Redmount_Major and Trace Element Analysis of Modern Egyptian Pottery_JAS 23 (1996)

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

Major and Trace Element Analysis of Modern EgyptianPottery

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 providesa basis for interpreting sedimentary composition and manufacture location of different wares. Several pottery sourcecompositions were investigated: ubiquitous Nile silts; calcareous silty clays (marls); mixtures of Nile silts with marl claysor carbonates; and other sediments. Each of these source compositions has a distinctive geochemical signature whichcan be used as a fingerprint. This geochemical fingerprint makes it possible to distinguish the following base ceramiccompositions from each other: Nile silts; other silts; marl clays; mixtures of Nile silts and marl clays; mixtures of Nilesilts and calcium carbonate. When combined with petrographic analysis, geochemistry is an especially powerfuldiagnostic tool. Such modern fingerprints aid in understanding modern pottery sourcing and composition and providea 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 familieshave dominated Egyptian pottery manufacturingduring ancient and modern times: (1) pottery made

from Nile alluvial sediments; (2) pottery manufacturedfrom marl clays; (3) pottery made from purposelymixed clays (Nile silts with primary or secondary marlclays); (4) pottery produced from mixtures of Nile siltswith purposely added carbonate materials; (5) potterymanufactured from kaolin clays; (6) pottery pro-duced from Pliocene clays (possibly not exploited inantiquity). To these six major groups may be added aseventh, miscellaneous family: (7) pottery made fromnaturally mixed or other sediments not associatedwith the above groups (adapted from Nordstrom &Bourriau, 1993).The natural raw material constituents of these vari-

ous ceramic families are complex and include a varietyof items: sand and granule sized igneous minerals suchas pyroxenes, amphiboles, quartz, feldspar and micagrains; sand and granule sized calcareous grains suchas marine shell; sedimentary rock sourced sand andgranule mineral grains such as quartz, mica, magnetite,chalcedony; igneous and sedimentary rock fragmentssuch as granites, sandstones and shales from a variety

of different formations; Holocene, Pleistocene andPliocene organic-rich ferruginous clays (including siltyclays and sandy clays); lime-rich (calcium carbonate)secondarily deposited alluvial clays mixed withlocal sediments; Cretaceous to Miocene weatheredcalcareous-ferruginous shale deposits (marls) which arelow in organics; and Cretaceous clay deposits associ-ated with Nubian sandstone that are low in calciumcarbonate concentrations.During the ceramic production process, the potter

generally follows a ‘‘recipe’’ when creating the raw claybody used to form the pot. This recipe can significantlymodify the collected base raw material by washingaway coarse fraction components, adding temper ofvarious kinds, and mixing the constituents with waterwhich may contain its own distinctive geochemicalfingerprint (e.g. high levels of calcium sulphate).Purposely added temper often includes one or more ofthe following: ash from a variety of sources such aspottery kilns or bread ovens; ground limestonefragments or ground K-horizon (caliche) desertcarbonates; bagged lime; grog; and a variety of organiccomponents such as dung, straw or chaff.The firing of the pottery can and should affect its

geochemical signature with respect to the loss/gain ofvolatiles. These volatiles include a host of organic

7410305-4403/96/050741+22 $18.00/0 ? 1996 Academic Press Limited

components which are converted to vapours and gasesand then lost during firing: the loss of carbon dioxidefrom the conversion of calcium carbonate to calciumoxide; the loss of sulphur dioxide from the decompo-sition of sulphates; and the potential loss of easilyvaporized metals such as sodium under high firingtemperatures. In addition, oxygen can be gained in thetransition metal structures, forming reddish-brown col-ouring agents such as iron oxides. Thus, firing tem-peratures and conditions (oxidizing or reducing) willaffect the overall geochemical signature of the pottery.In short, the combined total geochemical signature ofthe completed pot is the sum of the constituentsused and modified during the ceramic manufacturingprocess.The purpose of this study is to decipher the major

and trace element signatures for a selection of modernEgyptian pottery drawn from a wide range of manu-facturing locations and compositions. Should thisprove possible, then such analyses of modern potteryoffer a promising technique for aiding in the interpret-ation of sourcing data from ancient ceramics. Theeffective application of this technique to the archaeo-logical record, however, will require a comprehensivesampling of the geochemistry of ceramics from a widevariety of spatial and temporal contexts.A total of 24 ceramic samples was analysed in this

survey study. Certified analyses were run at XRALlaboratories in Don Mills, Ontario, Canada usingneutron activation analysis (NA), inductively coupledplasma analysis (ICP), and X-ray fluorescence spec-trometry (XRF). In all, 50 elements were investigatedfor each sample. Of the 50 elements, nine (Be, Ge, As,Se, Mo, Ag, Cd, W, Ir) provided little information asthe concentrations were at or below detection limits.The remaining 41 elements provided important infor-mation permitting the geochemical fingerprinting ofthe various modern samples. Petrographic analysis ofthe samples was used as a complementary techniqueto aid in further elaborating and refining theinterpretations of the geochemical results.

Sample CollectionSample production locations are shown on Figure 1and listed on Table 1. Samples were collected as part ofan on-going ethnoarchaeological survey of the moderntraditional pottery of Egypt. This survey is beingcarried out for the dual purposes of recording themodern pottery resource for the country, and ascer-taining whether and how modern pottery might beuseful in understanding ancient ceramic productionand technology. Collected ceramic material includedboth whole and broken vessels. Some of the sampleswere purchased or gathered in conjunction with a visitto the potters producing the wares. Others were boughtfrom pottery stands. Still others were collected fromvarious refuse locations, typically the final stop in the

life-cycle of a ceramic vessel (and the most commonarchaeological context of pottery). To date, the surveyhas concentrated primarily on ceramics manufacturedin the northern part of Egypt, from northern MiddleEgypt and the Faiyum through the Delta.There are several rationales for approaching ceramic

study from this direction. First, modern traditionalEgyptian pottery is plentiful, easily obtainable, inex-pensive, and may be taken out of Egypt for researchand compiled in study collections without becomingentangled in antiquities regulations. Second, by visitingthe potter who produces the pot, it is possible todetermine the exact recipe for the raw ceramic bodyused to produce the pot, as well as the potter’s specificproduction sequence, and then to correlate both withthe finished fired product. Third, with some notableexceptions (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 moderntraditional Egyptian ceramics, especially from anarchaeological perspective. Finally, traditional potterymaking in Egypt is a much-reduced and possibly dyingart. It therefore deserves to be documented to thegreatest extent possible, both for its own intrinsic

10,1213

15.2,15.452,61

43,47

16.1

64,71 11.3

31,14.9

39,50,51,73

65

HK 1HK 2

AlluviumPleistocenePiloceneMiocene-OligoceneEoceneNubian S.S.PalaeozoicPrecambrianSamplelocality

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

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

significance and for its ethnoarchaeological value forcomparison with ancient ceramics.Table 1 presents basic data for the analysed samples,

listed in numerical order by sample number. Of the 24samples, 22 are modern and two (HK1, HK2) areancient. The two ancient samples date to the pre-dynastic period (4th millennium ) and come from theupper (southern) Egyptian site of Hierakonpolis. Theywere included to ascertain whether ancient potterymanufactured from Nile silt from the southern portionof the country behaves chemically similar to modernsilt vessels from elsewhere in the country. In addition,the extensive chemical analyses previously undertakenon both raw materials and pottery from Hierakonpolisprovided a valuable reference source with whichto compare and contrast results of this study(Allen, Rogers, Mitchell & Hoffman, 1982; Allen &Hamroush, 1984; Hamroush, 1985, 1986; Allen,Hamroush & Hoffman, 1989). For the modernsamples, whole numbers indicate vessels purchased orcollected as a complete pot; numbers with decimalpoints indicate fragmentary material (first number in-dicates collection location, second number indicatessample number for that location).In Table 1, the manufacturing location indicates the

place where the pot or sherd was made (as opposedto where it was bought or collected). Samples comefrom all over the country, but the majority originate inthe Cairo and Delta regions (Figure 1). With theexceptions of Badrashein (16·1), Ballas (65), and theroadside sample from Gerzeh (11·3), a minimum oftwo specimens (taken from different 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 afragment of a large (ballas) jar collected in MiddleEgypt from the side of the paved road closest to theancient site of Gerzeh. The roadside in question con-tained the smashed remains of at least two and possiblymore such vessels, all of the same fabric. The two othersamples from northern Middle Egypt (31, 14·9) wereproduced by a potter located on the east side of themain Cairo–Faiyum Nile valley road, just south of theAbu Raguan turn-off. The two Faiyum samples (64,71) were purchased at the potters’ market in MedinetFaiyum, as was the large jar manufactured in theBallas area of southern Egypt (65).A total of 13 samples came from the greater Cairo

and Delta regions. Three production areas for thesesamples were located in Cairo and its environs. Thefirst was Badrashein, a village with a community ofpotters located southwest of Cairo, not far from theancient site of Saqqarah and near remnants of theancient capital city of Memphis. One specimen (16·1)was obtained here. Four samples were manufactured intraditional workshops within the city of Cairo proper(39, 50, 51, 73). Finally, two samples (15·2, 15·4) weremade at a government workshop in an area calledAnaatir Orchard, located near the Barrages just northof Cairo. This workshop was highly specialized andmanufactured 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 Deltapottery manufacturing centres. Two further samplescame from the environs of Zagazig, an east Delta townknown for the production of the distinctive dark grey

