Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 22

Journal of Archaeological Science (1996) 23, 741–762

Journal of Archaeological Science (1996) 23, 741–762 Major and Trace Element Analysis of Modern Egyptian Pottery

Major and Trace Element Analysis of Modern Egyptian Pottery

Carol A. Redmount

Department of Near Eastern Studies, University of California at Berkeley, Berkeley CA 94720-1940, U.S.A.

Maury E. Morgenstein

Geosciences Management Institute, Inc., 1000 Nevada Highway, Suite 106, Boulder City, Nevada 89005, U.S.A.

(Received 2 May 1995, revised manuscript accepted 6 June 1995)

A geochemical survey of modern traditional Egyptian pottery using a multi-element, multi-method approach provides

a basis for interpreting sedimentary composition and manufacture location of dierent wares. Several pottery source

compositions were investigated: ubiquitous Nile silts; calcareous silty clays (marls); mixtures of Nile silts with marl clays

or carbonates; and other sediments. Each of these source compositions has a distinctive geochemical signature which

can be used as a fingerprint. This geochemical fingerprint makes it possible to distinguish the following base ceramic

compositions from each other: Nile silts; other silts; marl clays; mixtures of Nile silts and marl clays; mixtures of Nile silts and calcium carbonate. When combined with petrographic analysis, geochemistry is an especially powerful diagnostic tool. Such modern fingerprints aid in understanding modern pottery sourcing and composition and provide

a potentially powerful tool for providing similar insights into patterns of ancient pottery production.

1996 Academic Press Limited

Keywords: EGYPT, MODERN POTTERY, ETHNOARCHAEOLOGY, GEOCHEMICAL FINGERPRINTING, PETROGRAPHY, CLAY SOURCING.

Introduction

I n a general sense, seven primary ceramic families

have dominated Egyptian pottery manufacturing

during ancient and modern times: (1) pottery made

from Nile alluvial sediments; (2) pottery manufactured from marl clays; (3) pottery made from purposely mixed clays (Nile silts with primary or secondary marl clays); (4) pottery produced from mixtures of Nile silts with purposely added carbonate materials; (5) pottery manufactured from kaolin clays; (6) pottery pro- duced from Pliocene clays (possibly not exploited in antiquity). To these six major groups may be added a

seventh, miscellaneous family: (7) pottery made from naturally mixed or other sediments not associated with the above groups (adapted from Nordstrom & Bourriau, 1993). The natural raw material constituents of these vari- ous ceramic families are complex and include a variety of items: sand and granule sized igneous minerals such as pyroxenes, amphiboles, quartz, feldspar and mica grains; sand and granule sized calcareous grains such as marine shell; sedimentary rock sourced sand and granule mineral grains such as quartz, mica, magnetite, chalcedony; igneous and sedimentary rock fragments such as granites, sandstones and shales from a variety

0305-4403/96/050741+22 $18.00/0

741

of dierent formations; Holocene, Pleistocene and Pliocene organic-rich ferruginous clays (including silty clays and sandy clays); lime-rich (calcium carbonate) secondarily deposited alluvial clays mixed with local sediments; Cretaceous to Miocene weathered calcareous-ferruginous shale deposits (marls) which are low in organics; and Cretaceous clay deposits associ- ated with Nubian sandstone that are low in calcium carbonate concentrations. During the ceramic production process, the potter generally follows a ‘‘recipe’’ when creating the raw clay body used to form the pot. This recipe can significantly modify the collected base raw material by washing away coarse fraction components, adding temper of various kinds, and mixing the constituents with water which may contain its own distinctive geochemical fingerprint (e.g. high levels of calcium sulphate). Purposely added temper often includes one or more of the following: ash from a variety of sources such as pottery kilns or bread ovens; ground limestone fragments or ground K-horizon (caliche) desert carbonates; bagged lime; grog; and a variety of organic components such as dung, straw or cha. The firing of the pottery can and should aect its geochemical signature with respect to the loss/gain of volatiles. These volatiles include a host of organic

1996 Academic Press Limited

742 C. A. Redmount and M. E. Morgenstein

components which are converted to vapours and gases and then lost during firing: the loss of carbon dioxide from the conversion of calcium carbonate to calcium oxide; the loss of sulphur dioxide from the decompo- sition of sulphates; and the potential loss of easily vaporized metals such as sodium under high firing temperatures. In addition, oxygen can be gained in the transition metal structures, forming reddish-brown col- ouring agents such as iron oxides. Thus, firing tem- peratures and conditions (oxidizing or reducing) will aect the overall geochemical signature of the pottery. In short, the combined total geochemical signature of the completed pot is the sum of the constituents used and modified during the ceramic manufacturing process. The purpose of this study is to decipher the major and trace element signatures for a selection of modern Egyptian pottery drawn from a wide range of manu- facturing locations and compositions. Should this prove possible, then such analyses of modern pottery oer a promising technique for aiding in the interpret- ation of sourcing data from ancient ceramics. The eective application of this technique to the archaeo- logical record, however, will require a comprehensive sampling of the geochemistry of ceramics from a wide variety of spatial and temporal contexts. A total of 24 ceramic samples was analysed in this survey study. Certified analyses were run at XRAL laboratories in Don Mills, Ontario, Canada using neutron activation analysis (NA), inductively coupled plasma analysis (ICP), and X-ray fluorescence spec- trometry (XRF). In all, 50 elements were investigated for each sample. Of the 50 elements, nine (Be, Ge, As, Se, Mo, Ag, Cd, W, Ir) provided little information as the concentrations were at or below detection limits. The remaining 41 elements provided important infor- mation permitting the geochemical fingerprinting of the various modern samples. Petrographic analysis of the samples was used as a complementary technique to aid in further elaborating and refining the interpretations of the geochemical results.

