Chemical Characterization of the Roman Glass Finds from Muricelle Archaeological Site (Luzzi, Cosenza)
1
Dipartimento di Biologia, Ecologia e Scienze della Terra (DiBEST), Università della Calabria, 87036 Rende, Italy
2
Dipartimento Culture Educazione e Società (DiCES), Università della Calabria, 87036 Rende, Italy
3
Soprintendenza Archeologia, Belle Arti e Paesaggio per la Provincia di Cosenza, 87100 Scalea, Italy
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Minerals 2022, 12(4), 475; https://doi.org/10.3390/min12040475
Submission received: 28 February 2022
/
Revised: 11 April 2022
/
Accepted: 12 April 2022
/
Published: 13 April 2022
(This article belongs to the Section Mineral Geochemistry and Geochronology)
Abstract
:This study reports the results obtained on seventeen glass finds collected from the archaeological site of Muricelle near Cosenza in Calabria (Italy), dated between the first and third century AD. Chemical characterization was undertaken by using an electron probe micro analyser (EPMA). The glasses showed a soda–lime–silica composition indicating the use of the natron as a flux. The comparison between the collected data and those on coeval finds available from the literature allowed us to subdivide the Muricelle glass into three compositional groups: (1) Mn_a, classified as Roman-Mn glasses; (2) Mn_b, which can be compared to the Mn-unintentionally coloured Roman glasses; and (3) Sb + Mn, obtained by the recycling of the Sb and Mn Roman-type glasses. These groups were different not only with respect to the contents and the types of decolourants but also for soda, lime, and aluminium contents, highlighting the use of different raw materials in the primary glass production and also indicating the procedures used in secondary glass production. The compositional characteristics suggested the Levant region as the primary glass source for the Mn_a and Mn_b groups. On the other hand, the Sb + Mn group was obtained through recycling, involving the melting and mixing of two types of primary glass (Sb-decolourised and Mn-decolourised) of Egyptian and Levantine origins, respectively.
1. Introduction
The present study focused on some glass finds collected during a surface survey conducted in the archaeological site of Muricelle in the territory of Luzzi, a village situated at the right side of the Crati river near Cosenza in Calabria (Italy) (Figure 1) [1].
In agreement with the numerous ceramic finds recovered there, the Muricelle site has been dated between the first century and the end of the second century AD [2].
The archaeometric study was carried out using an electron probe micro analyser (EPMA) that provided the chemical composition of seventeen glass fragments.
The analyses were aimed at establishing the nature and provenance of the raw materials and to understand the glass production technique [3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10].
Glass is essentially a mixture of three major components: silica sand which acts as network-former, an alkaline compound which acts as a flux, and lime which acts as a network-stabilizer. During the Roman times, the alkaline fraction originated prevalently from natron, a mixture of mineral compounds rich in sodium and abundant in some evaporitic basins, such as those of the Wadi El Natrun valley in Egypt [11]. Only in few cases, alkaline metal oxide was added as plant ash component richer in magnesia and potash [9].
Numerous researchers have dealt with the investigation of the glassmaking processes in the Roman times. The prevalent hypothesis is that large masses of raw glass were produced in a small number of primary centres, mainly in coastal areas of Egypt and in the Near East. Then, these slabs were broken up and distributed to secondary fabrication workshops to be re-worked [4,12].
In the eastern Mediterranean and in the Levant in the first millennium AD, five main groups of natron-type soda–lime–silica glass were recognised: Levantine I, Levantine II, Roman blue-green, HIMT (high iron, manganese, titanium), and Egyptian [4,9].
Roman glass has been the subject of many studies [5,13,14,15,16,17,18] which have improved the knowledge of these productions. Roman glass dating from the first to the third century AD has a very homogeneous composition, indicating that it was produced on a large scale [9]. In the same period, colourless glass reached its maximum production and its use declined at the end of the third century AD [16,17,18].
The studies have provided precious indications on the great care of the Roman glassmakers in the selection of materials, their ability in the production processes, and the addition of antimony or manganese as decolourant agents to obtain colourless glass [10,15,16,18].
Many archaeometric studies on ancient colourless glass [16,17,18,19,20], considering the contents of the two decolourants (Sb and Mn), distinguished four main groups: Roman-Sb, Roman-Mn, Roman mixed Sb + Mn, and the naturally colourless glass.
Roman-Sb and Roman-Mn refer, respectively, to the intentionally decoloured Sb and Mn glass groups, while the Roman mixed Sb + Mn was obtained from the recycling of the two end members [8,17,21,22]. The naturally colourless glass was produced with pure raw materials, without the addition of decolouring agents [16,17,18].
Previous studies individuated the compositional ranges of the two added decolourants [15,16,23]. The Sb-colourless glass group is characterized by high antimony content (Sb2O5 ranging from 0.3 to 0.8 wt% and MnO content less than 0.025 wt%); Mn-colourless glass by high manganese (MnO > 0.025 wt% and antimony below the detection limit); Sb + Mn colourless glass by the presence of both manganese (MnO > 0.025 wt%), and antimony (Sb2O5 > detection limit around 0.03 wt%). The naturally coloured glass (or Mn_unintentionally coloured glass) is characterized by generally low manganese (MnO < 1 wt%) and negligible antimony [16,23].
