Tesi rotondaro eleonora

ALMA MATER STUDIORUM BOLOGNA UNIVERSITY Scuola di Scienze Master Degree Programme in SCIENCE FOR THE CONSERVATION – RESTORATION OF CULTURAL HERITAGE

“Ceramics of Andronovo Culture and Namazga VI from alluvial fun of the Murghab River (Turkmenistan): mineralogical and geochemical characterization” Master’s Thesis in “Mineralogical and petrographical characterization of natural and artificial stones materials”

Supervisor

Presented by

Prof. Giuseppe Maria Bargossi

Eleonora Rotondaro

Co-supervisor Prof. Vanna Minguzzi Dott. Lynne M. Rouse Dott. Barbara Cerasetti

III Session Academic Year 2011-2012

Index 1.Introduction 2. History 2.1.Geographicalcal context 2.2. The Archaeological Research 2.3. History of occupation in the Murghab alluvial fan 3.Samples 3. 1Data sample 4. Analytical techniques 4.1. Samples treatment 4.2. X-Ray Diffraction 4.3. Thermal analysis 4.4. X-Ray Fluorescence 4.5. Data elaboration 4.51. Cluster analysis 4.5.2. Scatter graphs 5. Analytical Data 5.1.Mineralogical data 5.2. Thermal data 5.3. Chemical data 5.4. Statistical elaboration 6. Discussion 6.1. Composition 6.2. Manufacturing 6.3. Firing temperature 7. Conclusion BiBliography

1. Introduction This Study is a collaboration between the Department of Biological, Geological and Environmental Science (BiGeA) with the Department of Archaeology of the University of Bologna.

The purpose of my thesis is to report the Archaeometric studies regarding the potsherds of the Andronovo Culture (1500-300 B.C.) collected in the Murghab alluvial Fan region in Turkmenistan. In particular the studies are pointed towards the comprehension of the relationship between the nomadic and sedentary populations, characterized by different types of ceramic handworks. The samples from the archaeological site are representatives of both populations, the ceramic classes are not specified because our samples are very little potsherds, not whole vessels.

I have performed geochemical and mineralogical analysis, then I have elaborated the data and cross-checked it with the archaeological data for having a complete view.

In my studies, the goals were: − To define the composition of ceramic fragments with the characterization of Clay material; − To define manufacturing techniques: manufacturing technology and probable firing temperature related to the period; − To check the provenience of finds.

Ceramic fragments are often the most abundant classes of materials present in an archaeological area.

The ceramics could be considered an “artificially” metamorphosed sedimentary rock because they have undergone a heating process (Minguzzi & Nannetti, 2008).

It is composed by clay, feldspars, iron oxide, sand, alumina and quartz.

The most common additives used are: quartz, calcite, dolomite, feldspars, feldspathoid, lithic fragments, carbonous component and chamotte (Veniale, 1994) In ancient pottery we can find: − relict phases: quartz, clay minerals calcite feldspars, which are thermally resistant; − prograde phases: Gehlenite diopside, wallastonite, mullite, cristobalite formed during the firing; − retrograde phases or secondary phases like gypsum and calcite which are formed after firing. (Minguzzi & Nannetti, 2008)

Under the appropriate analysis, pottery provides information about: − Production methods − Use − Dating − Provenance The studies of production methods made on ceramic finds are important in order to understand the technologies and the application capabilities of the population.

The Use of the object is studied by analyzing the shape, the aesthetic, the wear, and the presence of organic substances in the ceramic body.

Ceramic is not an easily alterable material; in fact over the time it maintains chronological information linked to aesthetical trends and allows formal analysis.

Provenance studies of a find can relate to formal/aesthetic levels or come from advanced analytical techniques: X-Ray Fluorescence, X-Ray Diffraction and Thermogravimetric analysis.

The mineralogical analysis is complementary to Petrographical analysis in order to individuate all mineralogical phases present in a ceramic sample. In prograde phases like Gehlenite and secondary Clinopyroxene that are not detected by optical observation, and it is necessary to make a comparison of data in order to have a complete view of mineral composition. Conversely optical observation is useful in order to distinguish primary and secondary calcite, because mineralogical analysis alone cannot characterize them.

