Hostname: page-component-74656f9884-6grmk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-06T07:50:17.424Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Characterization of clays and the technology of Roman ceramics production

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 September 2018

Letizia Ceccarelli*
Affiliation:
University of Cambridge, McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research, Downing Street, Cambridge CB2 3ER, UK
Maurizio Pietro Bellotto
Affiliation:
Politecnico di Milano, CMIC – Dipartimento di Chimica, Materiali e Ingegneria Chimica ‘G. Natta’, Piazza Leonardo da Vinci 32, I-20133 Milano, Italy
Marco Caruso
Affiliation:
Politecnico di Milano, Materials Testing Laboratory, via Celoria 3, 20133 Milan, Italy
Cinzia Cristiani
Affiliation:
Politecnico di Milano, CMIC – Dipartimento di Chimica, Materiali e Ingegneria Chimica ‘G. Natta’, Piazza Leonardo da Vinci 32, I-20133 Milano, Italy
Giovanni Dotelli
Affiliation:
Politecnico di Milano, CMIC – Dipartimento di Chimica, Materiali e Ingegneria Chimica ‘G. Natta’, Piazza Leonardo da Vinci 32, I-20133 Milano, Italy
Paola Gallo Stampino
Affiliation:
Politecnico di Milano, CMIC – Dipartimento di Chimica, Materiali e Ingegneria Chimica ‘G. Natta’, Piazza Leonardo da Vinci 32, I-20133 Milano, Italy
Giuseppina Gasti
Affiliation:
Politecnico di Milano, CMIC – Dipartimento di Chimica, Materiali e Ingegneria Chimica ‘G. Natta’, Piazza Leonardo da Vinci 32, I-20133 Milano, Italy
Luca Primavesi
Affiliation:
Politecnico di Milano, CMIC – Dipartimento di Chimica, Materiali e Ingegneria Chimica ‘G. Natta’, Piazza Leonardo da Vinci 32, I-20133 Milano, Italy
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The recent discovery of a Roman ceramics manufacturing workshop at Montelabate (Perugia, Italy), in use from the first century BC until the late-fourth to fifth centuries AD, offers a unique opportunity to study the technical processes for producing Roman amphorae. Ancient and modern clays were sampled and analysed; they do not differ significantly, supporting the hypothesis of the exploitation of the rich local clay source that allowed a continuity of production. Characterization of the clays was performed using geotechnical methods (Atterberg limits and size distribution) and by thermogravimetric and differential thermogravimetric analysis, Fourier-transform infrared spectroscopy, X-ray diffraction and X-ray fluorescence analyses. The material was suitable for pottery making with the addition of calcite and quartz sand temper. Production waste and discarded materials as well as good-quality products were also analysed with the same methodology. It is therefore possible to reconstruct the ancient technology by defining the recipe for the production of the amphorae and their firing temperature on the basis of the decomposition of clay materials and the presence of newly formed minerals.

Information

Type
Article
Copyright
Copyright © Mineralogical Society of Great Britain and Ireland 2018 
Figure 0

Fig. 1. Map of the location of Montelabate (Italy; base map courtesy of David Redhouse).

Figure 1

Fig. 2. Spatial distribution of the kilns in the pottery workshop of Montelabate (Italy).

Figure 2

Fig. 3. The typology of amphorae produced at Montelabate.

Figure 3

Table 1. Description of the samples analysed.

Figure 4

Fig. 4. Example of Rietveld refinement of an amphora.

Figure 5

Table 2. Phase compositions as determined by XRD Rietveld refinement of raw materials (wt.%). Scale factors in parentheses.

Figure 6

Fig. 5. Grain-size distribution of samples 1, 2 and 6.

Figure 7

Fig. 6. (a) Soil classification according to the United States Department of Agriculture texture triangle. (b) Soil classification based upon a plasticity chart (b).

Figure 8

Table 3. Sample classification reference properties. Sand, silt and clay fractions are considered with reference to ASTM D422 (2007).

Figure 9

Table 4. Reference densities for pure mineral grains (after Mitchell & Soga, 2005; Rowe, 2012).

Figure 10

Table 5. Index of plasticity (IP) and activity (A) of tested samples.

Figure 11

Fig. 7. FTIR spectra (a, b) of unfired clay materials (dotted lines: calcite bands).

Figure 12

Fig. 8. DTG analysis of unfired clay materials.

Figure 13

Table 6. Phase compositions as determined by XRD Rietveld refinement of fired samples (wt.%). Scale factors in parentheses.

Figure 14

Fig. 9. CaO?Al2O3?SiO2 diagram of raw clays (black triangles) and fired amphorae (black dots).

Figure 15

Fig. 10. FTIR spectra of fired samples (dotted line: calcite band).

Figure 16

Fig. 11. DTG analysis of fired samples.

Figure 17

Fig. 12. (a) Thermogravimetric analysis and (b) differential thermogravimetric analysis (DTG) curves of raw clay material, a circulated amphora and a discarded amphora.

Figure 18

Fig. 13. Comparison of FTIR spectra of raw clay material, a circulated amphora and a discarded amphora: (a) 600–1600 cm–1 region and (b) 680–750 cm–1 region.

Figure 19

Fig. 14. Comparison of the XRD spectra of raw clay material, circulated amphora and a discarded amphora.