Analyzing Ancient Egyptian Faience
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
THE PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY SCHREYER HONORS COLLEGE DEPARTMENTS OF MATERIALS SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING AND ART HISTORY EXPLORING ANCIENT EGYPTIAN FAIENCE WITH NANOTECHNOLOGY: COMPOSITIONAL MAPPINGS, MICROSTRUCTURE ANALYSIS, AND MODERN APPLICATIONS ELYSSA IRIS OKKELBERG Summer 2011 A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for baccalaureate degrees in Materials Science and Engineering and Art History with interdisciplinary honors in Materials Science and Engineering and Art History Reviewed and approved∗ by the following: Paul Howell Professor of Metallurgy Thesis Supervisor Honors Advisor Elizabeth Walters Associate Professor of Art History Honors Advisor Digby MacDonald Distinguished Professor of Materials Science and Engineering Faculty Reader ∗Signatures are on file in the Schreyer Honors College. Abstract This thesis investigated Egyptian faience, an ancient ceramic material that consists of granular quartz or sand coated with an alkali-based glaze. Of interest is the pro- duction process of faience, in particular the raw materials and the glazing method. Previous investigations examined the production process using compositional and microstructural data from ancient and replicate faience. This study confirmed prior results by investigating faience beads produced in Abydos, Egypt during the 22nd Dynasty (c. 940–720 BC). Furthermore, this investigation improved upon earlier works by creating compositional mappings and analyzing previously over- looked parts of faience. Moreover, modern applications for faience technology were explored. i Table of Contents Abstract i List of Figures iv List of Tables vi Acknowledgments vii Chapter 1 Egyptian Faience 1 1.1 Background ............................... 1 1.2 Production ............................... 3 1.2.1 Rawmaterials.......................... 4 1.2.2 Shaping ............................. 7 1.2.3 GlazingMethod......................... 8 1.2.4 Firing .............................. 13 1.3 StateoftheArt............................. 14 1.4 Contributions .............................. 21 Chapter 2 Methodology 24 Chapter 3 Results 29 3.1 BeadSample1 ............................. 32 3.2 BeadSample2 ............................. 36 3.2.1 Sample 2a: Fragment Showing Outer Surface . 36 3.2.2 Sample 2b: Fragment Showing Inner Surface . 43 3.2.3 Sample 2c: Cross-Section . 47 3.3 BeadSample3 ............................. 52 3.3.1 Sample 3a: Bead with Removed Fragment . 52 ii 3.3.2 Sample 3b: Removed Fragment . 61 Chapter 4 Discussion 68 4.1 RawMaterials.............................. 68 4.1.1 Quartz.............................. 68 4.1.2 AlkaliFlux ........................... 69 4.1.3 Colorants ............................ 69 4.2 GlazingMethod............................. 70 4.2.1 Bead1.............................. 71 4.2.2 Bead2.............................. 71 4.2.3 Bead3.............................. 72 4.3 ComparisonwithPreviousStudies. 72 4.3.1 Ancient Faience Comparisons . 73 4.3.2 Replicate Faience Comparisons . 74 Chapter 5 Modern Applications 76 5.1 ApplicationsofSelf-Glazing . 76 5.2 ApplicationsofLowFiringTemperature . 77 5.3 Applications of Antimicrobial Properties . 78 5.4 Economic and Environmental Considerations . 78 Chapter 6 Conclusions and Future Work 80 6.1 Summary ................................ 80 6.2 FutureWork............................... 81 Bibliography 82 Appendix A Academic Vita 85 iii List of Figures 1.1 Examples of faience from the Louvre. 2 1.2 Thethreemethodsofglazingfaience . 9 1.3 SEM photographs of sections through select replicate faience from Tite’s2007study............................. 21 2.1 Photos of some of the faience beads analyzed by this study. 25 3.1 Bead sample prepared for examination. 30 3.2 Naming convention of locations on faience bead . 31 3.3 Sample1. ................................ 33 3.4 Close-up of sample 1, showing its porous nature. 33 3.5 Close-up of sample 1, centered on a nonporous area. 34 3.6 (a) SEM image and (b) EDS analysis of a pore on sample 1. 35 3.7 EDS analyses comparing a pore on and an nonporous area of sample 1. The pore analysis is in light blue, and the nonporous analysis is inblack.................................. 36 3.8 Reference image for sample 2 showing samples (2a) fragment show- ing outer surface, (2b) fragment showing inner surface, and (2c) cross-section. .............................. 37 3.9 Sample2a................................. 37 3.10 (a) SEM image and (b) EDS analysis of a close-up of sample 2a. 38 3.11 Two different pores on sample 2a. (a) Pore 1 is formed around a glass grain, and (b) pore 2 has calcium deposits. 