2. History 2.1. Geographical context Turkmenistan is situated in central Asia and it is bordered by Afghanistan to the southeast, Iran to the south and southwest, Uzbekistan to the east and northeast, Kazakhstan to the north and northwest and the Caspian Sea to the west.

Fig. 1: Geographical map of Turkmenistan.

Turkmenistan is approximately 488.100 km2 in size, 387.000 km2 of which are covered by different types of deserts, the Kara-kum desert cover almost entirely the surface of Turkmenistan. The Paropamiz and Kopet Dagh mountain ranges and plateaus frame the country’s south-western border. (Cerasetti, Genito, & D’Angelo, 2009) The landscape alternates between arid and steppe desert, characterized by sand dunes (Cerasetti, Genito, & D’Angelo, 2009), that could be moving barchans and stable dunes, and interspersed with takyr-like surfaces1 due to the drying up of areas of standing water, that occasionally form periodic Oasis with vegetation (Coolidge, 2005).

The main rivers are the Amu Dar’ya, Tejen and Murghab. The Murghab River 1 It is a type of relief with occurring in the desert, with bare clay soil , where after the evaporation of water occurs the formation of a characteristics polygonal shapes

rises in the Hindu Kush of Afghanistan, and it transverses the country from south to north, forming a medium-sized land-locked area as it passes through the Kara-kum Desert, where it seep into the soil and make it fertile. The Murghab flow narrow valley of Afghanistan go through shallow lowlands encasing it in lime-stone basement and in a series of Pleistocene gravel conoids. At the end of the river, the water is deposited in a lake called Dzhar, with an elongated shape that extends it parallel to the terminal part of Murghab.

The territory is characterized by continuous evolution due to the change of the ancient river system with the construction of artificial channel and drams that is closely linked to the human activities along the alluvial fan.

2.2. The Archaeological Research The proof of civilization along the Murghab River is in some ceramic potsherds and the trace of settlements along the ancient courses of the stream bed.

Numerous episodes of the international research conducted there.

The first investigation in Turkmenistan was made in 1890 by V. A. Zhukovskij in Merv and General Komarov in Anau, 12 Km east of the modern capital of Ashgabat. In the early 1900s there were other investigations : they understood the importance of the area for the beginning of the civilization.

In 1916 and after more intensely in 1924, the Soviet irrigation engineer and agronomist D.D.Bukinich excavated the Namazga-tepe. In the meantime was founded the “Turkestan Committee for the Preservation of Monuments of Antiquity and Art� also called Turkkomstaris. In 1920 the Turkkomstaris started with the creation the archaeological maps and in order to defence its cultural heritage and together the Turkmen Central Executive Committee (CIK), established for surveying archaeological area it is necessary a explicit permission , from July, 31st 1921. In 1926, the first ethnographic-archaeological team started a systematic survey of the archaeological monuments scattered in Turkmenistan and during a hydro-geological works near Amau, Bukinich discovered the most important archaeological contribution: 7 meters high archaeological sequence (Tosi & Cerasetti).

In 1929, the Institute of Turkmen Culture replaced the ethnographicarchaeological association and it sponsored numerous projects among were the Merv Oasis, in the area between the Tedzhen and Murghab alluvial fans and along the Amudar’ya River.

In the 1930s and the 1950s the scholars decided to study the Civilization in the central Asia in a restricted way in order to define the different degrees of

development of social transformation.

In 1952 B.A. Kuftin studied the Turkmenian territory and investigated Namazga-tepe, defining the first basic Chalcolithic to Late Bronze age (Tosi & Cerasetti) that replaced the stratigraphical sequence of Pumpelly. In Altyn depe he established a first scale of pottery sequence and chronology for all layers of the Bronze Age. The archaeologists Kuftin and V.M. Masson studied the early farming societies and their settlements, trying to make categories of the sites according their size. Masson was the first to establish the Iron Age sequence in Margiana2 and southern Turkmenistan.

The excavation continued with the discovery of the first phase of the Iron Age, at Yaz-tepe (Yaz I, II, III), characterized by painted pottery and higher percentage of wheel made pottery (Tosi & Cerasetti).