Table 1. Location of samples

Samplenumber

Manufacturinglocation Form

Sourcematerial Field remarks

10 Sammanud Ballas Silt Visual observation12 Sammanud Qulla Silt Visual observation31 Abu Raguan Tagen Silt Canal dredging+ash39 Cairo Qulla Mixed Silt and ‘‘gebel’’43 Zagazig Ibriq Silt(?) Visual observation; black47 Zagazig Boosha Silt(?) Visual observation; black50 Cairo Ibriq Mixed Silt and ‘‘gebel’’51 Cairo Qulla Mixed Silt and ‘‘gebel’’52 Minouf Zir Silt Visual observation61 Minouf Qulla Silt Visual observation64 Faiyum Zir Silt Reacts with HCl65 Ballas Ballas Marl Visual observation71 Faiyum Sahfa Silt Straw-tempered silt; reacts with HCl73 Cairo Pipehead Silt(?) Visual observation; black11·3 Unknown Ballas Marl Visual observation; orange13·68 Sinai Flower pot Silt(?) Local?13·75 Sinai Tabun Silt(?) Local?13·115 Sinai Bowl Silt(?) Local?; black14·9 Abu Raguan Zir Silt Canal dredging+ash15·2 Anaatir Orchards Flower pot Mixed Tebin clay+silt (field soil)15·4 Anaatir Orchards Flower pot Silt Field soil; no added temper16·1 Badrashein Zir Silt Canal/field source+ash+limeHK1 Hierakonpolis Bowl Silt Straw-tempered; ancientHK2 Hierakonpolis Jar Silt Untempered plum red: ancient

Analysis of Modern Egyptian Pottery 743

to black, usually ribbed, pottery that is marketedwidely and is probably a descendant of the earlier‘‘Gaza’’ ware. Finally, somewhat further to the northand east, and technically outside the Delta and Egyptproper, were the remains of a modern bedouin camplocated just north of the coastal Sinai town of El-Arish.This camp most likely dates sometime after the early1970s, judging by Israeli bullet casings and a oneagorot coin found among the debris. Three sampleswere collected here.Within the other two primary parameters—

manufacturing location, discussed above, and sourcematerial, discussed below—consistency of form wasutilized as a criterion for selecting the modern sampleson the assumption that similar concerns would informthe manufacture of identical or functionally similarforms. The modern samples analysed included thefollowing 12 forms (see Henein (1992) for a discussionof 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 ajug. It has a number of minor form variations (Golvin,Thiriot & Zakariya, 1982), but has neither a handle nora spout, and usually has a strainer in the neck. Theibri(q) form (samples 43, 50) is similar in size andfunction to the (q)ulla, but has a spout and a smallhandle. The zir (samples 52, 64, 14·9, 16·1) serves as avery large storage jar and has a far greater capacitythan either the (q)ulla or the ibri(q). All three pot typesare commonly found and manufactured throughoutEgypt; their primary use is to hold water intended forhuman consumption.The ballas form (samples 10, 11·3, 65) is named after

its main production centre, the town of Ballas insouthern Egypt. It is a large jar form, generally slightlysmaller than the zir in capacity, with a variety offunctions, including transporting water (one of its mostcommon uses), cheese-making, and storing a variety ofcommodities (some liquid, some not) on village roofs.The best known and most widely available ballas jar isthat produced in the Ballas area, which is made of aparticular marl clay and marketed throughout thecountry. Similar vessels, however, are also made inother areas from other clays.Three different bowl types were included in the

sample set: a tagen (31), used for watering fowl; asahfa (71), which has a variety of uses such as makingcheese or dough or watering ducks and chickens; anda fragment of a very large bowl of a black fabric(13·115), function unknown, collected at the bedouincamp 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 sampleswas taken from the remains of a crude clay oven,known as a tabun (13·75). It is assumed that such anoven would have been manufactured from locallyobtainable material. The ancient material comprised abowl (HK1) and a small jar (HK2).

The source material column in Table 1 refers to theknown or inferred source of the primary constituentsof the ceramic fabric as determined prior to geo-chemical analysis. All the modern pottery collectedduring the field survey was inspected both visually andwith a binocular microscope at a power of 20, and wasalso tested with a dilute solution of hydrochloric acid.On the basis of this preliminary examination andanalysis, the modern ceramic corpus was divided intofive primary fabric categories, each with a number ofsubdivisions: silt; marl; mixed marl and silt; Sinaifabrics; and miscellaneous. The two ancient sampleswere from fabrics known from prior geochemicalanalysis to consist of Nile silt.For the most part, the silt and marl categories of the

modern pottery could be clearly inferred among thecorpus on the basis of visual criteria (e.g. Nordstrom &Bourriau, 1993: 162ff). Silt and marl appear to be thetwo most commonly occurring fabrics among the prin-cipal divisions of ancient Egyptian pottery, and eachhas a number of specific variants (codified into the‘‘Vienna system’’; see Nordstrom & Bourriau, 1993:169ff). The majority of the ethnoarchaeological collec-tion under consideration here was manufactured fromNile silts firing to a dominant brown or red-browncolour (e.g. 10, 12, 31, 52, 62, 64, 14·9, 51·4; initially 64and 71 were also placed in this group, but see below). Atotal of only five specimens in the entire modern corpusappeared to have been made of marl clay: the ballas jarfrom Upper Egypt (65) with a grey-green fabric (seeLacovara, 1985; Nicholson & Patterson, 1985a,b,1992), and four examples of ballas jars from the Gerzehroadside of an orange marl fabric (e.g. 11·3). This biastowards Nile silt in the corpus is at least partly due tothe location of the primary study collection areas:sample gathering took place mostly in the north,especially in the delta, where silts dominate; only a fewpieces derived from the Nile valley south of Cairo,where marl clays are found among the cliffs and desertsthat enclose the river valley.Visual examination of the modern pottery also sug-

gested that a third significant category, that of mixedmarl and silt (e.g. 39, 50, 51, 15·2) could be distin-guished easily by visual analysis, at least among themodern samples. Although this category has beenrecognized archaeologically, it has generally been con-sidered too difficult to identify to be useful in classifi-cation (Nordstrom & Bourriau, 1993: 166). The Sinaimaterial from the Bedouin camp was distinctive andresembled none of the other material, although it wasclosest in texture and general appearance to Nile silt.The dark grey or black fabrics, fired under a reducingatmosphere, were problematic due to their colour.Initially they were separated out as a distinct group;closer investigation suggested that they should beassigned 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 fromthe government workshop at Anaatir Orchard (15·4)was of a type made solely of Nile silt (topsoil fromnearby fields), with no additional temper. The secondflowerpot (15·2) from the same workshop, however,was produced from a recipe of 1/3 Nile silt and 2/3white tebine clay (see Matson, 1974; Butzer, 1974)acquired from the vicinity of Helwan. The local AbuRaguan pottery was made from silt taken from nearbycanal dredgings that was mixed with ash from thepottery kiln. The Badrashein recipe consisted of siltfrom either nearby canals or excess material from thelevelling of cultivated fields, to which was added firstash, and then bagged lime. Finally, an initial inferencethat a particular type of whitish pottery manufacturedin Cairo (e.g. 39, 50, 51) belonged to the mixed Nilesilt/marl clay grouping was made on the basis ofvisual examination. A subsequent visit to one of thetraditional potters in the Fustat area of Cairo providedconfirmation of this initial assessment. This potter,who produced pots identical in appearance to thosecollected, indicated that his clay body consisted of amixture of silt and a ‘‘gebel’’ clay (a general term usedin this context to denote a marl clay from the nearbydesert), to which was added sifted ash.

Analytical MethodsFive grams of each sample were sent directly to theanalytical laboratory (XRAL) for sample preparationand analysis. A multi-method, multi-element quantita-tive analysis package was chosen both for reasons ofeconomy and to obtain the bulk of the trace elementsdesired. X-ray fluorescence, neutron activation, andinductively coupled plasma spectrometry were includedin this package. In addition, a whole rock analysis byX-ray fluorescence spectrometry was also run on eachsample 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 oneach 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 sumswere re-analysed (sample 39 had a sum of 97·6%). Thelow sum may have been due to the presence of otherelements which were not run or to the presence ofcompounds such as sulphates (gypsum and anhydrite).Laboratory data received from XRAL were tabu-

lated and graphed and are presented below in theResults section. Rare earth elements (REE) have onlybeen normalized where indicated; otherwise they areused in their observed total concentration. Normaliz-ation of the REEs was accomplished using data onchondritic meteorites from Haskin et al. (1968; asreported in Hamroush, 1985).Petrographic analysis of each sample was under-

taken using standard principles (Pettyjohn, 1949;

