Mater. Res. Soc. Symp. Proc. Vol.

1319 © 2011 Materials Research Society

DOI: 10.1557/opl.2011.927

Methods of Faience Manufacture in Antiquity: Investigation of Colorants and

Technological Processes

Lesley Frame1, Donna Bright DeSordao, Yuan-Chi Chiang1, and Pamela Vandiver1

¹Department of Materials Science and Engineering, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ. 85721,
USA
ºDepartment of Anthropology, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ. 85721, USA

ABSTRACT

Faience production methods include efflorescence, direct glaze application, and

cementation glazing. However, similar processing has been used with a variety of other
materials, such as glazed monolithic quartz, ground and re-fired faience, and steatite bodies.
Furthermore, faience technology has been linked by similar processing to glass, synthetic
pigment and glazing technologies. Here we reinforce these cross-craft relationships by
comparing the range of similar functioning chemical elements in faience and glazed artifacts
from a variety of archaeological sites that range from the Indus Valley to the Mediterranean.
This broad comparative method based primarily on x-ray fluorescence analysis reveals trends in
faience production, relationships with metallurgical technologies, and aspects of processing that
provide areas of study that may be considered more closely in the future.

BACKGROUND AND INTRODUCTION

Faience was first used for the fabrication of small objects during the 5th and 4th millennia
BCE, including amulets, scarabs, beads, and jewelry [1, p. 156]. During the Early Dynastic
period (3rd millennium BCE) and later, vessels, larger statues, and tiles were made of faience
[1,2,3,4]. This material has proven to be quite ubiquitous throughout the ancient world,
appearing at archaeological sites throughout the Indus Valley, Mesopotamia, Levant, Nile
Valley, and Mediterranean [5,6].

Researchers have often linked the early manufacture of faience to other glass and glazing
industries of the ancient world [1,2,7,8,9]. Faience is a likely transitional material from ceramic
pastes to glass and glazes because of the raw materials it incorporates (frit and flux) and the way
the material can be colored (using transition metals at various oxidation states). The data
presented here include the preliminary results of a broad effort to examine patterns in the
selection and use of colorants and fluxes (composition) and technological processes for faience
manufacture. By examining a wide range of faience samples from Northern Africa, the Levant,
Mesopotamia and select sites farther east in Asia, it is possible to identify several compositional
trends.

We have also examined a small collection of modern replica faience amulets, beads and
tourist “trinkets” in an effort to characterize different technological processes employed for
production. Faience manufacture has been carefully categorized by others to include
efflorescence, direct glaze application, and cementation glazing methods [1,2,3,8,9,10,11].
These processes usually result in faience objects with ground quartz bodies and “glassy”
exteriors. We examine a separate technological process involving glazed steatite [12,13,21].
This process was used when intricate detail was desired. The steatite substrate can be carefully
carved and then coated with a blue-green glaze to give a faience-like finished product but with
more precise detail than is achievable with faience. The application of glaze to the steatite can
take several forms including direct application by painting or dipping, or vapor phase deposition
during firing. These different applications (direct or vapor phase) require different processing
temperatures, times, and atmospheres. Further, the structure and microstructure of the resulting
glaze layer is different.

SAMPLE INVENTORY

The samples in this study come from a variety of sites and dates. Table I provides a
summary of the samples and contexts. In addition to the faience from these known
archaeological contexts, we also examined a faience collection with questionable date and
provenance that was gifted to the Arizona State Museum. These were first examined with an
optical microscope by one of us (Bright De Sorda) to screen for many obvious stylistic signs of
forgery. The bottom of Table I includes these comparative samples.

In terms of the archaeological faience, the fragments in this study range in date from the
rd
3 millennium BCE through the Early Islamic period, perhaps as late as 1300 CE. Further, the
samples in this study include faience as well as blue-green glazes, Egyptian blue, and blue-green
coated plaster. These were all included because they represent a similar craft practices and
knowledge in terms of working with vitreous materials and a limited set of colorants. Samples
from Lisht and Memphis are from faience factories, but the others come from a range of contexts
including burials, domestic, and surface contexts. The Memphis samples are from two kilns:
Kom Hellul and Kom el Qalana, and they have been provided by the Ashmolean Museum. The
samples from Tell Taya were provided by the British Museum and this site returned several
faience beads and vessel fragments from both domestic and ritualistic contexts [22,23]. The
material from Godin Tepe was kindly provided by the late T. Cuyler Young, Jr. and the Royal
Ontario Museum. Two of these beads date to Godin Period III:2 (1900 – 1600 BCE) and one
bead dates to Godin IV (2950 – 2700 BCE). Samples from Nuzi are from an American led
excavation in the late 1930s (directed by Richard Starr) and they were provided by the Semitic
Museum at Harvard University. The Nahal Hemar plaster beads are from the Peabody Museum
at Harvard. The Nahal Hemar beads have been studied elsewhere and they were shown to
consist of calcite crystals and burnt lime with pigment coatings [24], here we examine the
composition of the pigment coatings of two beads.