Sample Collection

Sample production locations are shown on Figure 1 and listed on Table 1. Samples were collected as part of an on-going ethnoarchaeological survey of the modern traditional pottery of Egypt. This survey is being carried out for the dual purposes of recording the modern pottery resource for the country, and ascer- taining whether and how modern pottery might be useful in understanding ancient ceramic production and technology. Collected ceramic material included both whole and broken vessels. Some of the samples were purchased or gathered in conjunction with a visit to the potters producing the wares. Others were bought from pottery stands. Still others were collected from various refuse locations, typically the final stop in the

13 10,12 43,47 Alluvium Pleistocene 52,61 15.2,15.4 Pilocene 39,50,51,73 Miocene- 16.1 Oligocene 31,14.9
13
10,12
43,47
Alluvium
Pleistocene
52,61
15.2,15.4
Pilocene
39,50,51,73
Miocene-
16.1
Oligocene
31,14.9
Eocene
Nubian S.S.
64,71
11.3
Palaeozoic
Precambrian
Sample
locality
65
HK 1
HK 2
Figure 1. Sample locations and general geologic map. Modified
from Said (1962) and Nordstrom & Bourriau (1993).

life-cycle of a ceramic vessel (and the most common archaeological context of pottery). To date, the survey has concentrated primarily on ceramics manufactured in the northern part of Egypt, from northern Middle Egypt and the Faiyum through the Delta. There are several rationales for approaching ceramic study from this direction. First, modern traditional Egyptian pottery is plentiful, easily obtainable, inex- pensive, and may be taken out of Egypt for research and compiled in study collections without becoming entangled in antiquities regulations. Second, by visiting the potter who produces the pot, it is possible to determine the exact recipe for the raw ceramic body used to produce the pot, as well as the potter’s specific production sequence, and then to correlate both with the finished fired product. Third, with some notable exceptions (Butzer, 1974; Matson, 1974; Brissaud, 1982; Golvin, Thiriot & Zakariya, 1982; Henein, 1992; and the series on the Ballas Pottery Project: Lacovara, 1985; Nicholson & Patterson, 1985a,b, 1992), com- paratively little work has been published on modern traditional Egyptian ceramics, especially from an archaeological perspective. Finally, traditional pottery making in Egypt is a much-reduced and possibly dying art. It therefore deserves to be documented to the greatest extent possible, both for its own intrinsic

Table 1. Location of samples

Analysis of Modern Egyptian Pottery 743

Sample

Manufacturing

Source

number

location

Form

material

Field remarks

10

Sammanud

Ballas

Silt

Visual observation Visual observation Canal dredging+ash Silt and ‘‘gebel’’ Visual observation; black Visual observation; black Silt and ‘‘gebel’’ Silt and ‘‘gebel’’ Visual observation Visual observation Reacts with HCl Visual observation Straw-tempered silt; reacts with HCl Visual observation; black Visual observation; orange Local? Local? Local?; black Canal dredging+ash Tebin clay+silt (field soil) Field soil; no added temper Canal/field source+ash+lime Straw-tempered; ancient Untempered plum red: ancient

12

Sammanud

Qulla

Silt

31

Abu Raguan

Tagen

Silt

39

Cairo

Qulla

Mixed

43

Zagazig

Ibriq

Silt(?)

47

Zagazig

Boosha

Silt(?)

50

Cairo

Ibriq

Mixed

51

Cairo

Qulla

Mixed

52

Minouf

Zir

Silt

61

Minouf

Qulla

Silt

64

Faiyum

Zir

Silt

65

Ballas

Ballas

Marl

71

Faiyum

Sahfa

Silt

73

Cairo

Pipehead

Silt(?)

11·3

Unknown

Ballas

Marl

13·68

Sinai

Flower pot

Silt(?)

13·75

Sinai

Tabun

Silt(?)

13·115

Sinai

Bowl

Silt(?)