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

ResultsChemical analyses of the samples are presented inTables 2–4. Table 5 gives the normalized REE data,and Table 6 provides petrographic observations.Samples in Tables 2–5 are listed by increasing uraniumconcentrations, with the highest concentrationstowards the bottom of each table. This provides arough segregation of ceramic types, with the marls atthe bottom of the tables and the silts at the top of thetables. An almost identical representation could bemade if thorium were used as a base instead ofuranium. Figures 2–12 illustrate comparative elementsand element ratios for the samples studied.Table 2 displays the results of the whole rock

analyses using X-ray fluorescence for the majorelements. These are reported as oxides. Loss onignition (LOI) is also reported. LOI is a rough measureof the total volatile material in the sherd. Volatilematerial dominantly consists of organics and liquids. Itis interesting to note that the straw tempered pottery(samples 71 and HK1) has high LOI values; the same istrue for the second sample (64) from the Faiyum. Theorganics column in Table 6 shows that the petro-graphic observations also support a higher LOI valuefor 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 comparingsamples. Figures 2, 3 and 4 utilize some of these ratiosand indicate, in a very striking manner, that theraw materials source and the material compositionof the ceramics can be fingerprinted or classifiedby basic, almost simplistic geochemical techniques.Figure 2 utilizes the ratio of silicon dioxide overaluminium oxide and compares it to the ratio of thetransition metal oxides (iron+manganese+titanium)over the alkali oxides (calcium+magnesium+sodium+potassium). Silica and aluminium are the majorelements forming the minerals in the ceramics. Thetransition metals are derived from heavy mineralgrains, heavy mineral inclusions in quartz, andweathered products such as hematite and associatediron oxyhydroxides that are in part responsible forcolouring the ceramics. The alkali metals are modifiersof the silica–aluminium mineral complexes (they areexchangeable cations in clays, for example). They are


also very important in the marl sediments as they areelement formers with carbonates. Consequently, thecomparison of these two ratios provides a genetic basiswith 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, isderived from the soil minerals (for example, apatite, a

calcium phosphate; other minerals that are aluminiumand iron phosphates; phosphate precipitates on cal-cium carbonates, clays and iron oxides; and occludedcomplexes in iron, aluminium, carbonates and/orsilicate minerals) and from organic sources such asdung and other faecal debris, straw and chaff, andorthophosphatic organic acid complexes on mineralgrains and as dissolved constituents in sediment pore

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

Sample† SiO2 Al2O3 CaO MgO Na2O K2O Fe2O3 MnO TiO2 P2O5 LOI Sum

61 54·00 14·50 5·41 3·38 1·90 1·57 10·60 0·16 2·15 0·25 6·20 100·347 56·10 15·20 5·08 3·37 1·62 1·53 10·90 0·16 2·17 0·24 3·60 100·114·9 58·00 13·90 5·25 3·03 1·93 2·39 10·20 0·18 1·95 0·42 2·85 100·216·1 56·00 14·10 7·85 3·58 1·60 3·02 9·82 0·16 1·78 0·67 1·25 100·010 58·90 15·20 5·01 3·13 1·88 1·69 10·20 0·14 1·85 0·33 1·95 100·452 55·00 14·90 5·63 3·25 1·51 2·00 10·50 0·17 2·04 0·34 4·75 100·215·4 56·50 15·80 5·74 3·42 1·65 1·46 11·40 0·17 2·24 0·26 0·90 99·7HK1 54·40 15·30 4·83 2·75 1·74 1·56 9·19 0·14 1·65 0·40 8·30 100·331 56·90 13·40 4·98 3·01 1·72 2·33 9·79 0·17 1·90 0·43 5·40 100·212 60·00 15·10 4·65 3·09 1·80 1·54 10·10 0·15 1·78 0·27 1·75 100·4HK2 58·80 15·70 4·37 3·10 1·53 1·31 11·20 0·18 2·07 0·31 1·50 100·243 55·40 16·50 4·76 3·48 1·49 1·71 11·00 0·17 1·89 0·29 3·25 100·164 50·90 12·40 12·10 2·49 2·09 1·31 7·76 0·10 1·13 0·323 9·50 100·373 55·80 15·90 4·64 3·21 1·55 1·59 10·80 0·15 1·92 0·28 4·25 100·239 50·00 11·80 20·40 2·57 1·80 1·16 7·60 0·10 1·37 0·24 0·40 97·671 42·80 12·90 16·20 2·30 1·20 1·27 8·18 0·10 1·17 0·27 13·90 100·551 50·20 13·20 17·40 3·25 1·12 1·43 8·61 0·12 1·42 0·33 1·20 98·450 48·10 10·40 21·90 2·70 1·04 1·10 6·70 0·09 1·15 0·25 6·05 99·715·2 54·60 11·60 14·70 3·06 1·58 1·41 8·22 0·09 1·31 0·24 2·40 99·413·75 58·80 12·90 7·18 2·85 1·86 2·17 7·62 0·12 1·31 0·22 5·00 100·213·68 64·60 13·20 4·69 2·73 1·11 1·64 8·02 0·12 1·35 0·25 2·30 100·213·115 59·70 13·80 8·65 3·41 1·39 1·87 7·85 0·13 1·29 0·20 1·30 99·711·3 38·90 20·40 20·10 1·76 1·52 1·09 6·45 0·06 0·84 0·46 7·35 99·165 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†%SiO2+%Al2O3

%CaO+%MgO+%K2O+%Na2O

%Fe2O3+%MnO+%TiO2

%SiO2divided by%Al2O3ratio

% Transition metal oxidesdivided by

% alkali metal oxidesratio

Fe2O3divided byAl2O3ratio

CaOdivided byAl2O3ratio

61 68·50 12·26 12·91 3·72 1·05 0·73 0·3747 71·30 11·60 13·23 3·69 1·14 0·72 0·3314·9 71·90 12·60 12·33 4·17 0·98 0·73 0·3816·1 70·10 15·85 11·76 3·97 0·74 0·70 0·5610 74·10 11·71 12·19 3·88 1·04 0·67 0·3352 69·90 12·39 12·71 3·69 1·03 0·70 0·3815·4 72·30 12·27 13·81 3·58 1·13 0·72 0·36HK1 69·70 10·88 10·98 3·56 1·01 0·60 0·3231 70·30 12·04 11·86 4·25 0·99 0·73 0·3712 75·10 11·08 12·03 3·97 1·09 0·67 0·31HK2 74·50 10·31 13·45 3·75 1·30 0·71 0·2843 71·90 9·73 13·06 3·36 1·34 0·67 0·2964 63·30 16·68 8·99 4·10 0·54 0·63 0·9873 71·70 10·99 12·87 3·51 1·17 0·68 0·2939 61·80 25·93 9·07 4·24 0·35 0·64 1·7371 55·70 20·97 9·45 3·32 0·45 0·63 1·2651 63·40 23·20 10·15 3·80 0·44 0·65 1·3250 58·50 26·74 7·94 4·63 0·30 0·64 2·1115·2 66·20 20·75 9·62 4·71 0·46 0·71 1·2713·75 71·70 14·06 9·05 4·56 0·64 0·59 0·5613·68 77·70 10·16 9·47 4·93 0·93 0·61 0·3613·115 73·50 15·32 9·27 4·33 0·61 0·57 0·6311·3 59·30 24·47 7·35 1·91 0·30 0·32 0·9965 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.


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

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 22·347 1·7 4·9 72 103 55·7 37·0 <2 15 462 9·7 296 0·3 1·8 34 315 23·314·9 1·7 5·2 66 1800 88·1 45·0 12 29 434 7·3 269 0·7 1·0 26 322 20·916·1 1·7 5·5 65 241 78·2 33·0 74 35 531 5·5 272 1·0 1·4 42 405 20·810 1·7 5·6 64 129 71·7 34·0 9 23 436 9·8 276 0·7 1·4 29 298 21·852 1·7 6·1 63 119 65·9 37·0 <2 24 630 11·0 280 0·5 1·6 37 306 22·415·4 1·8 5·6 68 142 61·7 39·0 14 22 439 4·9 294 0·7 1·0 32 329 24·1HK1 1·8 7·6 53 93·7 43·0 31·0 <2 23 530 9·6 271 0·4 1·8 36 260 20·031 1·9 5·1 63 1790 62·9 48·0 8 26 404 11·0 273 0·8 1·3 37 329 21·112 1·9 5·8 66 146 68·9 34·0 2 24 542 8·6 279 0·7 1·4 32 291 21·7HK2 2·0 6·4 71 130 61·1 39·0 5 30 504 4·7 295 0·4 1·6 30 289 23·243 2·0 6·5 64 122 69·6 38·0 <2 21 444 6·9 267 0·7 1·6 38 285 24·664 2·0 7·0 44 104 38·4 24·0 <2 56 409 27·0 276 0·6 1·6 21 692 16·473 2·1 6·2 69 122 88·2 37·0 <2 25 442 7·5 266 19·0 1·2 33 286 23·739 2·3 5·8 50 165 32·5 27·0 <2 58 405 4·4 283 1·2 1·1 12 592 17·071 2·4 7·0 46 89·5 35·3 23·0 <2 44 380 17·0 255 0·3 1·6 29 703 16·851 2·5 6·3 52 211 74·0 28·0 30 48 560 5·0 296 1·4 1·8 27 677 16·650 2·6 5·6 42 205 126·0 21·0 114 50 450 6·7 288 4·0 0·9 17 713 13·815·2 2·6 7·3 36 133 50·2 20·0 <2 88 381 4·6 396 0·5 1·6 22 557 13·713·75 2·7 6·7 49 99·5 40·1 25·0 <2 46 528 16·0 323 1·3 1·6 42 432 15·913·68 2·7 6·8 52 92·9 38·8 27·0 2 39 440 4·0 285 0·5 1·7 45 470 17·113·115 2·7 7·8 50 92·7 33·1 26·0 11 67 428 4·8 317 0·4 2·2 42 378 16·711·3 5·4 10·0 75 164 20·5 23·0 <2 108 596 14·0 134 0·9 4·7 23 551 17·065 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 <247 8·6 1·5 34 23 244 240 514·9 7·2 1·5 29 21 211 280 416·1 7·1 1·4 33 20 215 280 2310 7·3 1·7 31 20 219 260 1252 7·5 1·9 35 21 226 230 <215·4 8·6 1·4 36 24 236 260 5HK1 7·5 1·7 38 21 182 180 331 8·4 1·4 34 19 211 220 1012 7·5 1·4 30 20 212 300 <2HK2 8·5 1·9 38 23 215 440 743 7·5 1·7 33 22 232 220 764 7·3 1·4 31 17 136 160 <273 8·5 1·3 33 21 223 230 1839 8·0 1·2 25 15 163 500 671 6·2 1·5 29 18 135 160 751 7·6 1·1 30 19 177 240 650 7·9 1·0 25 13 137 300 815·2 11·0 1·6 30 18 127 250 1113·75 8·4 1·6 33 21 141 190 3613·68 8·2 1·4 35 21 145 390 413·115 9·1 1·6 31 21 146 290 <211·3 3·4 1·1 23 15 172 200 265 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