The two modern samples of glazed steatite were purchased in Egypt from the same
workshop that makes faience and steatite for resale in museum shops.
Table I: Inventory of archaeological samples including source, approximate date and brief
description of artifacts analyzed.
Site Date Samples included
Kerma, Sudan, Museum of 2000 BCE 27 samples of tiles, glazed quartz,
Fine Arts, Boston vessels, beads and figurines
Meroe, Sudan 6th C BCE 3 faience beads from necklace
Nuri, Sudan 3rd C BCE 6 samples of glaze and faience
Badari, Egypt 3000 BCE 2 faience beads from tombs
Saqarra, Egypt 2600 BCE 1 faience tile, white body and blue glaze
Giza, Egypt 2500 BCE 1 tile: blue core, white underglaze, blue
glaze
Abydos, Egypt 2200 BCE 2 faience fragments from Tomb of Pepy
and Grave 614
Lisht, Egypt 1500 BCE 6 faience fragments
Karnak, Egypt 1350 BCE 3 faience beads
Rammeside, Egypt 1250 BCE 2 frit beads
El Kab, Egypt 1100 BCE 2 faience beads from graves
Memphis, Egypt 4th C BCE 12 samples of glaze, faience, frit, and
Egyptian blue
Mons Claudianus, Egypt 3rd - 1st C BCE 2 sherds with blue and turquoise glaze
Fustat, Egypt, Victoria and 700-1200 CE 14 Qom beads
Albert Museum, London
Nahal Hemar, Israel, 6th mill. BCE 2 plaster beads with surface coating
Peabody Museum
Tell Yinnan, Israel 2nd mill. BCE 1 Egyptian blue fragment
Tell Taya, Iraq 2500 - 2000 2 faience fragments
BCE
Nuzi, Iraq, Semitic 1450 BCE 6 faience samples (5 beads and 1 spacer)
Museum, Harvard
University, Cambridge
Khorsabad, Iraq, Oriental 8th C BCE 2 samples (faience cup fragment and
Inst., University of Chicago small wall tile fragments)
Godin Tepe, Iran, Royal 2950 – 2700 8 faience beads ranging in color (yellow,
Ontario Museum, Toronto and 1900 – black, blue, white, peach, brown)
1600 BCE
Harappa, Pakistan 2500 BCE 9 samples of faience bracelets, bangles,
vessels, and slag
Chanhu Daro, Pakistan 2300 – 1800 8 samples of faience bracelets, beads,
BCE seals, beads, and fragments
Qom beads, Victoria and 1300 CE 3 Qom beads
Albert Museum, London
Mixed contexts, Arizona unknown 40 artifacts (shwabtis, beads, amulets)
State Museum Collection
Modern Samples, Cairo modern 2 steatite faience glazed scarabs
Total Samples included in this study: 166
PART I: FAIENCE AND GLAZE COMPOSITIONS

Compositional variability in glasses, glazes, and faience reflects several different aspects
of these technological processes. Fluxes are added to the glasses with the main effect of
lowering the melting temperature of the material, and these include alkali and alkaline earth
elements (e.g., Na, Mg, Ca, K). Flux recipes typically reflect both the raw materials available—
for example, different recipes are common for coastal versus desert workshop areas—and the
preferences of a particular workshop [14,15]. Colorants, on the other hand, are added to the
glasses or glassy raw materials with the effect of changing the color. These include transition
metals and the exact color depends on the concentration and the oxidation state of the element(s),
as well as the combination of colorants and fluxing elements in solution in the glass. It is
possible to achieve similar colors with vastly different glass recipes, and this variability in
composition reflects the choices made by a particular craftsperson or workshop tradition. By
examining the compositional variability across a large region, trends in technological styles
become apparent. Because we are interested in these technological choices, we have limited our
investigation to only “blue-green” colored faience at this time. The collections did include
purple, red, and yellow faience as well, but the colorants chosen for these objects may have
reflected a desire for a particular color, rather than regional preference for a particular element.
One exception to this criterion for sample selection is that we also included white faience since
weathered green and blue faience can appear quite pale or even white, and, in fact, several of the
faience beads from Godin Tepe (Gd67-412) were white with small areas of green, indicating that
their original color was probably blue-green.