14·9

Abu Raguan

Zir

Silt

15·2

Anaatir Orchards

Flower pot

Mixed

15·4

Anaatir Orchards

Flower pot

Silt

16·1

Badrashein

Zir

Silt

HK1

Hierakonpolis

Bowl

Silt

HK2

Hierakonpolis

Jar

Silt

significance and for its ethnoarchaeological value for comparison with ancient ceramics. Table 1 presents basic data for the analysed samples, listed in numerical order by sample number. Of the 24 samples, 22 are modern and two (HK1, HK2) are ancient. The two ancient samples date to the pre- dynastic period (4th millennium ) and come from the upper (southern) Egyptian site of Hierakonpolis. They were included to ascertain whether ancient pottery manufactured from Nile silt from the southern portion of the country behaves chemically similar to modern silt vessels from elsewhere in the country. In addition, the extensive chemical analyses previously undertaken on both raw materials and pottery from Hierakonpolis provided a valuable reference source with which to compare and contrast results of this study (Allen, Rogers, Mitchell & Homan, 1982; Allen & Hamroush, 1984; Hamroush, 1985, 1986; Allen, Hamroush & Homan, 1989). For the modern samples, whole numbers indicate vessels purchased or collected as a complete pot; numbers with decimal points indicate fragmentary material (first number in- dicates collection location, second number indicates sample number for that location). In Table 1, the manufacturing location indicates the place where the pot or sherd was made (as opposed to where it was bought or collected). Samples come from all over the country, but the majority originate in the Cairo and Delta regions (Figure 1). With the exceptions of Badrashein (16·1), Ballas (65), and the roadside sample from Gerzeh (11·3), a minimum of two specimens (taken from dierent vessels) was ana- lysed for each location. In all but one case, that of 11·3,

the manufacturing area was known. Sample 11·3 is a fragment of a large (ballas) jar collected in Middle Egypt from the side of the paved road closest to the ancient site of Gerzeh. The roadside in question con- tained the smashed remains of at least two and possibly more such vessels, all of the same fabric. The two other samples from northern Middle Egypt (31, 14·9) were produced by a potter located on the east side of the main Cairo–Faiyum Nile valley road, just south of the Abu Raguan turn-o. The two Faiyum samples (64, 71) were purchased at the potters’ market in Medinet Faiyum, as was the large jar manufactured in the Ballas area of southern Egypt (65). A total of 13 samples came from the greater Cairo and Delta regions. Three production areas for these samples were located in Cairo and its environs. The first was Badrashein, a village with a community of potters located southwest of Cairo, not far from the ancient site of Saqqarah and near remnants of the ancient capital city of Memphis. One specimen (16·1) was obtained here. Four samples were manufactured in traditional workshops within the city of Cairo proper (39, 50, 51, 73). Finally, two samples (15·2, 15·4) were made at a government workshop in an area called Anaatir Orchard, located near the Barrages just north of Cairo. This workshop was highly specialized and manufactured only flowerpots. Three sample groups originated in the Nile delta. Two specimens each came from the towns of Minouf (52, 61) and Sammanud (10, 12), both major Delta pottery manufacturing centres. Two further samples came from the environs of Zagazig, an east Delta town known for the production of the distinctive dark grey

744 C. A. Redmount and M. E. Morgenstein

to black, usually ribbed, pottery that is marketed widely and is probably a descendant of the earlier ‘‘Gaza’’ ware. Finally, somewhat further to the north and east, and technically outside the Delta and Egypt proper, were the remains of a modern bedouin camp

located just north of the coastal Sinai town of El-Arish. This camp most likely dates sometime after the early 1970s, judging by Israeli bullet casings and a one agorot coin found among the debris. Three samples were collected here. Within the other two primary parameters— manufacturing location, discussed above, and source material, discussed below—consistency of form was utilized as a criterion for selecting the modern samples on the assumption that similar concerns would inform the manufacture of identical or functionally similar forms. The modern samples analysed included the following 12 forms (see Henein (1992) for a discussion of modern vessel types): (q)ulla, ibri(q), zir, ballas, boosha, tagen, sahfa, tabun, bowl, flowerpot, pipehead. The (q)ulla form (samples 12, 39, 51, 61) functions as a jug. It has a number of minor form variations (Golvin, Thiriot & Zakariya, 1982), but has neither a handle nor

a spout, and usually has a strainer in the neck. The

ibri(q) form (samples 43, 50) is similar in size and function to the (q)ulla, but has a spout and a small handle. The zir (samples 52, 64, 14·9, 16·1) serves as a very large storage jar and has a far greater capacity than either the (q)ulla or the ibri(q). All three pot types are commonly found and manufactured throughout Egypt; their primary use is to hold water intended for human consumption. The ballas form (samples 10, 11·3, 65) is named after its main production centre, the town of Ballas in southern Egypt. It is a large jar form, generally slightly smaller than the zir in capacity, with a variety of functions, including transporting water (one of its most common uses), cheese-making, and storing a variety of commodities (some liquid, some not) on village roofs. The best known and most widely available ballas jar is that produced in the Ballas area, which is made of a particular marl clay and marketed throughout the country. Similar vessels, however, are also made in other areas from other clays. Three dierent bowl types were included in the sample set: a tagen (31), used for watering fowl; a sahfa (71), which has a variety of uses such as making cheese or dough or watering ducks and chickens; and

a fragment of a very large bowl of a black fabric

(13·115), function unknown, collected at the bedouin camp in Sinai. Three flowerpots were analysed (15·2, 15·4, 13·68), as well as one example each of a boosha (47), a sort of crockpot for cooking fava beans or milk,

and a pipehead (73). Finally, one of the Sinai samples was taken from the remains of a crude clay oven, known as a tabun (13·75). It is assumed that such an oven would have been manufactured from locally obtainable material. The ancient material comprised a bowl (HK1) and a small jar (HK2).

