ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Geochemical study of pottery sherds from an archaeological sitenear Mosnje (Slovenia)

Nastja Rogan Smuc • Matej Dolenec •

Judita Lux • Sabina Kramar

Received: 4 October 2012 / Accepted: 16 October 2013

� Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Abstract This study is a geochemical analytical

approach to the characterization of pottery samples from an

archaeological site near Mosnje (Slovenia). Inductively

coupled plasma–mass spectrometry and statistical analyses

were used to determine detailed geochemical properties of

the pottery sherds and to identify potentially individual

groups among the samples studied. The geochemical

results indicated the existence of four major groups of the

pottery sherds: the first and second groups are assembled

from eight samples, all generally characterized by their

high CaO and TOT/C content; the third group comprised

the samples with the highest SiO2 concentrations; and the

fourth group is represented by the samples K3, K5 and

K13. The principal component analysis and cluster analysis

validated the existing groups and revealed a high degree of

chemical similarity between these groups. The geochemi-

cal and statistical data confirmed the archaeologists’

hypothesis and interpretation of a similar origin/alteration

of source material/probable local ceramic production for

the majority of the pottery sherds; the imported origin of

samples K3 and K13 was recognized, while sample K5 had

been intentionally imported as a sample for comparative

purposes.

Keywords Geochemical composition � ICP–MS �Statistical analysis � Pottery sherds � Mosnje �Slovenia

Introduction

Pottery was probably the first synthetic material made by

humans, and pottery production is one of the oldest and

extensive of human activities in all civilizations. Pottery

fragments are usually found at numerous archaeological

sites around the world and consequently comprise the

material most often studied by scientists (Barone et al.

2002; Barrios-Neira et al. 2009; Belfiore et al. 2007, 2010;

Comodi et al. 2006; De Clercq and Degryse 2008; Iorda-

nidis et al. 2009; Mangone et al. 2009; Rathossi et al. 2004;

Riederer 1992, 2004). The analytical techniques commonly

used to study the chemical properties of pottery samples

are inductively coupled plasma spectroscopy (ICP), X-ray

fluorescence (XRF), neutron activation analysis (NAA),

etc. (Iordanidis et al. 2009; Aldrabee and Wriekat 2011;

Glascock et al. 2004; Maniatis and Tsirtsoni 2002;

Mommsen et al. 2002; Polvorinos del Rıo et al. 2005;

Sanchez Ramos et al. 2002). ICP–MS is a very important

mass spectrometric analytical technique for the multi-ele-

mental chemical analysis of solid samples in materials

science. This technique has excellent analytical character-

istics such as high precision, selectivity and sensitivity

(Becker 2002).

The variation in the chemical composition of pottery

either defines its origin from different production sites or

reflects the natural inhomogeneity of local clay deposits

N. Rogan Smuc (&) � M. Dolenec � S. Kramar

Department of Geology, Faculty of Natural Sciences

and Engineering, University of Ljubljana, Askerceva 12,

1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia

e-mail: nastja.rogan@guest.arnes.si

J. Lux

Preventive Archaeology Department, Institute for the Protection

of the Cultural Heritage of Slovenia, Tomsiceva 7, 4000 Kranj,

Slovenia

S. Kramar

Slovenian National Building and Civil Engineering Institute,

Dimiceva 12, 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia

123

Environ Earth Sci

DOI 10.1007/s12665-013-2874-1

and denotes manufacturing processes in local workshops

(Belfiore et al. 2007; Glascock et al. 2004; Barone et al.

2005; Bruno et al. 2000; Fermo et al. 2008; Mannino and

Orecchio 2011; Tandoh et al. 2009; Zhu et al. 2004).

Additionally, it is important to employ different multivar-

iate statistical methods in analysing the correlation between

elemental concentrations, as well as with absolute con-

centrations, to establish the various sources of pottery

samples. Many examples of the application of principal

component analysis and cluster analysis methods, includ-

ing cluster analysis (CA), principal component analysis

(PCA) and discriminant analysis (DA), are present in the

literature (Belfiore et al. 2007; Glascock et al. 2004;

Barone et al. 2005; Bruno et al. 2000; Fermo et al. 2008;

Mannino and Orecchio 2011; Tandoh et al. 2009; Zhu et al.

2004; Baxter 1994; Baxter and Buck 2000).

In Slovenia, there are only a few studies concerning

Roman ceramics (Daszkiewicz and Schneider 1999, 2008a, b;

Zupancic 2006; Zupancic and Bole 1997; Zupancic and

Munda 2006; Kramar et al. 2012). A recently uncovered

archaeological site near the village of Mosnje is located in the

NW part of Slovenia and encompasses a Roman country villa

(villa rustica), which could also have been used as a road

station (mansion) (Sagadin and Lux 2010). The articles dis-

covered there (pottery fragments, coins, jewellery, elements

of costume, etc.) suggested that the Roman villa rustica dates

back to the period between the first and fourth centuries

(Sagadin and Lux 2010). Kramar et al. (2012), Sagadin and

Lux (2010), Lux (2008) and Kramar et al. (2008) report on

the basic archaeological, mineralogical and chemical study of

the chosen pottery sherds, but a detailed geochemical and

statistical analysis has still not been conducted.

Therefore, the main objectives of this study were to

determine the detailed elemental composition of the pottery

fragments from the Mosnje archaeological site, using the

multivariate statistical methods, CA and PCA, to identify data

structures and potentially to distinguish individual groups of

samples and to verify if the chemical differences reflect the

archaeologists’ classification of the objects studied.

Materials and methods

Study area

The Mosnje archaeological site is situated on the river Sava

terrace between the communities of Mosnje and Globoko.

The archaeological research was accomplished in

November 2006 and from January to April 2007. A total of

11,600 m2 of the area, including the Roman villa itself, was

studied during this period. The familiar analogies and small

articles discovered indicated the existence of a Roman

country villa (villa rustica), which could also have been

used as a road station (mansion). This view is also sup-

ported by the route of the old road, which is defined by the

lie of the land to the west of the study area. The villa

rustica consisted of five masonry buildings incorporated

within an embankment (Fig. 1) (Kramar et al. 2008). Two

of the main structures represent a residence and a farm

building, with the former having seven rooms, including a

bath (balneum) (Kramar et al. 2012).

Pottery fragments (Fig. 2) were found and chosen

exclusively from closed stratigraphic units in the area of the

residential building of the villa rustica. It was possible to date

the oldest fragment to the La Tene period (Late Iron Age) or

Early Roman period, followed by fragments from the Early

Roman period, Roman period and the youngest fragments

from the Late Roman period (Sagadin and Lux 2010).

Only those samples which were estimated, based on

archaeological observations, to be local/regional products

(i.e. not imported) were used for the study. An amphora

sherd was included in the sample list as most probably being

an imported sample (Horvat 1999). Information about the

microlocation, type, surface colour and probable date of the

pottery samples was provided in Kramar et al. (2012).

