Mineralogical clustering of the structural mortars from the Sarno Baths, Pompeii: A tool to interpret construction techniques and relative chronologies
Source abstract
Abstract
Abstract Structural mortars constitute one of the most diffuse geomaterials, with stones and bricks, in ancient monuments and architectural complexes, especially related to the Roman civilization, which pushed the binder technology to technical levels unsurpassed until post-industrial revolution times. The archaeometric study of mortars is an essential tool to extrapolate great amounts of information concerning supply of raw materials, technological skills of the ancient civilizations and, finally, relative and absolute chronologies of diachronic construction phases, both related to ancient and modern architectural modifications of the buildings. In this contribution, a novel approach for the quantitative mineralogical analysis of ancient mortars is proposed. The analytical process is based on the integrated application of quantitative phase analysis (QPA) of mineral components by means of the Rietveld method applied to X-ray powder diffraction (XRPD) data and multivariate statistical treatment of the obtained results by means of the principal component analysis. The methodology has been applied on a wide set of binding materials sampled from different structural elements of the Sarno Baths, a five-storey building located in the Pompeii archaeological site. The building is characterized by a marked complexity both in terms of structural layout and constructive techniques, being the result of several modifications in ancient times from the Late Republican age up to the Vesuvius eruption in 79 AD. Furthermore, several poorly documented restorations have been performed between the 19th century and the first half of the 20th century AD. In this perspective, a quantitative characterization of the employed mortars resulted useful not only to define ancient constructive technologies and relative chronologies, but also to discriminate between the original and restored parts of the building for the execution of adequate restoration procedures. The statistical clustering of the quantitative XRPD data clearly defined two ancient constructive phases and allowed a precise definition of the structural elements rebuilt in recent times. Furthermore, the obtained results have been cross-checked with additional analyses, namely XRD analyses on the separated binder fractions, petrographic analyses and scanning electron microscopy-energy-dispersive microanalyses. Such multi-analytical approach allowed the detailed characterization of the employed raw materials, of the pozzolanic reactions between binder and aggregate and of the textural and microstructural characteristics of the mortars. The data interpretation yielded interesting insights both on the advanced optimization of mix designs of binding materials in Roman times, to improve the structural properties of the architectural elements according to their functions, and on the formulation of the restoration products during the historic excavations in Pompeii.
Source: openaire · Quality: candidate unverified · Source record ↗
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Building materials and conservation · Cultural Heritage Materials Analysis · Conservation Techniques and Studies
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
References (42)
Show source-provided references
1. The Vitruvian legacy: mortars and binders before and after the Roman world, in EMU Notes in Mineralogy10.1180/EMU-notes.20.4 ↗
2. Investigation of the technology of historic mortars10.1016/S1296-2074(99)00118-1 ↗
3. Characterization of plasters and mortars as a tool in archaeological studies: the case of Lardirago castle in Pavia, northern Italy10.1111/j.1475-4754.2007.00337.x ↗
4. Geochemical characterization of archaeological lime mortars: provenance inputs10.1111/j.1475-4754.2007.00360.x ↗
