Hostname: page-component-5c6d5d7d68-sv6ng Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-08-12T22:18:24.571Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Quantitative Porosity Studies of Archaeological Ceramics by Petrographic Image Analysis

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 July 2014

Chandra L. Reedy ,
Jenifer Anderson  and
Terry J. Reedy
Chandra L. Reedy
Affiliation:
Center for Historic Architecture & Design, University of Delaware, Newark, DE 19716, USA
Jenifer Anderson
Affiliation:
Center for Historic Architecture & Design, University of Delaware, Newark, DE 19716, USA
Terry J. Reedy
Affiliation:
Independent Statistician, 3 Stage Road, Newark, DE, 19711, USA
Get access

Abstract

Pores in archaeological ceramics can form in a number of different ways, and reflect both deliberate choices and uncontrollable factors. Characterizing porosity by digital image analysis of thin sections holds a number of advantages as well as limitations. We present the results of experiments aimed at improving this method, focusing on high-resolution scans of entire thin sections. We examine the reproducibility of pore measurements by petrographic image analysis of ceramic thin sections using laboratory-prepared specimens of clay mixed with sand of known amount and size. We outline protocols for measuring Total Optical Porosity, using the Image-Pro Premier software package. We also briefly discuss use of pore size and pore shape (aspect ratio and roundness) in characterizing archaeological ceramics. While discerning reasons for observed amounts, sizes, and shapes of pores is an extremely complex problem, the quantitative analysis of ceramic porosity is one tool for characterizing a ware and comparing a product to others. The methods outlined here are applied to a case study comparing historic bricks from the Read House in New Castle, Delaware; the porosity studies indicate that different construction campaigns used bricks from different sources.

Keywords

archaeologyceramicporosity
Type
Articles
Information
MRS Online Proceedings Library (OPL) , Volume 1656: Symposium PP – Materials Issues in Art and Archaeology X , 2014 , pp. 337 - 353
Copyright
Copyright © Materials Research Society 2014 