During the 1970s the basis of the Bactria Margiana Archaeological Complex (BMAC) were created from the numerous archaeological exploration in Afghanistan and the southern part of Turkmenistan (Tosi & Cerasetti). Bactria is identified between the mountains of Hindu-Kush and Amu Darya (ancient Oxus); Margiana corresponds to the Murghab alluvial fan area and was know by the Greeks as Margianaē or Margiana in Latin and it was named as Margush in the lists of the provinces ruled by the Achaemenid king).

Sarianidi was the first to work to this project and to found it, with the survey in the alluvial fun of Murghab and the discover of Gonur. In the 1980s began the Italian mission in Central Asia with the collaboration of Russian and Turkmen archaeologists. In the first campaign Tosi found the first Andronovo Pottery fragment called by the Italian scholars Incised Coarse Ware and by Soviet scholars Andronovo Ware. The fragment was found to the south of the canal of Takhirbaj, walking to north-West from site No. 38. After the campaign in the Murghab Alluvial fan, archaeologists had the evidence, through the discovery of three specialized camp-sites, of the interaction and the interchange between the agricultural communities and nomadic farmers and own process of stabilization.

The survey and the research are supported by maps that give the opportunity of plan a good archaeological project and with a focused aim. The modern instrument and the maps make it possible to present a hypothesis of the reconstruction of l population movements.

The archaeological Map of the Murghab Delta started in 1990 with a systematic recording of sites and palaeochannels. It was promoted by the Institute of Archaeology of Soviet Academy of Science (Moscow), IARAN, 2 It is the area corresponding to the endorheic delta of Murghab River

State University of Turkmenistan and Istituto Italiano per il medio e l’estremo Oriente of Rome in collaboration with Istituto Universitario Orientale of Naples.

This study aims to understand the peopling of this area through time through the reconstruction of the ancient landscape and settlements. The first step was to reconstruct the palaeochannels for understanding the ancient irrigation system and the evolution of the delta.

In the 1990s the introduction of GPS (global Positioning System) and the full coverage of aerial photographs improved the opportunities to record a data in a singol system.

Geographic Information System (GIS) is supported by a data archive collected during surveys and excavations (Cerasetti, 2001). It is used for reconstructing the population movement with the creation of thematic maps through the settlement distribution pattern. It is possible to create a virtual model of ancient landscape.

The photos made on the visible range of the electromagnetic field are not clear enough due to dense vegetation. The project was integrated with Shuttle Radar Topography Mission (SRTM)3 that consists of a specially modified radar system and allows images to penetrate in the thick blanket of vegetation and alluvial deposits that has deeply transformed the morphology of the Delta. It permits researchers to perform accurate analysis of the original river system.

These photos are integrated with the aerial photo and military maps of 1941 and 1990 (Cattani, Cerasetti, Salvatori, & Tosi).

2.3. History of Occupation in the Murghab.

In Central Asia along the desert plains, the peopling and economic activities are strongly linked to the water-bodies, especially their size and continuity of river course.

The Murghab alluvial Fan has always been the centre of life with a convergence of the complex political and cultural developments of the population that lived there. It is not always easy to detect information about the first settlements, for the intense phenomena of sedimentation. (Cerasetti, 2001) Murghab or Morq-ab, second Persian source, means Water of Birds and Dhazar, Jar in Persian language, means green grazing land, underline the importance of the river that gave support with its fauna and water at the population that lived there (Cerasetti, 2001). For this reason it represents one 3 The srtm is a project sprearheaded by the National Geo-spatial-Intelligence Agency (NGA) and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA)

of the most important cradles of Civilization.

In Turkmenistan, the settlements went from the chalcolithic villages (VIV millennia BC) to the first proto-urban territorial structures born after the Neolithic revolution, with the substitution of the farm villages with the first type of city. The social organization is studied like a pyramidal system that include farmers, shepherds and fishermen that lived in a huge territory.