Optical microscopy and X-ray powder diffraction analyses

showed that all investigated pottery samples could be

divided into two groups; one characterized by predominant

coarse calcite grains (group 1) and the other by predominant

fine silicate grains (group 2). Mineral phases of feldspar,

hematite, magnetite, diopside and montmorillonite were

also observed via optical microscopy and confirmed using

X-ray powder diffraction (Kramar et al. 2012).

Analysis

All pottery samples were ground in an agate grinder to a

fine powder (particle size of \50 lm) and sent to the

laboratory for subsequent geochemical analysis. The

Fig. 1 Aerial photograph of the villa rustica location (residential

building circled) (after Kramar et al. 2012)

Environ Earth Sci

123

analyses were performed in a certified commercial Cana-

dian laboratory (Acme Analytical Laboratories, Vancou-

ver, BC, Canada). Total abundances of the major oxides

and several minor elements were measured by ICP emis-

sion spectrometry following a lithium metaborate/tetrabo-

rate fusion and dilute nitric digestion. Rare earth and

refractory elements were determined using ICP mass

spectrometry after lithium metaborate/tetraborate fusion

and nitric acid digestion. In addition, a separate 0.5 g split

was digested in Aqua Regia and analysed by ICP mass

spectrometry to precious and base metal values. Total

carbon content was obtained via combustion in an oxygen

current (LECO method).

The accuracy and precision of pottery analysis were

both assessed using the reference material CCRMR SO-18

CSC, with an analytical precision and accuracy of better

than ±5 % for the elements investigated. This was con-

firmed by the results of a duplicate measurement of ten

pottery samples, as well as using the standard values.

Statistical analysis

Pearson R correlation analyses were applied to obtain the

elemental associations and origins of the analysed elements

in the Mosnje pottery samples. Critical values of the cor-

relation coefficients (r) 0.81 at p B 0.05 were considered

as highly significant. The basic statistical parameters for

each element and the statistical calculations mentioned

above were performed using the statistical software pro-

gram Statistica VI. Aitchison (1981, 1986) showed that the

effects of the CSC on covariance and correlation matrices

disappear, if the raw percentage data are expressed as

logarithms of ratios, where the denominator is the geo-

metric mean of the percentages in each sample. Conse-

quently, we used centred logratio transformation and

appropriate statistic treatment after. A detailed description

of the procedure is written in Aitchison (1986).

The application of multivariate statistical analysis is very

convenient to review and evaluate the variability present in

the voluminous data produced by chemical characteriza-

tion, especially in archaeological science (Baxter 1994).

Hence, CA and PCA were undertaken using the Statistica

VI program. CA techniques enable groups of objects within

the data set to be identified. In this paper, the agglomerative

hierarchical method was used, the dissimilarity between

objects was measured by Euclidean distance, and the

objects were clustered by both average linkage and Ward’s

method. The Euclidean distance was assigned because it

gives a greater emphasis to larger differences between

variables. In PCA, a transformation of the data set based on

eigenvector methods is displayed to determine the direction

and magnitude of maximum variance of the data set in a

reduced hyperspace, defined by the first significant com-

ponents (Baxter and Buck 2000; Davis 1986). Varimax

rotation was performed to enhance group separation.

Results and discussion

Major elemental contents of the studied pottery sherds,

along with their basic statistical data, have already been

reported by Kramar et al. (2012) (Tables 1, 2). From the

CaO ? MgO vs. SiO2 binary diagram (Fig. 3), it is evident

that two major groups exist, based on the prevailing

Fig. 2 Pottery sherds of chosen

samples. a Reddish-yellow

fineware, sample K4. b Dark

grey fineware, sample K7.

c Brown coarseware, sample

K11. d Reddish-yellow

fineware, sample K13. (after

Kramar et al. 2012)

Environ Earth Sci

123

mineralogical component: either carbonate (K1, K2, K6,

K8, K10, K11 and K14) or silicate (K4, K7, K9, K12 and

K15). The application of a silicious or calcareous raw

material is probably related to the specific usage of each

pottery sherd in Roman times (Iordanidis et al. 2009). The

third group is very diverse, consisting of samples K3, K5,

K13 and K16, where K13 and K16 did not contain a

prominent carbonate or silicate component. On the other

hand, samples K3 and K5 were identified as imported

pieces; K3 could be recognized as an imported ceramic

piece and K5, the amphora sherd, was originally added as

an imported sample for comparative purposes (Kramar

et al. 2012). In the K2O ? Na2O vs. CaO ? MgO binary

diagram (Fig. 4), samples K4, K3, K5, K7, K9 and K13 are

clearly distinguishable by their higher K2O ? Na2O con-

tents, while the same differences are also detected for

samples K13 and K16. Binary diagrams also reflect and

validate the results of the mineralogical analysis of the

pottery samples (Kramar et al. 2012). Investigated pottery

described above does not contain phosphate aggregates,

they were not identified under an optical microscope and

XRD method. The absence of phosphate aggregates indi-

cates that the potsherds were not extensively contaminated

during burial. A high phosphorus concentration in ancient

pottery is commonly interpreted as a contamination effect

(Walter and Besnus 1989; Maritan 2004).

The Pearson correlation analysis (Table 3) highlighted

the significantly positive correlations between SiO2, Al2O3,

Fe2O3, K2O, TiO2 and Na2O, indicating that Si, Al, Fe, K,

Ti and Na minerals are associated with feldspars and illite/

muscovite minerals. A highly significant negative correla-

tion between CaO and other oxides (SiO2, Al2O3, Fe2O3,

K2O, TiO2 and Na2O) demonstrated either that these

elements have no affinity to Ca and/or their removal from

carbonate phases during weathering and/or a special mode

of pottery production. Highly positive correlations of MnO

with Fe2O3, MgO and Na2O, and of MgO with Na2O and

MnO, suggested similar input sources and/or a very close

mineral association between these oxides. Additionally, the

highly positive correlation of Fe2O3 with MnO revealed the

presence of Fe/Mn compounds in the investigated pottery

sherds. Negative correlations of P2O5 with all major oxides

illustrated that there were no preferred connections of P2O5

with other elements in the pottery samples (Table 3).

Trace and rare earth element (REE) concentrations,

together with mean, minimum, maximum and standard

deviation values in the pottery sherds, are summarized in

Table 2. Trace elements can be defined as geochemical

‘‘fingerprints’’, because they are usually associated with

specific petrological/mineralogical types (Aitchison 1986).

