Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-l7hp2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T06:11:41.117Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

X-Ray Diffraction Analysis of Prehistoric Pottery

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

John W. Weymouth
John W. Weymouth*
Affiliation:
Department of Physics, University of Nebraska
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This is a preliminary report on a quantitative method for grouping prehistoric pottery using x-ray diffraction techniques. Of the various analytical methods that have been applied to the analysis of pottery, x-ray diffraction techniques have been among the least used, and then usually to obtain qualitative information. Most analytic methods measure the relative abundance of chemical elements, but diffraction patterns give information on the crystalline substances in the pottery. In this study, attention is directed to the crystalline components of the temper rather than the clays or their derivatives. The method groups pottery according to the relative concentrations of such minerals as quartz, calcite, and the feldspars. Thus, success depends on reasonable consistency in the use of tempering materials by pottery makers at one time and place. I have examined a number of sherds from different sites in Iowa and Missouri supplied by Dale R. Henning, University of Nebraska. The results so far indicate that it is possible to group prehistoric pottery by a quantitative analysis of the x-ray diffraction pattern of the temper in the pottery.

Type
Reports
Information
American Antiquity , Volume 38 , Issue 3 , July 1973 , pp. 339 - 344
Copyright
Copyright © Society for American Archaeology 1973

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Bareis, Charles J., and Porter, James W. 1965 Megascopic and petrographic analyses of a foreign pottery vessel from the Cahokia site. American Antiquity 31:95–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chase, W. T. 1971 Egyptian blue as a pigment and ceramic material. In Science and archaeology , edited by Brill, R. H., pp. 80–90. MIT Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Hall, E. T. 1971 Two examples of the use of chemical analysis in the solution of archaeological problems. In Science and archaeology, edited by Brill, R. H., pp. 156–164. MIT Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Harbottle, G. 1970 Neutron activation analysis of potsherds from Knossos and Mycenae. Archaeometry 12:23–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Perlman, I., and Asaro, R. 1969 Pottery analysis by neutron activation analysis. Archaeometry 11:21–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sayre, Edward V., and Chan, Lui-Heung 1971 High-resolution gamma ray spectroscopic analysis of fine orange pottery. In Science and archaeology, edited by Brill, R. H., pp. 165–177. MIT Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Shepard, Anna O. 1965 Ceramics for the archaeologist. Carnegie Institute of Washington, Publication 609, p. 157.Google Scholar
Shepard, Anna O. 1971 Ceramic analysis: the interrelations of methods; the relations of analysts and archaeologists. In Science and archaeology, edited by Brill, R. H., pp. 55–64. MIT Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Young, S. 1956 An analysis of Chinese blue-and-white. Oriental Art 2:4347.Google Scholar
Young, W. J., and Whitmore, F. E. 1957 Analysis of Oriental ceramic wares by non-destructive x-ray methods. Far Eastern Ceramic Bulletin 9:1–27.Google Scholar