Compositional analyses were conducted using a Bruker Tracer III-V portable x-ray
fluorescence instrument. All faience samples were measured using two settings: (1) 40kV
applied voltage with a filter consisting of 0.003” Cu, 0.001” Ti, and 0.012”Al, and (2) 15kV
applied voltage and a 0.001” Ti filter to block the Rh target L x-rays and with a vacuum applied.

The results are shown graphically in Figures 1 and 2 for the 40kV and 15kV settings
respectively. In order to compensate for differences in sample size and total x-ray counts among
analyses, the results in Fig. 1 were obtained by integrating the area under each element peak and
normalizing against the Compton scatter (energy range 18.4 – 19.8 keV), and the results in Fig. 2
reflect the ratio of the integrated peak of interest normalized to the Si integrated peak. A few
trends are immediately obvious. The main colorants for these samples Cu, Sn, and Pb, with the
exception of one of the Karnak beads, which is relatively high in Mn.

The Egyptian samples contain a wide range of colorants, and several patterns are
apparent. First, the appearance of Pb as a major constituent occurs during the Ptolemaic period
as shown with the samples from Memphis. It continues into Islamic periods as shown with the
Fustat and V & A Museum Qom beads. The presence of Pb during the Ptolemaic period is
consistent with other research [7] indicating that leaded glazes were introduced during this time,
and the combination of high amounts of Pb along with Sn, Sb, and As for these Ptolemaic
samples may be further evidence to support the claim that bronzes were used as a source of
copper for coloring glasses, glazes, faience and Egyptian blue at this time period [7]. Further,
the lack of Pb in the samples from Sudan dating to this period (Meroe and Nuri), would suggest
that blue leaded glasses and glazes have roots in Egyptian workshops—a hypothesis previously
suggested by others [7]. Another unique aspect of the Egyptian samples is that Karnak is the
only site (for the samples analyzed) that contains large amounts of Mn in the blue glaze—Mn
was found in the purple and red frits, glazes, and faience fragments from other sites, but these
results are not shown in the above graphs. In the Sudan, Nuri is unique in the higher Ag content
of the faience samples paired with slightly higher Sn, and Meroe and Kerma are characterized by
the low concentration of all colorants other than Cu.

The Islamic period is marked by the onset of higher Zn content, and among the earlier
samples, only Nuzi shows high Zn (along with high Ag, Sb, and Pb, and no Sn). The Nuzi
samples are in contrast to the other samples from Iraq and Iran from slightly earlier periods, but
the presence of Zn in the faience of Nuzi is not altogether surprising since this site has already
been shown to produce some of the earliest examples of brass metal artifacts as well [16,17].
The samples from Godin Tepe show moderate levels of As, but the ratio of Cu:As is consistent
for all samples. Bronze Age Iran is well known for its arsenical copper alloys, and it is possible
that the pairing of these elements in the faience samples reflects the use of Cu-As alloys as the
source material for faience colorants for these artifacts. Additional analyses of these samples
including quantitative compositional studies, and lead isotope analysis may prove to shed further
light on this relationship. The Pakistani samples are characterized by having low levels of all
non-copper colorants with the exception of Fe.

Unfortunately Na and Mg cannot be reliably measured using pXRF even with a vacuum
attachment. However, the 15kV results (Figure 2) show that K is higher for Lisht, Karnak,
several of the Kerma tiles, the Islamic samples from Fustat, and several of the samples from
Pakistan. Higher K in these samples could indicate a highland plant ash source. The higher Ca
in the Lisht, Fustat and V & A samples indicates different recipes as well, however, the high Ca
in the Nahal Hemar beads merely reflects that these are plaster beads coated in pigment. The Al
content is highly variable and while large amounts of Al in faience may indicate clay or ash
sources, more research is necessary to fully understand these compositional relationships.