The results of analysis of the trace elemental abundances

displayed the following interesting facts. (1) The highest

contents of Cr, Ni, Co and Cu were found in imported

pottery samples K3 and K5 (Table 1) and this enrichment

could be attributed to the geochemical affinity of these

elements with ultramafic rocks in the raw material used

(Iordanidis et al. 2009). (2) Nb, Rb, Sc and V concentra-

tions were enhanced (Table 1) in pottery samples with a

predominant SiO2 content: K3, K4, K5, K7, K9, K12, K13,

K15 and K16. (3) Zn values were the highest

(115–186 ppm) in samples K3, K10, K13 and K16. (4)

Group of samples K2, K6, K10, K11 and K13 with pre-

valent CaO content had highly increased Sr concentrations

(100.6–240.4 ppm). This confirms the fact that Sr can

substitute for Ca. (5) Extremely high Zr values (up to

345.9 ppm) were determined in almost all samples, except

Table 1 Major oxides chemical composition of pottery samples (in %) (after Kramar et al. 2012)

Sample SiO2 Al2O3 Fe2O3 MgO CaO Na2O K2O TiO2 P2O5 MnO

K1 17.90 7.52 2.28 1.07 35.48 0.12 0.68 0.31 0.39 0.03

K2 14.30 9.04 2.64 0.76 34.66 0.07 0.83 0.21 0.92 0.02

K3 51.83 16.86 7.99 2.57 1.57 0.74 1.81 0.97 1.68 0.11

K4 58.08 22.21 4.71 0.54 0.73 0.25 2.25 1.26 0.66 0.01

K5 53.24 16.25 7.30 2.22 5.31 0.60 2.04 0.93 0.63 0.16

K6 18.87 9.39 3.22 1.24 32.71 0.09 1.27 0.39 1.09 0.04

K7 63.75 19.90 4.83 0.80 0.61 0.32 2.36 1.21 0.26 0.01

K8 25.55 10.12 3.27 1.35 28.72 0.15 1.64 0.43 0.35 0.02

K9 57.32 21.62 5.66 1.29 0.76 0.69 3.02 1.03 0.32 0.07

K10 23.28 9.36 3.07 1.15 31.65 0.11 0.90 0.41 0.19 0.03

K11 25.63 8.98 2.12 2.58 28.20 0.52 1.09 0.35 0.44 0.03

K12 58.27 19.70 6.08 1.01 1.32 0.70 1.65 0.93 0.94 0.05

K13 47.48 14.31 6.03 2.64 10.32 0.75 2.30 0.68 0.83 0.12

K14 24.01 9.29 2.82 1.09 31.40 0.12 0.88 0.40 0.17 0.03

K16 38.31 12.95 2.71 1.74 18.52 0.59 1.94 0.46 0.38 0.03

Environ Earth Sci

123

Table 2 Mean, minimum, maximum and standard deviation elemental values of investigated pottery

Variable Descriptive statistics

Valid, N Mean Median Minimum Maximum Variance Standard deviation

SiO2 16 39.95 42.89 14.30 63.75 327 18.08

Al2O3 16 14.34 13.63 7.52 22.21 29 5.41

Fe2O3 16 4.44 3.99 2.12 7.99 4 1.91

MgO 16 1.49 1.27 0.54 2.64 0 0.69

CaO 16 16.43 14.38 0.61 35.48 220 14.84

Na2O 16 0.41 0.42 0.07 0.75 0 0.27

K2O 16 1.77 1.73 0.68 3.55 1 0.82

TiO2 16 0.69 0.57 0.21 1.26 0 0.35

P2O5 16 0.59 0.42 0.17 1.68 0 0.41

MnO 16 0.05 0.03 0.01 0.16 0 0.04

Cr2O3 16 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.03 0 0.01

TOT/C 16 4.42 3.89 0.11 9.71 15 3.92

LOI 16 19.67 18.25 1.80 36.40 135 11.63

Sum 16 99.85 99.84 99.78 99.91 0 0.04

Ba 16 446.19 390.00 246.00 865.00 36,237 190.36

Co 16 11.77 8.45 3.50 24.70 50 7.06

Cs 16 6.56 6.10 3.30 11.60 5 2.29

Ga 16 15.68 15.05 8.30 25.40 40 6.33

Hf 16 4.75 4.40 1.50 10.10 8 2.90

Nb 16 13.68 13.25 5.00 24.50 43 6.54

Rb 16 94.53 95.20 53.10 153.30 1,126 33.55

Sn 16 3.63 3.50 2.00 6.00 2 1.45

Sr 16 97.59 85.70 66.00 240.40 1,698 41.21

Ta 16 0.99 1.00 0.40 1.80 0 0.50

Th 16 12.36 11.60 6.20 20.10 26 5.06

U 16 2.80 2.60 1.40 4.90 1 1.17

V 16 87.75 93.00 32.00 136.00 918 30.29

W 16 1.74 1.55 0.70 3.50 1 0.87

Zr 16 161.46 152.30 48.50 345.90 9,792 98.95

Y 16 30.14 33.25 13.30 50.30 140 11.83

La 16 34.98 33.35 14.60 55.60 208 14.41

Ce 16 71.16 72.10 29.80 120.60 909 30.15

Pr 16 8.57 8.42 3.57 13.72 12 3.48

Nd 16 32.43 33.40 14.20 53.40 170 13.03

Sm 16 6.25 6.75 2.57 10.74 7 2.57

Eu 16 1.21 1.22 0.59 2.17 0 0.47

Gd 16 5.68 6.14 2.42 10.33 6 2.37

Tb 16 0.92 0.98 0.39 1.66 0 0.38

Dy 16 5.08 5.32 2.14 9.03 4 2.08

Ho 16 1.00 1.10 0.46 1.73 0 0.40

Er 16 2.92 3.10 1.25 5.03 1 1.19

Tm 16 0.44 0.46 0.19 0.72 0 0.17

Yb 16 2.82 3.11 1.16 4.52 1 1.11

Lu 16 0.42 0.46 0.17 0.71 0 0.17

Cu 16 19.48 14.90 5.30 50.00 153 12.39

Pb 16 16.21 14.20 4.90 32.30 61 7.79

Zn 16 85.88 78.50 22.00 186.00 1,404 37.47

Environ Earth Sci

123

for K1, K2, K6, K8, K10 and K14. The Zr content in

studied pottery sherds is probably linked to the presence of

felsic igneous or sedimentary grains (detrital grains) in the

raw material (Iordanidis et al. 2009). (6) Highly elevated

concentrations of Ba were found in pottery sherds with

prevailing SiO2 content. Ba has been noted as particularly

susceptible to uptake from the burial environment, but

increased concentration of barium can also occur as dif-

ferent results (Picon 1985; Golitko et al. 2011).

In the Ni vs. Cr binary diagram (Fig. 5), we observed

the first group of samples (black circles) to have the lowest

Ni/Cr content. The second group (squares) showed higher

Cr values and the corresponding samples also had the

highest SiO2 concentrations. Pottery sherds K13, K3 and

K5 possessed the highest Ni (from around 70 to 130 ppm)

and Cr (from around 300 to 440 ppm) abundances, sug-

gesting that they were chemically distinct from the other

samples, especially as imported sherds (Barone et al.