The source material column in Table 1 refers to the known or inferred source of the primary constituents of the ceramic fabric as determined prior to geo- chemical analysis. All the modern pottery collected during the field survey was inspected both visually and with a binocular microscope at a power of 20, and was also tested with a dilute solution of hydrochloric acid. On the basis of this preliminary examination and analysis, the modern ceramic corpus was divided into five primary fabric categories, each with a number of subdivisions: silt; marl; mixed marl and silt; Sinai fabrics; and miscellaneous. The two ancient samples were from fabrics known from prior geochemical analysis to consist of Nile silt. For the most part, the silt and marl categories of the modern pottery could be clearly inferred among the corpus on the basis of visual criteria (e.g. Nordstrom & Bourriau, 1993: 162). Silt and marl appear to be the two most commonly occurring fabrics among the prin- cipal divisions of ancient Egyptian pottery, and each has a number of specific variants (codified into the ‘‘Vienna system’’; see Nordstrom & Bourriau, 1993:

169). The majority of the ethnoarchaeological collec- tion under consideration here was manufactured from Nile silts firing to a dominant brown or red-brown colour (e.g. 10, 12, 31, 52, 62, 64, 14·9, 51·4; initially 64 and 71 were also placed in this group, but see below). A total of only five specimens in the entire modern corpus appeared to have been made of marl clay: the ballas jar from Upper Egypt (65) with a grey-green fabric (see Lacovara, 1985; Nicholson & Patterson, 1985a,b, 1992), and four examples of ballas jars from the Gerzeh roadside of an orange marl fabric (e.g. 11·3). This bias towards Nile silt in the corpus is at least partly due to the location of the primary study collection areas:

sample gathering took place mostly in the north, especially in the delta, where silts dominate; only a few pieces derived from the Nile valley south of Cairo, where marl clays are found among the clis and deserts that enclose the river valley. Visual examination of the modern pottery also sug- gested that a third significant category, that of mixed marl and silt (e.g. 39, 50, 51, 15·2) could be distin- guished easily by visual analysis, at least among the modern samples. Although this category has been recognized archaeologically, it has generally been con- sidered too dicult to identify to be useful in classifi- cation (Nordstrom & Bourriau, 1993: 166). The Sinai material from the Bedouin camp was distinctive and resembled none of the other material, although it was closest in texture and general appearance to Nile silt. The dark grey or black fabrics, fired under a reducing atmosphere, were problematic due to their colour. Initially they were separated out as a distinct group; closer investigation suggested that they should be assigned to one of the other primary categories (e.g. 43, 47 and 73 to silt; 13·115 to Sinai). In several cases, conversations with the potter elicited the exact recipe for the raw clay body used to

manufacture the pot. Thus, one of the flowerpots from the government workshop at Anaatir Orchard (15·4) was of a type made solely of Nile silt (topsoil from nearby fields), with no additional temper. The second flowerpot (15·2) from the same workshop, however, was produced from a recipe of 1/3 Nile silt and 2/3 white tebine clay (see Matson, 1974; Butzer, 1974) acquired from the vicinity of Helwan. The local Abu Raguan pottery was made from silt taken from nearby canal dredgings that was mixed with ash from the pottery kiln. The Badrashein recipe consisted of silt from either nearby canals or excess material from the levelling of cultivated fields, to which was added first ash, and then bagged lime. Finally, an initial inference that a particular type of whitish pottery manufactured in Cairo (e.g. 39, 50, 51) belonged to the mixed Nile silt/marl clay grouping was made on the basis of visual examination. A subsequent visit to one of the traditional potters in the Fustat area of Cairo provided confirmation of this initial assessment. This potter, who produced pots identical in appearance to those collected, indicated that his clay body consisted of a mixture of silt and a ‘‘gebel’’ clay (a general term used in this context to denote a marl clay from the nearby desert), to which was added sifted ash.

Analytical Methods

Five grams of each sample were sent directly to the analytical laboratory (XRAL) for sample preparation and analysis. A multi-method, multi-element quantita- tive analysis package was chosen both for reasons of economy and to obtain the bulk of the trace elements desired. X-ray fluorescence, neutron activation, and inductively coupled plasma spectrometry were included in this package. In addition, a whole rock analysis by X-ray fluorescence spectrometry was also run on each sample to obtain the major elements, loss on ignition (LOI), and a short list of trace elements that supple- mented those covered by the other analytical proce- dures. In all, a total of 50 elements was obtained on each sample. The XRAL laboratory ran quality con- trol duplicate analyses on samples 39, 31 and 13·68. During whole rock analysis, samples that had low sums were re-analysed (sample 39 had a sum of 97·6%). The low sum may have been due to the presence of other elements which were not run or to the presence of compounds such as sulphates (gypsum and anhydrite). Laboratory data received from XRAL were tabu- lated and graphed and are presented below in the Results section. Rare earth elements (REE) have only been normalized where indicated; otherwise they are used in their observed total concentration. Normaliz- ation of the REEs was accomplished using data on chondritic meteorites from Haskin et al. (1968; as reported in Hamroush, 1985). Petrographic analysis of each sample was under- taken using standard principles (Pettyjohn, 1949;