When looking at the faience from the Arizona State Museum (ASM) collection (Figure
3), it is not possible to pinpoint specific areas, but certain conclusions are possible. Two of the
ASM faience samples (354-x-2 and 12166) contain levels of Ca that are more common with the
Islamic samples, and none of the ASM faience objects reflect the same high K contents that are
representative of Lisht. The high Sb, Sn, or Pb of several ASM objects (12165, 12166, 13266,
13295, 13298) matches to the compositions found in the archaeological samples from Memphis
and Fustat. None of the ASM objects reported in Figure 3 fall outside of the compositional
ranges found for the archaeological samples.
scales to show both high and low concentrations.
Figure 1. Colorants identified in the archaeological samples using XRF with 40kV excitation voltage. Results are plotted at three
Ratio of counts Element/Compton scatter

20.00

40.00

60.00
10.00
12.00

0.00
0.00
2.00
4.00
6.00
8.00
0.00

0.05

0.10

0.15

0.20

0.25

0.30
Kerma
Kerma
Kerma
Kerma
Kerma
Kerma
Kerma
Kerma
Kerma
Kerma
Kerma
Kerma
Kerma
Kerma
Kerma
Kerma
Kerma
Kerma
Kerma
Kerma
Kerma
Kerma
Kerma
Kerma
Kerma
Kerma
Kerma
Kerma
Meroe
Meroe
Meroe
Meroe
Nuri
Nuri
Nuri
Nuri
Nuri
Badari Nuri Nuri
Badari
Saqarra Badari
Saqarra
Giza
Giza Abydos
Abydos
d Abydos
o s
Ab y Lisht Lisht
Lisht
Lisht
Lisht
Lisht
Lisht
Lisht
KarnakKarnak
Karnak
Rammeside
Rammeside El
El Kab
Kab
ab
El KMemphis
Memphis
Memphis
Memphis
Memphis
Memphis
Memphis
Memphis
Memphis
Memphis
Memphis
Memphis
Memphis
Memphis
Memphis
Mons Mons Mons
Mons
ClaudianusMons
Mons
Fustat
Fustat
Fustat
Fustat
Fustat
Fustat
Fustat
Fustat
Fustat
Fustat
Fustat
Fustat
Fustat
Fustat
Fustat
Fustat
Fustat
Fustat
Fustat
Fustat
Fustat
Fustat
TellTell Fustat
YinYinnan
nan
NehalTell Nehal
Hemar
Nehal
Tell
a yaTaya
Taya
Tell T Nuzi Nuzi
Nuzi
Nuzi
Nuzi
Nuzi
Nuzi
Khorsabad
Khorsabad
Khorsabad
Godin
Godin Godin
Tepe
Godin
Godin
Harappa
Harappa
Harappa
Harappa
Harappa
Harappa
Harappa
Harappa
Harappa
Harappa
Chanhu
Chanhu
Chanhu
ChanhuChanhu
Daro
Chanhu
Chanhu
Chanhu
Chanhu
V&A
V&A Qom Qom
V&A
V&A Qom
V&A
Qom
V&A
V&A Qom Qom
- As
- Au
- Sb
- Ag
- Zn
- Fe
- Mn
- Pb
- Sn
-Cu
plotted at three scales to show both high and low concentrations.
Figure 2. A selection of elements identified in the archaeological samples using XRF with 15kV excitation voltage. Results are
Ratio of counts Element/Si

