You are on page 1of 22

Journal of Archaeological Science (1996) 23, 741762

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 ngerprint. This geochemical ngerprint 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 ngerprints 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

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 produced 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 various 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
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 associated 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 signicantly 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 ngerprint (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 ring 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

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

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

components which are converted to vapours and gases and then lost during ring: the loss of carbon dioxide from the conversion of calcium carbonate to calcium oxide; the loss of sulphur dioxide from the decomposition of sulphates; and the potential loss of easily vaporized metals such as sodium under high ring temperatures. In addition, oxygen can be gained in the transition metal structures, forming reddish-brown colouring agents such as iron oxides. Thus, ring temperatures 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 modied 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 manufacturing locations and compositions. Should this prove possible, then such analyses of modern pottery oer a promising technique for aiding in the interpretation of sourcing data from ancient ceramics. The eective application of this technique to the archaeological 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. Certied analyses were run at XRAL laboratories in Don Mills, Ontario, Canada using neutron activation analysis (NA), inductively coupled plasma analysis (ICP), and X-ray uorescence spectrometry (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 information permitting the geochemical ngerprinting of the various modern samples. Petrographic analysis of the samples was used as a complementary technique to aid in further elaborating and rening the interpretations of the geochemical results.

10,12 43,47 52,61 16.1 64,71 15.2,15.4 39,50,51,73 31,14.9 11.3

13 Alluvium Pleistocene Pilocene MioceneOligocene Eocene Nubian S.S. Palaeozoic Precambrian Sample locality

65

HK 1 HK 2

Figure 1. Sample locations and general geologic map. Modied from Said (1962) and Nordstrom & Bourriau (1993).

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 ascertaining 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 nal stop in the

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, inexpensive, 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 potters specic production sequence, and then to correlate both with the nished red 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), comparatively 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

Analysis of Modern Egyptian Pottery 743


Table 1. Location of samples Sample number 10 12 31 39 43 47 50 51 52 61 64 65 71 73 113 1368 1375 13115 149 152 154 161 HK1 HK2 Manufacturing location Sammanud Sammanud Abu Raguan Cairo Zagazig Zagazig Cairo Cairo Minouf Minouf Faiyum Ballas Faiyum Cairo Unknown Sinai Sinai Sinai Abu Raguan Anaatir Orchards Anaatir Orchards Badrashein Hierakonpolis Hierakonpolis Source material Silt Silt Silt Mixed Silt(?) Silt(?) Mixed Mixed Silt Silt Silt Marl Silt Silt(?) Marl Silt(?) Silt(?) Silt(?) Silt Mixed Silt Silt Silt Silt

Form Ballas Qulla Tagen Qulla Ibriq Boosha Ibriq Qulla Zir Qulla Zir Ballas Sahfa Pipehead Ballas Flower pot Tabun Bowl Zir Flower pot Flower pot Zir Bowl Jar

Field remarks 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 (eld soil) Field soil; no added temper Canal/eld source+ash+lime Straw-tempered; ancient Untempered plum red: ancient

signicance 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 predynastic 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 (rst number indicates 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 (161), Ballas (65), and the roadside sample from Gerzeh (113), a minimum of two specimens (taken from dierent vessels) was analysed for each location. In all but one case, that of 113,

the manufacturing area was known. Sample 113 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 contained 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, 149) were produced by a potter located on the east side of the main CairoFaiyum 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 rst 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 (161) was obtained here. Four samples were manufactured in traditional workshops within the city of Cairo proper (39, 50, 51, 73). Finally, two samples (152, 154) 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 owerpots. 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 belowconsistency 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, owerpot, 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, 149, 161) 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, 113, 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 (13115), function unknown, collected at the bedouin camp in Sinai. Three owerpots were analysed (152, 154, 1368), 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 (1375). 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 geochemical analysis. All the modern pottery collected during the eld 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 ve 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 principal divisions of ancient Egyptian pottery, and each has a number of specic variants (codied into the Vienna system; see Nordstrom & Bourriau, 1993: 169). The majority of the ethnoarchaeological collection under consideration here was manufactured from Nile silts ring to a dominant brown or red-brown colour (e.g. 10, 12, 31, 52, 62, 64, 149, 514; initially 64 and 71 were also placed in this group, but see below). A total of only ve 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. 113). 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 suggested that a third signicant category, that of mixed marl and silt (e.g. 39, 50, 51, 152) could be distinguished easily by visual analysis, at least among the modern samples. Although this category has been recognized archaeologically, it has generally been considered too dicult to identify to be useful in classication (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, red 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; 13115 to Sinai). In several cases, conversations with the potter elicited the exact recipe for the raw clay body used to

Analysis of Modern Egyptian Pottery 745

manufacture the pot. Thus, one of the owerpots from the government workshop at Anaatir Orchard (154) was of a type made solely of Nile silt (topsoil from nearby elds), with no additional temper. The second owerpot (152) 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 elds, to which was added rst 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 conrmation 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.

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

Results
Chemical analyses of the samples are presented in Tables 24. Table 5 gives the normalized REE data, and Table 6 provides petrographic observations. Samples in Tables 25 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 212 illustrate comparative elements and element ratios for the samples studied. Table 2 displays the results of the whole rock analyses using X-ray uorescence 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 petrographic 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 ngerprinted or classied 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 modiers of the silicaaluminium mineral complexes (they are exchangeable cations in clays, for example). They are

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 quantitative analysis package was chosen both for reasons of economy and to obtain the bulk of the trace elements desired. X-ray uorescence, neutron activation, and inductively coupled plasma spectrometry were included in this package. In addition, a whole rock analysis by X-ray uorescence spectrometry was also run on each sample to obtain the major elements, loss on ignition (LOI), and a short list of trace elements that supplemented those covered by the other analytical procedures. In all, a total of 50 elements was obtained on each sample. The XRAL laboratory ran quality control duplicate analyses on samples 39, 31 and 1368. During whole rock analysis, samples that had low sums were re-analysed (sample 39 had a sum of 976%). 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 tabulated 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. Normalization 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 undertaken using standard principles (Pettyjohn, 1949;

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


Table 2. Whole rock analysis by x-ray uorescence (all analyses are in percent*) Sample 61 47 149 161 10 52 154 HK1 31 12 HK2 43 64 73 39 71 51 50 152 1375 1368 13115 113 65 SiO2 5400 5610 5800 5600 5890 5500 5650 5440 5690 6000 5880 5540 5090 5580 5000 4280 5020 4810 5460 5880 6460 5970 3890 4370 Al2O3 1450 1520 1390 1410 1520 1490 1580 1530 1340 1510 1570 1650 1240 1590 1180 1290 1320 1040 1160 1290 1320 1380 2040 2350 CaO 541 508 525 785 501 563 574 483 498 465 437 476 1210 464 2040 1620 1740 2190 1470 718 469 865 2010 1750 MgO 338 337 303 358 313 325 342 275 301 309 310 348 249 321 257 230 325 270 306 285 273 341 176 184 Na2O 190 162 193 160 188 151 165 174 172 180 153 149 209 155 180 120 112 104 158 186 111 139 152 126 K2O 157 153 239 302 169 200 146 156 233 154 131 171 131 159 116 127 143 110 141 217 164 187 109 133 Fe2O3 1060 1090 1020 982 1020 1050 1140 919 979 1010 1120 1100 776 1080 760 818 861 670 822 762 802 785 645 707 MnO 016 016 018 016 014 017 017 014 017 015 018 017 010 015 010 010 012 009 009 012 012 013 006 004 TiO2 215 217 195 178 185 204 224 165 190 178 207 189 113 192 137 117 142 115 131 131 135 129 084 095 P2O5 025 024 042 067 033 034 026 040 043 027 031 029 0323 028 024 027 033 025 024 022 025 020 046 044 LOI 620 360 285 125 195 475 090 830 540 175 150 325 950 425 040 1390 120 605 240 500 230 130 735 055 Sum 1003 1001 1002 1000 1004 1002 997 1003 1002 1004 1002 1001 1003 1002 976 1005 984 997 994 1002 1002 997 991 983