Analysis of Modern Egyptian Pottery 745

Williams, Turner & Gilbert, 1954; Moorhouse, 1959; Huang, 1962; Tickell, 1965; Jones & Fleming, 1965; Folk, 1968; Kerr, 1977). Mineralogic identifications and modal analyses were made using polished sections set up on a binocular microscope with reflected light. Minerals requiring conoscopic observations for identi- fication were hand picked from the polished section and made into grain mounts for polarized light obser- vations. Mineralogical data obtained were tabulated and compared to field sample collection records and laboratory geochemical results.

Results

Chemical analyses of the samples are presented in Tables 2–4. Table 5 gives the normalized REE data, and Table 6 provides petrographic observations. Samples in Tables 2–5 are listed by increasing uranium concentrations, with the highest concentrations towards the bottom of each table. This provides a rough segregation of ceramic types, with the marls at the bottom of the tables and the silts at the top of the tables. An almost identical representation could be made if thorium were used as a base instead of uranium. Figures 2–12 illustrate comparative elements and element ratios for the samples studied. Table 2 displays the results of the whole rock analyses using X-ray fluorescence for the major elements. These are reported as oxides. Loss on ignition (LOI) is also reported. LOI is a rough measure of the total volatile material in the sherd. Volatile material dominantly consists of organics and liquids. It is interesting to note that the straw tempered pottery (samples 71 and HK1) has high LOI values; the same is true for the second sample (64) from the Faiyum. The organics column in Table 6 shows that the petro- graphic observations also support a higher LOI value for sample 64 and the straw tempered pottery samples (71 and HK1). The whole rock major element analyses (Table 2) have been used to calculate oxide ratios for comparing samples. Figures 2, 3 and 4 utilize some of these ratios and indicate, in a very striking manner, that the raw materials source and the material composition of the ceramics can be fingerprinted or classified by basic, almost simplistic geochemical techniques. Figure 2 utilizes the ratio of silicon dioxide over aluminium oxide and compares it to the ratio of the transition metal oxides (iron+manganese+titanium) over the alkali oxides (calcium+magnesium+sodium+ potassium). Silica and aluminium are the major elements forming the minerals in the ceramics. The transition metals are derived from heavy mineral grains, heavy mineral inclusions in quartz, and weathered products such as hematite and associated iron oxyhydroxides that are in part responsible for colouring the ceramics. The alkali metals are modifiers of the silica–aluminium mineral complexes (they are exchangeable cations in clays, for example). They are

746 C. A. Redmount and M. E. Morgenstein

Table 2. Whole rock analysis by x-ray fluorescence (all analyses are in percent*)

