Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-l7hp2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-01T09:13:10.165Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Petrological Investigation of Roman and Islamic Ceramics from Cyrenaica

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 March 2015

J. A. Riley
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The methodology of Mediterranean pottery study (for all periods, but especially for the Roman period) has developed considerably over the past fifteen years, and the range of questions asked of it has been greatly extended. Alongside the traditional approach to pottery studies, which concentrates on typology and chronology, there has been an increasing emphasis on the characterization and determination of the origin of pottery using scientific methods, and also a growing awareness of the importance of pottery quantification (i.e. expressing the relative frequency of different pottery types or styles).

It is as a result of these latter two developments that coarse, functional wares can now be used convincingly to complement and greatly extend the economic information provided by fine, decorative wares. Cyrenaica has been in the fore-front of this research (see summary in Humphrey 1979), and it is the purpose of this article to provide a preliminary examination of one aspect, namely the contribution of petrological analysis to our understanding of Cyrenaican local pottery fabrics, and of coarse ware imports.

Before a satisfactory typology of pottery from any area can be established, and before that pottery can be used most effectively as evidence for the resolution of economic problems, it is essential that the local fabrics should be recognised. Although visual classification of pottery fabric types is often possible on the basis of subjective factors such as general appearance, texture, hardness, nature of inclusions, etc. (as described in Young in press), there are often problems when attempting to establish their origin. This is normally best done by scientific analysis, using either geological or chemical techniques. It is rapidly becoming the routine practice to analyse fabrics, in the first instance, by geological methods (to identify the major inclusions within the clay), and then, if necessary, by chemical methods (which analyse the elemental composition of the clay).

Type
Research Article
Information
Libyan Studies , Volume 10 , 1979 , pp. 35 - 46
Copyright
Copyright © Society for Libyan Studies 1979

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Abdussaid, A., Shaglouf, M., Fehérvári, G., King, G. R. D. and Chin, E. ‘Second Season of Excavations at El-Medeinah, Ancient Surf’, Society for Libyan Studies Annual Report, 9 (1977–1978), 13–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barr, F. T. (ed.), Geology and Archaeology of Northern Cyrenaica, Libya, Amsterdam, 1968.Google Scholar
Boaz, N. T., Wahid Gaziry, A. & Ali, El-Arnauti, ‘New Fossil Finds from the Libyan Upper Neogene Site of Sahabi’, Nature, Vol. 280, No. 5718 (1979), 137–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Creutzburg, N., et al., General Geologic Map of Greece. Crete Island, 1:200,000, (Institute of Geological and Mining Research), Athens, 1977.Google Scholar
Desio, A., ‘History of Geologic Exploration of Cyrenaica’, in ed. Barr, 1968, 79–114.Google Scholar
Farnsworth, M., ‘Greek Pottery: A Mineralogical Study”, American Journal of Archaeology, 68 (1964), 221–228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Farnsworth, M., ‘Corinthian Pottery: Technical Studies’, American Journal of Archaeology, 74 (1970), 9–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Geological Map of Greece, (Institute of Geology and Subsurface Research, Athens), Athens, 1954.Google Scholar
Humphrey, J. H. (ed.), ‘Cyrenaican Newsletter’, American Journal of Archaeology, 83 (1979).Google Scholar
Kleinsmiede, W. F. J. and Berg, N. J. van den, ‘Surface Geology of the Jabal al Akhdar, Northern Cyrenaica’, in ed. Barr, 1968, 115 124.Google Scholar
Krywonos, W., Provenance Studies of Romano-Cyrenaican Pottery Sherds by Neutron Activation Analysis, PhD Thesis, University of Manchester, 1978.Google Scholar
Krywonos, W., Newton, G. W. A., Riley, J. A. and Robinson, V. J., ‘Neutron Activation Analysis of Roman Coarse Wares from Cyrenaica’, Archaeometry, 21, 2 (1979).Google Scholar
Krywonos, W., Newton, G. W. A., Riley, J. A. and Robinson, V. J., ‘Neutron Activation Analysis of some Roman and Islamic Coarse Wares of Western Cyrenaica and Crete’, (forthcoming).Google Scholar
Lloyd, J. A. (ed.), Excavations at Sidi Khrebish, Benghazi (Berenice) I, (The Department of Antiquities), Tripoli, 1977.Google Scholar
McBurney, C. B. M. and Hey, R. W., Prehistory and Pleistocene Geology in Cyrenaica, Libya, Cambridge, 1955.Google Scholar
Peacock, D. P. S. (ed.), Pottery and Early Commerce. Characterization and Trade in Roman and Later Ceramics, London, 1977.Google Scholar
Riley, J. A., ‘Excavations of a Kiln Site at Tocra’, Society for Libyan Studies Annual Report, 6 (1975–1976), 25–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Riley, J. A., ‘The Coarse Pottery from Benghazi’, in Sidi Khrebish Excavations, Benghazi (Berenice) II, (Department of Antiquities), Tripoli, 1979.Google Scholar
Riley, J. A., ‘Ajdabiyah: The Pottery’, Libya Antigua, (forthcoming).Google Scholar
Shepard, A. O., Ceramics for the Archaeologist, Washington, 1965.Google Scholar
Vita-Finzi, C., ‘British Contributions to Quaternary and Geomorphological Research in Libya 1943-71’, Society for Libyan Studies Annual Report, 4 (1972–1973), 9–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Young, C. J. (ed.), The Processing and Publication of Roman Pottery, (Department of the Environment Study Group for Romano British Pottery), in press.Google Scholar