These four main compositional Roman groups differ not only by Sb and Mn contents but also different contents of SiO2, Na2O, CaO, and Al2O3 [17,22].
This research aimed at investigating the glass composition of the finds recovered in the archaeological area of Muricelle. By comparing the chemical analyses carried out on the vitreous samples with the known glass groups of the Imperial age, information on the glass production technology was obtained, thus allowing the correlation between typological analysis and chronological attribution.
2. Study Area
Muricelle is an archaeological area located 4 km north-west from the town of Luzzi (Cosenza). It stretches through about one hectare on the western slopes of the Sila massif (190 m a.s.l.) (Figure 1).
The location is particularly favourable to settlements due to the presence of water guaranteed both by the Ilice stream and by the Crati river which in ancient times was also an important communication route. The toponym probably derives from the presence of wall structures built with mortar and cocciopesto.
Today, only small traces of these structures are visible but throughout whole area, numerous artifacts have been found. The most ancient samples recovered in the Muricelle site are: a lithic spearhead dated to the prehistoric time, some ceramic fragments of the Bronze Age and Ancient Bronze Age [24,25], and a hoard of bronze axes (belonging to the so called “Cirò type”) of the Iron Age [26,27]. However, the remains of a wall in opus reticulatum and a floor in opus spicatum, which most likely belonged to a Roman villa, attest the anthropic presence especially of the Roman imperial times.
In Muricelle, during the agricultural clearing, fragments of various materials have been recovered including pottery, coins, metallic, glass, and marble artefacts. The ceramic fragments belonged to common ware, amphorae, oil lamps, and fine pottery which are well documented (Italic and African sigillata, thin-walled). These ceramic artifacts testify the frequentation of the villa in the first centuries of the Roman imperial age (1st–2nd century AD) and to a lesser extent, up to the Late Antiquity, when the site was probably abandoned [1,2,24]. No black gloss pottery or other materials dating back to the Republican period have been found [24]. The presence of vitreous objects was reported for the first time by Marchese [26] who referred to the discovery of glass fragments of a jar and of “a very large bell-shaped glass jar with two handles and two figured faces” as richly decorated [26].
Overall, the quantity and quality of the archaeological finds confirm that Muricelle was a rural Roman villa, well-placed within a circuit of exchange and trade.
3. Materials
In the present study, seventeen glass finds recovered in the archaeological site of Muricelle were analysed (Figure 2). The glass finds unfortunately were small in size because they were recovered following the ploughing of the land. The repertoire consisted of a limited number of shapes, mainly cups, plates, and bottles. After a preliminary examination, the samples were catalogued and subjected to a morphological analysis in order to identify their likely form, and they were compared with known shapes in the main contexts of Italy and the Mediterranean. However, because of the fragmentation of glass finds, some of them lacked diagnostic elements that would allow their attribution.
Only six vitreous fragments could be classified as being parts of various containers (cups, plates, and bottles) or of decorations (Table 1); for the remainings, we proposed only a possible shape attribution.
The finds can be divided as follows: nine fragments of cup or plate, four bottles, one jug, one bombilium, one open shape, and one glass as indicated in the Table 1, where the colour and other features are also reported. Concerning the colours (Table 1), the majority of Muricelle glasses had a light blue green colour, typical of the Roman times, and some were light green, light blue, or colourless.
The best-preserved specimens suggested a chronology between the first and second centuries AD as bottles (samples Mb, Me, and Md) and cups (Mi, Mn, and Mo). This dating agrees with the ceramics study [24], confirming that the occupation of the Muricelle site occurred mainly in the first and second century AD.
4. Methods
Before proceeding to the analytical phase, a small fragment of about 3 mm × 3 mm was collected from each sample and cleaned by an ultrasonic bath in order to eliminate any residual dust [33]. Polished cross-sections were obtained, embedding the glass fragments in epoxy resin blocks, then transversely cut to enable unaltered glass surface analysis. The surface was finally polished with diamond pastes and then coated with a graphite layer [34] to be studied by electron probe micro analyser with wavelength dispersive spectrometer (EPMA-WDS). To determine major element concentrations, EPMA analyses were carried out using JEOL-JXA 8230 (JEOL Ltd., Tokyo, Japan) equipped with 5 WDS Spectrometers: LDE (artificial layered dispersive element), TAP (thallium acid phthalate), PET (PEnTaerythritol), LiF (lithium fluoride), and crystals. The EPMA was used under the following operating conditions for chemical analyses: acceleration voltage 15 kV, probe current 10 nA, and a defocused beam of 10 µm to avoid the loss of alkali. Furthermore, an acquisition time of 15 s was selected to avoid the loss of Na and ensure the correct determination of other element concentrations. The reliability of the results was verified by measuring the SRM610 by NIST (National Institute of Standards and Technology)-certified reference for materials and glass (Table 2). The detection limits under the specified working conditions was 0.01 wt%.
The analyses were conducted on a selected area (about 100 µm2) in the glass core which was free of bubbles and other inclusions.
5. Results and Discussion
Table 3 lists the composition of major and minor element concentrations in wt% of oxides determined by EPMA. Each value represents the mean of the analyses executed on three different points.