2002). For example, pottery originating from Greece is

characterized by a greater quantity of Cr/Ni: 200–300 ppm

(Barone et al. 2002).

The Pearson correlation matrix (Table 4) represents a

positive correlation between heavy metals: Co with Ni, Cu

with Cd, Ni with Zn, Ni with Zn and Zn with Cd. Highly

significant correlations were detected between Nb and Zr

with other trace and rare earth elements (except heavy

metals), Rb and V with trace elements (except heavy

metals) and Ba with Cs, Ga, Hf, Nb, Rb, Sn, Ta, Th, U and

V. Conversely, no or negative correlations were noted

between Sr and the other elements.

A plot of the REE profiles normalized against chondrite

values is shown in Fig. 6 and the rare earth data from

pottery samples are presented in Tables 1 and 2. Pottery

sherds revealed fairly high concentrations for all REEs and

a distinctive grouping into four major groups (see Fig. 6).

All the REE profiles discussed above displayed a signifi-

cant negative Eu anomaly and a minor, but characteristic,

Ce anomaly was noted in pottery samples from group B.

The REE analysis mostly confirmed the outcome of the

previous discussion; however, on the other hand, there was

another group detected from the investigated samples,

group B (K2, K11 and K16). This is also associated with

the fact that in the fourth century the source material has

been changed (Kramar et al. 2012).

The correlation analysis (Table 4) between REEs in the

selected pottery samples exhibited highly significant cor-

relations between elements from the light and heavy rare

Table 2 continued

Variable Descriptive statistics

Valid, N Mean Median Minimum Maximum Variance Standard deviation

Ni 16 38.21 28.50 3.00 128.60 1,218 34.91

As 16 6.25 5.40 1.60 13.70 10 3.19

Cd 16 0.63 0.55 0.10 2.00 0 0.44

Fig. 3 CaO ? MgO vs. SiO2 binary diagram

Fig. 4 K2O ? Na2O vs. CaO ? MgO binary diagram

Environ Earth Sci

123

earth element (LREE and HREE) groups. These findings

supported the common geochemical characteristics of the

REE elements.

PCA and CA were applied to identify the data structures

and to validate whether the chemical differences reflected

the archaeologists’ classification of the objects studied. The

results of PCA for the overall dataset are reported in

Fig. 7a, b. The first two principal components (PCs)

accounted for 66.42 % of the total variance in the dataset;

these PCs were retained as significant and are therefore

considered in the following discussion. The projection of

the variables on the factor-plane showed highly significant

positive correlations between SiO2, K2O, TiO2, Nb and Ta,

MgO and MnO; Cr2O3, Fe2O3 and Co; CaO and Sr. A

highly negative correlation was again confirmed between

CaO and SiO2. The projection of the cases on the factor-

plane clearly differentiated four major distinct groups of

samples. The first group is comprised by three samples

(K2, K11 and K16) with a characteristic Ce anomaly and

the second group assembles the following samples K1, K6,

K8, K10 and K14. These samples (first and second group)

are all characterized by their high CaO and TOT/C content

compared to samples assembling the third group. The third

group is very dispersed and included samples (K4, K7, K9,

K12 and K15) that had the highest SiO2 levels; and the

fourth group consisted of the samples K3, K5 and K13. The

amphora sherd K5 was originally intentionally added as an

imported sample for comparative purposes and it is pos-

sible that samples K3 and K13 were also segments of an

imported ceramic sherd. The PCA statistical results sug-

gested a high degree of chemical similarity between these

groups. Furthermore, this conclusion was confirmed by the

CA built on the basis of the overall data matrix.

The clustering result (CA, overall data) (Fig. 8) reveals

the separation of the studied samples also into four main

groups. Cluster one (group 1) and two contained the sam-

ples having a prevailing CaO and TOT/C content (K1, K2,

K6, K8, K10, K11, K14 and K16). Samples K2, K11 and

K16 (group 2) formed a second cluster defining a distinc-

tive Ce anomaly. The third cluster (group 4) is represented

by samples K3, K5 and K13. The fourth cluster (group 3)

included samples K4, K7, K9, K12 and K15, all defined by

their high SiO2 concentrations.

The results were in good agreement with the hypothesis

formulated by archaeologists of a probable local origin for

the ceramics; conversely, they did not identify the stylistic

characteristics of samples K3 and K13. Samples K3 and

Table 3 The Pearson correlation matrix analysis between major oxides

Variable Marked correlations (in bold) are significant at p \ 0.05; N = 16 (casewise deletion of missing data)

SiO2 Al2O3 Fe2O3 MgO CaO Na2O K2O TiO2 P2O5 MnO Cr2O3 TOT/C

SiO2 1.00 0.96 0.81 0.12 20.99 0.72 0.84 0.96 0.07 0.41 0.75 20.98

Al2O3 0.96 1.00 0.74 -0.05 20.96 0.61 0.86 0.96 006 0.29 0.67 20.95

Fe2O3 0.81 0.74 1.00 0.39 20.85 0.73 0.66 0.77 0.45 0.78 0.93 20.88

MgO 0.12 -0.05 0.39 1.00 -0.16 0.66 0.20 -0.03 0.30 0.71 0.34 -0.17

CaO 20.99 20.96 20.85 -0.16 1.00 20.75 20.83 20.95 -0.18 -0.45 20.79 0.99

Na2O 0.72 0.61 0.73 0.66 20.75 1.00 0.66 0.53 0.26 0.68 0.58 20.74

K2O 0.84 0.86 0.66 0.20 20.83 0.66 1.00 0.78 -010 0.42 0.54 20.82

TiO2 0.96 0.96 0.77 -0.03 20.95 0.53 0.78 1.00 0.10 0.30 0.78 20.95

P2O5 0.07 0.06 0.45 0.30 -0.18 0.26 -0.10 0.10 1.00 0.35 0.42 -0.17

MnO 0.41 0.29 0.78 0.71 -0.45 0.68 0.42 0.30 0.35 1.00 0.71 20.52

Cr2O3 0.75 0.67 0.93 0.34 20.79 0.58 0.54 0.78 0.42 0.71 1.00 20.83

TOT/C 20.98 20.95 20.88 -0.17 0.99 20.74 20.82 20.95 -0.17 20.52 20.83 1.00

Fig. 5 Ni vs. Cr binary diagram

Environ Earth Sci

123

Table 4 The Pearson correlation matrix analysis between trace and REE elements

Variable Marked correlations (in italic) are significant at p \ 0.05; N = 16 (casewise deletion of missing data)

Ba Co Cs Ga Hf Nb Rb Sn Sr Ta Th U V

Ba 1.00 0.56 0.83 0.90 0.73 0.82 0.90 0.85 -0.29 0.80 0.82 0.71 0.72

Co 0.56 1.00 0.31 0.55 0.35 0.61 0.55 0.45 0.04 0.56 0.48 0.55 0.68

Cs 0.83 0.31 1.00 0.80 0.63 0.70 087 0.76 -0.19 0.66 0.68 0.54 0.63

Ga 0.90 0.55 0.80 1.00 0.92 0.97 0.88 0.94 -0.23 0.96 0.94 0.88 0.87

Hf 0.73 0.35 0.63 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.69 0.90 -0.27 0.94 0.96 0.93 0.74