100.00

150.00

300.00

450.00

600.00
20.00

40.00

60.00

80.00
0.00

0.00
0.00

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00
Kerma
Kerma
Kerma
Kerma
Kerma
Kerma
Kerma
Kerma
Kerma
Kerma
Kerma
Kerma
Kerma
Kerma
Kerma Kerma
Kerma
Kerma
Kerma
Kerma
Kerma
Kerma
Kerma
Kerma
Kerma
Kerma
Kerma
Kerma
Kerma
Meroe
Meroe
Meroe
Meroe
Nuri
Nuri
Nuri
Nuri
Nuri
Badari Nuri Nuri
Badari
SaqarraSaqarra
Badari
Giza
Giza Abydos
Abydos
d osAbydos
Aby Lisht
Lisht
Lisht
Lisht
Lisht
Lisht
Lisht
Karnak KarnakLisht
Karnak
Rammeside
Rammeside
El
El Kab
Kab
El KabMemphis
Memphis
Memphis
Memphis
Memphis
Memphis
Memphis
Memphis
Memphis
Memphis
Memphis
Memphis
Memphis
Memphis
Memphis
Mons Claudianus
Mons
Mons Claudianus
Mons Claudianus
Claudianus
Mons Claudianus
Mons Claudianus
Fustate
Fustate
Fustate
Fustate
Fustate
Fustate
Fustate
Fustate
Fustate
Fustate
Fustate
Fustat
Fustate
Fustate
Fustate
Fustate
Fustate
Fustate
Fustate
Fustate
Fustate
Fustate
Fustate
Tell Yi
Tell Fustate
nn an
Yinnan
Nehal Hemar
Nehal Hemar
Nehal
Tell
Hemar
Tella Taya
Tell Tay Nuzi
Taya
Nuzi
Nuzi
Nuzi
Nuzi
Nuzi
Nuzi
Khorsabad
Khorsabad
Khorsabad
Godin Tepe
GodinGodin
TepeTepe
Godin Tepe
Godin Tepe
Godin Tepe
Harappa
Harappa
Harappa
Harappa
Harappa
Harappa
Harappa
Harappa
Chanhu Daro
Chanhu Daro
Chanhu Daro
Chanhu
Chanhu DaroDaro
Chanhu
Chanhu Daro
Daro
Chanhu Daro
Chanhu Daro
V&A Museum
V&A Museum
V&A Museum
V&A
V&A Museum
V&A Museum
-P
- Al
- Ti
-K
- Ca
Museum faience objects.
Figure 3. XRF results for 40kV (top) and 15kV (bottom) settings for the Arizona State
Ratio of counts Elements/Si Ratio of counts Elements/Compton scatter

120.00

150.00
10.00

30.00

60.00

90.00

20.00

40.00

60.00
0.00

2.00

4.00

6.00

8.00
0.00

0.20

0.40

0.60

0.80

0.00

0.04

0.08

0.12

0.16
0.00

0.00

1.00

2.00

3.00
0.00
354-x-1 A-30604b
354-x-1 354-x-1
354-x-2 354-x-1
354-x-2 354-x-2
12165 354-x-2
12165 12165
12165
12166
13257-x-1
12166
13257-x-1
12175
13296
12175
13296
13257-x-1
12166
13257-x-1 12166
13266 12175
13285 12175
13287 13266
13290 13285
13292 13286
13293 13287
13295 13290
13296 13292
13296 13293
13297 13295
13297
13298
13298
13303
13303
13308
13308
13308 13308
13314 13314
13316-x-1 13316-x-1
13320 13320
13320 13320
13331 13331
13331 13331
13338 13338
21279 21279
21279 21279
-P
- Al
- Ti
-K
- Ca

- As
- Au
- Sb
- Ag
- Zn
- Fe
- Mn
- Pb
- Sn
-Cu
PART II: METHODS OF MANUFACTURE

The archaeological faience samples included in this study represent many

different methods of manufacture. Most of the finer amulets, beads and scarabs are of the
“efflorescence” method, but there is also an example of pre-fired faience ground up,
reformed and refired (Figure 4). The methods of efflorescence, cementation, and glazing
have been well characterized [1,18,19,20,21], and here we have focused our attention on
the glazed steatite objects (Figures 5 and 6).

Microstructures were examined using a Hitachi S-3400N scanning electron

microscope and energy dispersive spectroscopy was conducted using an SDD Thermo-
Niton system. Figures 7 and 8 show secondary electron images of the two sample
surfaces and the corresponding line scans. These line scans illustrate the diffusion
profiles of the copper-rich glaze into the steatite substrates. In the case of sample 7 there
is a 7 m thick layer of calcium between the steatite and the glaze; perhaps a preparatory
layer or slip. This layer is not present in sample 13, and the diffusion of copper into the

Figure 4. Faience tubular bead and secondary electron image of a fresh-fractured

surface showing ground particles of pre-fired faience.

A
B

Figure 5. Two modern glazed steatite scarab beads (A) top view of sample
7, and (B) top and side view of sample 13.
 Figure 6. Cross sections for modern samples 7 (left) and 13 (right) reveal that
glaze has pooled in the crevices of both artifacts. The white layer is visible
(arrow) in sample 7 and the large diffusion profile is visible in sample 13.
steatite for sample 13 is much deeper. The greater diffusion profile indicates longer
duration and/or higher temperatures for processing with sample 13 compared to sample 7.

8000 350

7000 300
6000
250
5000
200
4000
150
3000
100
2000

1000 50

0 0 Cu
Mg
120 100 80 60 40 20 0 Si
Distance ( m) Ca

Figure 7. Modern sample 7 secondary electron image and corresponding line scan results
showing the Ca layer (arrows) and the diffusion of Cu into the substrate.
 250 8000

7000
200
6000

150 5000

4000
100 3000

2000
50
1000

0 Ca
0
Cu
0 50 100 150 Mg
Distance (m) Si

Figure 8. Secondary electron image of sample 13 with corresponding line scan.