Sample 61 47 149 161 10 52 154 HK1 31 12 HK2 43 64 73 39 71 51 50 152 1375 1368 13115 113 65

%SiO2 + %Al2O3 6850 7130 7190 7010 7410 6990 7230 6970 7030 7510 7450 7190 6330 7170 6180 5570 6340 5850 6620 7170 7770 7350 5930 6720

%CaO+ %MgO+ %K2O+ %Na2O 1226 1160 1260 1585 1171 1239 1227 1088 1204 1108 1031 973 1668 1099 2593 2097 2320 2674 2075 1406 1016 1532 2447 2194

%Fe2O3 + %MnO+ %TiO2 1291 1323 1233 1176 1219 1271 1381 1098 1186 1203 1345 1306 899 1287 907 945 1015 794 962 905 947 927 735 806

%SiO2 divided by %Al2O3 ratio 372 369 417 397 388 369 358 356 425 397 375 336 410 351 424 332 380 463 471 456 493 433 191 186

% Transition metal oxides divided by % alkali metal oxides ratio 105 114 098 074 104 103 113 101 099 109 130 134 054 117 035 045 044 030 046 064 093 061 030 037

Fe2O3 divided by Al2O3 ratio 073 072 073 070 067 070 072 060 073 067 071 067 063 068 064 063 065 064 071 059 061 057 032 030

CaO divided by Al2O3 ratio 037 033 038 056 033 038 036 032 037 031 028 029 098 029 173 126 132 211 127 056 036 063 099 074

*The detection limit for these data is 001%. 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 ngerprint 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 calcium 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

Analysis of Modern Egyptian Pottery 747


Table 3a. Trace analysis by multiple methods (all analyses are in ppm*) Sample 61 47 149 161 10 52 154 HK1 31 12 HK2 43 64 73 39 71 51 50 152 1375 1368 13115 113 65 Method U 17 17 17 17 17 17 18 18 19 19 20 20 20 21 23 24 25 26 26 27 27 27 54 56 NA Th 49 49 52 55 56 61 56 76 51 58 64 65 70 62 58 70 63 56 73 67 68 78 100 120 NA Ni 64 72 66 65 64 63 68 53 63 66 71 64 44 69 50 46 52 42 36 49 52 50 75 73 ICP Zn 100 103 1800 241 129 119 142 937 1790 146 130 122 104 122 165 895 211 205 133 995 929 927 164 163 ICP 05 Cu 540 557 881 782 717 659 617 430 629 689 611 696 384 882 325 353 740 1260 502 401 388 331 205 184 ICP 05 Co 360 370 450 330 340 370 390 310 480 340 390 380 240 370 270 230 280 210 200 250 270 260 230 220 NA 05 Pb <2 <2 12 74 9 <2 14 <2 8 2 5 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 30 114 <2 <2 2 11 <2 <2 ICP 20 B 21 15 29 35 23 24 22 23 26 24 30 21 56 25 58 44 48 50 88 46 39 67 108 119 ICP 100 Ba 481 462 434 531 436 630 439 530 404 542 504 444 409 442 405 380 560 450 381 528 440 428 596 473 XRF 100 Br 170 97 73 55 98 110 49 96 110 86 47 69 270 75 44 170 50 67 46 160 40 48 140 63 NA 05 Zr 289 296 269 272 276 280 294 271 273 279 295 267 276 266 283 255 296 288 396 323 285 317 134 151 XRF 100 Sb 03 03 07 10 07 05 07 04 08 07 04 07 06 190 12 03 14 40 05 13 05 04 09 09 NA 01 Cs 11 18 10 14 14 16 10 18 13 14 16 16 16 12 11 16 18 09 16 16 17 22 47 50 NA 05 Rb 28 34 26 42 29 37 32 36 37 32 30 38 21 33 12 29 27 17 22 42 45 42 23 40 XRF 100 Sr 310 315 322 405 298 306 329 260 329 291 289 285 692 286 592 703 677 713 557 432 470 378 551 572 XRF 100 Sc 223 233 209 208 218 224 241 200 211 217 232 246 164 237 170 168 166 138 137 159 171 167 170 198 NA 01

*Detection limits (in ppm) 01 02 10

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 61 47 149 161 10 52 154 HK1 31 12 HK2 43 64 73 39 71 51 50 152 1375 1368 13115 113 65 Method *Detection limits: Hf 77 86 72 71 73 75 86 75 84 75 85 75 73 85 80 62 76 79 110 84 82 91 34 36 NA 02 Ta 16 15 15 14 17 19 14 17 14 14 19 17 14 13 12 15 11 10 16 16 14 16 11 14 NA 05 Y 31 34 29 33 31 35 36 38 34 30 38 33 31 33 25 29 30 25 30 33 35 31 23 28 XRF 10 Nb 20 23 21 20 20 21 24 21 19 20 23 22 17 21 15 18 19 13 18 21 21 21 15 20 XRF 10 V 237 244 211 215 219 226 236 182 211 212 215 232 136 223 163 135 177 137 127 141 145 146 172 194 ICP 20 Cr 240 240 280 280 260 230 260 180 220 300 440 220 160 230 500 160 240 300 250 190 390 290 200 220 NA 05 Au <2 5 4 23 12 <2 5 3 10 <2 7 7 <2 18 6 7 6 8 11 36 4 <2 2 5 NA 20

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


Table 4. Rare earth analysis by neutron activation (all analyses are in ppm*) Sample 61 47 149 161 10 52 154 HK1 31 12 HK2 43 64 73 39 71 51 50 152 1375 1368 13115 113 65 *Detection La Ce Nd 30 32 30 30 31 32 32 35 30 30 34 33 29 30 29 29 29 24 29 29 31 36 34 37 30 Sm 623 645 619 624 612 652 706 690 610 616 735 689 573 647 562 558 583 409 554 576 594 684 604 686 001 Eu 229 210 191 188 188 227 223 170 214 214 224 229 174 209 152 157 154 131 147 180 185 205 170 161 005 Tb 09 10 08 09 08 08 10 09 08 08 10 09 08 10 08 08 08 07 07 08 08 09 07 07 01 Yb 278 292 260 267 265 294 300 301 283 275 325 306 243 297 259 234 263 227 276 258 281 301 204 241 005 Lu 041 043 040 039 038 044 044 044 041 040 046 044 035 043 038 034 038 034 040 038 041 044 028 035 001

311 63 324 65 311 63 315 64 313 64 326 67 349 71 391 76 311 63 314 65 367 74 356 73 330 65 336 66 304 60 333 65 333 65 278 54 331 64 331 65 341 66 396 79 471 87 549 100 limits (in ppm): 01 10

Sample listing order is based upon increasing uranium concentrations.

