Untitled

Archaeometric study of possible Ninevite‐5 pottery from upper Tigris region using SEM‐EDS, PEDXRF, and OM

“…The raw materials are also one of the decisive factors in shaping the micro structures of ceramics. In the present study, samples have high amounts of CaO (indicating calcareous clay deposits) and low amounts of Al 2 O 3 (most probably indicating low quantity of clay minerals) . Types of the materials, as a matter of course, should have affected the micro structures of the wares.…”

“…Namely, the ppm levels of such elements (in some cases together with the major oxides) give substantial information about the main geological source of the possible raw materials used for pottery manufacture which may also then help to make assumptions in terms of provenance studies . For instance, the low ratios of Ni/Co (i.e., 1.5–2.5) indicate that the clay material mainly belongs to felsic rocks, or at least it can be paraphrased as it represents a similar geological formation which chemically corresponds to felsic rocks . The presence of alkali feldspars also suggests the possible existence of felsic rocks .…”

Characterization of an Early Bronze Age pottery group from the upper Tigris valley (Turkey) by means of spectroscopic and microscopic techniques

“…According to the amounts of such oxides in the groups, it might be assumed that although plagioclase feldspars were probably present in the ceramic fabrics of Group 2, K‐feldspars existed more in the raw materials used for the ceramics of Group 1. However, considering the amount of Al 2 O 3 , which was, respectively, found in the range of 19.21–24.42 wt.% (proposing higher quantity of clay minerals) and 12.77–14.86 wt.% for Group 1 and Group 2, it was supposed that the relatively high content of K 2 O in the samples of Group 1 would be related to clay minerals (e.g., illite–muscovite type) rather than K‐feldspar (that would be lesser).…”

“…Despite the unclear and debatable descriptions due to their resemblance to some other ceramic groups in archaeological literature, the Metallic Ware is generally classified into two main groups: (a) calcareous Metallic Ware in which CaO may be up to 20 wt.% and (b) noncalcareous Metallic Ware including averagely 1‐ to 2‐wt.% CaO and Al 2 O 3 up to 20–25 wt.%. The terms “calcareous” and “noncalcareous” were also mentioned as “calciferous” and “noncalciferous,” respectively, by Kibaroğlu . Broekmans et al classified the Metallic Ware in a similar way but additionally considering the appearance of the inclusions in the ceramic fabric: (a) calcareous Metallic Ware (with visible inclusions clearly seen in macroscopic scale), (b) noncalcareous Metallic Ware (inclusions, if exist, cannot be seen macroscopically), and (c) intermediate group (about 8–9 wt.% of CaCO 3 ).…”

“…All the archaeological findings and the settlement layers unearthed in the salvage excavations carried out in Kavuşan Höyük since 2001 within a project named as “Recovering and documentation of cultural assets affected by the Ilısu Dam and Hydroelectric Power Plant (HPP)” (carried out under the scientific consultancy of Prof. Dr Gülriz Kozbe, Batman University, Turkey) indicate a significant source of knowledge and should be investigated immediately, because the region will be flooded as the dam construction is completed . Formerly, a very small number of noncalcareous (noncalciferous) north Mesopotamian Metallic Ware samples from the mound were studied by means of chemical and mineralogical analyses . In addition to such successful and informative provenance works of the researchers, it is thought that the results of this comprehensive investigation would also be useful to enrich the insight into Metallic Ware production in southeastern Anatolia.…”