4.7 Article Proceedings Paper

Neolithic pottery from the Trieste Karst (northeastern Italy): A multi-analytical study

期刊

MICROCHEMICAL JOURNAL
卷 124, 期 -, 页码 600-607

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.microc.2015.09.019

关键词

Neolithic pottery; Northeastern Italy; Multi-analytical approach; Production technology; Provenance

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A group of Neolithic potsherds from caves of the Trieste Karst (northeastern Italy) belonging to the Vlaska Group has been studied through a multi-analytical approach mainly based on non-destructive X-ray computed microtomography (mu CT) and portable X-ray fluorescence (XRF), combined with X-ray diffraction (XRD) and optical microscopy (OM) to investigate both manufacture technology and provenance of the vases. Most samples, probably produced using a modelling technique, were made using clay-silt size paste containing quartz inclusions, tempered with the addition of abundant calcite and some limestone fragments. Calcite minerals, very common in the karstic environment, were probably obtained by grinding speleothems. This peculiar paste seems to be typical of the Karst area since prehistoric times. One single sample (5880), characterized by an unusual shape recalling those of the Fiorano culture (present in Emilia-Romagna and Veneto), shows a fine-grained fabric with numerous grog fragments, quartz, minor feldspar but without calcite. The 2D and 3D mu CT-derived fabric parameters, reflecting the manufacture technology, are also quite different from those of the local vases. These features suggest that sample 5880 was manufactured elsewhere and later reached the Karst, directly or indirectly. The combined use of conventional techniques and non-destructive XRF and mu CT, which allows the quantification of clay material, lithic inclusions and porosity, has proved to be an effective approach to investigate both technology and provenance of ceramic materials. (C) 2015 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据