CONCLUSIONS

It has been previously noted by others that faience technology is closely related to
both ceramic and glass /glazing technologies. The evidence reported here suggests a
strong relationship with metallurgical technology as well—especially for the Egyptian,
Nuzi, and Iranian samples. With additional data it may be possible to further differentiate
among the production areas in Egypt and the rest of the Eastern Mediterranean, but as
these data stand, Sudan exhibits a different range of compositions than farther north, and
Pakistan exhibits a unique compositional signature compared to other contemporaneous
sites.

In addition, this examination of glazed steatite beads provides the preliminary

data for future studies examining the diffusion of copper into steatite substrates. Future
experimental studies will help to illuminate processing conditions required to achieve
these diffusion profiles.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The authors would like to thank the many curators and archaeologists who
entrusted us with fragments for analysis Andrew Watson, Harold Leibowitz, William O.
Williamson, Roger R.S. Moorey, Joseph Green, Peter Lacovara, George Dalles, Mark
Kenoyer, Ofar Bar-Yosef and Robert Henrickson, among others. We thank staff at the
Arizona State Museum, Michael Jacobs, Nancy Odegaard and Gina Watkinson, for their
assistance in this project. We acknowledge Richard Wilkinson for his assistance with the
identification of fake faience artifacts. We also give our sincere thanks to Bruker AXS
and Bruce Kaiser for generously lending us a Bruker Tracer XRF instrument for these
analyses and for serving as a mentor during many of the steps in this analysis.

REFERENCES

1. A. Kaczmarczyk, R.E. Hedges, Ancient Egyptian Faience: An Analytical Survey of

Egyptian Faience from Predynastic to Roman Times (Warminster: Aries & Philips
Ltd. 1983)
2. P. Vandiver, in Ancient Egyptian Faience: An Analytical Survey of Egyptian Faience
from Predynastic to Roman Times (Warminster: Aries & Philips Ltd. A1-A144, 1983)
3. A. Lucas, J. R. Harris, Ancient Egyptian Material and Industries. (Histories &
Mysteries of Man LTD, London 1989, originally 1962).
4. A. Jamieson, Ceramics Technical. 17, 82-87 (2003).
5. C. Swann, P. McGovern, F.J. Fleming. Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics
Research Section B. 45, 311-314 (1990).
6. R.K. Liu, Ornament Magazine 32, 40-47 (2009).
7. I. Kakoulli, in From Mine to Microscope (Oxbow Books, Oxford 2009).
8. Th. Rehren, J. of Archaeological Science, 35, 1345-1354 (2008).
9. M. Tite, Archaeometry, 29, 21–34 (1987).
10. M. Tite, I.C. Freestone, M. Bimson, Archaeometry, 25, 17-27 (1983).
11. S. La Delfa, V. Formisano, E. Ciliberto, J. of Cultural Heritage, 9, 113-116 (2008).
12. H.C. Beck, Ancient Egypt and the East, Part I, 64-83 (June, 1934).
13. H.C. Beck, Ancient Egypt and the East, Part II, 19-37 (Dec., 1934).
14. M. Tite, A. Shortland, Y. Maniatis, D. Kavoussanaki, S.A. Harris, J. of
Archaeological Science, 33, 1284-1292 (2006).
15. S. Tanimoto, Th. Rehren, J. of Archaeological Science, 35, 2566-2573 (2008).
16. C.P. Thornton, In Metals and Mines: Studies in Archaeometallurgy. (London:
Archetype Publications, p.123-135, 2007).
17. C.P. Thornton, C. Ehlers IAMS Journal, 23, 3–8 (2003).
18. M. Tite, P. Manti, A. Shortland, J. of Archaeological Science, 34, 1568-1583 (2007).
19. M. Tite, M. Bimson, Archaeometry, 28, 69-78 (1986).
20. A. Shortland, M. Tite, Archaeometry, 47, 31-46 (2005).
21. M. Tite, M. Bimson, World Archaeology, 21, 87-100 (1989).
22. J.E. Reade, Iraq, 33, 87-100 (1971).
23. J.E. Reade, Iraq, 35, 155-187 (1973).
24. Y. Goren, I. Segal, O. Bar-Yosef, J. of the Israel Prehistoric Society, 25, 120-131
(1993).