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

esting component to use to investigate the potential forceramic fingerprinting. The scattergram plots inFigures 3 and 4 do a very nice job in segregating thecomponent source materials: Nile silts, Sinai silts,marls, mixed silt and marl clays/carbonates, andbagged 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 withoxides of iron over aluminium (Figure 5); oxides ofcalcium over aluminium compared with oxides of silicaover aluminium (not shown); oxides of iron overaluminium compared with oxides of silica over alu-minium (not shown); iron oxide compared with tita-nium oxide (Figure 5). The calcium/aluminium versusiron/aluminium oxides scattergram plot shown inFigure 5 separated the samples in a very similarmanner to the plots illustrated in Figure 4. The ironoxide versus titanium oxide plot in Figure 5, however,is different. This scattergram separates the Nile siltsfrom the Sinai, mixed, and marl samples. In addition,the plot begins to resemble a straight line, supporting agenetic relationship between the two elements as mightbe expected. Much of the titanium in the samplesis likely to be tied in heavy mineral grains with iron.An example might be magnetite with a small bit oftitanium substituting for the iron, in which case itwould be called titano-magnetite. In addition tomagnetite, ilmenite, a rather common heavy sedimen-tary mineral composed of iron and titanium oxide,originates from igneous rocks such as granites where itis an accessory mineral. The minerals ilmenite and

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

Sample† La Ce Nd Sm Eu Tb Yb Lu

61 31·1 63 30 6·23 2·29 0·9 2·78 0·4147 32·4 65 32 6·45 2·10 1·0 2·92 0·4314·9 31·1 63 30 6·19 1·91 0·8 2·60 0·4016·1 31·5 64 30 6·24 1·88 0·9 2·67 0·3910 31·3 64 31 6·12 1·88 0·8 2·65 0·3852 32·6 67 32 6·52 2·27 0·8 2·94 0·4415·4 34·9 71 32 7·06 2·23 1·0 3·00 0·44HK1 39·1 76 35 6·90 1·70 0·9 3·01 0·4431 31·1 63 30 6·10 2·14 0·8 2·83 0·4112 31·4 65 30 6·16 2·14 0·8 2·75 0·40HK2 36·7 74 34 7·35 2·24 1·0 3·25 0·4643 35·6 73 33 6·89 2·29 0·9 3·06 0·4464 33·0 65 29 5·73 1·74 0·8 2·43 0·3573 33·6 66 30 6·47 2·09 1·0 2·97 0·4339 30·4 60 29 5·62 1·52 0·8 2·59 0·3871 33·3 65 29 5·58 1·57 0·8 2·34 0·3451 33·3 65 29 5·83 1·54 0·8 2·63 0·3850 27·8 54 24 4·09 1·31 0·7 2·27 0·3415·2 33·1 64 29 5·54 1·47 0·7 2·76 0·4013·75 33·1 65 29 5·76 1·80 0·8 2·58 0·3813·68 34·1 66 31 5·94 1·85 0·8 2·81 0·4113·115 39·6 79 36 6·84 2·05 0·9 3·01 0·4411·3 47·1 87 34 6·04 1·70 0·7 2·04 0·2865 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.

Table 5. Normalized REE*

Sample La Ce Nd Sm Eu Tb Yb Lu

61 94·24 71·60 50·00 34·42 33·19 19·15 13·90 12·0647 98·18 73·86 53·33 35·64 30·43 21·28 14·60 12·6514·9 94·24 71·60 50·00 34·20 27·68 17·02 13·00 11·7616·1 95·45 72·73 50·00 34·48 27·25 19·15 13·35 11·4710 94·85 72·73 51·67 33·81 27·25 17·02 13·25 11·1852 98·79 76·14 53·33 36·02 32·90 17·02 14·70 12·9415·4 105·76 80·68 53·33 39·01 32·32 21·28 15·00 12·94HK1 118·48 86·36 58·33 38·12 24·64 19·15 15·05 12·9431 94·24 71·60 50·00 33·70 31·01 17·02 14·15 12·0612 95·15 73·86 50·00 34·03 31·01 17·02 13·75 11·76HK2 111·21 84·09 56·67 40·61 32·46 21·28 16·25 13·5343 118·67 82·95 55·00 38·07 33·19 19·15 15·30 12·9464 100·00 73·86 48·33 31·66 25·22 17·02 12·15 10·2973 101·82 75·00 50·00 35·75 30·29 21·02 14·85 12·6539 92·12 68·18 48·33 31·05 22·03 17·02 12·95 11·1871 100·91 73·86 48·33 30·83 22·75 17·02 11·70 10·0051 100·91 73·86 48·33 32·21 22·32 17·02 13·15 11·1850 84·24 61·36 40·00 22·60 18·99 14·89 11·35 10·0015·2 100·30 72·73 48·33 30·61 21·30 14·89 13·80 11·7613·75 100·30 73·86 48·33 31·82 26·09 17·02 12·90 11·1813·68 103·33 75·00 51·67 32·82 26·81 17·02 14·05 12·0613·115 120·00 89·77 60·00 37·79 29·71 19·15 15·05 12·9411·3 142·73 98·86 56·67 33·37 24·64 14·89 12·20 8·2465 166·36 113·64 61·67 37·90 23·33 14·89 12·05 10·29

*Normalization is to chondrite meteorite composition reported as composite analysis by Haskin et al. (1968; citedin Hamroush, 1985) as the following values: La=0·33, Ce=0·88, Nd=0·60, Sm=0·181, Eu=0·069, Tb=0·047,Yb=0·20, Lu=0·034.


Table6.Petrographicobservations(alldataareinvolume%)

Sample

CaCO3

sparite

CaCO3

micrite

Degassed

CaCO3

CaO

vugs

Shell

CaO

blobs

SRF

mudstone

siltstone

Grog

Gypsum

anhydrite

CaSO4

Organics

opalA

phytolith

Carbon

OpalCT

Mica

Feldspar

Heavy

minerals

Quartz

granule

Sand

Silt

QuartzGrainShape%

%Ash

Voidspace

%Paste

%Rounded

Subrounded

%Angular

Subangular

Elongated

Rounded

101

1A

24

28

116

100Frosted

16

1048

121

12

23

22

85

100Frosted

21

864

521

T4

21

11

2100

15

577

61T

21

13

100

31

385

43T

11

21

33

100

12

779

47T

22

21

23

2080

583

15·4

0·5

0·5

0·5

62

810

100

368·5

73T

11

3T

22

100

2T

287

16·1

415

1T

1T

HM0·5

44

2100Frosted

32

58

14·9

T3

TA

22

31

7†2

3100Frosted

1T

472

312

T4

A2

41

5†2

4100Frosted

21

568

HK1

2**

TAB1

T0·5

1·5

1T

0·5

12

100

0·5

193

68HK2

0·5

1T

12

100

294·5

642

43

A1

11

25

1T

100Frosted

23

571

713

A1

1T

T1

1T

100Frosted

352

56

15·2

21

13

HM1

14

5100

11

80

392

12

T1

2HMT

T3

480Frost

204

T6

7550

26

T‡

91

A1

52

15

950Frost

503

25

4951

12

21

13

HMT

48

60Frost

402

T3

73

11·3

2§3

132

10T

T100

0·5

72

60·5

658

T38

23

T100Frost

T3

541

13·68

T2

2T

81

1100Frosted

63

7913·75

T25

TA

11

2T

31

3100Frosted

56

5313·115

0·5

T1

2T

T5

1100Frosted

T2

88·5

*Thiscouldbeagrog

ratherthan

asiltymudstone(shale)?Itisallsimilar,lightgrey,angulartosubangular,mediumtofinesand

sizedfragments.

†Som

eofthequartzgrainscontainheavymineralinclusions.

‡DegradedCaCO3toCaO

amorphousmaterial.

§Largeangularmmsizedspariteoccur.