water. Phosphate concentrations in anthrosols and natural sediments are complex, and in most cases site and material specic. Phosphate is therefore an interTable 5. Normalized REE* Sample 61 47 149 161 10 52 154 HK1 31 12 HK2 43 64 73 39 71 51 50 152 1375 1368 13115 113 65 La 9424 9818 9424 9545 9485 9879 10576 11848 9424 9515 11121 11867 10000 10182 9212 10091 10091 8424 10030 10030 10333 12000 14273 16636 Ce 7160 7386 7160 7273 7273 7614 8068 8636 7160 7386 8409 8295 7386 7500 6818 7386 7386 6136 7273 7386 7500 8977 9886 11364 Nd 5000 5333 5000 5000 5167 5333 5333 5833 5000 5000 5667 5500 4833 5000 4833 4833 4833 4000 4833 4833 5167 6000 5667 6167

esting component to use to investigate the potential for ceramic ngerprinting. 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 classication 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 aluminium (not shown); iron oxide compared with titanium 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 sedimentary mineral composed of iron and titanium oxide, originates from igneous rocks such as granites where it is an accessory mineral. The minerals ilmenite and

Sm 3442 3564 3420 3448 3381 3602 3901 3812 3370 3403 4061 3807 3166 3575 3105 3083 3221 2260 3061 3182 3282 3779 3337 3790

Eu 3319 3043 2768 2725 2725 3290 3232 2464 3101 3101 3246 3319 2522 3029 2203 2275 2232 1899 2130 2609 2681 2971 2464 2333

Tb 1915 2128 1702 1915 1702 1702 2128 1915 1702 1702 2128 1915 1702 2102 1702 1702 1702 1489 1489 1702 1702 1915 1489 1489

Yb 1390 1460 1300 1335 1325 1470 1500 1505 1415 1375 1625 1530 1215 1485 1295 1170 1315 1135 1380 1290 1405 1505 1220 1205

Lu 1206 1265 1176 1147 1118 1294 1294 1294 1206 1176 1353 1294 1029 1265 1118 1000 1118 1000 1176 1118 1206 1294 824 1029

*Normalization is to chondrite meteorite composition reported as composite analysis by Haskin et al. (1968; cited in Hamroush, 1985) as the following values: La=033, Ce=088, Nd=060, Sm=0181, Eu=0069, Tb=0047, Yb=020, Lu=0034.

Table 6. Petrographic observations (all data are in volume %)


Quartz Grain Shape % Grog A 2 4 2 2 1 2 80 05 1 1 T 2 T 1 T HM 05 4 4 2 1 3 T 2 2 100 100 Frosted 05 05 6 2 8 10 100 2 3 T 2 2 2 1 1 3 2 3 3 100 20 1 1 1 1 1 2 3 100 100 1 3 1 2 2 4 3 2 2 8 2 11 8 6 5 100 Frosted 100 Frosted 1 2 6 1 5 1 2 Gypsum anhydrite CaSO4 Carbon Opal CT Mica Feldspar Heavy minerals Sand Silt % Ash Quartz granule % Rounded Subrounded % Angular Subangular Elongated Organics opal A phytolith Void space Rounded 10 8 5 3 7 5 3 2 % Paste 48 64 77 85 79 83 685 87 58

Sample

CaCO3 sparite

CaCO3 micrite

Degassed CaCO3 CaO vugs

Shell

CaO blobs

SRF mudstone siltstone

10 12

1 1

1 1

52 61 1 2

T T

43 47

T T

154

73

161

15

149 31 2* * T 05 A1 A1 1 3 HM1 1 1 1 1 T 2 T 5 1 1 1 4 AB1 T 05 15 1 1 T T 05 1 1 2 2

T T

3 4

A A

2 2

3 4

1 1

7 5

2 2

3 4

100 Frosted 100 Frosted 100 100 T T 5 100 Frosted 100 Frosted 100

1 2 05

T 1 19

4 5 3 2 2 3 35 1 5 2 1

72 68 68 945 71 56 80

HK1 HK2 3

64 71

4 3

152

39 50 51 A 10 3

2 2 1

1 6 2

2 9 2

T 1 1

1 1 1

2 5 3

HM T 2 HM T

T 1

3 5 4 T T

4 9 8 T

80 Frost 50 Frost 60 Frost 100

20 50 40

4 3 2

T 2 T

6 5 3

75 49 73

113 65

2 8

3 T

13 38

2 2

100 Frost

05 T

7 3

2 5

605 41

1368 1375 13115 25 T A 1

05

T T T

2 1 1

2 2 2

T T T

8 3 T

1 1 5

1 3 1

100 Frosted 100 Frosted 100 Frosted

6 5 T

3 6 2

79 53 885

Analysis of Modern Egyptian Pottery 749

*This could be a grog rather than a silty mudstone (shale)? It is all similar, light grey, angular to subangular, medium to ne sand sized fragments. Some of the quartz grains contain heavy mineral inclusions. Degraded CaCO3 to CaO amorphous material. Large angular mm sized sparite occur. T=Trace amount, HM=hematite coated magnetite grains, A=grass and straw casts, B=cha casts.

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


5.0
Anaatir 13.68 Sinai 13.75 Silts 31 14.9 10 16.1 51 Badrashein Faiyum 71 Minouf 52 Abu Reguan 12 47 15.4 73 HK2 Zagazig 43

81 79 77 % Silicon dioxide + % aluminum oxide 75 73 71 69 67 65 63 61 59


Marls Faiyum 64 51 Marls 13.68 Sinai HK2 Hierakonpolis 13.115 13.75 12 15.4 10 Anaatir 43 52 14.9
Sammanud

4.5 Silicon dioxide/aluminum oxide ratio

50 39

15.2

13.115 64 Sammanud

4.0

Cairo Qulla Mixed

61

Zagazig 47 Cairo

73

Abu Reguan 31 16.1 Badrashein

3.5

HK1

pipe 61Minouf

HK1 Hierakonpolis 65 Ballas

3.0

Mixed Anaatir

Cairo pipe

15.2

Anaatir

2.5

2.0

11.3 Ballas Gerzeh? 65

39 Cairo Qulla mix 50 Faiyum 71

Gerzeh? 11.3

57 55 0.1 0.2

1.5

0.5 1.0 1.5 Transition metal oxides/alkali metal oxides ratio

0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 % Phosphorus pentoxide

0.7

0.8

Figure 2. Scattergram illustrating the relationship between metal oxide ratios from Table 2 and geographic location of modern pottery sherds.

Figure 3. Scattergram illustrating the relationship between major mineral oxide formers (silican dioxide and aluminium oxide) and total phosphorus pentoxide with the geographic distribution of the pottery sherds.

hematite are also likely to be intergrown, and during weathering may form oxyhydroxides in the sediments. It is likely that this suite of minerals, which contains the bulk of the sedimentary iron (and titanium), is also responsible for the red colour of the red(dish) ceramics. Dierent combinations of iron and titanium oxide minerals such as ilmenite and titano-magnetite and even their secondary weathered oxyhydroxide products appear to be quite sensitive to location and therefore are dependent upon ceramic source material composition. The other transitional metal oxide investigated is manganese, and it also performs well in plots with iron and with titanium. Manganese may be included in the same primary oxide minerals as iron and titanium, but only as a trace constituent. In sediments where weathered mineral phases such as oxyhydroxides occur, manganese is found in percentile concentrations with iron and titanium. When manganese is plotted against titanium, the marls, Faiyum samples, Sinai and mixed samples separate from each other and from the Nile silts. Among the Nile silts, the Abu Raguan and Sammanud and Minouf samples separate fairly well from the other silts, but still within an overall silt cluster. When manganese is plotted against iron, the Nile silts separate even more from the Sinai silts, mixed and marl ceramics. The silts in this plot also separate from each other based upon location, but again within a silt cluster. If an unknown (location) Nile silt ceramic were to be added to the eld in either the iron manganese (not shown), titaniummanganese (not shown) or irontitanium (Figure 5) plots, it would