Nb 0.82 0.61 0.70 0.97 0.92 1.00 0.83 0.91 -0.16 0.99 0.91 0.90 0.90

Rb 0.90 0.55 0.87 0.88 0.69 0.83 1.00 0.81 -0.12 0.81 0.74 0.63 0.80

Sn 0.85 0.45 0.76 0.94 0.90 0.91 0.81 1.00 -0.10 0.90 0.96 0.89 0.72

Sr -0.29 0.04 -0.19 -0.23 -0.27 -0.16 -0.12 -0.10 1.00 -0.16 -0.25 -0.26 -0.14

Ta 0.80 0.56 0.66 0.96 0.94 0.99 0.81 0.90 -0.16 1.00 0.92 0.90 0.86

Th 0.82 0.48 0.68 0.94 0.96 0.91 0.74 0.96 -0.25 0.92 1.00 0.95 0.72

U 0.71 0.55 0.54 0.88 0.93 0.90 0.63 0.89 -0.26 0.90 0.95 1.00 0.75

V 0.72 0.68 0.63 0.87 0.74 0.90 0.80 0.72 -0.14 0.86 0.72 0.75 1.00

W 0.83 0.45 0.76 0.96 0.93 0.96 0.82 0.93 -0.29 0.96 0.93 0.89 0.82

Zr 0.72 0.39 0.61 0.92 1.00 0.93 0.69 0.90 -0.28 0.95 0.96 0.95 0.76

Y 0.62 0.42 0.44 0.68 0.75 0.63 0.49 0.77 -0.23 0.65 0.85 0.83 0.38

La 0.77 0.44 0.67 0.87 0.90 0.83 0.72 0.92 -0.23 0.84 0.96 0.91 0.62

Ce 0.82 0.58 0.67 0.94 0.93 0.91 0.74 0.93 -0.22 0.91 0.98 0.95 0.75

Pr 0.75 0.42 0.64 0.84 0.88 0.79 0.68 0.90 -0.23 0.80 0.95 0.89 0.56

Nd 0.70 0.41 0.58 0.79 0.84 0.73 0.62 0.86 -0.22 0.75 0.92 0.87 0.50

Sm 0.64 0.36 0.53 0.72 0.80 0.66 0.54 0.81 -0.20 0.68 0.88 0.83 0.41

Eu 0.68 0.55 0.51 0.79 0.83 0.76 0.57 0.84 -0.18 0.76 0.92 0.91 0.57

Gd 0.56 0.35 0.42 0.63 0.72 0.57 0.43 0.74 -0.18 0.59 0.82 0.79 0.32

Tb 0.60 0.39 0.44 0.66 0.74 0.60 0.46 0.76 -0.19 0.62 0.84 0.82 0.36

Dy 0.62 0.40 0.47 0.69 0.77 0.64 0.49 0.79 -0.20 0.65 0.86 0.84 0.39

Ho 0.64 0.44 0.47 0.71 0.78 0.67 0.51 0.79 -0.23 0.69 0.88 0.85 0.42

Er 0.66 0.48 0.47 0.75 0.82 0.71 0.55 0.82 -0.22 0.73 0.90 0.89 0.49

Tm 0.69 0.52 0.49 0.77 0.82 0.74 0.58 0.83 -0.22 0.76 0.91 0.89 0.51

Yb 0.70 0.49 0.52 0.78 0.84 0.75 0.60 0.83 -0.23 0.77 0.91 0.88 0.51

Lu 0.68 0.53 0.52 0.78 0.84 0.76 0.59 0.83 -0.23 0.77 0.92 0.90 0.54

Cu -0.14 0.57 -0.33 -0.05 -0.04 0.14 0.01 -0.07 0.21 0.15 -0.03 0.15 0.17

Pb 0.47 0.35 0.31 0.61 0.68 0.69 0.47 0.59 -0.24 0.72 0.66 0.67 0.44

Zn 0.02 0.42 -0.24 -0.02 -0.02 0.08 0.06 -0.01 0.04 0.11 0.04 0.18 0.00

Ni -0.01 0.69 -0.21 0.03 -0.02 0.20 0.07 -0.07 0.09 0.20 0.00 0.13 0.23

As -0.48 0.07 -0.39 -0.52 -0.59 -0.42 -0.42 -0.59 0.22 -0.46 -0.58 -0.53 -0.28

Cd -0.13 0.20 -0.36 -0.18 -0.11 -0.09 -0.17 -0.09 -0.05 -0.06 -0.06 0.14 -0.21

Variable Marked correlations (in italic) are significant at p \ 0.05; N = 16 (casewise deletion of missing data)

W Zr Y La Ce Pr Nd Sm Eu Gd Tb Dy Ho

Ba 0.83 0.72 0.62 0.77 0.82 0.75 0.70 0.64 0.68 0.56 0.60 0.62 0.64

Co 0.45 0.39 0.42 0.44 0.58 0.42 0.41 0.36 0.55 0.35 0.39 0.40 0.44

Cs 0.76 0.61 0.44 0.67 0.67 0.64 0.58 0.53 0.51 0.42 0.44 0.47 0.47

Ga 0.96 0.92 0.68 0.87 0.94 0.84 0.79 0.72 0.79 0.63 0.66 0.69 0.71

Hf 0.93 1.00 0.75 0.90 0.93 0.88 0.84 0.80 0.83 0.72 0.74 0.77 0.78

Nb 0.96 0.93 0.63 0.83 0.91 0.79 0.73 0.66 0.76 0.57 0.60 0.64 0.67

Rb 0.82 0.69 0.49 0.72 0.74 0.68 0.62 0.54 0.57 0.43 0.46 0.49 0.51

Sn 0.93 0.90 0.77 0.92 0.93 0.90 0.86 0.81 0.84 0.74 0.76 0.79 0.79

Environ Earth Sci

123

Table 4 continued

Variable Marked correlations (in italic) are significant at p \ 0.05; N = 16 (casewise deletion of missing data)

W Zr Y La Ce Pr Nd Sm Eu Gd Tb Dy Ho

Sr -0.29 -0.28 -0.23 -0.23 -0.22 -0.23 -0.22 -0.20 -0.18 -0.18 -0.19 -0.20 -0.23

Ta 0.96 0.95 0.65 0.84 0.91 0.80 0.75 0.68 0.76 0.59 0.62 0.65 0.69

Th 0.93 0.96 0.85 0.96 0.98 0.95 0.92 0.88 0.92 0.82 0.84 0.86 0.88

U 0.89 0.95 0.83 0.91 0.95 0.89 0.87 0.83 0.91 0.79 0.82 0.84 0.85

V 0.82 0.76 0.38 0.62 0.75 0.56 0.50 0.41 0.57 0.32 0.36 0.39 0.42

W 1.00 0.94 0.65 0.86 0.90 0.82 0.77 0.69 0.75 0.59 0.62 0.66 0.68

Zr 0.94 1.00 0.76 0.90 0.93 0.87 0.84 0.79 0.83 0.72 0.74 0.77 0.78

Y 0.65 0.76 1.00 0.93 0.87 0.95 0.97 0.99 0.96 0.99 0.99 0.99 1.00

La 0.86 0.90 0.93 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.98 0.96 0.95 0.91 0.92 0.94 0.94