T=Traceamount,HM=hematitecoatedmagnetitegrains,A=grassandstrawcasts,B=chaff

casts.


hematite are also likely to be intergrown, and duringweathering may form oxyhydroxides in the sediments.It is likely that this suite of minerals, which containsthe bulk of the sedimentary iron (and titanium), is alsoresponsible for the fired colour of the red(dish) cer-amics. Different combinations of iron and titaniumoxide minerals such as ilmenite and titano-magnetiteand even their secondary weathered oxyhydroxideproducts appear to be quite sensitive to location andtherefore are dependent upon ceramic source materialcomposition. The other transitional metal oxide inves-tigated is manganese, and it also performs well in plotswith iron and with titanium. Manganese may be in-cluded in the same primary oxide minerals as iron andtitanium, but only as a trace constituent. In sedimentswhere weathered mineral phases such as oxyhydroxidesoccur, manganese is found in percentile concentrationswith iron and titanium. When manganese is plottedagainst titanium, the marls, Faiyum samples, Sinai andmixed samples separate from each other and from theNile silts. Among the Nile silts, the Abu Raguan andSammanud and Minouf samples separate fairly wellfrom the other silts, but still within an overall siltcluster. When manganese is plotted against iron, theNile silts separate even more from the Sinai silts, mixedand marl ceramics. The silts in this plot also separatefrom each other based upon location, but again withina silt cluster. If an unknown (location) Nile silt ceramicwere to be added to the field in either the iron–manganese (not shown), titanium–manganese (notshown) or iron–titanium (Figure 5) plots, it would

probably be difficult, if not impossible, to classify it toits locations as the entire Nile silt field plots very closetogether. Other elemental plots are required to resolve

Sil

icon

dio

xide

/alu

min

um

oxi

de r

atio

5.0

1.5

50

11.3

65

15.2

39

64

13.75

51

71

13.68

Marls

16.1

31

14.9

1261 47

73

HK2

43

15.4

10

0.5 1.0

AbuReguan

Mixed

13.1154.5

4.0

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

Transition metal oxides/alkali metal oxides ratio0

1.5

Badrashein

Sinai

Faiyum

Gerzeh?

Anaatir

Minouf

Anaatir

Cairo pipe

Zagazig

Sammanud

Silts

Cairo Qulla

Mixed

Ballas

52

HK1

Figure 2. Scattergram illustrating the relationship between metaloxide ratios from Table 2 and geographic location of modern potterysherds.

% S

ilic

on d

ioxi

de +

% a

lum

inu

m o

xide

81

0.8

50 11.3

6515.2

39

64

HK1

13.75

51

71

13.68

Marls

16.131

14.9

12

52

61

47 73

HK2

43

10

0.4 0.5 0.60.3 0.7

AbuReguan

Cairo Qullamix

13.115

79

77

67

65

63

69

71

73

75

% Phosphorus pentoxide0.20.1

61

59

57

55

Badrashein

Sinai

Faiyum

Faiyum

Gerzeh?

Hierakonpolis

Hierakonpolis

Anaatir

Minouf

Anaatir

Cairopipe

Zagazig

Sammanud15.4

Ballas

Figure 3. Scattergram illustrating the relationship between majormineral oxide formers (silican dioxide and aluminium oxide) andtotal phosphorus pentoxide with the geographic distribution of thepottery sherds.

% S

ilic

on d

ioxi

de +

% a

lum

inu

m o

xide

81

0.8

50 11.3

6515.2

39

64

HK1

13.75

51

71

13.68

Marls

16.131

14.9

12

52

61

47 73

HK2

43

15.410

0.4 0.5 0.60.3 0.7

Silts

Mixed silt and marlClay/carbonate

13.115

79

77

67

65

63

69

71

73

75

% Phosphorus pentoxide0.20.1

61

59

57

55

Bagged limemixed with silt

Sinai

Figure 4. Scattergram illustrating the relationship between majormineral oxide formers (silica and aluminium) and phosphoruspentoxide to sherd composition.


and separate the individual source areas in the Nilesilts. Iron oxide was compared to LOI data (not shownhere) and surprisingly there was a variety of sourcearea clusters that resembled those of the phosphorousplots (Figures 3 and 4). The material from the Faiyumwas easily distinguished from the other ceramics usingthis plot.In addition to investigating ceramic fingerprinting

utilizing major elements, the combination of majorelements with trace elements also has been used, andsome scattergram plots are shown in Figure 6. Theplots used in this study are: calcium oxide versusstrontium; calcium oxide versus thorium; calciumoxide versus nickel; calcium oxide versus boron; ironoxide versus scandium; and iron oxide versus thorium.

The iron versus scandium plot (in Figure 6) is similarto the iron versus titanium plot in Figure 5, except thatin this situation the resolution of the Nile silts is muchbetter. This is an extremely important plot for thefingerprinting of individual Nile silt sources. The otherplots in Figure 6 are well suited to the separation of themarls and mixed sediments. The Nile silts are alsoseparated, but to a lesser degree, as they still tend tocluster close together. In the calcium versus strontiumscattergram plot, sample 16·1, which has added com-mercially processed lime, separates from the othermixed samples and plots with the Sinai samples. To alesser extent, the Faiyum samples (64 and 71) alsoseparate from the Cairo and Anaatir Orchardmixed ceramics (36, 50, 51=Cairo: silts+gebel clay;

2.5

2.5

Oxides of iron/aluminum ratio

Oxi

des

of c

alci

um

/alu

min

um

rat

io

0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.70.0

1.0

0.8

2.0

1.5

0.5

Iron oxide in %

Tit

aniu

m o

xide

in %

4 6 8 10 12

1.0

0 2

2.0

1.5

0.5

(a)

11.3

65

50

39

15.251

71

64

13.115

HK1

HK2

16.113.75

13.68

43 73

5215.4

4.947

3161

1012

(b)

11.3 65

5064

7113.115

13.75

39

15.25113.68

HK11216.1

31 10

14.943

7352

61 47 15.4

HK2

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


15·2=Anaatir: tebine clay+silt). The calcium oxideversus boron plot separates the 15·2 sample from theCairo samples, and the 16·1 sample from the othermixed samples. In many of these plots in Figure 6, theFaiyum samples plot fairly close to the Cairo mixedsuite. Other elemental scattergrams are necessary toresolve properly these samples.A large variety of scattergram plots were run for the

trace elements, and in some of these a clear resolutionis obtained between a particular Nile silt source areaand the overall field of Nile silts. Nile silts are the mostproblematic category for resolution as they are geo-chemically very similar to each other. Figure 7 aids inthe resolution of the silts from Abu Raguan. The plotof zinc against thorium is overwhelmingly clear sincethe Abu Raguan material has greater than 1600 ppmzinc and the rest of the ceramics from all sources isalmost a magnitude smaller. The cobalt versus hafniumand the cobalt versus scandium plots also providereasonably good separation for Abu Raguan from therest of the Nile silts. The ideal exercise is to use all threeplots as the dominant fingerprint. A large variety ofscattergrams were investigated for thorium as there isthis interesting relationship between thorium and ura-nium and the Nile silts and marls and mixed materials.The general relationship can be observed in the chemi-cal tables as the samples are listed with increasinguranium concentrations. Marls are at the bottom ofthe tables and Nile silts tend towards the top of thetables. Figure 8 shows six plots with thorium. Thenickel versus thorium and the scandium versus thoriumplots provide clear delineation between the Nile siltsand other sources. The Anaatir Orchard sample (15·2),composed of 2/3 tebine clay and 1/3 Nile silt, isseparated from all of the other ceramics by use of thezirconium versus thorium and boron versus thoriumplots. It therefore can be distinguished from the othermixed ceramics. The marls are well separated using anyand all of the plots in Figure 8. The trace element plotsin Figure 9 are more varied, and provide good toexcellent separations for a variety of samples. TheFaiyum sherds are well separated from the others byuse of the strontium versus bromine plot. The Sinaimaterial is segregated in the uranium versus rubidiumplot. The strontium versus bromine plot provides fairlygood clarification of the Cairo mixed suite. The nickelplots against copper and uranium provide good clari-fication of the Nile silts from the marls and mixedsource materials. The marls are again well separatedusing any of the Figure 9 plots.Some attention was paid to the rare earth elements