5. Characterisation of archaeological mortars from Pompeii (Campania, Italy) and identification of construction phases by compositional data analysis10.1016/j.jas.2010.03.019 ↗
6. Application of the Rietveld method for the investigation of mortars: a case study on the archaeological site of Thamusida10.1127/0935-1221/2009/0021-1905 ↗
7. Unlocking the secrets of Al-tobermorite in Roman seawater concrete10.2138/am.2013.4484 ↗
8. X-ray powder diffraction clustering and quantitative phase analysis on historic mortars10.1127/0935-1221/2013/0025-2263 ↗
9. Noack · 1936
10. The Sarno Bath Complex
11. Kolowski Ostrow · 1990
12. Le Terme del Sarno a Pompei
13. Scavi di Pompei 1888–1890
14. L. Bernardi, M.S. Busana, The Sarno Baths in Pompeii: context and state of the art, J. Cult. Herit., DOI: 10.1016/j.culher.2019.04.012.10.1016/j.culher.2019.04.012 ↗
15. M.S. Busana, L. Bernardi, V. Centola, C. Marson, L. Sbrogiò, The Sarno Baths, Pompeii: architecture development and 3D reconstruction, J. Cult. Herit., DOI: 10.1016/j.culher.2019.04.011.10.1016/j.culher.2019.04.011 ↗
16. The Evolution of the Vitruvian Recipes over 500 Years of Floor‐Making Techniques: The Case Studies of the Domus delle Bestie Ferite and the Domus di Tito Macro (Aquileia, Italy)10.1111/arcm.12305 ↗
17. G. Furlan, J. Bonetto and C. Nicosia, The excavation of the sequence preserved in front of the façade of the Sarno Baths, J. Cult. Herit., DOI: 10.1016/j.culher.2019.04.01910.1016/j.culher.2019.04.019 ↗
18. Selecting the most reliable 14C dating material inside the mortars: the origin of the Padua cathedral10.1017/RDC.2018.147 ↗
19. A profile refinement method for nuclear and magnetic structures10.1107/S0021889869006558 ↗
20. Correction of intensities for preferred orientation in powder diffractometry: application of the March model10.1107/S0021889886089458 ↗
21. Polino · 2015
22. Supplementary cementitious materials, reviews in mineralogy and geochemistry10.1515/9781501508356-008 ↗
23. Ancient plaster technology: Petrographic and microstratigraphic analysis of plaster-based building materials from the Temple of Venus, Pompeii
24. Properties and applications of natural pozzolanas
25. The AFm phase in Portland cement10.1016/j.cemconres.2006.10.010 ↗
26. Sea-Water Concretes and their Material Characteristics
27. Taylor · 1997
28. Melander · 1993
29. Piovesan · 2009
30. Genesis of zeolites in the Neapolitan Yellow Tuff: geological, volcanological and mineralogical evidence10.1007/s004100050571 ↗
31. Les savoir-faire des maçons romains, entre connaissance technique et disponibilité des matériaux. Le cas pompéien
32. R. Piovesan, L. Maritan, G. Meneghin, C. Previato, S. Baklouti, R. Sassi and C. Mazzoli, Stones of the façade of the Sarno Baths, Pompeii: a mindful construction choice, J. Cult. Herit., DOI: 10.1016/j.culher.2019.04.01010.1016/j.culher.2019.04.010 ↗
33. Mechanical resilience and cementitious processes in Imperial Roman architectural mortar10.1073/pnas.1417456111 ↗
34. On the Structure of the Roman Pantheon10.1080/00043079.1986.10788309 ↗
35. Lancaster · 2005
36. Lancaster · 2015
37. M.R. Valluzzi, F. Lorenzoni, R. Deiana, S. Taffarel, C. Modena, Non-destructive investigations for structural qualification of the Sarno Baths, Pompeii, J. Cult. Herit., DOI: 10.1016/j.culher.2019.04.01510.1016/j.culher.2019.04.015 ↗
38. F. Lorenzoni, M.R. Valluzzi, C. Modena, Seismic assessment and numerical modelling of the Sarno Baths, Pompeii, J. Cult. Herit., DOI: 10.1016/j.culher.2019.04.017.10.1016/j.culher.2019.04.017 ↗
39. Cizer · 2009
40. Competition between hydration and carbonation in hydraulic lime and lime-Pozzolana mortars10.4028/www.scientific.net/AMR.133-134.241 ↗
41. Comparative properties of a lime mortar with different metakaolin and natron additions10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2016.03.170 ↗
42. M. Monego, A. Menin, M. Fabris and V. Achilli, 3D survey of Sarno Baths (Pompeii) by integrated geomatic methodologies, J. Cult. Herit., DOI: 10.1016/j.culher.2019.04.013.10.1016/j.culher.2019.04.013 ↗