All samples were soda–lime–silica glass for which the SiO2 content varied from 68.72 to 71.35 wt%, and Na2O from 16.29 to 19.62 wt%. The results showed that, consistently with the chronology obtained from the archaeological investigations on the Muricelle site [24,30], they fit perfectly into the Roman glass composition [3,5,15,17,18,22,34,35].
All vitreous fragments showed values of both MnO and K2O below 1.50 wt%, as the typical Roman glass production, indicating natron as the unique flux employed [3,11,19,36].
The archaeological studies conducted on the Muricelle site suggest that the villa and the surrounding area were active in the imperial period [24,30]; therefore, to understand the origin of raw materials and the technology of production employed in the Muricelle glass, the data were compared with the productions of that period (first–third century AD).
As stated above, the main compositional glass groups dominating the Roman imperial period (first–third century AD) were: Roman naturally coloured blue green, Sb-decolourised, Mn-decolourised, and Sb + Mn decolourised glasses related to the different decolouring agent used during the glassmaking production [15,17,18,21,22].
Regarding the Muricelle glasses, they were divided into three groups: (1) Mn_a characterised by high MnO content, formed by only three samples (Md = 1.38 wt%; M15 = 1.47 wt%; and M16 = 1.43 wt%); (2) Mn_b with MnO varying from 0.13 wt% to 0.56 wt% and Sb below the detection limit (samples: Ma, Mb, Mg, Mh, Mi, and Ml); and (3) Sb + Mn, decoloured glass, which was the largest group consisting of eight samples (Mc, Me, Mf, Mm, Mn, Mo, M17, and M18). In this last group, MnO varied from 0.30 wt% to 0.74 wt% and Sb2O5 from 0.13 wt% to 0.71 wt% (see Table 3).
In the Al2O3 versus MnO/(MnO + Sb2O5) diagram (Figure 3), the data obtained on the studied glasses were compared with a selection of: (1) glasses from the Archaeological Museum of Adria [5], (2) glasses of Carthage [8], (3) vitreous finds of Coppergate, York [15], (4) colourless glasses from the Roman ship Iulia Felix, wrecked off the town of Grado (Udine—Italy) [17], and (5) Mn-decoloured Roman vitreous objects and a naturally coloured raw glass chunk from Pompeii [34].
In Figure 3, the antimony free glasses (groups Mn_a and Mn_b) plot in the upper part of the diagram is consistent with the bibliographic data of the Roman manganese-decolourised glasses [5,8,15,17,34].
The other studied Muricelle samples were distinct from the antimony free glass groups (Figure 3). Considering the presence of variable quantities of Sb, this group showed a remarkable affinity with most of the Sb + Mn glass of bibliographic Roman mixed antimony and manganese glass [5,8,15,17]. They contained both antimony and manganese, with MnO/(MnO + Sb2O5) ratios varying from 0.34 to 0.80. This result is a consequence of the recycling of glass, which has been a particularly widespread practice during the imperial period, as suggested by previous studies [15,17,18,21,22].
The Muricelle glass groups, other than the contents and the type of decolourants, also differed from each other for soda, lime, and aluminium; however, they showed quite similar potash, magnesium, and iron oxide contents.
In the diagrams CaO versus Na2O and CaO versus Al2O3 (Figure 4a,b, respectively), the three Muricelle groups plotted in distinct areas. In detail, the Mn_a and Mn_b samples were richer in CaO (>7 wt%) and poorer in Na2O (from 16.29 to 17.70 wt%) than the Sb + Mn glasses which, on the contrary, showed a maximum CaO content of 6.59 wt% and Na2O varying from 18.18 to 19.72 wt%. Concerning Al2O3, all three groups showed similar concentrations (2.06–2.63 wt%).
In the diagrams of Figure 4a,b, the comparison between the Muricelle glasses and the bibliographic data confirmed the similarity of Mn_a and Mn_b groups with the Mn glass of Gallo et al. [5], Schibille et al. [8], Jackson and Paynter [15], Silvestri et al. [17], and De Francesco et al. [34]. At the same time, the Sb + Mn samples overlapped with the Sb + Mn glasses of Gallo et al. [5], Schibille et al. [8], Jackson and Paynter [15], and Silvestri et al. [17].
As for the raw materials used for the glass production, some major and minor elements such as CaO and Al2O3 content and even iron and titanium are indicative of the care selection of sand [3] and above all, the presence of impurity such as calcite, feldspar, clay minerals, and heavy minerals. The CaO contents observed in the Muricelle glass groups highlighted the use of sands with a variable content of calcium during the glassmaking production.
The FeO versus MnO plot (Figure 5) shows the low values of FeO (below 0.5 wt%) for all the analysed glasses, which together with the high value of SiO2 (Table 3) confirms the use of selected sands. The MnO content, as stated above, had variable values; particularly, the high concentrations (around 1.5 wt%) of MnO in the Mn_a group indicated the deliberate addition of this element as a decolouring agent [19] and the probable use of pyrolusite (MnO2), the most common manganese minerals [26], which was a very widespread technique in the Roman period to neutralize the colour due to the iron oxides naturally present in the raw materials [18,19,37]. The Mn_b and Sb + Mn groups showed similar contents of Fe, confirming that the iron content was low for all Muricelle glasses, highlighting the absence of intentional addition. On the other hand, the MnO contents > 0.025 and ≤ 1 wt% suggested the possibility of unintentional addition of this element through a recycling process [8,15,21].