(REE) as shown in Figures 10 and 11. Figure 10provides two typical scattergram plots for therare earths. In the Figure 10 plots, the predynasticHierakonpolis sherds fall fairly close together,especially with the cerium versus neodymium plot. Thisis important since the only other significant plot foundfor these sherds is the cobalt versus scandium plot inFigures 7 and 12. The Hierakonpolis material is diffi-

cult to separate out from the other Nile silts investi-gated. The Figure 11 normalized concentrations showthat the Hierakonpolis material investigated here issimilar to the material studied by Hamroush (1985).The general curve shapes can assist in defining thematerial studied. Unfortunately, due to financial con-straints, Gd data were not collected in this study; theREE curves obtained in Figure 11 would be morecompelling if Gd data had been collected. Futureanalytical efforts will rectify this omission. Hamroush(1985) provided a more complete REE analysis than isprovided here and his analysis suggests that these datamay be important when studying the Upper Nileceramics and possibly ancient ceramics from a varietyof areas as well.Three very significant scattergram plots (Figure 12)

provide sufficient information to fingerprint clearlyindividual source area for the Nile silt ceramics.Figure 12 illustrates cobalt versus scandium; boronversus scandium; and caesium versus scandium. Thecobalt and boron plots differentiate among siltsfrom Abu Raguan, from Sammanud, from Minouf,from Zagazig+Cairo+Anaatir Orchard, and fromHierakonpolis. The cesium plot distinguishes theZagazig silts from those in Cairo and AnaatirOrchards. The full combination of all three of theseplots is required to fingerprint individual areas withinthe Nile silt source materials.In addition to these plots, an approach using histo-

grams to determine the uniqueness of a source area wasinvestigated for the Nile silts. Strontium, iron oxideminus calcium oxide and europium were used (notshown here) and these histograms provided some basicinformation on source area. The degree of effectivenessof this mode of analysis, however, is questionable. Inaddition, triangular plots were studied where threeelements and in some cases ratios and sums were used.These proved to be less successful than scattergramsbecause there is a limitation in the scale of the plotwhen 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 pastewith minor concentrations of quartz, feldspar andmica. Mica also appears in the Sinai samples. Six of thesamples studied had calcium carbonate shell inclusions:both samples from Sammanud (10 and 12), sample 52from Minouf, sample 31 from Abu Raguan, sample 64from the Faiyum and sample 50 from Cairo. Sample 50also contained micrite (fine grained crystallized calciumcarbonate) and calcium oxide coated bubble vugs, andis obviously a mix between a Nile silt and a marl clay.These vugs occur in the marl clay samples and in themixed clay products. They are likely to be formedduring firing and appear derived from the degassing(the loss of carbon dioxide) of sparite (coarse grainedcalcium carbonate). Of particular interest, they alsoappear in sample 16·1, which is composed of Nile siltwith the addition of bagged lime and ash. It thus


appears that there is a sufficient carbonate concen-tration in the bagged lime for this material to degasduring firing. Small areas of calcium oxide also appearin many of the samples; these are designated as CaOblobs in Table 6.

Thus, petrographic observations indicate that thereare distinctive calcium carbonate–calcium oxidemorphologies and textures in the ceramics that arediagnostic of the raw materials used during manufac-ture. The absence of minerals (the negative argument)

(b)

Scandium in ppm Thorium in ppm

(f)

25

Cal

ciu

m o

xide

in %

40 60 120

15

10

5

20

80 100200

Iron

oxi

de in

%

10 15 20

4

5

8

6

2

10

Iron

oxi

de in

%

4 6 82 10

(d)

11.3

65

15.2

3950

13.115

64

16.1

13.75

13.6814.9

12

73

10HK1

4347

61

15.4231

(d)

11.3

65

15.2

3950

13.115

64

16.1

13.75

13.6814.9

12

73

10HK1

4347

61

15.4231

(d)

11.3

65

15.2

3950

13.115

64

16.1

13.75

13.6814.9

12

73

10HK1

4347

61

15.4231

Boron in ppm

(d)

11.3

65

15.2

3950

13.115

64

16.1

13.75

13.6814.9

12

73

HK210HK1

4347

61

15.4231

(c)50

5171

64

3911.3

65

15.2

13.68

13.7516.1

13.115

HK1

75 HK212

43 15.431

17

14.9106152

Nickel in %

(e)50

39 11.3

655171

15.2

64

13.115

13.7516.1

13.68

HK115.4

47HK27312

14.9

523110

43

61

25

Strontium in ppm

Cal

ciu

m o

xide

in %

400 500 600 800300

15

10

5

20

700100 2000

25

Cal

ciu

m o

xide

in %

40 50 60 8030

15

10

5

20

7010 200

25

Cal

ciu

m o

xide

in %

40 60 120

15

10

5

20

80 100200

11.3

15.2

Thorium in ppm

11.3

65

39

50

13.115

64

16.1

13.75

13.68

14.9

12 73 HK210

HK143

47

61 15.42

31

12

120

(a)12

250

4

8

6

2

10

50 11.3

65

15.2

3964

13.1113.75

517113.68

HK116

31

14.9

1252

6147 73

HK243

15.4

10

6511.350

3913.75

64 13.115

HK1

5115.2

7113.68

31 16.1

47

6114.9

12

1052

73 43HK215.4

7151

5171

73

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


can also be diagnostic; for example, lack of micacharacterizes the marl clays in this study.A multivariant data reduction statistical factor

analysis computer program (Statistical Package forSocial Scientists for Macintosh, Norusis, 1994) wasused by D. Shettel (see Acknowledgements) to ascer-tain whether this method also could provide corre-lation data as it has the potential to handle largeconcentrations of data very rapidly. A total ofseven factors was loaded using the complete list of 50elements run by XRAL laboratory. The first three

regression analyses were run as these provide most ofthe likely correlations. These regressions were plotted(not shown) in a similar manner to the scattergrams,except that each plot axis has positive and negativefactor scores instead of concentration values. Theresults 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, AnaatirOrchard 15·2 mixed, Sinai, HK1 straw-tempered,and all other samples in a scatter pack of silts

800

Zin

c in

ppm

2 4 6 8

1600

0

1400

12

1800

1200

200

1000

65

(a)

Thorium in ppm

600

400

10

25

Cob

alt

in p

pm

2 4 6 8

45

0

40

12

50

35

10

30

(b)

Hafnium in ppm

20

15

10

Sca

ndi

um

in p

pm

0 50

25

11.3

65

50

39

15.2

5171

6413.115

HK1

HK2

16.1

13.75

13.68

10

12

4373

52

15.4

14.9 31

(c)

Cobalt in ppm

Abu Raguan

5

10

20

15

5

25 45403510 3020155

47

61

11.3

6550

3915.2

5171 64

13.115

HK1

HK2

16.1

13.75

13.68

1012

437352

15.4

14.931

61

Abu Raguan

Marls

47

11.35039

15.251

7164 13.115HK1

HK2

16.113.75

13.6810 12

43

7352

15.4

14.931

61

Abu Raguan

Marls

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


including Badrashein 16·1 (Nile silt with baggedlime). The scatter pack can be subdivided intoAbu Raguan plus Cairo 73, Zagazig, Minouf,Sammanud, Anaatir, and HK2 plum red ware.

(2) Regression factor score 2 against regression factorscore 1: the sample groupings break out as marls,the Faiyum samples, Cairo mixed suite plus

Anaatir Orchard 15·2 mixed, Sinai, a scatter packof Minouf 52 plus HK2 plus 15·4 plus Zagazigsamples; a scatter pack of HK1 plus Sammanudplus Minouf 61 Abu Raguan plus Cairo 73 andBadrashein 16·1.

(3) Regression factor score 3 against regression factorscore 2: the sample groupings break out as Cairo

(b)

(f)

5.0

Ces

ium

in p

pm

12

1.5

1.0

0.5

2.0

0

Nic

kel i

n p

pm

40

70

60

20

Bor

on in

ppm

4 6 82 10

(d)

64

64

(d)

64

(d)

64

15.2

52

(d)11.3

65

39

50

13.115

64

16.113.75

13.68

14.9 12

73

HK210

HK14347

61

15.4

31

(c)

5051 71

64

39

11.365

15.2

13.6813.75

16.1

13.115

HK1HK21243

15.4

31

14.9

1047 & 61

52

Thorium in ppm

(e)

50

39

11.3 65

71

15.2

13.11513.75

16.1

13.68

HK1

47 HK2

7312

14.9

5231

10

43

61

5

Ura

niu

m in

ppm

12

3

2

1

4

0

400

Zir

con

ium

in p

pm

12

150

100

50

200

0

25

Sca

ndi

um

in p

pm

12

15

10

5

20

0

15.2

Thorium in ppm

11.3

65

39

50

13.11564

16.1

13.75

13.6814.9

12

73HK210

HK1

4347

61

15.4

31

120

120

(a)80

120

40

80

60

20

100

50

11.365

15.2

39

64

HK1

13.7551 71

13.68

Marls

16.131

14.912

52

61

47

73HK2

43

15.4

10

65

11.3

50

3913.75

6413.115

HK151

15.2

7113.68

31

16.1

47

61

14.912

10 52

73

43

HK2

7151

4 6 82 10

4 6 82 10

4 6 82 10

4 6 82 10

4 6 82 10

250

300

350

4.5

4.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

30

50

10

Sinai

Faiyum

Mixed

13.115

Marls

&71

73

MarlsMarls

15.4

51

64

Marls

Marls

52

Mixed

Silts

Silts

Sinai

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.


mixed suite, Anaatir Orchard 15·2 mixed, Faiyum,Sinai, the marls, and all other samples in a scatterpack.

