Advantages and limitations of OM, SEM, TEM and AFM in the study of ancient decorated pottery
Source abstract
Abstract
This paper presents results from the study of two fragments of pre-Hispanic pottery, decorated with red pigment, using Optical Microscopy (OM), Scanning Electron Microscopy (SEM), High Resolution Transmission Electron Microscopy (HRTEM), Atomic Force Microscopy (AFM) and Magnetic Force Microscopy (MFM). Capabilities and limitations of these techniques in the analysis of archaeological material are highlighted with special emphasis on TEM, AFM and MFM due to their contribution in the study of the pigment layer at micro and nano scale. The analyzed samples come from the archaeological sites of El Tajin and Xochicalco, both in Mexico. Results of conventional TEM and HRTEM analysis of the red pigment showed nanometric Fe2O3 particles in both samples but different particle shape and size distributions: specimen from El Tajin presented irregular particles between 50–100 nm while that from Xochicalco exhibited semispherical shapes in the 3–25 nm range. AFM images showed the topography of the pigments, which are related to the texture of their surface and thus to the production process. Finally, MFM showed different contrast regions suggesting the presence of ferromagnetic elements forming clusters and domain orientations on the color layer.
Source: openaire · Quality: candidate unverified · Source record ↗
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Cultural Heritage Materials Analysis · Building materials and conservation · Conservation Techniques and Studies
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
References (14)
Show source-provided references
1. T. Martinez, G. Martinez, D. Mendoza, F. Juarez, L. Cabrera, Appl. Radiat. Isot. 63, 705 (2005)10.1016/j.apradiso.2005.05.022 ↗
2. B. Wagner, A. Nowak, E. Bulska, J. Kunicki-Goldfinger, O. Schalm, K. Janssens, Microchim. Acta 162, 415 (2008)10.1007/s00604-007-0835-7 ↗
3. B. Moroni, C. Conti, Appl. Clay Sci. 33, 230 (2006)10.1016/j.clay.2006.05.002 ↗
4. J. Perez-Arantegui, J. Molera, A. Larrea, T. Pradell, M. Vendrell-Saz, I. Borgia, B.G. Brunetti, F. Cariati, P. Fermo, M. Mellini, A. Sgamellotti, C. Viti, J. Am. Ceram. Soc. 84, 2 (2001)10.1111/j.1151-2916.2001.tb00674.x ↗
5. M.P. Rice, Pottery Analysis: A Sourcebook (University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1987)
6. A. Gómez Herrero, F. Urones Garrote, A.J. López, L.C. Otero Díaz, Appl. Phys. A 92, 97 (2008)10.1007/s00339-008-4453-y ↗
7. D. Papadopoulu, A. Sakalis, N. Merousis, N.C. Tsirliganis, Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res. A 580, 743 (2007)10.1016/j.nima.2007.05.138 ↗
8. R.M. Prol-Ledesma, C. Canet, J.C. Melgarejo, G. Tolson, M.A. Rubio-Ramos, J.C. Cruz-Ocampo, A. Ortega-Osorio, M.A. Torres-Vera, A. Reyes, Econ. Geol. 97, 6 (2002)
9. D.P.S. Peacock, World Archaeol. 1, 3 (1970)
10. A. Badillo, A. Sánchez, M.A. Pérez Campa, S. Sánchez Pérez, G. Jiménez Delgado, M. Aguilar Franco, C. Zorrilla Cangas, J. Arenas-Altorre, in La Ciencia de Materiales y su Impacto en la Arqueología, vol. III, ed. by D. Mendoza Anaya, J. Arenas-Alatorre, V. Rodríguez Lugo, J.L. Ruvalca Sil (Editorial Innovación Editorial Lagares de Mexico, 2006), p. 123. ISBN:970-773-269-5
11. U. Kreibig, L. Genzel, Surf. Sci. 156, 678 (1985)10.1016/0039-6028(85)90239-0 ↗
12. J. Cox, Chem. Br. 39, 21 (2003)
13. B. Velde, I.C. Druc, Archaeological Ceramic Materials. Origin and Utilization (Springer, Berlin, 1999)10.1007/978-3-642-59905-7 ↗
14. R.D. Zysler, D. Fiorani, A.M. Testa, J. Magn. Mater. 224, 5 (2001)10.1016/S0304-8853(00)01328-7 ↗