Phoenician Red Slip Ware from Sulcis (Italy): a preliminary report

Phoenician expansion spread all over the Mediterranean coast and came together with the foundation of new colonies. Red Slip Ware, a ceramic class characterized by a shiny deep red surface, seems to be a good marker to identify and to date the early Phoenician presence on the territory. Indeed, Red Slip Ware is found in every Phoenician site, from the motherland to the colonies. Representative fragments of Red Slip Ware from the Phoenician-Punic site of Sulcis (Sant'Antioco, Sardinia) have been studied. These artifacts were unearthed in the area called Cronicario. The site has been dated employing the stratigraphy between the 750 and the 650 BC and it represents the oldest colonial settlement on the island (Campanella, 2005). The purpose of this work is to explore the technological background and the provenance of raw materials in order to discriminate imported or local ceramic productions. With this aim, X-ray powder diffraction (XRPD), optical (OM) and electron microscopy (SEM) were used. The external coating is a very thin clayish and non-vitrified layer with a very few inclusions of small size. Mineral assemblage is predominantly composed by quartz, K-feldspar and plagioclase feldspar, with minor amount of hematite, mica and rare calcite. The occurrence of hematite suggests an oxidizing firing environment. These results support the hypothesis that the samples were made with local raw materials and probably fired at temperature below 850°C (Riccardi et al., 1999) as supported by the high optical activity of the internal body. Electron microprobe analysis (EMPA) was also used to provide quantitative analysis on the outer surface, ceramic bulk and inclusions (Riccardi et al., 1999; Shoval, 2017). These Sardinian ceramics present similarities with other Red Slip Ware from Motya (Sicily), particularly in the external appearance and minerals assemblage. Thus, suggesting a selection of a similar raw material. Nevertheless, some peculiar differences such as the nature of accessory minerals and the content of CaO can be used to distinguish between artefacts of these two Phoenician-Punic sites (De Vito et al., 2013).