For each regression factor there are both positiveand 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 positivecorrelations are from Cs and Ni; and the strongnegative correlations are from Hf and Zr. For factor 3,the strong positive correlations are from Cu, Pb and

(b)

(f)

45

Ru

bidi

um

in p

pm

6

15

10

5

20

0

Ch

rom

ium

in p

pm

40

70

60

20

Ru

bidi

um

in p

pm

0.04 0.06 0.080.02 0.10

(d)

64

(d)

64

(d)

15.2

52

(d)

11.3

65

39

51

64

16.113.75 & 13.115

13.68

14.9

1273

HK210

HK1

43

47

61

15.4

31

(c)

5051

71

64

39

11.3

65

15.213.68

13.75

16.113.115

HK1

HK2

12

4315.4

31

14.9

10

61

52

Copper in ppm

(e)

50

39

11.3

65

71

15.2

13.11513.75

16.1

13.68HK1

47 HK2731214.952

31 104361

30

Bro

min

e in

ppm

800

15

10

5

20

0

80

Nic

kel i

n p

pm

1400

80

Nic

kel i

n p

pm

120

15.2

Uranium in ppm

11.3

65

39

50

13.115

64

16

13.75

13.68

14.9 1273

HK2

61 & 10

HK1

43

4715.4

31

45

0.180

(a)500

120

50

11.3

65

15.2

39

64HK1

13.75

51

71

13.68

Marls

16.1

31

14.9

12

52 61 4773

HK2

43

15.410

65

11.3

50

39

13.75

64

13.115

HK1

51

15.2

71

13.68

31

16.1

47

61 14.9

12

10

73

43

HK2

71

51

4 6 82 10

200 600500100 400

40 60 8020 100

41 32 5

4 6 82 10

40

25

30

35

30

50

10

Pure Silt

Faiyum

Mixed

13.115

Marls

73

Faiyum Marls

15.4

51

64

Marls

Marls52

Mixed

Silts

450

400

150

100

50

200

250

300

350

40

70

60

20

30

50

10

25

15

10

5

20

40

25

30

35

0.12 0.14 0.16

700300

Strontium in ppm Uranium in ppm

Hafnium in ppm Maganese in %

Mixed

Sinai

Silts

65

Faiyum

Mixed

71

50

Mixed lines

Silts

Sinai

47

Silts

Sinai

Cairo Mixed

120

Cairo Mixed

Sinai

Silts

Mixed

Sinai

52

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.


Ni; and the strong negative correlations are from Ta, Yand Zr. Factors 4 through 7 had positive correlationswith Au, Cr, Br, Sb, and Zn; and negative correlationswith Br, Cr, Ba and Sb.The statistical package also provides a positive and

negative element correlation matrix which can be usedas a first cut for scattergram plots. The strong positivecorrelations 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 goodpositive 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 toCo, Sc to Br, Co to B, Cr to Br, Cs to Cu, Hf to Cs, Hfto 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 goodnegative correlations are: B to V, Y to B, Cu to B, Nbto B, Ni to Sr and Ni to Zr. Many of these plots are not

5

Sam

ariu

m in

ppm

0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0

7

0

3

2.5

8

6

4

2

30

Neo

dym

ium

in p

pm

100

25

10

40

0

20

15

5

65

(a)

(b)

Europium in ppm

Cerium in ppm5010 20 30 40 60 70 80 90

35

1

11.3

65

50

3915.2

51

71 64

13.115HK1

HK2

16.1

13.7513.68

10 12

43

73 52

15.4

14.931

6147

50

64

71

13.115

3915.2

51

13.68

HK1

12 16.13110

14.9

43

73

5211.3

4715.4

HK2

13.75

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


shown in this paper. Just because there is a positive ornegative correlation between two elements does notmean that the elements themselves act as good finger-printing agents for the samples. The best plots are

those that have good correlating elements that aredistinctive for each of the source areas and ceramiccompositions. An example of this is the strong negativecorrelation of Sr to V.

Rat

e ea

rth

ele

men

t co

nce

ntr

atio

ns 100

LuEu Tb

100

100

100

Ree concentrationsnormalized

La

100

P.R.W.

O.W.

HK1HK2S.T.

Plum red ware (average8 samples) Hamroush(1985)Orange ware (average6 samples) Hamroush(1985)Sherd from this studySherd from this studyStraw tempered ware(average 10 samples) Hamroush (1985)

REE stacked curves forsherds from Hierakonpolis

Ce Nd Sm Yb

100

LuEu Tb

100

100

100


La

100

10126511.3

Silt sherd from SammanudSilt sherd from SammanudMarl sherd from BallasMarl sherd from ?Near Gerzeh

REE stacked curves forsilt and marl sherds

Ce Nd Sm Yb

100

LuEu Tb

100

100

100


La100

16.1

734743

Canal silt/field source +lime + ash, BadrasheinSilt (pipehead), CairoSilt, ZagazigSilt, Zagazig

REE stacked curves forsilt and canal silt +lime + ash sherds

Ce Nd Sm Yb

43

100

LuEu Tb

100

100

100


La100

3114.96152

Silt sherd, Abu RaguanSilt sherd, Abu RaguanSilt sherd, MinoufSilt sherd, Minouf

REE stacked curves forsilt sherds

Ce Nd Sm Yb

52

61

14.9

31

47

73

16.1

11.3

65

12

10

HK1

100

O.W.

P.R.W.

HK2

S.T.

100

LuEu Tb

100

100

100


La

100

6471

13.7513.6813.115

Mixed sherd, FaiyumMixed sherd, strawtempered, FaiyumSinai sherdSinai sherdSinai sherd

REE stacked curves formixed sherds and sherds

from Sinai

Ce Nd Sm Yb

13.75

100

71

64

13.68

13.115

Rat

e ea

rth

ele

men

t co

nce

ntr

atio

ns

100

LuEu Tb

100

100

100


La

100

15.4

15.2

513950

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

REE stacked curves formixed and pure silt sherds

Ce Nd Sm Yb

51

100

15.2

15.4

39

50

Figure 11. REE stacked curves, normalized concentrations.


Discussion

The geochemical results provided strong confirmationof almost all of the original visually-based field assess-ments of ceramic composition. The inferred silt, marl,mixed, and Sinai groupings clustered distinctively in asignificant number of the analyses. Samples of black ordark grey fabric proved to have been correctly assignedto their various composition sources. As hypothesized,the Sinai material was chemically discrete; petro-graphic analysis confirmed that the base raw materialwas a silt; and reference to the geology of theregion indicated that its base material was probably aPlio-Pleistocene silt.There was, however, an occasional surprise among

the results. By all of the basic visual criteria, the twoFaiyum samples (64 and 71) were expected to analyseas silts. Both samples, however, had reacted verystrongly to dilute HCl. Moreover, they clustered con-sistently with the hypothesized mixed samples in themajority of the geochemical results. Petrographicanalysis was able to resolve these apparent inconsist-encies by establishing that the base material of theFaiyum samples consisted of Nile silt mixed withadded calcium carbonate. The Badrashein sample(16·1) had an unusually erratic geochemical signature,

sometimes clustering with one group, sometimesanother, and sometimes separated from all othergroups. This inconsistency was doubtless due to thecombination of silt and bagged lime. Thus results ofthe analyses of the Faiyum and Badrashein samplesindicated that it was possible to distinguish amongthe mixed sources between mixtures of marl clays andsilts, on the one hand, and silts and added calciumcarbonates, on the other.As noted above, one of the major advantages in

studying modern traditional pottery rests in the abilityto acquire specific information concerning location ofsource material, nature of source material, and thespecific formula or mix used to create particular fabricsand forms. In particular, by talking to and observingthe potter it is possible to learn the exact ingredients ofthe raw clay body or bodies used to produce thepotter’s repertoire. Petrographic observations can thenbe used to refine the field observations, and with thiscombined investigative process a very specific under-standing of the nature of the ceramics can be acquired.The ability of geochemical analysis to arrive at thesame or similar conclusions as the combined process offield and petrographic observations provides a poten-tially powerful tool for investigating ancient potteryfor which much less basic information is known.

20.5

Co

in p

pm25.0

50

734710

4352

15.4

14.9 31

61

(a)Abu Raguan

25

B in

ppm

25.0

30

10

12

4352 15.4

14.9

31

61

(b)

20

15

Cs

in p

pm

25.0

1.8

10

43

7352

15.414.9

3161

(c)

Sc in ppm

0.4

1.6

0.6

0.2

23.0 24.524.021.5 23.522.522.021.0

47

47

20.515

20.510

0.0

25

45403530

20

0.8

1.41.21.0

23.0 24.524.021.5 23.522.522.021.0

23.0 24.524.021.5 23.522.522.021.0

12

Anaatir OrchardsMinouf

ZagazigZagazig CairoSammanud

73

12

Figure 12. Nile silt ceramic fingerprinting. (a) Cobalt versus scandium—Nile silts, (b) boron versus scandium—Nile silts, (c) cesium versusscandium—Nile silts.


This study represents an initial survey to testwhether geochemical analysis under controlledconditions has the capability to:

(1) Fingerprint the major source categories of modernEgyptian ceramics such as Nile silts, marls, silt andmarl mixtures, silt and carbonate mixtures, andSinai silts;

(2) Separate and geochemically define each source typeand area within its own source category; and

(3) Assess the similarity of geochemical behaviour forancient material (in this case predynastic potteryfrom Hierakonpolis) when compared to modernceramics.

The results of the study are extremely encouraging.It has been very easy to provide excellent fingerprintingof major source categories. A large variety of geo-chemical parameters are available for this purpose anda high degree of geochemical sophistication is notrequired. The basic reasons for this are that individualsource categories are geochemically very different fromeach other (for example, marls are very different fromNile silts). On the other hand, task two addresses theissue of whether very similar materials are slightlydifferent enough to appear unique and classifiable on

their own. With the material thus far investigated,everything can be geochemically classified as unique. Alarge and complicated list of elements is required toperform this function. The last task finds that theHierakonpolis silt material is in fact similar to themodern Nile silts. All indications with this limitedsampling suggest that ancient ceramics will behave verysimilar to modern ones and that the initial premise ofthis study is valid.