In all samples of Mn_b and Sb + Mn groups and in the M15 sample of Mn_a group, CuO and/or PbO and/or SnO were detected in amounts higher than 100 ppm; this also suggested the production through recycling involving coloured glass scraps added in the re-melting process [5,15,17,19].
Further information on the raw materials and their origin could be obtained from the diagram Al2O3/SiO2 versus TiO2/Al2O3 (Figure 6), as these oxides represent the quartz content (SiO2), the feldspar content (Al2O3), and the heavy minerals content (TiO2) [5,8,17,22].
Analysing Figure 6, we observed that the Muricelle glasses perfectly fit the coeval bibliographic data [5,8,15,17,34].
All samples of Mn_a and Mn_b groups overlapped with the Roman-Mn glass. On the contrary, no fragments belonging to the Roman-Sb group were recognised. The Sb + Mn Muricelle group, as stated above, included recycled glasses. In particular, the Sb + Mn samples plot between the two bibliographic end members (Roman-Sb and Roman-Mn) reflected the proportion of the two glass types during the re-melting process. All the recycled glass samples plotted in the central area of the diagram, close to the coeval bibliographic data of the Roman-Sb + Mn group [5,8,15,17].
Based on the Al2O3/SiO2 and TiO2/Al2O3 ratios, Schibille et al. [10] proposed a subdivision of primary glasses into two provenances from Egypt and Levant. In detail, Schibille et al. [10] assigned to the Roman-Sb glasses an Egyptian origin and to the Roman-Mn glasses a Levantine coast origin. The Mn_a and the Mn_b Muricelle glasses were produced mainly using Levantine sands; on the other hand, for the glasses from the Sb + Mn group, it is more complicated to define the raw materials provenance because they are recycled and therefore represent a mixture of the two end members (i.e., Sb and Mn colourless glass).
6. Conclusions
The chemical characterization carried out by EPMA on seventeen light coloured glass finds dated first to the third century AD from the archaeological site of Muricelle near Cosenza in Calabria (Italy) highlighted different compositions attributable both to employed raw materials and production technologies. Although all the studied finds were soda–lime–silica glasses produced with natron as flux, the chemical composition and the comparison with coeval productions revealed the presence of three groups. The samples of Mn_a and Mn_b groups were classified as Roman-Mn and Mn-unintentionally coloured Roman glasses, respectively; on the other hand, the Sb + Mn group included samples obtained through recycling Mn- and Sb- Roman glass. The first two groups (Mn_a and Mn_b) showed a remarkable compositional homogeneity, especially for calcium, sodium, and aluminium contents but were distinguished by the content of MnO added as a decolourant in the Mn_a group. The Sb + Mn group, unlike the other two, contained antimony and showed different chemical concentrations in calcium, sodium, and aluminium, suggesting the use of different raw materials in the primary glass centres. In all samples, except for the Md and M16 glasses from Mn_a group, the presence of Cu, Sn, and Pb oxides in amounts higher than 100 ppm suggested the recycling involving the inclusion of coloured glass in the cullet.
Considering the compositional characteristics and the differences among the analysed glasses, despite the recycling, the samples pertaining to Mn_a and Mn_b groups could be considered as being produced mainly from glass originating in primary Levantine workshops, while the samples from the Sb + Mn group resulted from recycling glass manufactured in both Levantine and Egyptian primary workshops.
These new data improve the knowledge about the Muricelle site, and they are in agreement with the results on coeval finds from different Roman archaeological sites dated to the first–third century AD. Moreover, the different raw material provenance of the Muricelle glasses indicated that the site was commercially active and played a leading role within the middle valley of Crati River during the imperial age.
Author Contributions
Data curation, A.M.D.F., A.L.M., C.C. and D.B.; formal analysis, A.M.D.F. and D.B.; investigation, A.M.D.F. and D.B.; resources, A.L.M.; supervision, D.B.; writing—original draft, A.M.D.F. and D.B.; writing—review & editing, A.M.D.F. and D.B. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding
This research received no external funding.