81 79
Sinai
13.68

77 % Silicon dioxide + % aluminum oxide 75 73 71 69 67 65 63 61 59 57 55 0.1 0.2


39 HK2 13.115 13.75 12 15.4 43 47 73 61 52 31 HK1 10 14.9

Silts

16.1

15.2

65

Bagged lime mixed with silt

Mixed silt and marl Clay/carbonate


64

51

Marls

50

11.3

71

0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 % Phosphorus pentoxide

0.7

0.8

Figure 4. Scattergram illustrating the relationship between major mineral oxide formers (silica and aluminium) and phosphorus pentoxide to sherd composition.

probably be dicult, if not impossible, to classify it to its locations as the entire Nile silt eld plots very close together. Other elemental plots are required to resolve

Analysis of Modern Egyptian Pottery 751


2.5

(a)
50

Oxides of calcium/aluminum ratio

2.0
39

1.5
51 71 15.2

1.0

11.3 65 13.115

64

0.5

16.1 13.75 13.68 10 52 15.4 4.9 12 HK1 47 43 73 31 HK2 61

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

Oxides of iron/aluminum ratio 2.5 (b)


61 47 15.4 HK2 73 43

2.0
31

14.9

52 10

Titanium oxide in %

HK1

16.1 12

1.5
50

39 13.68 13.75 13.115 64 11.3 65

51 15.2

71

1.0

0.5

6 Iron oxide in %

10

12

Figure 5. Scattergrams showing major element oxide ratios. (a) Oxides of iron/aluminium divided by oxides of calcium/aluminium, (b) iron oxide versus titanium oxide.

and separate the individual source areas in the Nile silts. Iron oxide was compared to LOI data (not shown here) and surprisingly there was a variety of source area clusters that resembled those of the phosphorous plots (Figures 3 and 4). The material from the Faiyum was easily distinguished from the other ceramics using this plot. In addition to investigating ceramic ngerprinting utilizing major elements, the combination of major elements with trace elements also has been used, and some scattergram plots are shown in Figure 6. The plots used in this study are: calcium oxide versus strontium; calcium oxide versus thorium; calcium oxide versus nickel; calcium oxide versus boron; iron oxide versus scandium; and iron oxide versus thorium.

The iron versus scandium plot (in Figure 6) is similar to the iron versus titanium plot in Figure 5, except that in this situation the resolution of the Nile silts is much better. This is an extremely important plot for the ngerprinting of individual Nile silt sources. The other plots in Figure 6 are well suited to the separation of the marls and mixed sediments. The Nile silts are also separated, but to a lesser degree, as they still tend to cluster close together. In the calcium versus strontium scattergram plot, sample 161, which has added commercially processed lime, separates from the other mixed samples and plots with the Sinai samples. To a lesser extent, the Faiyum samples (64 and 71) also separate from the Cairo and Anaatir Orchard mixed ceramics (36, 50, 51=Cairo: silts+gebel clay;

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

152=Anaatir: tebine clay+silt). The calcium oxide versus boron plot separates the 152 sample from the Cairo samples, and the 161 sample from the other mixed samples. In many of these plots in Figure 6, the Faiyum samples plot fairly close to the Cairo mixed suite. Other elemental scattergrams are necessary to resolve properly these samples. A large variety of scattergram plots were run for the trace elements, and in some of these a clear resolution is obtained between a particular Nile silt source area and the overall eld of Nile silts. Nile silts are the most problematic category for resolution as they are geochemically very similar to each other. Figure 7 aids in the resolution of the silts from Abu Raguan. The plot of zinc against thorium is overwhelmingly clear since the Abu Raguan material has greater than 1600 ppm zinc and the rest of the ceramics from all sources is almost a magnitude smaller. The cobalt versus hafnium and the cobalt versus scandium plots also provide reasonably good separation for Abu Raguan from the rest of the Nile silts. The ideal exercise is to use all three plots as the dominant ngerprint. A large variety of scattergrams were investigated for thorium as there is this interesting relationship between thorium and uranium and the Nile silts and marls and mixed materials. The general relationship can be observed in the chemical tables as the samples are listed with increasing uranium concentrations. Marls are at the bottom of the tables and Nile silts tend towards the top of the tables. Figure 8 shows six plots with thorium. The nickel versus thorium and the scandium versus thorium plots provide clear delineation between the Nile silts and other sources. The Anaatir Orchard sample (152), composed of 2/3 tebine clay and 1/3 Nile silt, is separated from all of the other ceramics by use of the zirconium versus thorium and boron versus thorium plots. It therefore can be distinguished from the other mixed ceramics. The marls are well separated using any and all of the plots in Figure 8. The trace element plots in Figure 9 are more varied, and provide good to excellent separations for a variety of samples. The Faiyum sherds are well separated from the others by use of the strontium versus bromine plot. The Sinai material is segregated in the uranium versus rubidium plot. The strontium versus bromine plot provides fairly good clarication of the Cairo mixed suite. The nickel plots against copper and uranium provide good clarication of the Nile silts from the marls and mixed source materials. The marls are again well separated using any of the Figure 9 plots. Some attention was paid to the rare earth elements (REE) as shown in Figures 10 and 11. Figure 10 provides two typical scattergram plots for the rare earths. In the Figure 10 plots, the predynastic Hierakonpolis sherds fall fairly close together, especially with the cerium versus neodymium plot. This is important since the only other signicant plot found for these sherds is the cobalt versus scandium plot in Figures 7 and 12. The Hierakonpolis material is di-

cult to separate out from the other Nile silts investigated. The Figure 11 normalized concentrations show that the Hierakonpolis material investigated here is similar to the material studied by Hamroush (1985). The general curve shapes can assist in dening the material studied. Unfortunately, due to nancial constraints, Gd data were not collected in this study; the REE curves obtained in Figure 11 would be more compelling if Gd data had been collected. Future analytical eorts will rectify this omission. Hamroush (1985) provided a more complete REE analysis than is provided here and his analysis suggests that these data may be important when studying the Upper Nile ceramics and possibly ancient ceramics from a variety of areas as well. Three very signicant scattergram plots (Figure 12) provide sucient information to ngerprint clearly individual source area for the Nile silt ceramics. Figure 12 illustrates cobalt versus scandium; boron versus scandium; and caesium versus scandium. The cobalt and boron plots dierentiate among silts from Abu Raguan, from Sammanud, from Minouf, from Zagazig+Cairo+Anaatir Orchard, and from Hierakonpolis. The cesium plot distinguishes the Zagazig silts from those in Cairo and Anaatir Orchards. The full combination of all three of these plots is required to ngerprint individual areas within the Nile silt source materials. In addition to these plots, an approach using histograms to determine the uniqueness of a source area was investigated for the Nile silts. Strontium, iron oxide minus calcium oxide and europium were used (not shown here) and these histograms provided some basic information on source area. The degree of eectiveness of this mode of analysis, however, is questionable. In addition, triangular plots were studied where three elements and in some cases ratios and sums were used. These proved to be less successful than scattergrams because there is a limitation in the scale of the plot when the three items must sum to 100%. Petrographic data presented in Table 6 provide information on the basic constituents of the pottery. The Nile silt sourced ceramics are dominated by paste with minor concentrations of quartz, feldspar and mica. Mica also appears in the Sinai samples. Six of the samples studied had calcium carbonate shell inclusions: both samples from Sammanud (10 and 12), sample 52 from Minouf, sample 31 from Abu Raguan, sample 64 from the Faiyum and sample 50 from Cairo. Sample 50 also contained micrite (ne grained crystallized calcium carbonate) and calcium oxide coated bubble vugs, and is obviously a mix between a Nile silt and a marl clay. These vugs occur in the marl clay samples and in the mixed clay products. They are likely to be formed during ring and appear derived from the degassing (the loss of carbon dioxide) of sparite (coarse grained calcium carbonate). Of particular interest, they also appear in sample 161, which is composed of Nile silt with the addition of bagged lime and ash. It thus

