, mi, fs

Fnd, cht, tt

absent

xx

x

x

0.2

qz, mi, fs

ame, cht, ep, snd

absent

xx

30-70 (