Ce 0.90 0.93 0.87 0.97 1.00 0.95 0.93 0.90 0.95 0.85 0.87 0.89 0.90

Pr 0.82 0.87 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.99 0.98 0.96 0.94 0.95 0.96 0.96

Nd 0.77 0.84 0.97 0.98 0.93 0.99 1.00 0.99 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.98 0.98

Sm 0.69 0.79 0.99 0.96 0.90 0.98 0.99 1.00 0.96 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99

Eu 0.75 0.83 0.96 0.95 0.95 0.96 0.97 0.96 1.00 0.95 0.97 0.97 0.98

Gd 0.59 0.72 0.99 0.91 0.85 0.94 0.97 0.99 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99

Tb 0.62 0.74 0.99 0.92 0.87 0.95 0.97 0.99 0.97 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99

Dy 0.66 0.77 0.99 0.94 0.89 0.96 0.98 0.99 0.97 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

Ho 0.68 0.78 1.00 0.94 0.90 0.96 0.98 0.99 0.98 0.99 0.99 1.00 1.00

Er 0.71 0.82 0.99 0.95 0.92 0.97 0.98 0.98 0.99 0.97 0.98 0.99 0.99

Tm 0.74 0.83 0.99 0.96 0.93 0.97 0.98 0.97 0.98 0,96 0,97 0.98 0.99

Yb 0.75 0.84 0.98 0.96 0.93 0.97 0.98 0.97 0.97 0,95 0,96 0.97 0.99

Lu 0.75 0.84 0.98 0.96 0.94 0.97 0.98 0.97 0.98 0,95 0,96 0.97 0.98

Cu -0.01 0.02 0.06 0.00 0.04 -0.01 0.00 -0.02 0.09 -0.01 0.01 0.01 0.06

Pb 0.72 0.68 0.53 0.62 0.63 0.59 0.59 0.52 0.56 0.47 0.49 0.50 0.55

Zn 0.05 0.01 0.21 0.12 0.10 0.13 0.16 0.14 0.20 0.18 0.18 0.17 0.21

Ni 0.04 0.02 0.05 -0.00 0.08 -0.02 0.00 -0.04 0.10 -0.03 -0.01 -0.01 0.06

As -0.51 -0.59 -0.55 -0.59 -0.52 -0.60 -0.59 -0.59 -0.54 -0.56 -0.56 -0.57 -0.56

Cd -0.08 -0.06 0.21 0.03 -0.02 0.06 0.09 0.11 0.12 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.18

Variable Marked correlations are significant at p \ 0.05; N = 16 (casewise deletion of missing data)

Er Tm Yb Lu Cu Pb Zn Ni As Cd

Ba 0.66 0.69 0.70 0.68 -0.14 0.47 0.02 -0.01 -0.48 -0.13

Co 0.48 0.52 0.49 0.53 0.57 0.35 0.42 0.69 0.07 0.20

Cs 0.47 0.49 0.52 0.52 -0.33 0.31 -0.24 -0.21 -0.39 -0.36

Ga 0.75 0.77 0.78 0.78 -0.05 0.61 -0.02 0.03 -0.52 -0.18

Hf 0.82 0.82 0.84 0.84 -0.04 0.68 -0.02 -0.02 -0.59 -0.11

Nb 0.71 0.74 0.75 0.76 0.14 0.69 0.08 0.20 -0.42 -0.09

Rb 0.55 0.58 0.60 0.59 0.01 0.47 0.06 0.07 -0.42 -0.17

Sn 0.82 0.83 0.83 0.83 -0.07 0.59 -0.01 -0.07 -0.59 -0.09

Sr -0.22 -0.22 -0.23 -0.23 0.21 -0.24 0.04 0.09 0.22 -0.05

Ta 0.73 0.76 0.77 0.77 0.15 0.72 0.11 0.20 -0.46 -0.06

Th 0.90 0.91 0.91 0.92 -0.03 0.66 0.04 0.00 -0.58 -0.06

U 0.89 0.89 0.88 0.90 0.15 0.67 0.18 0.13 -0.53 0.14

V 0.49 0.51 0.51 0.54 0.17 0.44 0.00 0.23 -0.28 -0.21

W 0.71 0.74 0.75 0.75 -0.01 0.72 0.05 0.04 -0.51 -0.08

Zr 0.82 0.83 0.84 0.84 0.02 0.68 0.01 0.02 -0.59 -0.06

Y 0.99 0.99 0.98 0.98 0.06 0.53 0.21 0.05 -0.55 0.21

Environ Earth Sci

123

K13 differed chemically from the other samples and indi-

cated that the objects had probably been imported (K5 was

already marked as an imported sample). The normalized

REE profiles recognized another group within the studied

samples (K2, K11 and K16), with a characteristic Ce

anomaly as well. The statistical analyses generally reflec-

ted the differences and affinities observed by chemical

analysis and indicated the similar origin/alteration of

source material/a probable local ceramic production for the

following pottery samples: K1, K6, K8, K10 and K14; K2,

K11 and K16; K4, K7, K9, K12 and K15; and imported

properties of samples K3, K5 and K13.

It should also be noted, however, that pottery compo-

sition depends on both the clay source and the recipe used

to prepare the clay paste (Davis 1986). Thus, the abun-

dance ratios of some elements may have been slightly

altered as a result of the mixing of several materials (Ior-

danidis et al. 2009).

Conclusions

In this study, we thoroughly examined detailed geochem-

ical properties and statistical characteristics of the pottery

fragments from the Mosnje archaeological location. The

geochemical results (major, trace and rare earth elements)

revealed the existence of four major groups of the samples

studied.

