4.7 Article

Blue shadows of Roman glass artefacts

Journal

MICROCHEMICAL JOURNAL
Volume 179, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.microc.2022.107526

Keywords

Roman blue glass; Provenance; Technology; Geochemistry; LA-ICP-MS; Trace elements

Funding

  1. Sapienza grant [Progetto Ateneo Medeghini 2019]
  2. Portuguese Foundation for Science and Technology (FCT)
  3. European Regional Development Fund [UIDB/04449/2020, UIDP/04449/2020]
  4. Education, Audiovisual and Culture Executive Agency (EACEA)
  5. Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia [UIDB/04449/2020, UIDP/04449/2020] Funding Source: FCT

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This paper proposes a step-by-step geochemical organized protocol for studying the provenance of ancient glass. The approach is demonstrated through a case study of Roman blue glass samples, providing additional information on ancient glass chemistry.
Glass is one of the ancient human products most often traded for long distances from the place of raw material supply. Provenance studies on this kind of artefact are mainly based on the comparison of major and trace elements among archaeological samples. The paper proposes a step-by-step geochemical organized protocol that considers the elements with prominent influence on glass composition, helping in a fine discrimination of compositional groups and, consequently, an easier identification of provenance in archaeological artefacts. The proposed approach is presented through the case study of Roman blue glass samples, dated from the 1st century to Late Antiquity and coming from the Palatine Northeast archaeological site. Optical Microscopy, SEM-EDS, EMPA and LA-ICP-MS results are discussed to gather information on network former, flux, colourants and decolourants. In addition, the comparison with literature provides additional information on chemical groups of ancient glass spanning from the 1st to the 5th century.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available