40 3.12 (a) SEM image and (b) EDS analysis of pore 1 on sample 2a. 41 3.13 (a) SEM image and (b) EDS analysis of pore 2 on sample 2a. 42 3.14Sample2b................................. 43 3.15 Close-up of sample 2b, better showing the inner surface and body. 44 3.16 (a) SEM image and (b) EDS analysis of the faience body of sample 2b..................................... 45 3.17 (a) SEM image and (b) EDS analysis of sand grain in sample 2b. 46 3.18Sample2c................................. 48 3.19 Close-up of sample 2c, showing the boundary between the glaze and body.................................... 48 iv 3.20 Close-up of sample 2c, better showing the lack of an interaction layer between the glaze and body. 49 3.21 Close-up of the glaze on sample 2c. 49 3.22 Close-up of sample 2c, showing a different boundary between the glazeandbody. ............................. 50 3.23 (a) SEM image and (b) EDS analysis of the glaze on sample 2c. 51 3.24 Reference image showing samples (3a) bead with a fragment re- movedand(3b)theremovedfragment. 52 3.25 Sample 3a, centered on cross-sections of (a) the middle and (b) the endofthebead.............................. 55 3.26 Reference image for the compositional mapping of sample 3a at the middleofthebead. ........................... 56 3.27 Compositional mapping of sample 3a at the middle of the bead . 57 3.28 Reference image for the compositional mapping of sample 3a at the endofthebead.............................. 58 3.29 Compositional mapping of sample 3a at the end of the bead . 59 3.30 (a) SEM image and (b) EDS analysis of a phosphorous-rich area in sample3aneartheendofthebead.. 60 3.31 Sample 3b, showing the four locations where compositions were obtained.................................. 61 3.32 (a) SEM image and (b) EDS analysis of sample 3b at location α. 62 3.33 (a) SEM image and (b) EDS analysis of sample 3b at location β. 63 3.34 (a) SEM image and (b) EDS analysis of sample 3b at location δ. 64 3.35 (a) SEM image and (b) EDS analysis of sample 3b at location γ. 65 3.36 Compositeimageofsample3b. 67 v List of Tables 1.1 Average cupric oxide concentrations in faience glazes from Kacz- marczyk and Hedges’s 1983 book. 16 1.2 caption.................................. 17 1.3 Summary of concentration profiles for replicate faience from Tite’s 2007study. ............................... 18 1.4 Average glaze/glass composition for select replicate faience from Tite’s2007study............................. 20 vi Acknowledgments First and foremost, I would like to thank my honors and thesis advisors, Dr. Elizabeth Walters in Art History and Dr. Paul Howell in Materials Science and Engineering, and Dr. Digby MacDonald for being a faculty reader. Their assistance and guidance on this project have been invaluable. I would like to recognize Ms. Stacy Davidson and Dr. Judy Ozment for their advice and support as well as Mr. Mike Fleck for photographing the beads. I would also like to thank my grandparents Harriet and Herbert Miller for being amazing and supportive of me as well as for providing a warm welcoming home for my friends and me on several breaks. My parents, Eileen and Joe, also deserve credit. I would like to acknowledge my classmates, BS, MP, CE, JL, SC, JS and ZR. Somewhere in between the class work and road trips to Tampa, San Francisco or Chicago, we truly became a family. Finally I would like to thank Klaus Zhang for his unyielding support and love. vii Chapter 1 Egyptian Faience The ancient material known as Egyptian faience bears no relationship to the tin-glazed pottery from Faenza, Italy from which the term originally derived. Because the Italian pottery is now commonly referred to as majolica, this thesis refers to Egyptian faience as faience [1]. 1.1 Background Egyptian faience is a ceramic material that consists of granular quartz or sand coated with an alkali-based glaze [1–5]. Some academics also include similarly glazed steatite in the definition of faience [2, 6]. Examples of museum-quality faience from the Louvre are shown in Figure 1.1. Unlike conventional, clay-based ceramics, the raw materials of faience react when fired to produce a result quite different from its components, making it the “first high-tech ceramic” [7]. The ancient Egyptians refered to faience as tjehenet, from the root tjehen meaning to dazzle or gleam [8, 9]. It was also called khesbed, their word for lapis lazuli and, sometimes, the color blue [8,10]. 2 (a) Box cover on behalf of the divine wor- (b) Servant of the funeral shipper of Amon, Nitocris; of King Seti I; Reign of Psammetichus I (664–610 BC, 1294–1279 BC (19th Dy- 26th Dynasty) nasty) Figure 1.1. Examples of faience from the Louvre (Photographed by Elyssa Okkelberg). This study employs faience beads of a deep blue color that may fulfill an ancient Egyptian interest in having lapis lazuli or the broader interest in colors connected to the sky [11–13]. These beads are provisionally