According to major oxide contents, the first group was

assembled from seven samples (K1, K2, K6, K8, K10, K11

and K14), all characterized by their high CaO content; the

second group included samples (K4, K7, K9, K12, K15 and

K16) with the highest SiO2 levels; and the third group was

composed of the samples K3, K5 and K13. The highest

concentrations of Cr, Ni, Co and Cu were found in the

Table 4 continued

Variable Marked correlations are significant at p \ 0.05; N = 16 (casewise deletion of missing data)

Er Tm Yb Lu Cu Pb Zn Ni As Cd

La 0.95 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.00 0.62 0.12 -0.00 -0.59 0.03

Ce 0.92 0.93 0.93 0.94 0.04 0.63 0.10 0.08 -0.52 -0.02

Pr 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 -0.01 0.59 0.13 -0.02 -0.60 0.06

Nd 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.00 0.59 0.16 0.00 -0.59 0.09

Sm 0.98 0.97 0.97 0.97 -0.02 0.52 0.14 -0.04 -0.59 0.11

Eu 0.99 0.98 0.97 0.98 0.09 0.56 0.20 0.10 -0.54 0.12

Gd 0.97 0.96 0.95 0.95 -0.01 0.47 0.18 -0.03 -0.56 0.17

Tb 0.98 0.97 0.96 0.96 0.01 0.49 0.18 -0.01 -0.56 0.17

Dy 0.99 0.98 0.97 0.97 0.01 0.50 0.17 -0.01 -0.57 0.17

Ho 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.98 0.06 0.55 0.21 0.06 -0.56 0.18

Er 1.00 1.00 0.99 0.99 0.09 0.56 0.20 0.08 -0.56 0.16

Tm 1.00 1.00 0.99 0.99 0.12 0.60 0.24 0.13 -0.54 0.18

Yb 0.99 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.11 0.61 0.20 0.14 -0.52 0.13

Lu 0.99 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.13 0.61 0.20 0.16 -0.51 0.14

Cu 0.09 0.12 0.11 0.13 1.00 0.33 0.75 0.88 0.33 0.62

Pb 0.56 0.60 0.61 0.61 0.33 1.00 0.52 0.39 -0.29 0.29

Zn 0.20 0.24 0.20 0.20 0.75 0.52 1.00 0.65 -0.04 0.81

Ni 0.08 0.13 0.14 0.16 0.88 0.39 0.65 1.00 0.42 0.44

As -0.56 -0.54 -0.52 -0.51 0.33 -0.29 -0.04 0.42 1.00 -0.07

Cd 0.16 0.18 0.13 0.14 0.62 0.29 0.81 0.44 -0.07 1.00

Fig. 6 A plot of the REE profiles normalized against chondrite

values

Environ Earth Sci

123

pottery samples K3 and K5. The Nb, Rb, Sc and V abun-

dances were higher in pottery samples with a predominant

SiO2 content: K3, K4, K5, K7, K9, K12, K13, K15 and

K16. The highest Zn values were measured (115–186 ppm)

in samples K3, K10, K13 and K16. A group comprising

K2, K6, K10, K11 and K13 with a prevailing CaO content

had highly enhanced Sr concentrations. Extremely high Zr

values (up to 345.9 ppm) were detected in almost all

samples, except in K1, K2, K6, K8, K10 and K14. How-

ever, the normalized REE profiles revealed the additional

group among the samples studied (K2, K11 and K16),

noted for a distinctive Ce anomaly.

The statistical (PCA and CA) results generally con-

firmed the abovementioned results: samples studied were

separated into four main groups. Group one and two con-

tained the samples having a prevailing CaO and TOT/C

content (K1, K6, K8, K10 and K14; K2, K11 and K16).

Samples K2, K11 and K16 formed a second group defining

also by a characteristic Ce anomaly. The third group

included samples K4, K7, K9, K12 and K15, all defined by

their high SiO2 concentrations. The fourth group is repre-

sented by samples K3, K5 and K13.

The geochemical and statistical data supported the

archaeologists’ hypothesis of a similar origin/alteration of

source material/a probable local ceramic production for the

following pottery samples: K1, K6, K8, K10 and K14; K2,

K11 and K16; K4, K7, K9, K12 and K15 and indicated the

imported origin of samples K3 and K13. Sample K5 had

intentionally been added as an imported sample for com-

parative purposes.

Acknowledgments This study was financially supported by the

ARRS Program Group P1-0195 (Geochemical and Structural

Processes).

References

Aitchison J (1981) A new approach to null correlations of propor-

tions. J Int Assoc Math Geol 13:175–189

Aitchison J (1986) Statistical analysis of compositional data. Chap-

man & Hall, New York, p 416

Aldrabee A, Wriekat AH (2011) Archaeometric characterization of

ancient glazed pottery sherds from Khirbet Faris, Jordan by

inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry (ICP–MS).

Microchem J 99:289–295

Barone G, Ioppolo S, Majolino D, Migliardo P, Tigano G (2002) A

multidisciplinary investigation on archaeological excavation in

Messina (Sicily). Part I: a comparison of pottery findings in ‘‘the

strait of Messina area’’. J Cult Herit 3:145–153

Barone G, Lo Giudice A, Mazzoleni P, Pezzino A (2005) Chemical

characterization and statistical multivariate analysis of ancient

pottery from Messina, Catania, Lentini and Sicarusa (Sicily).

Archaeometry 47:745–762

Barrios-Neira J, Montealegre L, Lopez LA, Romero L (2009)

Ceramics of Ategua (Cordoba, Spain): mineralogical and

petrographic study. Appl Clay Sci 42:529–537

Fig. 7 The PCA diagram result for overall dataset

Fig. 8 The CA tree result for overall dataset

Environ Earth Sci

123

Baxter MJ (1994) Exploratory multivariate analysis in archaeology.

Edinburgh University Press, Edinburgh

Baxter MJ, Buck CE (2000) Data handling and statistical analysis. In:

Ciliberto E, Spoto G (eds) Modern analytical methods in art and

archaeology. Wiley Interscience, New York, pp 681–742

Becker JS (2002) Applications of inductively coupled mass spec-

trometry and laser ablation inductively coupled plasma mass

spectrometry in materials science. Spectrochim Acta B

57:1805–1820

Belfiore CM, Day MD, Hein A, Kilikoglou V, La Rosa V, Mazzoleni

P, Pezzion A (2007) Petrographic and chemical characterization

of pottery production of the Late Minoan I kiln at Hagia Triada,

Crete. Archaeometry 49:621–653

Belfiore CM, di Bella M, Triscari M, Viccaro M (2010) Production

technology and provenance study of archaeological ceramics

from relevant sites in the Acantary River Valley (North-eastern

Sicily). Mater Charact 61:440–451

Bruno P, Caselli M, Curri ML, Genga A, Striccoli R, Traini A (2000)

Chemical characterisation of ancient pottery from south of Italy

by Inductively coupled plasma atomic emission spectroscopy

(ICP–AES): statistical multivariate analysis of data. Anal Chim

Acta 410:193–202

Comodi P, Nazzareni S, Perugini D, Bergamini M (2006) Technology

and provenance of roman ceramics from Scoppieto, Italy: a

mineralogical and petrological study. Per Mineral 75:95–112

Daszkiewicz M, Schneider G (1999) Chemical, mineralogical and

technological studies of fabrics of Roman vessels and lamps

from Poetovio. In: Istenic J (ed) Poetovio: the Western

Cemeteries I. Ljubljana, pp 173–190

Daszkiewicz M, Schneider G (2008a) Bericht zu den Untersuchungen

der Keramik. In: Savel I, Kerman B (eds) Gornje njive pri Dolgi

vasi. Ljubljana, pp 114–126

Daszkiewicz M, Schneider G (2008b) Chemical and mineralogical-

petrographic composition of pottery samples from Ivancna

Gorica (Slowenia). In: Svoljsak D (ed) Mrzlo Polje pri Ivancni

Gorici. Ljubljana, pp 175–179

Davis JC (1986) Statistical and data analysis in geology, 2nd edn.

