## 1 Introduction  
The great contribution that scientific investigations, when applied to a well-selected and representative sample of finds and conducted according to a correct analytical method, provide to archaeological research is currently well established.  
In case of ceramic finds, assessing provenance and technological features has almost always been represented as the main goal of archaeometric investigations.  
Most archaeological questions can be solved using a combined mix of analytical techniques that can provide compositional and structural data about bulk and surfaces. For instance, the quantification of pottery pastes, followed by an appropriate data mining process, allows to trace the provenance [1; 2; 3; 4] of the finds and/or of the raw materials, but also to disclose differences in the manufacturing process [5; 6; 7; 8; 9; 10; 11], to support an archeological classification [12; 13; 14; 15], and to realize whether or not an attribution can be made [16; 17].  
The data mining used in the first archaeometric investigations involved scatter plots related to selected pairs of chemical elements or their combinations to extract the rheological information contained in the data set. Consequently, any type of information related to other measured variables was excluded. Over time, several multivariate statistical methods were used [18; 19; 20; 21]. These techniques allow us to consider at the same time the contribution of a greater number of variables and possibly their synergistic effect, removing the spurious information and highlighting useful information. Among these, linear principal component analysis (PCA) and clustering analysis (CA and HCA) continue to be the widely used.  
The actual origin of objects can be assessed comparing their chemical compositional data with reliable indicators of production (kiln dumps, wasters, etc.). However, if objects of a known provenance are not available, it is possible to hypothesize the origin of the findsthrough the compositional similarity of a statistically representative set of items, while directly correlating the provenance of the finds to the provenance of the clay alone is not immediate because the complexity of the manufacturing process used (possible mixing of clays with different mineralogical and chemical characteristics, intentional addition of tempers of various types and origins (grog, sand, etc.), firing, painting, glazing). It should also be considered the question of accessory minerals, often indicators of different clayey sedimentary basins, but those presence, because of the limited amount, does not influence the major elements chemical composition. However, their identification and the identification of their accurate composition allow us to recognize or to exclude the use of a given sedimentary deposit.  
The chemical compositional analysis is not sufficient to fully clarify the manufacturing processes employed, which should always be supported by the identification of the mineralogical composition of pastes. In this respect, the determination of the maximum firing temperature, the duration of firing and the kiln atmosphere can be reconstructed through the identification of some newly formed phases related to firing [22; 23; 24; 25; 26]. Chemical and mineralogical data on ceramic pastes and coatings are also essential in restoration and forensic fields to recognize not recorded restoration action or forged vases (or part of them).  
In this paper, the focus is on the Apulian (Southern Italy) red figure pottery (Figure 1) with the aim to integrate the data we obtained on finds from specific sites [8; 11; 27; 28; 29; 30; 31; 32] into a more cohesive picture. Sections are assembled according to the type of information provided.