ConclusionsCeramics manufactured from Nile silt have recogniz-able geochemical signatures sometimes specific to themanufacturing location. Similar observations arenoted for pottery made from marls, mixed materials,and Plio-Pleistocene (Sinai) silts. Clearly, however, thenumber of samples used in this study is statisticallylimited and a statistically sound universe of samples isrequired to arrive at comprehensive conclusions. Un-fortunately, at the present time there is a generalpaucity (in terms of statistical significance) of geo-chemical information for Egyptian ceramics bothspatially and through time.

Table 7. Summary of chemical fingerprinting techniques

Samples LocationSourcematerial

Geochemical plots usedfor fingerprinting*

10 and 12 Sammanud Nile silts Co to Sc, B to Sc, Cs to Sc31 and 14·9 Abu Raguan Nile silts Co to Sc, B to Sc, Cs to Sz, Zn to Th, Co to Hf,

SiO2 plus Al2O3 to P2O543 and 47 Zagazig Nile silts Cs to Sc52 and 61 Minouf Nile silts Co to Sc, B to Sc, Cs to Sc15·4 Anaatir Nile silts Cs to Sc, Fe2O3 to TiO2, Fe2O3 to Sc,

Th to Fe2O3HK1 and HK2 Hierakonpolis Nile silts Sm to Eu, Co to Sc73 Cairo Nile silts Cs to Sc, B to Sc13·68, 13·75 and 13·115 Sinai Plio-Pleistocene silts SiO2/Al2O3 to Fe2O3 plus MnO2 plus

TiO2/alkali metal oxides, CaO to Sr,CaO to Ni, Mn to Rb, U to Rb

16·1 Badrashein Mixed Nile silts SiO2 plus Al2O3 to P2O5, U to Rb, Fe2O3 to Sc,+bag lime Th to Fe2O3, CaO to Sr, CaO to B,

CaO to Ni, Th to CaO64 and 71 Faiyum Mixed nile silt Cr to Hf, Sr to Br, Fe2O3 to LOI

+carbonates50, 51 and 39 Cairo Mixed Nile silt Cr to Hf, Sr to Br, SiO2 plus Al2O3 to P2O5,

+marl clay Fe2O3 to Sc, Th to Fe2O3, CaO to Sr,CaO to B, CaO to Ni, Th to CaO

15·2 Anaatir Mixed Nile silt Ni to U,Ni to Cu, B to Th, Co to Hf+marl clay

65 and 11·3 Ballas/Qena and Gerzeh Marls SiO2 plus Al2O3 to P2O5, Th to Fe2O3SiO2/Al2O3 to Fe2O3 plus MnO2 plusTiO2/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 U65 and 11·3 Ballas/Qena† Gerzeh Marls SiO2 plus Al2O3 to P2O5, Zn to Rh, B to Th,

Mn to Rb, U to Rb, Ce to NdGeneral silts from marls from mixed‡ Figures: 2, 4, 5, 6; Ni to Th, Th to Sc

*Element plots used to (fingerprint) 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.


Based upon this very small sampling, Table 7 sum-marizes the potential for the geochemical analysis ofthe individual samples to resolve the manufacturinglocation and source material of modern ceramics. Thistask, however, has relative difficulties. Certain Nile siltsfrom different locations are extremely similar to eachother, such as the Zagazig material (43, 47), the Cairosilt sample (73) and the Anaatir orchard silt sample(15·4). Only a few element plots are available to resolvethese origins (Figure 12). On the other hand, it isrelatively easy to acquire good separation for themixed ceramics and for the marls. The Sinai materialcannot be geochemically confused with the Nile siltsand is also distinctive from the mixed sherds. Themixed materials—silts+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 elementsfrom which to acquire diagnostic combinations thatfingerprint individual source areas appears to havebeen a reasonable approach to sourcing modernEgyptian ceramics. Future activity can now concen-trate on establishing those elements and diagnosticcombinations that uniquely classify individual sourceareas and source compositions. A large, detailed sam-pling of modern and ancient ceramics is now indicated.This will undoubtedly result in refinements of theresults presented here.

Implications for Future ResearchTable 7 provides the basic chemical parameters import-ant for future ceramic analysis. Ideally, the next taskshould be both to acquire a statistically sound numberof modern samples from each area thus far investigated(and ensure that the exact composition of the raw claybody is known for each sample), and to expand thiseffort into additional geographical areas. A more com-prehensive petrographic analysis should include a sizeanalysis of the carbonates and quartz; and X-raydiffraction can be used to quantify the mineralogy.Ancient ceramic samples should also be acquired, ifpossible from areas close to the modern samples, sothat similarities and differences between the twosample sets can be assessed.

AcknowledgementsField research and sample collection in Egypt during1989 and 1990 were supported by a fellowship fromthe American Research Center in Egypt. Dr HanyHamroush kindly provided access to a binocularmicroscope in Cairo. Dr Renée Friedman generouslysupplied the two ceramic samples from Hierakonpolis.Both Drs Hamroush and Friedman shared their valu-able insights during numerous discussions of Egyptianceramics, ancient and modern. Laboratory analysis ofthe 24 samples was funded by a grant from the Irving

and Gladys Stahl Endowment of the University ofCalifornia at Berkeley. Dr Don Shettel processedthe geochemical data through a multivariant datareduction statistical factor analysis program (SPSSfor Macintosh, release 6.1). This statistical analysisprovides an additional data reduction method forgeochemical studies of ceramics. Dr Shettel also kindlyprovided a critical review of the paper.

ReferencesAllen, R. O., Rogers, M. S., Mitchell, R. S. & Hoffman, M. A.(1982). A geochemical approach to the understanding of ceramictechnology in predynastic Egypt. Archaeometry 24, 199–212.

Allen, R. O. & Hamroush, H. (1984). The application of geochemicaltechniques to the investigation of two predynastic sites in Egypt.In (J. B. Lambert, Ed.) Archaeological Chemistry III. Advancesin Chemistry Series 205. Washington, DC: American ChemicalSociety, pp. 51–65.

Allen, R. O., Hamroush, H. & Hoffman, M. A. (1989). Archaeo-logical implications of differences in the composition of Nilesediments. In (R. O. Allen, Ed.) Archaeological Chemistry IV.Advances in Chemistry Series 220. Washington, DC: AmericanChemical Society, pp. 33–56.

Brissaud, P. (1982). Les Ateliers de Potiers de la Région de Louqsour.Bibliothèque d’Étude T. LXXVIII. Le Caire: IFAO.

Butzer, K. W. (1974). Modern egyptian pottery clays and pre-dynastic buff ware. Journal of Near Eastern Studies 33, 377–382.

Folk, R. L. (1968). Petrology of Sedimentary Rocks. Austin:Hemphills.

Golvin, L., Thiriot, J. & Zakariya, M. (1982). Les Potiers Actuels deFustat. Bibliothèque d’Étude T. LXXXIX. Le Caire: IFAO.

Hamroush, H. A. (1985). Archaeological geochemistry of Hierakon-polis in the Nile valley, Egypt. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Virginia,U.S.A.

Hamroush, H. (1986). Geoarchaeology: Egyptian predynastic cer-amics and geochemistry. Episodes 9, 160–165.

Hancock, R. G. V., Millet, N. B. & Mills, A. J. (1986). A rapidINAA method to characterize Egyptian ceramics. Journal ofArchaeological Science 13, 107–117.

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. 889–911.

Henein, N. H. (1992). Poteries et Proverbes d’Égypte. Le Caire:IFAO.

Huang, W. T. (1962). Petrology. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.Jones, M. P. & Fleming, M. G. (1965). Identification of MineralGrains. Amsterdam: Elsevier.

Kerr, P. F. (1977). Optical Mineralogy. 4th Edition. New York, NY:McGraw-Hill.

Lacovara, P. (1985). The ethnoarcheology of pottery production inan upper Egyptian village. In (W. D. Kingery, Ed.) AncientTechnology to Modern Science, Vol. I. Columbus, OH: TheAmerican Ceramic Society, pp. 51–60.

Matson, F. R. (1974). Technological studies of Egyptianpottery—modern and ancient. In (A. Bishay, Ed.) RecentAdvances in Science and Technology of Materials, Vol. 3. SecondCairo Solid State Conference, 1973. New York, NY: PlenumPress, pp. 129–139.

Moorhouse, W. W. (1959). The Study of Rocks in Thin-Section. NewYork, NY: Harper & Row.

Nicholson, P. T. & Patterson, H. L. (1985a). Pottery making inupper Egypt: an ethnoarchaeological study. World Archaeology17, 222–239.

Nicholson, P. T. & Patterson, H. L. (1985b). Ethnoarchaeology inEgypt: the Ballas pottery project. Archaeology 38, 52–59.


Nicholson, P. T. & Patterson, H. L. (1992). The Ballas potteryproject: ethnoarchaeology in upper Egypt. In (G. J. Bey III andC. A. Pool, Eds.) Ceramic Production and Distribution. SanFrancisco: Westview Press, pp. 25–47.

Nordstrom, H.-A. & Bourriau, J. (1993). Ceramic technology: claysand fabrics. In (D. Arnold & J. Bourriau, Eds) An Introduction toAncient Egyptian Pottery. Mainz am Rhein: Philipp Von Zabern,pp. 143–190.

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.


Documents

Redmount_Major and Trace Element Analysis of Modern Egyptian Pottery_JAS 23 (1996)