The major‐ and trace‐element whole‐rock fingerprints of Egyptian basalts and the provenance of Egyptian artefacts

Abstract

Discrimination diagrams have been developed that source Egyptian basaltic artefacts using whole-rock major element geochemistry. versus Zr/Y) to determine the bedrock sources. These diagrams have been applied to seven First Dynasty basalt vessels (Abydos), two Fourth Dynasty basalt paving stones (Khufu's funerary temple, Giza), and two Fifth Dynasty paving stones (Sahure's complex, Abu Sir). They show that the bedrock source for all the artefacts was the Haddadin flow in northern Egypt. Multidimensional scaling and cluster analysis applied to the whole-rock data (major elements and trace elements together) and previously published mineral fingerprinting studies confirm these results. Comparing mineral versus whole-rock fingerprinting techniques, a major advantage of the former is the small sample size required (0.001 g compared to Ն 0.1 g). Analytical costs are similar for both methods assuming that a comparison (bedrock) database can be assembled from the literature. For most archaeological problems, a whole-rock bedrock database is more likely to exist than a mineral database, and whole-rock analyses on artefacts will generally be easier to obtain than mineral analyses. Whole-rock fingerprinting may be more sensitive than mineral-based fingerprinting. Thus, if sample quantity is not an issue, whole-rock analysis may have a slight cost, convenience, and technical advantage over mineral-based methods. Our results also emphasize that the Egyptians cherished their Haddadin basalt flow and used it extensively and exclusively for manufacturing basalt vessels and paving stones for at least 600 years (ϳ3150 B.C. to 2500 B.C., approximate ages of the vessels and Abu Sir paving stones, respectively). ᭧

The Source of Basalt Vessels in Ancient Egyptian Archeological Sites: A Mineralogical Approach

“…The average of vessel averages was plotted, and as expected falls within the Haddadin field. It is important to note that even though mineral compositions for Haddadin and Cairo-Suez Road samples and the basalt vessels do overlap somewhat, the results of a study using the whole-rock composition of the same set of bedrock samples and a select few vessels eliminated the Cairo-Suez Road as a possible source for the artefacts (Greenough et al 2001).…”

“…Although whole-rock X-ray fluorescence data were obtained for two basalt vessels (Schelstraete 1998, p. 72-74), no comparison between potential sources and the vessel data was made. In a more recent study, Greenough et al (2001) compared whole-rock data from seven basalt vessels (excavated by Petrie at Abydos) to potential bedrock sources, and concluded that they were manufactured from the Haddadin basalt, which outcrops approximately 500 km north of Abydos and runs from Abu Zabaal (~50 km north of Cairo) to Al-Fayoum (~100 km southwest of Cairo;Figs. 1,2).…”

Orthopyroxene, augite, and plagioclase compositions in dacite: application to bedrock sourcing of lithic artefacts in southern British Columbia

“…At the Cache Creek site, for example, there is literally a "mountain" of reduction flakes, and so the destruction of a sample for provenance studies by wholesample analysis is not an issue (Mallory- Greenough et al 2002a). Comparisons of whole-sample versus mineral fingerprinting show that both methods yield comparable results (Greenough et al 2001;Mallory-Greenough et al 2002b). However, for many artefacts, sample destruction-damage is not an option.…”

“…Stone artefacts, from building materials to lithic tools (e.g., arrowheads), are commonly preserved at archaeological sites. However, it is not always obvious where the material they are made from was obtained (Bakewell and Irving 1994;Mallory-Greenough et al 1999a, 2002a, 2002bGreenough et al 2001). Simple petrographic descriptions can provide useful information on raw material provenance (Williams 1983;Porat and Seeher 1988), but for some lithic materials (e.g., basalt or obsidian), more sophisticated techniques are required.…”

A rapid method of screening ceramic artefacts to reject unlikely hypotheses of provenance

“…In general, the choice of techniques for determining artefact sources depends upon a variety of factors: (a) background data available in the literature, (b) what elements can be determined in the artefacts given the available sample quantity (e.g., what information can be obtained, including compositional, petrographical, typological, temper, inclusions, etc. ), (c) whether the parent material from which the artefacts are made has been affected by secondary processes such as weathering, and (d) relevant financial resources (Greenough, Gorton, & Mallory‐Greenough, ; Mallory‐Greenough, Greenough, & Owen, ). When budgetary limitations and sample scarcity coexist, the exploration of even potentially promising research hypotheses can sometimes be seriously compromised.…”