Sample†

SiO 2

Al 2 O 3

CaO

MgO

Na 2 O

K 2 O

Fe 2 O 3

MnO

TiO 2

P 2 O 5

LOI

Sum

61

54·00

14·50

5·41

3·38

1·90

1·57

10·60

0·16

2·15

0·25

6·20

100·3

47

56·10

15·20

5·08

3·37

1·62

1·53

10·90

0·16

2·17

0·24

3·60

100·1

14·9

58·00

13·90

5·25

3·03

1·93

2·39

10·20

0·18

1·95

0·42

2·85

100·2

16·1

56·00

14·10

7·85

3·58

1·60

3·02

9·82

0·16

1·78

0·67

1·25

100·0

10

58·90

15·20

5·01

3·13

1·88

1·69

10·20

0·14

1·85

0·33

1·95

100·4

52

55·00

14·90

5·63

3·25

1·51

2·00

10·50

0·17

2·04

0·34

4·75

100·2

15·4

56·50

15·80

5·74

3·42

1·65

1·46

11·40

0·17

2·24

0·26

0·90

99·7

HK1

54·40

15·30

4·83

2·75

1·74

1·56

9·19

0·14

1·65

0·40

8·30

100·3

31

56·90

13·40

4·98

3·01

1·72

2·33

9·79

0·17

1·90

0·43

5·40

100·2

12

60·00

15·10

4·65

3·09

1·80

1·54

10·10

0·15

1·78

0·27

1·75

100·4

HK2

58·80

15·70

4·37

3·10

1·53

1·31

11·20

0·18

2·07

0·31

1·50

100·2

43

55·40

16·50

4·76

3·48

1·49

1·71

11·00

0·17

1·89

0·29

3·25

100·1

64

50·90

12·40

12·10

2·49

2·09

1·31

7·76

0·10

1·13

0·323

9·50

100·3

73

55·80

15·90

4·64

3·21

1·55

1·59

10·80

0·15

1·92

0·28

4·25

100·2

39

50·00

11·80

20·40

2·57

1·80

1·16

7·60

0·10

1·37

0·24

0·40

97·6

71

42·80

12·90

16·20

2·30

1·20

1·27

8·18

0·10

1·17

0·27

13·90

100·5

51

50·20

13·20

17·40

3·25

1·12

1·43

8·61

0·12

1·42

0·33

1·20

98·4

50

48·10

10·40

21·90

2·70

1·04

1·10

6·70

0·09

1·15

0·25

6·05

99·7

15·2

54·60

11·60

14·70

3·06

1·58

1·41

8·22

0·09

1·31

0·24

2·40

99·4

13·75

58·80

12·90

7·18

2·85

1·86

2·17

7·62

0·12

1·31

0·22

5·00

100·2

13·68

64·60

13·20

4·69

2·73

1·11

1·64

8·02

0·12

1·35

0·25

2·30

100·2

13·115

59·70

13·80

8·65

3·41

1·39

1·87

7·85

0·13

1·29

0·20

1·30

99·7

11·3

38·90

20·40

20·10

1·76

1·52

1·09

6·45

0·06

0·84

0·46

7·35

99·1

65

43·70

23·50

17·50

1·84

1·26

1·33

7·07

0·04

0·95

0·44

0·55

98·3

Sample†

%SiO 2 + %Al 2 O 3

%CaO+ %MgO+ %K 2 O+ %Na 2 O

%Fe 2 O 3 + %MnO+ %TiO 2

%SiO 2 divided by %Al 2 O 3 ratio

% Transition metal oxides divided by % alkali metal oxides ratio

Fe 2 O 3 divided by Al 2 O 3 ratio

CaO divided by Al 2 O 3 ratio

61

68·50

12·26

12·91

3·72

1·05

0·73

0·37

47

71·30

11·60

13·23

3·69

1·14

0·72

0·33

14·9

71·90

12·60

12·33

4·17

0·98

0·73

0·38

16·1

70·10

15·85

11·76

3·97

0·74

0·70

0·56

10

74·10

11·71

12·19

3·88

1·04

0·67

0·33

52

69·90

12·39

12·71

3·69

1·03

0·70

0·38

15·4

72·30

12·27

13·81

3·58

1·13

0·72

0·36

HK1

69·70

10·88

10·98

3·56

1·01

0·60

0·32

31

70·30

12·04

11·86

4·25

0·99

0·73

0·37

12

75·10

11·08

12·03

3·97

1·09

0·67

0·31

HK2

74·50

10·31

13·45

3·75

1·30

0·71

0·28

43

71·90

9·73

13·06

3·36

1·34

0·67

0·29

64

63·30

16·68

8·99

4·10

0·54

0·63

0·98

73

71·70

10·99

12·87

3·51

1·17

0·68

0·29

39

61·80

25·93

9·07

4·24

0·35

0·64

1·73

71

55·70

20·97

9·45

3·32

0·45

0·63

1·26

51

63·40

23·20

10·15

3·80

0·44

0·65

1·32

50

58·50

26·74

7·94

4·63

0·30

0·64

2·11

15·2

66·20

20·75

9·62

4·71

0·46

0·71

1·27

13·75

71·70

14·06

9·05

4·56

0·64

0·59

0·56

13·68

77·70

10·16

9·47

4·93

0·93

0·61

0·36

13·115

73·50

15·32

9·27

4·33

0·61

0·57

0·63

11·3

59·30

24·47

7·35

1·91

0·30

0·32

0·99

65

67·20

21·94

8·06

1·86

0·37

0·30

0·74

*The detection limit for these data is 0·01%. †Sample listing order is based upon increasing uranium concentrations.

also very important in the marl sediments as they are element formers with carbonates. Consequently, the comparison of these two ratios provides a genetic basis with which to fingerprint the ceramics. Figures 3 and 4 look at the silica to aluminium ratio (oxides) and compare this to phosphorous pentoxide. Soil phosphate, or in this case ceramic phosphate, is derived from the soil minerals (for example, apatite, a

calcium phosphate; other minerals that are aluminium and iron phosphates; phosphate precipitates on cal- cium carbonates, clays and iron oxides; and occluded complexes in iron, aluminium, carbonates and/or silicate minerals) and from organic sources such as dung and other faecal debris, straw and cha, and orthophosphatic organic acid complexes on mineral grains and as dissolved constituents in sediment pore

Table 3a. Trace analysis by multiple methods (all analyses are in ppm*)