Analysis of Modern Egyptian Pottery 753


12 10 Iron oxide in % 8 6 4 2 12 10 Iron oxide in % 8 6 4 2

(a)

51 15.2 71 13.11 13.68 13.75 65 64 39 50 11.3

HK2 15.4 43 61 10 47 73 14.9 52 16 HK1 12 31

(b)

15.4 HK2 73 43 14.910 52 61 12 HK1 31 16.1 47 51 71 15.2 13.68 64 13.115 13.75

39 50

11.3

65

0 25

10 15 Scandium in ppm

20

25

0 25

6 Thorium in ppm

10

12

(c)
50 11.3 39

(d)
50 39 11.3

20 Calcium oxide in %

20 Calcium oxide in %
51 71 51 71 65 15.2 64

65

15

15.2 64

15

10

13.115 16.1 61 52 13.75 10 14.9 43 15.4 HK1 13.68 31 12 17 75 HK2

10
15.42 61

31 16.1 73 14.9 13.75 13.68

13.115

47

43 HK2 10 12 73 HK1

0 25

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

0 25

20

40

60 Boron in ppm

80

100

120

Strontium in ppm (e)


50 39 11.3

(f)

50 39 71 15.2 64 11.3 11.3 65

20 Calcium oxide in %
71

20 Calcium oxide in %
51 65 15.2 64

51

15

15

10

13.115 13.75

10
16.1 13.115 13.75 15.42 6114.9 43 HK1 47 3110 12 13.68 73 HK2

HK1 13.68

16.1 61 14.9 15.4 52 47 31 12 73 HK2 10 43

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

20

40

60

80

100

120

Nickel in %

Thorium in ppm

Figure 6. Scattergrams of trace and major elements. (a) Iron oxide versus scandium, (b) thorium versus iron oxide, (c) calcium oxide versus strontium, (d) calcium oxide versus boron, (e) calcium oxide versus nickel, (f) thorium versus calcium oxide.

appears that there is a sucient carbonate concentration in the bagged lime for this material to degas during ring. Small areas of calcium oxide also appear in many of the samples; these are designated as CaO blobs in Table 6.

Thus, petrographic observations indicate that there are distinctive calcium carbonatecalcium oxide morphologies and textures in the ceramics that are diagnostic of the raw materials used during manufacture. The absence of minerals (the negative argument)

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


1800 1600 1400 Zinc in ppm 1200 1000 800 600 400 200 0 2 4
39 HK2 50 52 51 13.75 15.2 73 16.1 64 HK1 13.115 61 15.4 71 10 12 6 43 13.68 8 11.3 Marls 65

(a)

31

14.9

Abu Raguan

10

12

Thorium in ppm 50 45 40 Cobalt in ppm 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 2 4 6 Hafnium in ppm 25 20 Scandium in ppm 15


15.2 Marls 11.3 65 71 10 16.1

(b)

Abu Raguan 14.9 43 15.4 61 73 52 HK1 51 64 39 50

31

HK2 47

12 13.68 13.75 13.115 15.2

10

12

(c)
10 65 11.3 71 50 64 13.68 39 51 HK1 12 16.1

73 43 15.4 47 HK2 61 52

31 14.9 Abu Raguan

13.115 13.75

10 5

10

15

20

25 Cobalt in ppm

30

35

40

45

50

Figure 7. Scattergrams useful for ngerprinting Abu Raguan ceramics made from canal dredging silts+ash. (a) Zinc versus thorium, (b) cobalt versus hafnium, (c) cobalt versus scandium.

can also be diagnostic; for example, lack of mica characterizes the marl clays in this study. A multivariant data reduction statistical factor analysis computer program (Statistical Package for Social Scientists for Macintosh, Norusis, 1994) was used by D. Shettel (see Acknowledgements) to ascertain whether this method also could provide correlation data as it has the potential to handle large concentrations of data very rapidly. A total of seven factors was loaded using the complete list of 50 elements run by XRAL laboratory. The rst three

regression analyses were run as these provide most of the likely correlations. These regressions were plotted (not shown) in a similar manner to the scattergrams, except that each plot axis has positive and negative factor scores instead of concentration values. The results of these analyses are as follows. (1) Regression factor score 3 against regression factor score 1: the sample groupings break out as marls, the Faiyum samples, Cairo mixed suite, Anaatir Orchard 152 mixed, Sinai, HK1 straw-tempered, and all other samples in a scatter pack of silts

Analysis of Modern Egyptian Pottery 755


80 70 60 Nickel in ppm 50 40 30 20 10 0 5 (c)
65 11.3 Marls

(a)

Silts 73HK2 15.4 14.9 12 10 47 43 3116.1 52 61 13.68 11.3

120
65 Marls

(b)
Marls 11.3 15.2

65

100
Sinai HK1 13.115

51 3913.75 71 50 64 Faiyum 15.2 Mixed

Boron in ppm

80
13.115

60 40 20

39 50

64

6113.75 71 16.1 13.68 73 14.9 HK2 12 31 HK1 43 52 51 10 47

10

12

0 5.0 4.5 4.0 Cesium in ppm 3.5 3.0 2.5 2.0 1.5 1.0 0.5 (d)

10

12

65 11.3 Marls

4 Uranium in ppm

3
15.4 13.75 13.115 39 15.2 73 51 71 14.9 50 43 64 HK1 47 & 61 31 12 HK2 10 52 16.1 13.68

64 13.115 HK1 10 39 16.1 HK2 6415.2 31 13.75 & 71 61 52 14.9 12 15.4 50 47 73 13.68 43

0 400 350 300 Zirconium in ppm 250 200 150 100 (e)

6
15.2

10

12

0 25 (f)

10

12

Scandium in ppm

13.75 13.115 47 10 51 HK2 13.68 39 61 52 64 HK1 31 12 73 43 71 14.9 16.1

15.4 50

20

15

Silts 15.4 43 73 47 HK2 10 61 52 12 31 HK1 14.9 16.1 13.68 Sinai 71 13.115 39 51 64 13.75 50 Mixed 15.2

65 Marls 11.3

11.3 Marls

65

10

5 50 0 2 4 6 Thorium in ppm 8 10 12 0 2 4 6 Thorium in ppm 8 10 12

Figure 8. Scattergrams showing thorium distributions. (a) Nickel versus thorium, (b) boron versus thorium, (c) uranium versus thorium, (d) caesium versus thorium, (e) zirconium versus thorium, (f) thorium versus scandium.

including Badrashein 161 (Nile silt with bagged lime). The scatter pack can be subdivided into Abu Raguan plus Cairo 73, Zagazig, Minouf, Sammanud, Anaatir, and HK2 plum red ware. (2) Regression factor score 2 against regression factor score 1: the sample groupings break out as marls, the Faiyum samples, Cairo mixed suite plus