Conflicts of Interest
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
References
- La Marca, A. Nuovi materiali per una carta archeologica del territorio di Luzzi. In Archeologia Nel Territorio di Luzzi: Stato Della Ricerca e Prospettive; Rubbettino: Soveria Mannelli, Italy, 2002; pp. 33–57. [Google Scholar]
- De Francesco, A.M.; Graziano, T.; Andaloro, E.; La Marca, A.; Colelli, C.; Crisci, G.M.; Barrese, E.; Bocci, M. Archaeometric characterization of amphorae and bricks of Imperial Age found in a roman villa near the Luzzi town (Cosenza, Calabria, Italy). Period. Mineral. 2011, 80, 217–230. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Freestone, I.C.; Gorin Rosen, Y.; Hughes, M.J. Primary glass from Israel and the production of glass in late antiquity and in the early Islamic period. In La Route Du Verre: Ateliers Primaires et Secondaires de Verriers du Second Millénaire av. J. C. au Moyen-Âge; Nenna, M.D., Ed.; Travaux de la Maison de l’Orient Méditerranéen; Nenna, M.D., Ed.; TMO: Lyon, France, 2000; Volume 33, pp. 65–83. [Google Scholar]
- Freestone, I.C. Primary glass sources in the Mid First Millennium A.D. In Proceedings of the Annales du 15e Congres de l’Association Internationale pour l’historie du Verre, New York, NY, USA, 15–20 October 2001; pp. 111–115. [Google Scholar]
- Gallo, F.; Silvestri, A.; Molin, G. Glass from the Archaeological Museum of Adria (North-East Italy): New insights into Early Roman production technologies. J. Archaeol. Sci. 2013, 40, 2589–2605. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ganio, M.; Boyen, S.; Brems, D.; Scott, R.; Foy, D.; Latruwe, K.; Molin, G.; Silvestri, A.; Vanhaecke, F.; Degryse, P. Trade routes across the Mediterranean: A Sr/Nd isotopic investigation on Roman colourless glass. Glass Technol. Eur. J. Glass Sci. Technol. Part A 2012, 53, 217–224. [Google Scholar]
- Wedepohl, K.H.; Baumann, A. The use of marine molluskan shells for Roman glass and local raw glass production in Eifel area (western Germany). Naturwissenschafen 2000, 87, 29–132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schibille, N.N.; Sterrett-Krause, A.A.; Freestone, I.C. Glass groups, glass supply and recycling in late Roman Carthage. Archaeol. Anthropol. Sci. 2017, 9, 1223–1241. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Freestone, I.C. The Provenance of Ancient Glass through Compositional Analysis. In Materials Research Society Symposia Proceedings; G. D’Agostino: Napoli, Italy, 2005. [Google Scholar]
- Foster, H.E.; Jackson, C.M. The composition of “naturally coloured” late Roman vessel glass from Britain and the implications for models of glass production and supply. J. Archaeol. Sci. 2009, 36, 189–204. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shortland, A.J. Evaporites of the Wadi Natrun: Seasonal and annual variation and its implication for ancient exploitation. Archaeometry 2004, 46, 497–516. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Freestone, I.C.; Ponting, M.; Hughes, M.J. The origin of Byzantine glass from Maroni Petrera, Cyprus. Archaeometry 2002, 44, 257–272. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sayre, E.V.; Smith, R.V. Compositional categories of ancient glass. Science 1961, 133, 1826–1827. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Foy, D.; Picon, M.; Vichy, M.; Thirion-Merle, V. Caractérisation des verres de la fin de l’Antiquité en Méditerranée occidentale: L’émergence de nouveaux courants commerciaux. In Échanges et Commerce du Verre Dans le Monde Antique: Actes du Colloque de l’Association Française Pour l’Archéologie du Verre, Aix-en-Provence et Marseille, 7–9 June 2001; Foy, D., Nenna, M.-D., Eds.; Monique Mergoil: Montagnac, France, 2003; pp. 41–85. [Google Scholar]
- Jackson, C.M.; Paynter, S.A. Great big melting pot: Exploring patterns of glass supply, consumption and recycling in Roman Coppergate, York. Archaeometry 2016, 58, 68–95. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Jackson, C.M. Making colourless glass in the Roman period. Archaeometry 2005, 47, 763–780. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Silvestri, A.; Molin, G.; Salviulo, G. The colourless glass of Iulia Felix. J. Archaeol. Sci. 2008, 35, 331–341. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gliozzo, E. The composition of colourless glass: A review. Archaeol. Anthropol. Sci. 2017, 9, 455–483. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Paynter, S. Analyses of colourless Roman glass from Binchester, County Durham. J. Archaeol. Sci. 2006, 33, 1037–1057. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mirti, P.; Casoli, A.; Appolonia, L. Scientific analysis of Roman glass from Augusta Praetoria. Archaeometry 1993, 35, 225–240. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Freestone, I.C. The recycling and reuse of Roman glass: Analytical approaches. J. Glass Stud. 2015, 57, 29–40. [Google Scholar]
- Coutinho, I.; Medici, T.; Alves, L.C.; Perović, Š. Colourless Roman glass from the Zadar necropolis: An exploratory approach. J. Archaeol. Sci. Rep. 2017, 15, 194–202. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Silvestri, A.; Gallo, F.; Maltoni, S.; Degryse, P.; Ganio, M.; Longinelli, A.; Molin, G. Things that travelled—A review of the Roman glass from Northern Adriatic Italy. In Things that Travelled: Mediterranean Glass in the First Millennium CE; Rosenow, D., Phelps, M., Meek, A., Freestone, I.C., Eds.; UCL Press: London, UK, 2018; pp. 346–367. ISBN 978-1-78735-117-2. [Google Scholar]