Analysis of Modern Egyptian Pottery 747

Sample†

U

Th

Ni

Zn

Cu

Co

Pb

B

Ba

Br

Zr

Sb

Cs

Rb

Sr

Sc

61

1·7

4·9

64

100

54·0

36·0

<2

21

481

17·0

289

0·3

1·1

28

310

22·3

47

1·7

4·9

72

103

55·7

37·0

<2

15

462

9·7

296

0·3

1·8

34

315

23·3

14·9

1·7

5·2

66

1800

88·1

45·0

12

29

434

7·3

269

0·7

1·0

26

322

20·9

16·1

1·7

5·5

65

241

78·2

33·0

74

35

531

5·5

272

1·0

1·4

42

405

20·8

10

1·7

5·6

64

129

71·7

34·0

9

23

436

9·8

276

0·7

1·4

29

298

21·8

52

1·7

6·1

63

119

65·9

37·0

<2

24

630

11·0

280

0·5

1·6

37

306

22·4

15·4

1·8

5·6

68

142

61·7

39·0

14

22

439

4·9

294

0·7

1·0

32

329

24·1

HK1

1·8

7·6

53

93·7

43·0

31·0

<2

23

530

9·6

271

0·4

1·8

36

260

20·0

31

1·9

5·1

63

1790

62·9

48·0

8

26

404

11·0

273

0·8

1·3

37

329

21·1

12

1·9

5·8

66

146

68·9

34·0

2

24

542

8·6

279

0·7

1·4

32

291

21·7

HK2

2·0

6·4

71

130

61·1

39·0

5

30

504

4·7

295

0·4

1·6

30

289

23·2

43

2·0

6·5

64

122

69·6

38·0

<2

21

444

6·9

267

0·7

1·6

38

285

24·6

64

2·0

7·0

44

104

38·4

24·0

<2

56

409

27·0

276

0·6

1·6

21

692

16·4

73

2·1

6·2

69

122

88·2

37·0

<2

25

442

7·5

266

19·0

1·2

33

286

23·7

39

2·3

5·8

50

165

32·5

27·0

<2

58

405

4·4

283

1·2

1·1

12

592

17·0

71

2·4

7·0

46

89·5

35·3

23·0

<2

44

380

17·0

255

0·3

1·6

29

703

16·8

51

2·5

6·3

52

211

74·0

28·0

30

48

560

5·0

296

1·4

1·8

27

677

16·6

50

2·6

5·6

42

205

126·0

21·0

114

50

450

6·7

288

4·0

0·9

17

713

13·8

15·2

2·6

7·3

36

133

50·2

20·0

<2

88

381

4·6

396

0·5

1·6

22

557

13·7

13·75

2·7

6·7

49

99·5

40·1

25·0

<2

46

528

16·0

323

1·3

1·6

42

432

15·9

13·68

2·7

6·8

52

92·9

38·8

27·0

2

39

440

4·0

285

0·5

1·7

45

470

17·1

13·115

2·7

7·8

50

92·7

33·1

26·0

11

67

428

4·8

317

0·4

2·2

42

378

16·7

11·3

5·4

10·0

75

164

20·5

23·0

<2

108

596

14·0

134

0·9

4·7

23

551

17·0

65

5·6

12·0

73

163

18·4

22·0

<2

119

473

6·3

151

0·9

5·0

40

572

19·8

Method

NA

NA

ICP

ICP

ICP

NA

ICP

ICP

XRF

NA

XRF

NA

NA

XRF

XRF

NA

*Detection limits (in ppm)

 
 

0·1

0·2

1·0

0·5

0·5

0·5

2·0

10·0

10·0

0·5

10·0

0·1

0·5

10·0

10·0

0·1

NA=Neutron Activation Analysis. ICP=Inductively Coupled Plasma Analysis. XRF=X-Ray Fluorescence Spectrometry. †Sample listing order is based upon increasing uranium concentrations.

 
 

Table 3b. Trace analysis by multiple methods (all analyses are in ppm except Au which is in ppb*)

 

Sample

 

Hf

Ta

Y

Nb

V

Cr

Au

61

7·7

1·6

31

20

237

240

<2

47

8·6

1·5

34

23

244

240

5

14·9

7·2

1·5

29

21

211

280

4

16·1

7·1

1·4

33

20

215

280

23

10

7·3

1·7

31

20

219

260

12

52

7·5

1·9

35

21

226

230

<2

15·4

8·6

1·4

36

24

236

260

5

HK1

7·5

1·7

38

21

182

180

3

31

8·4

1·4

34

19

211

220

10

12

7·5

1·4

30

20

212

300

<2

HK2

8·5

1·9

38

23

215

440

7

43

7·5

1·7

33

22

232

220

7

64

7·3

1·4

31

17

136

160

<2

73

8·5

1·3

33

21

223

230

18

39

8·0

1·2

25

15

163

500

6

71

6·2

1·5

29

18

135

160

7

51

7·6

1·1

30

19

177

240

6

50

7·9

1·0

25

13

137

300

8

15·2

11·0

1·6

30

18

127

250

11

13·75

8·4

1·6

33

21

141

190

36

13·68

8·2

1·4

35

21

145

390

4

13·115

 

9·1

1·6

31

21

146

290

<2

11·3

3·4

1·1

23

15

172

200

2

65

3·6

1·4

28

20

194

220

5

Method

 

NA

NA

XRF

XRF

ICP

NA

NA

*Detection limits:

 
 

0·2

0·5

10

10

2·0

0·5

2·0

748 C. A. Redmount and M. E. Morgenstein

Table 4. Rare earth analysis by neutron activation (all analyses are in ppm*)