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

REFERENCES

Rice, P., Pottery Analysis: A Sourcebook (University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1987).Google Scholar
Reedy, C. L., Thin-section Petrography of Stone and Ceramic Cultural Materials (Archetype Publications, London, 2008).Google Scholar
Quinn, P. S. (editor), Interpreting Silent Artefacts: Petrographic Approaches to Archaeological Materials (Archaeopress, Oxford, 2009).Google Scholar
Quinn, P. S., Ceramic Petrography: The Interpretation of Archaeological Pottery & Related Artefacts in Thin Section (Archaeopress, Oxford, 2013).Google Scholar
Rye, O. S., Archaeology & Physical Anthropology in Oceania 11(2), 106–137 (1976).Google Scholar
Cultrone, G., Sebastián, E., Elert, K., de la Toree, M. J., Cazalla, O., and Rodriguez-Navarro, C., Journal of the European Ceramic Society 24, 547–564 (2004).10.1016/S0955-2219(03)00249-8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koh Choo, C. K., Lee, Y. E., Shim, I. W., Choo, W. K., Kim, G. H., Hug, W. Y., and Chun, S., Archaeometry 46(2), 247–265 (2004).10.1111/j.1475-4754.2004.00155.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harry, K. G. and Johnson, A., Journal of Archaeological Sciences 31, 1567–1575 (2004).10.1016/j.jas.2004.03.020CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miriello, D. and Crisci, G. M., Journal of Cultural Heritage 7, 186–192 (2006).10.1016/j.culher.2006.03.003CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mueller, U. and Hansen, E. F., in Proceedings of the 8th Euroseminar on Microscopy Applied to Building Materials, edited by Georgalia, B. and Toumbakari, E. E., (Cosmosware, Athens, 2001), pp. 603–610.Google Scholar
Deshpande, S., Kulkarni, A., Sampath, S., and Herman, H., Surface Coatings & Technology 187, 6–16 (2004).10.1016/j.surfcoat.2004.01.032CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Layman, J. M., MS. Thesis, Texas A & M University, 2002.Google Scholar
IUPAC, Pure Applied Chemistry 31, 578–638 (1972).Google Scholar
Borrelli, E., Porosity (ICCROM, Rome, 1999).Google Scholar
Anselmetti, F., Luthi, S., and , G. P., Eberli, , American Association of Petroleum Geologists Bulletin 82(10), 1815–1836 (1998).Google Scholar
, N. Bashah, S. I. and Pierson, B., in Quantification of Pore Structure in a Miocene Carbonate Build-up of Central Luconia, Sarawak and its Relationship to Sonic Velocity (International Petroleum Technology Conference, Bangkok), DOI 0.1523/14625.MS.Google Scholar
Norbury, D., Soil and Rock Description in Engineering Practice (CRC Press, Boca Raton, 2010).Google Scholar
Pagliari, M., Vignozzi, N., and Pellegrini, S., Soil & Tillage Research 79, 131–143 (2004).10.1016/j.still.2004.07.002CrossRefGoogle Scholar
von Bradke, M, Gritzhofer, M. F., and Henne, R., Scanning 27, 132–135 (2005).10.1002/sca.4950270305CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Adams, A., PhD. Thesis, Texas A & M University, 2005.Google Scholar
Mowers, T. T. and Budd, D. A., American Association of Petroleum Geologists Bulletin 80, 309–322 (1996).Google Scholar
Moreau, E., Velde, B., and Terribile, F., Geoderma 92, 55–72 (1999).10.1016/S0016-7061(99)00025-7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marcelino, V., Cnudde, V., Vansteelandt, V., and Caro, F., European Journal of Soil Science 58, 133–140 (2007).10.1111/j.1365-2389.2006.00819.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schmitt, A., Archaeometry 40(2), 293–310 (1998).10.1111/j.1475-4754.1998.tb00839.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reedy, C. L., Journal of the American Institute for Conservation 45(2), 127–146 (2006).10.1179/019713606806112531CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Erlich, R., Kennedy, S. K., Crabtree, S. J., and Cannon, R. L., Journal of Sedimentary Petrology 54, 1365–1378 (1984).Google Scholar
Nijboer, A., Attema, P., and Van Oortmerssen, G., Paleohistoria 47/48, 141-205 (2006).Google Scholar
Thompson, G. A. and Jerram, D. A., presented at the 2003 British Sedimentological Research Group General Meeting, Leeds, England (unpublished).Google Scholar
De Keyser, T. L., Journal of Sedimentary Research 69(4), 962–964 (1999).10.2110/jsr.69.962CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hansen, E. F., PhD. Thesis, University of California, Los Angeles, 2000.Google Scholar
Tarquini, S. and Armienti, P., Image Analysis and Stereology 22, 27–34 (2003).10.5566/ias.v22.p27-34CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Casadio, F., Chiari, G., and Simon, S., Archaeometry 47(4), 671–689 (2005).10.1111/j.1475-4754.2005.00226.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Livingood, P. C., in Plaquemine Archaeology, edited by Rees, M. A. and Livingood, P. C. (University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa, 2007), pp. 108–126.Google Scholar
Frahm, E., Nikolaidou, M., and Kelly-Buccelati, M., SAS Bulletin 32(2), 8–12 (2008).Google Scholar
Van Den Berg, E. H., Bense, V. F., and Schlager, W., Journal of Sedimentary Research 73(1), 133–143 (2003).10.1306/061502730133CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carlson, J., Sutter, L., Van Dam, T., and Peterson, K. W., Transportation Research Record (Concrete Materials) 1979, 54–59 (2006).10.1177/0361198106197900108CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tarquini, S. and Favalli, M., Computers & Geosciences 36, 665–74 (2010).10.1016/j.cageo.2009.09.017CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reedy, C. L., Studies in Conservation 57 (S1), 227–233 (2012).10.1179/2047058412Y.0000000021CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dicus, C. M., MS Thesis, Texas A & M University, 2007.Google Scholar