- Colelli, C. Rinvenimenti ceramici di età imperiale romana da Muricelle di Luzzi. In Archeologia e Ceramica. Ceramica e Attività Produttive a Bisignano e in Calabria Dalla Protostoria ai Giorni Nostri; La Marca, A., Ed.; Atti del Convegno; Grafosud Rossano-Italia: Bisignano, Italy, 2005; pp. 93–120. [Google Scholar]
- Vanzetti, A.; Righini, D. Nota su un reperto protostorico da Muricelle di Luzzi (Cosenza). In Archeologia Nel Territorio di Luzzi: Stato Della Ricerca e Prospettive; La Marca, A., Ed.; Rubbettino: Soveria Mannelli, Italy, 2002; pp. 157–166. [Google Scholar]
- Marchese, G. Tebe Lucana, Val di Crati e l’odierna Luzzi; G. D’Agostino: Napoli, Italy, 1957. [Google Scholar]
- Colelli, C. Bronzo finale e prima età del Ferro nella Media valle del Crati. In I Percorsi Della Memoria 2014 Atti dei Seminari di Studio; La Serra, C., Ed.; Thoth: Ricadi, Italy, 2016; pp. 1–26. [Google Scholar]
- Isings, C. Roman Glass from Dated Finds; Ed. J. B. Wolters: Groningen, The Netherlands, 1957. [Google Scholar]
- Barbera, M. Una bottiglia monoansata in vetro Isings 50/51 dall’area E di Nora, in LANX. Riv. Sc. Spec. Beni Archeol. del’Università Degli Studi Di Milano 2011, 9, 110–121. [Google Scholar]
- La Marca, A. Una villa rustica di età imperiale romana nel territorio di Luzzi. Riv. Stor. Calabr. 1997, 18, 241–270. [Google Scholar]
- Scatozza Höricht, L.A. L’Instrumentum Vitreum di Pompei; Ed. Aracne: Roma Italy, 2012. [Google Scholar]
- Fusi, M.; Uboldi, M.; Ciappi, S.; Rabajoli, F. Il vasellame vitreo di prima e media età imperiale dall’insediamento di Poggio del Molino (Populonia-LI). In Proceedings of the Siti Produttivi e Indicatori di Produzione del Vetro in Italia Dall’antichità all’età Contemporanea, Vercelli, Italy, 20–21 May 2017; XIX Giornate Nazionali di Studi sul Vetro. Museo Camillo Leone: Cremona, Italy, 2019; pp. 153–158. [Google Scholar]
- Barca, D.; Papparella, F. Chemical characterization of vitreous finds from Cosenza Cathedral (Calabria–Italy) by the combined use of analytical techniques. Open Archaeol. 2020, 6, 63–89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- De Francesco, A.M.; Scarpelli, R.; Conte, M.; Toniolo, L. Characterization of Roman glass from Casa Bacco deposit at Pompeii by Wavelength-Dispersive Electron Probe Microanalysis (EPMA). Mediterran. Archaeol. Archaeom. 2019, 19, 79–91. [Google Scholar]
- Silvestri, A.; Molin, G.; Salviulo, G. Roman and Medieval glass from the Italian area: Bulk characterisation and relationships with production technology. Archaeometry 2005, 47, 797–816. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lilyquist, C.; Brill, R.H. Studies in Early Egyptian Glass; Metropolitan Museum of Art: New York, NY, USA, 1993; ISBN 978-0300200195. [Google Scholar]
- Gliozzo, E.; Santagostino Barbone, A.; D’Acapito, F. Waste glass, vessel and window- panes from Thamusida (Morocco): Grouping natron- based blue- green and colourless Roman glasses. Archaeometry 2013, 55, 609–639. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Figure 1.
(a) Italy—Calabria; (b) Muricelle archaeological site; photos of (c) ruins of wall and (d) opus spicatum floor of the Roman villa.
Figure 1.
(a) Italy—Calabria; (b) Muricelle archaeological site; photos of (c) ruins of wall and (d) opus spicatum floor of the Roman villa.
Figure 2.
(a) Photograph of Muricelle glasses analysed in this study; (b) possible shape attribution of the vitreous finds.
Figure 2.
(a) Photograph of Muricelle glasses analysed in this study; (b) possible shape attribution of the vitreous finds.
Figure 3.
Al2O3 versus MnO/(MnO + Sb2O5) diagram. The bibliographic data refer to coeval Roman glasses [5,8,15,17,34].
Figure 4.
(a) CaO versus Na2O; (b) CaO versus Al2O3. The bibliographic data refer to coeval Roman glasses [5,8,15,17,34].
Figure 5.
FeO versus MnO diagram. The bibliographic data refer to coeval Roman glasses [5,8,15,17,34].
Figure 6.
Al2O3/SiO2 versus TiO2/Al2O3. The bibliographic data refer to coeval Roman glasses [5,8,15,17,34].
Table 1.
Typological analyses of Muricelle vitreous finds (N.I. = not identified; ? = dubious type or chronology).
Table 1.
Typological analyses of Muricelle vitreous finds (N.I. = not identified; ? = dubious type or chronology).
| Sample | Shape | Type | Chronology | Colour |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ma | Bottle | N.I. | N.I. | Light blue green |
| Mb | Bottle | Isings 50/51 [28] | 1st–3rd century AD [29] | Light blue green |
| Mc | Bombilium | Isings 28A ? [28] | 1st–3rd century AD ? | Light blue |
| Md | Bottle | Isings 50/51 [28] | 1st–3rd century AD [29] Similar to those recovered in Pompei [30] | Light green |
| Me | Bottle | Isings 50/51 [28] | 1st–3rd century AD [29] Similar to those recovered in Pompei [31] | Light blue green |
| Mf | Glass | Isings 34 ? [28] | 1st–3rd century AD ? | Colourless-light blue |
| Mg | Cup | Isings 47 ? [28] | First half of 2nd century AD ? Similar to those recovered in Settefinestre (Grosseto—Italy) | Light blue |
| Mh | Open shape | Isings 75 ? [28] | 1st–3rd century AD ? | Light green |
| Mi | Cup | Isings 3 [28] | 1st AD similar to those recovered in Pompei [31] | Light blue green |
| Ml | Jug | Isings 67A ? [28] | 1st–3rd century AD ? | Light blue green |
| Mm | Cup or Plate | Isings 18 [28] | 1st–3rd century AD | Colourless |
| Mn | Plate | Isings 97c ? [28] | 1st–3rd century AD ? | Light blue |
| Mo | Cup | Isings 43 [28] | Second half of 1st century AD—first half of 2nd century AD [32] Similar to those recovered in Poggio del Molino (Populonia Piombino LI) | Light green |
| M15 | Cup | Unknown | N.I | Colourless |
| M16 | Cup | Unknown | N.I | Colourless |
| M17 | Cup | Unknown | N.I | Colourless |
| M18 | Cup | Unknown | N.I | Light blue green |
Table 2.