Wiley, New York

De Clercq W, Degryse P (2008) The mineralogy and petrography of

low lands ware 1 (Roman lower Rhine-Meuse-Scheldt basin; the

Netherlands, Belgium, Germany). J Archaeol Sci 35:448–458

Fermo P, Delnevo E, Lasagni M, Polla S, de Vos M (2008)

Application of chemical and chemometric analytical techniques

to the study of ancient ceramics from Dougga (Tunisia).

Microchem J 88:150–159

Glascock MD, Neff H, Vaughn KJ (2004) Instrumental neutron

activation analysis and multivariate statistics for pottery prov-

enance. Hyperfine Interact 154:95–105

Golitko M, Dudgeon JV, Neff H, Terrell JE (2011) Identification of

post-depositional chemical alteration of ceramics from the north

coast of Papua new Guinea (Sanduan Province) by time-of-

flight-laser ablation-inductively coupled plasma-mass spectrom-

etry (TOF-LA–ICP–MS). Archaeometry 54:80–100

Horvat J (1999) Roman provincial archaeology in Slovenia following

the year 1965: settlement and small finds. Arheoloski Vestnik

50:215–257

Iordanidis A, Garcia-Guinea J, Karamitrou-Mentessidi G (2009)

Analytical study of ancient pottery from the archaeological site

of Ariani, northern Greece. Mater Charact 60:292–302

Kramar S, Lux J, Mirtic B (2008) Analiza izbranih vzorcev malt in

drugih gradbenih materialov iz objekta 2 rimske vile pri

Mosnjah/Analysis of selected samples of mortars and other

construction materials from object 2 of the Roman villa near

Mosnje. Varstvo Spomenikov 44:170–189

Kramar S, Lux J, Mladenovic A, Pristacz H, Mirtic B, Sagadin M,

Rogan-Smuc N (2012) Mineralogical and geochemical

characteristics of Roman pottery from an archaeological site

near Mosnje (Slovenia). Appl Clay Sci 57:39–48

Lux J (2008) Mosnje-rimska naselbina pod Cesto, Varstvo

spomenikov

Mangone A, Giannossa LC, Laviano R, Fiorello CS, Traini A

(2009) Investigation by various analytical techniques to the

correct classification of archaeological finds and delineation

of technological features: Late Roman Lamps from Egna-

tia: from imports to local production. Microchem J

91:214–221

Maniatis Y, Tsirtsoni Z (2002) Characterization of a black residue in

a decorated Neolithic pot from Dikili Tash, Greece: an

unexpected result. Archaeometry 44:229–239

Mannino MR, Orecchio S (2011) Chemical characterization of

ancient potteries from Himera and Pestavecchia necropolis

(Sicily, Italy) by inductively coupled pasma–optical emission

spectrometry (ICP–OES). Microchem J 97:165–172

Maritan L (2004) Archaeometric study of Etruscan-Padan type

pottery from the Veneto region: petrographic, mineralogical

and geochemical-physical characterization. Eur J Mineral

16:297–411

Mommsen H, Beier Th, Hein A (2002) A complete chemical

grouping of the Berkeley neutron activation analysis data on

Mycenaean pottery. J Archaeol Sci 29:613–637

Picon M (1985) Un exemple de pollution aux dimensions kilometr-

iques: la fixation du barium par les ceramiques. Revue d’

Archeometrie 9:27–29

Polvorinos del Rıo A, Sanjuan LG, Perez VH, Arnedo MJH (2005)

Bronze Age ceramics in southwest Spain: an exploratory

archaeometric study of technology and function. Geoarchaeol-

ogy 20:63–84

Rathossi C, Tsolis-Katagas P, Katagas C (2004) Technology and

composition of Roman pottery in northwestern Peloponnese,

Greece. Appl Clay Sci 24:313–326

Riederer J (1992) The microscopic analysis of calcite-tempered

pottery from Nishat Abu Omar. Cahiers de la Ceramique

Egyptienne 3:34–37

Riederer J (2004) Thin section microscopy applied to the study of

archaeological ceramics. Hyperfine Interact 154:143–158

Sagadin M, Lux J (2010) Poskus casovne umestitve objekta 2 rimske

vile rustike pri Mosnjah/an attempt to chronologically determine

building 2 of the Roman villa rustica near Mosnje, Symposium

Emona med Akvilejo in Panonijo Simpozij v spomin dr.

Ljudmile Plesnicar Gec, Ljubljana, 2010

Sanchez Ramos S, Bosch Reig F, Gimeno Adelantado JV, Yusa

Marco DJ, Domenech Carbo A (2002) Study and dating of

medieval ceramic tiles by analysis of enamels with atomic

absorption spectroscopy, X-ray fluorescence and electron

probe microanalysis. Spectrochim Acta B 57:689–700

Tandoh JB, Bredwa-Mensah Y, Dampare SB, Akaho EHK, Nyarko

BJB (2009) Chemical characterization of ancient pottery from

the greater Accra region of Ghana using neutron activation

analysis. Nucl Instrum Meth B 267:1924–1930

Walter V, Besnus Y (1989) Un exemple de pollution en phosphore et

en manganese de ceramiques anciennes. Revue d’ Archeometrie

13:55–64

Zhu J, Shan J, Qiu P, Qin Y, Wang C, He D, Sun B, Tong P, Wu S

(2004) The multivariate statistical analysis and XRD analysis of

pottery at Xigongqiao site. J Archaeol Sci 31:1685–1691

Zupancic N (2006) Analiza gline in opek. In: Lazar I, Vidrih-Perko V,

Zupancic N, Music B, Djuric B, Josipovic D, Eric M (eds)

Ilovica pri Vranskem, Arheologija na avtocestah Slovenije 1.

pp 253–264

Zupancic N, Bole M (1997) Kemicne in mineraloske raziskave

keramike amfor/The chemical and mineralogical analyses of the

amphorae. In: Horvat J (ed) Sermin. Prazgodovinska in

Environ Earth Sci

123

zgodnjerimska naselbina v severozahodni Istri/Sermin. A Prehis-

toric and Early Roman Settlement in Northwestern Istria, Opera

Instituti Archaeologici Sloveniae 3:83–99

Zupancic N, Munda M (2006) Izvorna surovina in nacin zganja

neolitske keramike iz Srmina. RMZ Mater Geoenviron 53:49–64

(in Slovene)

Environ Earth Sci

123