Anaatir Orchard 152 mixed, Sinai, a scatter pack of Minouf 52 plus HK2 plus 154 plus Zagazig samples; a scatter pack of HK1 plus Sammanud plus Minouf 61 Abu Raguan plus Cairo 73 and Badrashein 161. (3) Regression factor score 3 against regression factor score 2: the sample groupings break out as Cairo

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


500 450 400 Chromium in ppm 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 30 25
Faiyum Marls 65 12 50 13.115 14.9 16.1 15.4 Pure Silt 15.2 10 51 47 52 61 73 43 31 13.75 HK1 64 71 Faiyum

(a)

39 Mixed HK2 13.68

45 40 35 Rubidium in ppm 30 25 20

(b)
65

13.68 13.75

Sinai 13.115 HK1 73

16.1

65 43 52 31

47

Marls 71 Faiyum 15.2 50 64 Mixed 39 51 10

12 Silts HK2 61 14.9

11.3

11.3

15 10 5

6 8 Hafnium in ppm

10

12

0 45

0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.10 0.12 0.14 0.16 0.18 Maganese in % (d) Mixed lines 16.1
52 HK1 47 Silts 15.4 10 61 13.68 31 43 73 71 51 64 15.2 64 50 11.3 Sinai 13.75 & 13.115 65

(c)
64

40 35 Rubidium in ppm 30 25 20 15

Bromine in ppm

20
61 71

12

Marls

HK2

15
Silts 52 10 12 73 31 47 14.9

13.75

11.3

14.9

10 5

HK1

Sinai

65 51 50 15.2 39 Cairo Mixed

39

Mixed

16.1 43 HK2 15.4 13.115 13.68

10 5 800 0 80 1 2 3 Uranium in ppm (f)


Silts 47 HK2 15.4 73 14.9 12 16 43 61 & 10 52 31 HK1 64 39 71 Mixed 15.2 51 13.68 13.115 13.75 Sinai 50 11.3 65 Marls

0 80 70 60 Nickel in ppm 50 40 30 20 10 0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

Strontium in ppm (e)


65 11.3 Marls 47 HK2 Silts 12 16.1 15.4 52 61 10 31 43 73 14.9

70 60 Nickel in ppm 140 50 40 30 20 10

Sinai 13.68 13.115 HK1 13.75 39

51 Cairo Mixed 50

71 64 Mixed 15.2

20

40

60

80

100

120

10

12

Copper in ppm Uranium in ppm Figure 9. Scattergrams for trace elements. (a) Chromium versus hafnium, (b) manganese versus rubidium, (c) strontium versus bromine, (d) uranium versus rubidium, (e) copper versus nickel, (f) nickel versus uranium.

mixed suite, Anaatir Orchard 152 mixed, Faiyum, Sinai, the marls, and all other samples in a scatter pack. For each regression factor there are both positive and negative element correlations. For factor 1 the

strong positive correlations are from Co, Nb, Sc, V, and Y; and the strong negative correlations are from B, Cs, Sr, Th, and U. For factor 2, the strong positive correlations are from Cs and Ni; and the strong negative correlations are from Hf and Zr. For factor 3, the strong positive correlations are from Cu, Pb and

Analysis of Modern Egyptian Pottery 757


8 7 6
15.2

(a)
HK1 65 11.3 51 39 71 64 13.115 73 16.1 14.9 10 13.68 13.75

HK2 15.4 43 52 61

47 12 31

Samarium in ppm

5 4 3 2 1

50

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

Europium in ppm 40 35
47 52

(b)
13.115 HK1
65

HK2

30 Neodymium in ppm 25 20 15 10 5

10 31 12 14.9 16.1 39 15.2

13.68 73 71 13.75 64 51

43 15.4

11.3

50

10

20

30

40

50 60 Cerium in ppm

70

80

90

100

Figure 10. Scattergrams for REE elements. (a) Samarium versus europian, (b) cerium versus neodymium.

Ni; and the strong negative correlations are from Ta, Y and Zr. Factors 4 through 7 had positive correlations with Au, Cr, Br, Sb, and Zn; and negative correlations with Br, Cr, Ba and Sb. The statistical package also provides a positive and negative element correlation matrix which can be used as a rst cut for scattergram plots. The strong positive correlations obtained from this analysis are: Th to Cs, U to Cs, B to Th, U to Th, U to Co, Co to Sc, Hf to Zr,

Nb to Rb, Ta to Nb, and Y to Nb. Reasonably good positive correlations are: Th to Co, U to Co, Y to Co, Zn to Co, Nb to Co, Ni to Co, V to Nb and Sc to Y. The strong negative correlations observed are: Sr to Co, Sc to Br, Co to B, Cr to Br, Cs to Cu, Hf to Cs, Hf to Th, Hf to U, Sr to Nb, Sr to Sc, Sr to Ta, Sr to V, Sr to Y, Th to Zr, and U to Zr. Reasonably good negative correlations are: B to V, Y to B, Cu to B, Nb to B, Ni to Sr and Ni to Zr. Many of these plots are not

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


REE stacked curves for silt sherds Rate earth element concentrations 100 31 100 14.9 100 61 100 52 100
La Ce Nd Sm Eu Tb Yb Lu

REE stacked curves for silt and canal silt + lime + ash sherds 100 16.1 100 73 100 47 100 43 100
La Ce Nd Sm Eu Tb Yb Lu

REE stacked curves for silt and marl sherds 100 10 100 12 100

REE stacked curves for sherds from Hierakonpolis 100


P.R.W.

100 O.W. 100 65 HK1 100 11.3 HK2 100


Yb Lu

100

100
La Ce Nd Sm Eu Tb

Ree concentrations normalized


31 14.9 61 52 Silt sherd, Abu Raguan Silt sherd, Abu Raguan Silt sherd, Minouf Silt sherd, Minouf 16.1 73 47 43

Ree concentrations normalized


Canal silt/field source + lime + ash, Badrashein Silt (pipehead), Cairo Silt, Zagazig Silt, Zagazig 10 12 65 11.3

Ree concentrations normalized

S.T.

REE stacked curves for mixed sherds and sherds from Sinai 100 Rate earth element concentrations
64

REE stacked curves for mixed and pure silt sherds 100
15.4

100 71 100 13.75 100 13.68 100


13.115

100 15.2 100 51 100 39 100 50 100


La Ce Nd Sm Eu Tb Yb Lu

Silt sherd from Sammanud 100La Ce Nd Sm Eu Tb Yb Lu Silt sherd from Sammanud Ree concentrations Marl sherd from Ballas normalized Marl sherd from ? Near Gerzeh P.R.W. Plum red ware (average 8 samples) Hamroush (1985) O.W. Orange ware (average 6 samples) Hamroush (1985) HK1 Sherd from this study HK2 Sherd from this study S.T. Straw tempered ware (average 10 samples) Hamroush (1985)

100

La Ce Nd Sm Eu Tb

Yb Lu

Ree concentrations normalized


64 71 Mixed sherd, Faiyum Mixed sherd, straw tempered, Faiyum 13.75 Sinai sherd 13.68 Sinai sherd 13.115 Sinai sherd 15.4 15.2 51 39 50

Ree concentrations normalized


Silt sherd, no added temper, Anaatir Orchards Mixed, 2/3 Tebin clay + 1/3 silt, Anaatir Orchards Mixed silt and "Gebel", Cairo Mixed silt and "Gebel", Cairo Mixed silt and "Gebel", Cairo

Figure 11. REE stacked curves, normalized concentrations.

shown in this paper. Just because there is a positive or negative correlation between two elements does not mean that the elements themselves act as good ngerprinting agents for the samples. The best plots are

those that have good correlating elements that are distinctive for each of the source areas and ceramic compositions. An example of this is the strong negative correlation of Sr to V.

