Provenance determination of prehistorical pottery from Oshima Island belonging to Izu islands (Tokyo, Japan) using X‐ray fluorescence spectrometry

Abstract

A total of 41 pottery shards originating in the Jomon period (14000–300 BC) and Yayoi period (300 BC–250 AD) were excavated from the Shimotakabora site on Oshima Island of the Izu islands (Tokyo, Japan). X‐ray fluorescence spectrometry was used to determine the chemical composition (10 major oxides and 12 minor elements) of the potteries to identify the potteries' provenance, that is, local or nonlocal product. The calibration curves were drawn by synthetic standards prepared from a mixture of chemical reagents containing analytes, which presented good accuracy and reproducibility by analysis of the geochemical references. The pottery samples were classified by multivariate statistics such as principal component analysis and cluster analysis based on their chemical composition. Additionally, the X‐ray fluorescence results were compared with geochemical data from Oshima Island using scatter diagrams. The pottery provenance was identified by their classification. This provenance estimation indicates that 37 of the 41 potteries were brought to Oshima island from Japan's main island, Honshu, in the prehistoric age.

Characterization of the iron sand collected from the foot of Mt. Aburayama (Fukuoka, Japan) for estimating the origin of archeological iron artifacts from northern Kyushu

“…For the elemental analysis of archeological samples, the following techniques are commonly used: atomic absorption spectrometry (AAS), 14 inductively coupled plasma atomic emission spectrometry (ICP-AES), 15 inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry (ICP-MS), 16 instrumental neutron activation analysis (INAA), 17 and x-ray fluorescence (XRF) spectrometry. 18,19 Among these techniques, AAS, ICP-AES, and ICP-MS require complicated chemical decomposition of solid samples for reliable elemental analysis. As a minimally destructive analytical technique, laser ablation ICP-MS 20 is useful for the direct evaluation of solid samples; however, through localized analysis, this technique only probes surfaces that are typically several tens of micrometers in size.…”

“…In contrast, iron sand, iron ore, and slag are not archeological iron artifacts and may therefore be allowed to perform destructive sampling and analysis. For the elemental analysis of archeological samples, the following techniques are commonly used: atomic absorption spectrometry (AAS), 14 inductively coupled plasma atomic emission spectrometry (ICP‐AES), 15 inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry (ICP‐MS), 16 instrumental neutron activation analysis (INAA), 17 and x‐ray fluorescence (XRF) spectrometry 18,19 . Among these techniques, AAS, ICP‐AES, and ICP‐MS require complicated chemical decomposition of solid samples for reliable elemental analysis.…”

Characterization of Ancient Pottery Clay by XRF Spectrometry — Sample Preparation and Calibration Curve —

“…24 26 1 Relative standard deviations of the fluorescent X-ray intensity obtained from measurement of a pottery sample using three types of specimens: measurements of ten different points on the surface of unprepared pottery ( ), ten powder pellet specimens ( ), and ten glass bead specimens ( )…”