SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Hittite Journal of Science and Engineering / 2018 / Cilt: 5 - Sayı: 2

Mineralogical and Geochemical Characterization of Ancient Ceramic Sherds from Dipsizin Cave (Karaman, Turkey)

Osman DOĞANAY
M. Yavuz HÜSEYİNCA
Pages
91–96
Publication Date
2022-10-18
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

These recipes can be explained by differentpottery making technologies and/or different archaeological provenances.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Raw materials of two ancient ceramic sherds (ceramic-1 and ceramic-2) from Dipsizincave were analyzed by SEM-EDS in order to characterize ceramic fabrics.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Characterizationincludes separation of temper and clay paste sections, qualitative determination ofmineralogical compositions and percentage calculations of raw materials by region sketching.In this perspective, ceramic-1 is characterized as % 41.83 temper (quartz, albite, rutile,lime, organic material) and % 58.17 clay paste.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:These recipes can be explained by differentpottery making technologies and/or different archaeological provenances.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

Raw materials of two ancient ceramic sherds (ceramic-1 and ceramic-2) from Dipsizincave were analyzed by SEM-EDS in order to characterize ceramic fabrics. Characterizationincludes separation of temper and clay paste sections, qualitative determination ofmineralogical compositions and percentage calculations of raw materials by region sketching.In this perspective, ceramic-1 is characterized as % 41.83 temper (quartz, albite, rutile,lime, organic material) and % 58.17 clay paste. Then, ceramic-2 is characterized to be %37.52 temper (quartz, anorthoclase, rutile, lime, organic material) and % 62.48 clay paste.Clay paste sections of both ceramics include mixture of clay minerals belonging to illiteand smectite clay groups. In comparison, percentages of temper and clay paste sections ofceramic-1 and ceramic-2 differ % 4.31 from each other and variety of raw materials makingup both ceramic bodies are nearly same except feldspars. But individually quartz and limepercentages between ceramics differ nearly two times. In this opinion we realize that rawmaterials are mixed by tracking two recipes. These recipes can be explained by differentpottery making technologies and/or different archaeological provenances.

🔖

Cite This Article

DOĞANAY, O., HÜSEYİNCA, M. Y. (2022). Mineralogical and Geochemical Characterization of Ancient Ceramic Sherds from Dipsizin Cave (Karaman, Turkey). Hittite Journal of Science and Engineering, Cilt: 5 - Sayı: 2, 91–96. https://ajindex.com/articles/538049

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (17)

  1. Heinrich, K, Asia citerior, in: David Rumsey historical map collection, Dietrich Reimer, Berlin, 1903.
  2. Doğanay, O, Duman, B. Isauria bölgesi’nden bir grup seramik: Adiller Dipsizin mağarası, in: Ş. Dönmez (Ed.) Sümer Atasoy'a armağan yazılar, Hel Yayınları, Ankara, pp. 83-94, 2013.
  3. Tite, MS. The impact of electron microscopy on ceramic studies. Proceedings of the British Academy 77 (1992) 111- 131. Guggenheim, S, Martin, RT. Definition of clay and clay mineral: Joint report of the AIPEA nomenclature and CMS nomenclature committees. Clays and Clay Minerals 43 (1995) 255-256.
  4. Mukherjee, S. The science of clays, Springer Netherlands, India, 2013.
  5. Rapp, G. Archaeomineralogy, second ed. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg, 2009.
  6. Shepard, AO. Ceramics for the archaeologist, Carnegie institution, Washington, 1956.
  7. Dickinson, WR. Petrographic temper provinces of prehistoric pottery in Oceania. Records of the Australian Museum 50 (1998) 263-276.
  8. Özgül, N. Torosların bazı temel jeolojik özellikleri. Türkiye Jeoloji Kurumu Bülteni 19 (1976) 65-78.
  9. Özgül, N. Bozkır-Hadim-Taşkent (Orta Toroslar'ın kuzey kesimi) dolayında yer alan tektono-stratigrafik birliklerin stratigrafisi. Maden Tetkik ve Arama Dergisi 119 (1997) 113-174.
  10. Özgül, N, Arpat, E. Structural units of Taurus orogenic belt and their continuation in the neighbouring regions. Geological Society of Greece Bulletin 10 (1973) 156-164.
  11. Gutnic, M, Monod, O, Poisson, A, Dumont, JF. Geeologie des Taurides occidentales (Turquie), Societe Geologique de France, Paris, 1979.
  12. Gedik, A, Birgili, Ş, Yılmaz, H, Yoldaş, R. Mut-Ermenek- Silifke Yöresinin Jeolojisi ve Petrol Olanakları. Türkiye Jeoloji Kurumu Bülteni 22 (1979) 7-26.
  13. Bassant, P, Van Buchem, FSP, Strasser, A, Görür, N. The stratigraphic architecture and evolution of the Burdigalian carbonate-siliciclastic sedimentary systems of the Mut Basin, Turkey. Sedimentary Geology 173 (2005) 187-232.
  14. Reed, SJB. Electron microprobe analysis and scanning electron microscopy in geology, Cambridge University Press, U.K., 2005.
  15. Goldstein, JI, Newbury, DE, Echlin, P, Joy, DC, Fiori, C, Lifshin, E. Scanning electron microscopy and X-Ray microanalysis, Plenum Publishing, New York, 1981.
  16. Tite, MS, Freestone, IC. The use of scanning electron microscopy in the technological examination of ancient ceramics, in: J.S. Olin, A.D. Franklin (Eds.) Archaeological Ceramics, Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, pp. 109-120, 1982.
  17. Freestone, IC, Middletonand, AP. Mineralogical applications of t