Analysis of Modern Egyptian Pottery 759


Abu Raguan (a) 50 31 14.9 Anaatir Orchards 45 Minouf 15.4 43 40 47 73 52 10 12 61 35 Zagazig Cairo Zagazig Sammanud 30 25 20 15 20.5 21.0 21.5 22.0 22.5 23.0 23.5 24.0 24.5 25.0

Co in ppm

30 B in ppm 25 20 15

14.9 31 12 10 52 61 73 15.4 43

(b)

47

10 20.5 21.0 21.5 22.0 22.5 23.0 23.5 24.0 24.5 25.0 1.8 43 (c) 47 1.6 12 10 52 1.4 73 31 1.2 61 15.4 1.0 14.9 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.0 20.5 21.0 21.5 22.0 22.5 23.0 23.5 24.0 24.5 25.0 Sc in ppm
Figure 12. Nile silt ceramic ngerprinting. (a) Cobalt versus scandiumNile silts, (b) boron versus scandiumNile silts, (c) cesium versus scandiumNile silts.

Cs in ppm

Discussion
The geochemical results provided strong conrmation of almost all of the original visually-based eld assessments of ceramic composition. The inferred silt, marl, mixed, and Sinai groupings clustered distinctively in a signicant number of the analyses. Samples of black or dark grey fabric proved to have been correctly assigned to their various composition sources. As hypothesized, the Sinai material was chemically discrete; petrographic analysis conrmed that the base raw material was a silt; and reference to the geology of the region indicated that its base material was probably a Plio-Pleistocene silt. There was, however, an occasional surprise among the results. By all of the basic visual criteria, the two Faiyum samples (64 and 71) were expected to analyse as silts. Both samples, however, had reacted very strongly to dilute HCl. Moreover, they clustered consistently with the hypothesized mixed samples in the majority of the geochemical results. Petrographic analysis was able to resolve these apparent inconsistencies by establishing that the base material of the Faiyum samples consisted of Nile silt mixed with added calcium carbonate. The Badrashein sample (161) had an unusually erratic geochemical signature,

sometimes clustering with one group, sometimes another, and sometimes separated from all other groups. This inconsistency was doubtless due to the combination of silt and bagged lime. Thus results of the analyses of the Faiyum and Badrashein samples indicated that it was possible to distinguish among the mixed sources between mixtures of marl clays and silts, on the one hand, and silts and added calcium carbonates, on the other. As noted above, one of the major advantages in studying modern traditional pottery rests in the ability to acquire specic information concerning location of source material, nature of source material, and the specic formula or mix used to create particular fabrics and forms. In particular, by talking to and observing the potter it is possible to learn the exact ingredients of the raw clay body or bodies used to produce the potters repertoire. Petrographic observations can then be used to rene the eld observations, and with this combined investigative process a very specic understanding of the nature of the ceramics can be acquired. The ability of geochemical analysis to arrive at the same or similar conclusions as the combined process of eld and petrographic observations provides a potentially powerful tool for investigating ancient pottery for which much less basic information is known.

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


Table 7. Summary of chemical ngerprinting techniques Source material Nile silts Nile silts Nile silts Nile silts Nile silts Nile silts Nile silts Plio-Pleistocene silts Mixed Nile silts +bag lime Mixed nile silt +carbonates Mixed Nile silt +marl clay Mixed Nile silt +marl clay Marls Geochemical plots used for ngerprinting* Co to Sc, B to Sc, Cs to Sc Co to Sc, B to Sc, Cs to Sz, Zn to Th, Co to Hf, SiO2 plus Al2O3 to P2O5 Cs to Sc Co to Sc, B to Sc, Cs to Sc Cs to Sc, Fe2O3 to TiO2, Fe2O3 to Sc, Th to Fe2O3 Sm to Eu, Co to Sc Cs to Sc, B to Sc SiO2/Al2O3 to Fe2O3 plus MnO2 plus TiO2/alkali metal oxides, CaO to Sr, CaO to Ni, Mn to Rb, U to Rb SiO2 plus Al2O3 to P2O5, U to Rb, Fe2O3 to Sc, Th to Fe2O3, CaO to Sr, CaO to B, CaO to Ni, Th to CaO Cr to Hf, Sr to Br, Fe2O3 to LOI Cr to Hf, Sr to Br, SiO2 plus Al2O3 to P2O5, Fe2O3 to Sc, Th to Fe2O3, CaO to Sr, CaO to B, CaO to Ni, Th to CaO Ni to U,Ni to Cu, B to Th, Co to Hf SiO2 plus Al2O3 to P2O5, Th to Fe2O3 SiO2/Al2O3 to Fe2O3 plus MnO2 plus TiO2/alkali metal oxides, Th to CaO, Fe2O3/Al2O3 to CaO/Al2O3, Zn to Th, Co to Hf, Ni to Th, B to Th, U to Th, Cs to Th, Zr to Th, Th to Sc, Cr to Hf, Mn to Rb, U to Rb, Cu to Ni, Ni to U SiO2 plus Al2O3 to P2O5, Zn to Rh, B to Th, Mn to Rb, U to Rb, Ce to Nd Figures: 2, 4, 5, 6; Ni to Th, Th to Sc

Samples 10 and 12 31 and 149 43 and 47 52 and 61 154 HK1 and HK2 73 1368, 1375 and 13115 161 64 and 71 50, 51 and 39 152 65 and 113

Location Sammanud Abu Raguan Zagazig Minouf Anaatir Hierakonpolis Cairo Sinai Badrashein Faiyum Cairo Anaatir Ballas/Qena and Gerzeh

65 and 113

Ballas/Qena Gerzeh

Marls

General silts from marls from mixed

*Element plots used to (ngerprint) distinguish these samples from other similar samples of silts, or other marls, or other mixed ceramics. These plots allow for the separation of the Ballas ceramics from those from Gerzeh. In some instances Sinai material clusters with silts; in others with the mixed group; and in still others it separates out from all other groups.

This study represents an initial survey to test whether geochemical analysis under controlled conditions has the capability to: (1) Fingerprint the major source categories of modern Egyptian ceramics such as Nile silts, marls, silt and marl mixtures, silt and carbonate mixtures, and Sinai silts; (2) Separate and geochemically dene each source type and area within its own source category; and (3) Assess the similarity of geochemical behaviour for ancient material (in this case predynastic pottery from Hierakonpolis) when compared to modern ceramics. The results of the study are extremely encouraging. It has been very easy to provide excellent ngerprinting of major source categories. A large variety of geochemical parameters are available for this purpose and a high degree of geochemical sophistication is not required. The basic reasons for this are that individual source categories are geochemically very dierent from each other (for example, marls are very dierent from Nile silts). On the other hand, task two addresses the issue of whether very similar materials are slightly dierent enough to appear unique and classiable on

their own. With the material thus far investigated, everything can be geochemically classied as unique. A large and complicated list of elements is required to perform this function. The last task nds that the Hierakonpolis silt material is in fact similar to the modern Nile silts. All indications with this limited sampling suggest that ancient ceramics will behave very similar to modern ones and that the initial premise of this study is valid.