Analyses of NIST SRM610 standard glass. Comparison between certified and measured values.
| NIST-SRM610 | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Certified Values (1) | Measured Values | Accuracies (2) | |
| SiO2 | 72 | 71.8 | 0.28 |
| TiO2 | 0.07 | 0.069 | 1.43 |
| Al2O3 | 2 | 2.12 | −6.00 |
| FeO | 0.059 | 0.054 | 8.47 |
| CaO | 12 | 11.8 | 1.67 |
| Na2O | 14 | 14.3 | −2.14 |
| K2O | 0.056 | 0.057 | −1.79 |
| MnO | 0.059 | 0.056 | 5.08 |
| PbO | 0.05 | 0.049 | 2.00 |
| CuO | 0.056 | 0.052 | 7.14 |
| Sb2O5 | 0.055 | 0.053 | 3.64 |
| SnO2 | 0.051 | 0.049 | 3.92 |
(1) Certified values of Ti, Fe, K, Mn, Pb, Cu, Sb, and Sn expressed in ppm were converted to wt% of oxides. (2) Accuracy = ((measured value − certified value)/certified value) × 100.
Table 3.
Major element concentrations in wt% of oxides determined by EPMA. For each oxide, we calculated the standard deviation (StDev) of three analyses.
Table 3.
Major element concentrations in wt% of oxides determined by EPMA. For each oxide, we calculated the standard deviation (StDev) of three analyses.
| Group | Sample | SiO2 | TiO2 | Al2O3 | FeO | MgO | CaO | Na2O | K2O | MnO | PbO | CuO | Sb2O5 | SnO2 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mn_b | Ma | 71.04 | 0.07 | 2.48 | 0.32 | 0.49 | 7.44 | 16.48 | 0.59 | 0.30 | n.d. | 0.02 | n.d. | 0.07 |
| Ma_StDev | 0.07 | 0.06 | 0.04 | 0.05 | 0.03 | 0.09 | 0.10 | 0.03 | 0.03 | - | - | - | 0.02 | |
| Mn_b | Mb | 71.35 | 0.06 | 2.49 | 0.37 | 0.52 | 7.00 | 16.99 | 0.52 | 0.22 | 0.03 | 0.03 | n.d. | 0.06 |
| Mb_StDev | 0.93 | 0.04 | 0.06 | 0.07 | 0.02 | 0.17 | 0.39 | 0.03 | 0.08 | 0.02 | - | - | 0.01 | |
| Sb + Mn | Mc | 69.26 | 0.07 | 2.32 | 0.39 | 0.54 | 6.15 | 19.26 | 0.67 | 0.71 | 0.12 | 0.03 | 0.33 | 0.02 |
| Mc_StDev | 0.66 | 0.03 | 0.08 | 0.04 | 0.05 | 0.09 | 0.51 | 0.01 | 0.09 | - | 0.004 | 0.06 | - | |
| Mn_a | Md | 69.78 | 0.03 | 2.32 | 0.35 | 0.55 | 7.38 | 16.29 | 0.50 | 1.38 | 0.10 | n.d. | n.d. | n.d. |
| Md_StDev | 0.39 | 0.04 | 0.08 | 0.09 | 0.02 | 0.11 | 0.05 | 0.02 | 0.11 | 0.03 | - | - | - | |
| Sb + Mn | Me | 68.72 | 0.12 | 2.31 | 0.37 | 0.61 | 6.59 | 18.48 | 0.62 | 0.46 | 0.13 | 0.05 | 0.13 | 0.05 |
| Me_StDev | 0.43 | - | 0.05 | 0.08 | 0.02 | 0.12 | 0.55 | 0.01 | 0.01 | 0.03 | - | 0.08 | 0.03 | |
| Sb + Mn | Mf | 69.80 | 0.08 | 2.13 | 0.36 | 0.53 | 5.70 | 19.62 | 0.52 | 0.42 | 0.14 | n.d. | 0.71 | 0.02 |
| Mf_StDev | 0.30 | 0.03 | 0.03 | 0.04 | 0.03 | 0.05 | 0.29 | 0.07 | 0.05 | 0.05 | - | 0.12 | 0.01 | |
| Mn_b | Mg | 70.45 | 0.03 | 2.51 | 0.33 | 0.55 | 8.15 | 16.71 | 0.67 | 0.36 | 0.25 | n.d. | n.d. | 0.11 |
| Mg_StDev | 0.55 | - | 0.01 | 0.09 | 0.02 | 0.18 | 0.18 | 0.03 | 0.04 | - | - | - | - | |
| Mn_b | Mh | 70.16 | n.d. | 2.33 | 0.27 | 0.49 | 8.17 | 17.52 | 0.43 | 0.13 | 0.05 | 0.04 | n.d. | 0.05 |