Sample†

La

Ce

Nd

Sm

Eu

Tb

Yb

Lu

61

31·1

63

30

6·23

2·29

0·9

2·78

0·41

47

32·4

65

32

6·45

2·10

1·0

2·92

0·43

14·9

31·1

63

30

6·19

1·91

0·8

2·60

0·40

16·1

31·5

64

30

6·24

1·88

0·9

2·67

0·39

10

31·3

64

31

6·12

1·88

0·8

2·65

0·38

52

32·6

67

32

6·52

2·27

0·8

2·94

0·44

15·4

34·9

71

32

7·06

2·23

1·0

3·00

0·44

HK1

39·1

76

35

6·90

1·70

0·9

3·01

0·44

31

31·1

63

30

6·10

2·14

0·8

2·83

0·41

12

31·4

65

30

6·16

2·14

0·8

2·75

0·40

HK2

36·7

74

34

7·35

2·24

1·0

3·25

0·46

43

35·6

73

33

6·89

2·29

0·9

3·06

0·44

64

33·0

65

29

5·73

1·74

0·8

2·43

0·35

73

33·6

66

30

6·47

2·09

1·0

2·97

0·43

39

30·4

60

29

5·62

1·52

0·8

2·59

0·38

71

33·3

65

29

5·58

1·57

0·8

2·34

0·34

51

33·3

65

29

5·83

1·54

0·8

2·63

0·38

50

27·8

54

24

4·09

1·31

0·7

2·27

0·34

15·2

33·1

64

29

5·54

1·47

0·7

2·76

0·40

13·75

33·1

65

29

5·76

1·80

0·8

2·58

0·38

13·68

34·1

66

31

5·94

1·85

0·8

2·81

0·41

13·115

39·6

79

36

6·84

2·05

0·9

3·01

0·44

11·3

47·1

87

34

6·04

1·70

0·7

2·04

0·28

65

54·9

100

37

6·86

1·61

0·7

2·41

0·35

*Detection limits (in ppm):

 
 

0·1

1·0

3·0

0·01

0·05

0·1

0·05

0·01

†Sample listing order is based upon increasing uranium concen- trations.

water. Phosphate concentrations in anthrosols and natural sediments are complex, and in most cases site and material specific. Phosphate is therefore an inter-

Table 5. Normalized REE*

esting component to use to investigate the potential for ceramic fingerprinting. The scattergram plots in Figures 3 and 4 do a very nice job in segregating the component source materials: Nile silts, Sinai silts, marls, mixed silt and marl clays/carbonates, and bagged lime mixed with silt. Major element scattergram plots used to investigate the classification and composition of the samples are:

oxides of calcium over aluminium compared with oxides of iron over aluminium (Figure 5); oxides of calcium over aluminium compared with oxides of silica over aluminium (not shown); oxides of iron over aluminium compared with oxides of silica over alu- minium (not shown); iron oxide compared with tita- nium oxide (Figure 5). The calcium/aluminium versus iron/aluminium oxides scattergram plot shown in Figure 5 separated the samples in a very similar manner to the plots illustrated in Figure 4. The iron oxide versus titanium oxide plot in Figure 5, however, is dierent. This scattergram separates the Nile silts from the Sinai, mixed, and marl samples. In addition, the plot begins to resemble a straight line, supporting a genetic relationship between the two elements as might be expected. Much of the titanium in the samples is likely to be tied in heavy mineral grains with iron. An example might be magnetite with a small bit of titanium substituting for the iron, in which case it would be called titano-magnetite. In addition to magnetite, ilmenite, a rather common heavy sedimen- tary mineral composed of iron and titanium oxide, originates from igneous rocks such as granites where it is an accessory mineral. The minerals ilmenite and

Sample

La

Ce

Nd

Sm

Eu

Tb

Yb

Lu

61

94·24

71·60

50·00

34·42

33·19

19·15

13·90

12·06

47

98·18

73·86

53·33

35·64

30·43

21·28

14·60

12·65

14·9

94·24

71·60

50·00

34·20

27·68

17·02

13·00

11·76

16·1

95·45

72·73

50·00

34·48

27·25

19·15

13·35

11·47

10

94·85

72·73

51·67

33·81

27·25

17·02

13·25

11·18

52

98·79

76·14

53·33

36·02

32·90

17·02

14·70

12·94

15·4

105·76

80·68

53·33

39·01

32·32

21·28

15·00

12·94

HK1

118·48

86·36

58·33

38·12

24·64

19·15

15·05

12·94

31

94·24

71·60

50·00

33·70

31·01

17·02

14·15

12·06

12

95·15

73·86

50·00

34·03

31·01

17·02

13·75

11·76

HK2

111·21

84·09

56·67

40·61

32·46

21·28

16·25

13·53

43

118·67

82·95

55·00

38·07

33·19

19·15

15·30

12·94

64

100·00

73·86

48·33

31·66

25·22

17·02

12·15

10·29

73

101·82

75·00

50·00

35·75

30·29

21·02