Conclusions
Ceramics manufactured from Nile silt have recognizable geochemical signatures sometimes specic to the manufacturing location. Similar observations are noted for pottery made from marls, mixed materials, and Plio-Pleistocene (Sinai) silts. Clearly, however, the number of samples used in this study is statistically limited and a statistically sound universe of samples is required to arrive at comprehensive conclusions. Unfortunately, at the present time there is a general paucity (in terms of statistical signicance) of geochemical information for Egyptian ceramics both spatially and through time.

Analysis of Modern Egyptian Pottery 761

Based upon this very small sampling, Table 7 summarizes the potential for the geochemical analysis of the individual samples to resolve the manufacturing location and source material of modern ceramics. This task, however, has relative diculties. Certain Nile silts from dierent locations are extremely similar to each other, such as the Zagazig material (43, 47), the Cairo silt sample (73) and the Anaatir orchard silt sample (154). Only a few element plots are available to resolve these origins (Figure 12). On the other hand, it is relatively easy to acquire good separation for the mixed ceramics and for the marls. The Sinai material cannot be geochemically confused with the Nile silts and is also distinctive from the mixed sherds. The mixed materialssilts+marls and silts+carbonates also separate out from each other fairly well. The use of the multi-element, multi-method approach to provide a basic foundation of elements from which to acquire diagnostic combinations that ngerprint individual source areas appears to have been a reasonable approach to sourcing modern Egyptian ceramics. Future activity can now concentrate on establishing those elements and diagnostic combinations that uniquely classify individual source areas and source compositions. A large, detailed sampling of modern and ancient ceramics is now indicated. This will undoubtedly result in renements of the results presented here.

and Gladys Stahl Endowment of the University of California at Berkeley. Dr Don Shettel processed the geochemical data through a multivariant data reduction statistical factor analysis program (SPSS for Macintosh, release 6.1). This statistical analysis provides an additional data reduction method for geochemical studies of ceramics. Dr Shettel also kindly provided a critical review of the paper.

References
Allen, R. O., Rogers, M. S., Mitchell, R. S. & Homan, M. A. (1982). A geochemical approach to the understanding of ceramic technology in predynastic Egypt. Archaeometry 24, 199212. Allen, R. O. & Hamroush, H. (1984). The application of geochemical techniques to the investigation of two predynastic sites in Egypt. In (J. B. Lambert, Ed.) Archaeological Chemistry III. Advances in Chemistry Series 205. Washington, DC: American Chemical Society, pp. 5165. Allen, R. O., Hamroush, H. & Homan, M. A. (1989). Archaeological implications of dierences in the composition of Nile sediments. In (R. O. Allen, Ed.) Archaeological Chemistry IV. Advances in Chemistry Series 220. Washington, DC: American Chemical Society, pp. 3356. Brissaud, P. (1982). Les Ateliers de Potiers de la Rgion de Louqsour. Bibliothque dtude T. LXXVIII. Le Caire: IFAO. Butzer, K. W. (1974). Modern egyptian pottery clays and predynastic bu ware. Journal of Near Eastern Studies 33, 377382. Folk, R. L. (1968). Petrology of Sedimentary Rocks. Austin: Hemphills. Golvin, L., Thiriot, J. & Zakariya, M. (1982). Les Potiers Actuels de Fustat. Bibliothque dtude T. LXXXIX. Le Caire: IFAO. Hamroush, H. A. (1985). Archaeological geochemistry of Hierakonpolis in the Nile valley, Egypt. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Virginia, U.S.A. Hamroush, H. (1986). Geoarchaeology: Egyptian predynastic ceramics and geochemistry. Episodes 9, 160165. Hancock, R. G. V., Millet, N. B. & Mills, A. J. (1986). A rapid INAA method to characterize Egyptian ceramics. Journal of Archaeological Science 13, 107117. Haskin, L. A., Haskin, M. A., Frey, F. A. & Wildeman, T. R. (1969). In (L. H. Ahrens, Ed.) Origin and Distribution of the Elements 1. Oxford: Pergamon Press, pp. 889911. Henein, N. H. (1992). Poteries et Proverbes dgypte. Le Caire: IFAO. Huang, W. T. (1962). Petrology. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill. Jones, M. P. & Fleming, M. G. (1965). Identication of Mineral Grains. Amsterdam: Elsevier. Kerr, P. F. (1977). Optical Mineralogy. 4th Edition. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill. Lacovara, P. (1985). The ethnoarcheology of pottery production in an upper Egyptian village. In (W. D. Kingery, Ed.) Ancient Technology to Modern Science, Vol. I. Columbus, OH: The American Ceramic Society, pp. 5160. Matson, F. R. (1974). Technological studies of Egyptian potterymodern and ancient. In (A. Bishay, Ed.) Recent Advances in Science and Technology of Materials, Vol. 3. Second Cairo Solid State Conference, 1973. New York, NY: Plenum Press, pp. 129139. Moorhouse, W. W. (1959). The Study of Rocks in Thin-Section. New York, NY: Harper & Row. Nicholson, P. T. & Patterson, H. L. (1985a). Pottery making in upper Egypt: an ethnoarchaeological study. World Archaeology 17, 222239. Nicholson, P. T. & Patterson, H. L. (1985b). Ethnoarchaeology in Egypt: the Ballas pottery project. Archaeology 38, 5259.

Implications for Future Research


Table 7 provides the basic chemical parameters important for future ceramic analysis. Ideally, the next task should be both to acquire a statistically sound number of modern samples from each area thus far investigated (and ensure that the exact composition of the raw clay body is known for each sample), and to expand this eort into additional geographical areas. A more comprehensive petrographic analysis should include a size analysis of the carbonates and quartz; and X-ray diraction can be used to quantify the mineralogy. Ancient ceramic samples should also be acquired, if possible from areas close to the modern samples, so that similarities and dierences between the two sample sets can be assessed.

Acknowledgements
Field research and sample collection in Egypt during 1989 and 1990 were supported by a fellowship from the American Research Center in Egypt. Dr Hany Hamroush kindly provided access to a binocular microscope in Cairo. Dr Rene Friedman generously supplied the two ceramic samples from Hierakonpolis. Both Drs Hamroush and Friedman shared their valuable insights during numerous discussions of Egyptian ceramics, ancient and modern. Laboratory analysis of the 24 samples was funded by a grant from the Irving

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


Nicholson, P. T. & Patterson, H. L. (1992). The Ballas pottery project: ethnoarchaeology in upper Egypt. In (G. J. Bey III and C. A. Pool, Eds.) Ceramic Production and Distribution. San Francisco: Westview Press, pp. 2547. Nordstrom, H.-A. & Bourriau, J. (1993). Ceramic technology: clays and fabrics. In (D. Arnold & J. Bourriau, Eds) An Introduction to Ancient Egyptian Pottery. Mainz am Rhein: Philipp Von Zabern, pp. 143190. Norusis, M. J. (1994). SPSS Professional Statistics 6.1. Chicago, IL: SPSS. Pettyjohn, F. J. (1949). Sedimentary Rocks. New York, NY: Harper & Row. Said, R. (1962). The Geology of Egypt. New York, NY: Elsevier. Tickell, F. G. (1965). The Techniques of Sedimentary Mineralogy. Amsterdam: Elsevier. Williams, H., Turner, F. J. & Gilbert, C. M. (1954). Petrography. San Francisco: W. H. Freeman.

You might also like