| Mh_StDev | 0.35 | - | 0.07 | 0.04 | 0.02 | 0.02 | 0.20 | 0.02 | 0.02 | 0.02 | - | - | - | |
| Mn_b | Mi | 70.56 | 0.06 | 2.56 | 0.40 | 0.55 | 7.84 | 17.44 | 0.58 | 0.19 | 0.08 | 0.02 | n.d. | 0.06 |
| Mi_StDev | 0.24 | 0.04 | 0.04 | 0.06 | 0.03 | 0.07 | 0.11 | 0.02 | 0.00 | - | - | - | - | |
| Mn_b | Ml | 70.78 | 0.05 | 2.63 | 0.39 | 0.66 | 7.62 | 16.69 | 0.57 | 0.56 | n.d. | 0.01 | n.d. | 0.02 |
| Ml_StDev | 0.25 | 0.03 | 0.01 | 0.11 | 0.02 | 0.10 | 0.19 | 0.01 | 0.03 | - | - | - | 0.004 | |
| Sb + Mn | Mm | 70.23 | 0.11 | 2.06 | 0.41 | 0.52 | 5.82 | 19.26 | 0.63 | 0.35 | 0.02 | n.d. | 0.55 | 0.04 |
| Mm_StDev | 0.21 | 0.08 | 0.06 | 0.06 | 0.04 | 0.07 | 0.07 | 0.02 | 0.06 | - | - | 0.05 | - | |
| Sb + Mn | Mn | 70.33 | 0.07 | 2.33 | 0.34 | 0.65 | 6.54 | 18.41 | 0.65 | 0.61 | 0.11 | 0.03 | 0.24 | n.d. |
| Mn_StDev | 1.29 | 0.04 | 0.08 | 0.11 | 0.04 | 0.17 | 0.56 | 0.05 | 0.00 | 0.08 | 0.01 | 0.07 | - | |
| Sb + Mn | Mo | 69.00 | 0.09 | 2.25 | 0.49 | 0.69 | 5.84 | 18.43 | 0.75 | 0.55 | 0.16 | 0.02 | 0.43 | 0.03 |
| Mo_StDev | 0.36 | 0.02 | 0.05 | 0.09 | 0.01 | 0.13 | 0.19 | 0.01 | 0.04 | 0.05 | - | 0.02 | - | |
| Mn_a | M15 | 69.70 | 0.06 | 2.49 | 0.20 | 0.62 | 7.30 | 17.70 | 0.54 | 1.47 | 0.08 | n.d. | n.d | 0.14 |
| M15_StDev | 0.15 | 0.04 | 0.03 | 0.02 | 0.00 | 0.06 | 0.12 | 0.04 | 0.05 | 0.08 | - | - | - | |
| Mn_a | M16 | 69.53 | 0.07 | 2.39 | 0.20 | 0.59 | 7.26 | 16.59 | 0.60 | 1.43 | n.d. | n.d. | n.d. | n.d. |
| M16_StDev | 0.45 | 0.04 | 0.04 | 0.03 | 0.01 | 0.04 | 0.47 | 0.04 | 0.04 | - | - | - | - | |
| Sb + Mn | M17 | 69.70 | 0.07 | 2.16 | 0.42 | 0.63 | 5.96 | 19.24 | 0.80 | 0.30 | 0.10 | n.d. | 0.60 | n.d. |
| M17_StDev | 0.50 | 0.09 | 0.02 | 0.03 | 0.03 | 0.02 | 0.20 | 0.02 | 0.04 | 0.05 | - | 0.09 | - | |
| Sb + Mn | M18 | 69.57 | 0.06 | 2.30 | 0.45 | 0.72 | 6.68 | 18.18 | 0.98 | 0.74 | 0.15 | 0.04 | 0.19 | 0.03 |
| M18_StDev | 0.30 | 0.04 | 0.08 | 0.05 | 0.17 | 0.18 | 0.05 | 0.05 | 0.14 | - | 0.02 | 0.02 |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2022 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
MDPI and ACS Style
De Francesco, A.M.; La Marca, A.; Colelli, C.; Barca, D. Chemical Characterization of the Roman Glass Finds from Muricelle Archaeological Site (Luzzi, Cosenza). Minerals 2022, 12, 475. https://doi.org/10.3390/min12040475
AMA Style
De Francesco AM, La Marca A, Colelli C, Barca D. Chemical Characterization of the Roman Glass Finds from Muricelle Archaeological Site (Luzzi, Cosenza). Minerals. 2022; 12(4):475. https://doi.org/10.3390/min12040475
Chicago/Turabian StyleDe Francesco, Anna Maria, Antonio La Marca, Carmelo Colelli, and Donatella Barca. 2022. "Chemical Characterization of the Roman Glass Finds from Muricelle Archaeological Site (Luzzi, Cosenza)" Minerals 12, no. 4: 475. https://doi.org/10.3390/min12040475
Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.
