## 2 Archaeological Questions/Archaeometric Answers
### Workshops Location: Painters Transfer Versus Vases Transfer  
The workshop locations of different painters and the question of whether it was objects or the painters themselves who moved among Apulian sites represent an aspect of considerable relevance in the study of Apulian red figure productions.  
A first attempt to answer this question was made by analyzing nine vases stylistically attributed to [PERSON], excavated in various sites (tomb of Niobids in Arpi [102], hypogeum of Varrese in Canosa [103], military arsenal area at Taranto). The analysis included the krater of the Amazonomachia supposed coming from Ruvo di Puglia [104], Table 2.  
The NLPCA model was built with 5 PCs with a \(R^{2}\) of 0.92 and a Lof of 0.29. A good fitting is graphically seen with 3 PCs (\(R^{2}\) of 0.83). The results of the treatment of data by NLPCA are shown in Figure 9, illustrating the scores plotted on to the first three principal components subspace. Markedly distinct groups can be identified. The classification model created with a LDA shows a NER of 96.84%. Almost all samples are assigned to the a priori classes. It was not possible to build a QDA model due to the low number of the Canosa samples in the dataset.  
It can be observed in Figure 9 that the scores of the samples relating to vases attributed to the same painter but coming from different sites are not in the same cluster, but in the cluster containing red figure vases coming from the same site.  
Although the number of items analyzed have to be enlarged to increase the significance of the statistical processing, it would seem reasonable to assume that the distinction among finds is mainly derived from the geographical origin of the vessels, so making more reasonable to hypothesize the transfer of painters rather than of artifacts between the main Apulian sites, by reason of demand from local customers, in a context of fragmented local production.  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c} \hline \hline
**Code** & **Inv. n\({}^{\circ}\)** & **Description** & **Site** \\ \hline Ar2 & 132734 & Oinochoe, Tomb of Niobids & Arpi \\ Ca2 & 8925 & Deinos, Hypogeum of Varrese & Canosa \\ T1 & 51381 & Volute krater with [PERSON] on the ram & Taranto \\ T19 & 227162 & Pelike with quadriga & Taranto \\ T26 & 227196 & Krater with [PERSON]’s head & Taranto \\ T29 & 227199 & Krater with quadriga driven by a [PERSON] with standing & Taranto \\ T35 & 227205 & Fragment with seated [PERSON] leaning on her shield & Taranto \\ T36 & 227206 & Fragment with body of a painks holding & Taranto \\ N4 & 81667 & Krater of the Amazonomachia & Ruvo di Puglia \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 2: Apulian red figure vases stylistically attributed to [PERSON] analyzed.  
Figure 9: (a) NLPCA scores plot for the first three PCs related to the finds from Arpi (red), Canosa (magenta), Taranto (green), and Ruvo (blue). The \(R^{2}\) and Lof of the model with 3 PCs were 0.83 and 0.41, respectively. The samples attributed to [PERSON] painter, found in the same sites, are labelled by stars. (b) Confusion Matrix and NER value for the classification model built with LDA considering as a priori classes Arpi, Canosa, Taranto, and Ruvo.