We don’t have enough information about the Chalcolinithic period and the first phase of ancient Bronze Age, because their layer is at 4 meters deep with respect to the surface and it is recovered by 2 meters of alluvial deposits (Cerasetti, 2001), which do not allow us to study the first historical phases and settlement. In the northern part the sedimentation phenomena is less intense and so it is easier to record the archaeological evidence.

Starting in the Bronze age the traces mark the presence of seasonal campsites, hence the delta was occupied from seasonal animal breeders. The available information about Middle Bronze Age (2400-2100 BC) is increased: more are the geomorphologic studies of the Murghab delta and its riverbed.

The middle Bronze Age site are concentrated in the North-eastern area of Merv Oasis. The presence of ceramics shows the use of the oasis during this period as agricultural soil, it is due also to the proximity of Dhazar. The farmland was between the water courses and the settlement were extend along the main channels. The archaeologist tries to reconstruct the ancient environment with the collection of archaeological data for understanding the history of the settlements.

The Murghab delta was characterized by a huge cultivated area and the main centre of political and social life was Gonur North. The importance of Gonur as Central Place of the Middle Bronze Age is pointed out by a huge amount of anthropomorphic figurines, seals in metal mould and a ceramic production on wheel with a fine paste of clay, which has beige or red colour. The pottery surface is smooth and not decorated..

The Late Bronze Age (2100-1500 BC) is divided into different phases, that take their name from the principal sites: Taip, Gonur South and Togolok. After the discovery of Takhirbaj 1 phase called the Final Bronze Age was introduced (Cattani, 2008).

Late Bronze Age is characterized by a cultural and political- administrative change that characterize also the later Iron Age. In this period the settlement organization was not the more centralized type, but instead a system with two types of settlement models that have a relative autonomy and a low interaction level, perhaps due for the lack of a central political system.

The two type of settlements were: − Nomadic, of incised coarse ware − Sedentary of not incised coarse ware.

The archaeologists do not have a clear idea about the Late Bronze Age yet.

They have still to delineate the general type of territorial organization and to outline the criteria for the coexistence between the sedentary and nomadic populations (Cerasetti, 2001).

In the Final Bronze Age, the agricultural settlement were surrounded by those nomadic occupation, this is documented from the discovers of some potsherds and post hole, due to the pole of the tent, in the archaeological areas (Cerasetti & Rouse, 2010).

The potsherds evidence three type of pottery: − Wheel-made: generally belonging to the Namazga VI sequence associated to settled communities (Late and Final Bronze) ; − Coarse hand-made pottery, without decorative motif; − Coarse hand-made pottery, with decorative motifs, incised or impressed, classified as Incised Coarse Ware (ICW). They are typical of the population from Central Asian Steppes as Andronovo Culture (Cattani, 2008) (Cattani & Salvatori, 2008).

The material production of the Late Bronze Age is a continuation of the previous period, but it differs in distinctive classes like pottery and zoomorphic figures.

The moulded seals have the same morphologic and decorative characteristics but they were realized in chlorite, soapstone and limestone. Regarding the pottery the production did not change more with the manufacturing respect to the Late Bronze Age , the difference is only in the morphology of the vessel (Cerasetti, 2001).

The discovery of Andronovo pottery at specialized camp-site among agricultural communities in the Murghab Delta is a indication of the process of interchange.

This is very important to understand the social dynamics between the two kinds of population that interacted in the Murghab Delta.

The nomadic population of Andronovo Culture came of central Asia, and took the name from the village of Andronovo situated in the north of Urals and east part of Siberia.

The Andronovo culture is developed during the Bronze Age and expanded to the east of the Siberian area, covering other sub-culture: Alkul (XV-XVI sec.

BC) and Fyodorov (end of VIV-XII sec. BC). During the Bronze Age the nomadic population moved along all of central Asia: from Urals to Kashgarian, having their greatest expression in the delta of Murghab as shepherds-breeders.

The archaeological evidence found along the Murghab River suggest that, during the Late Bronze Age, population was integrated in the organization of territory of Namazga VI Culture (1600-1000 BC). The erosion of the riverbed led to the drying up of the lateral river branches and transformed the agricultural soil into grazing land. This facilitated the immigration of seasonal population into this area that was previously inhabited by sedentary farmers. The farmer leased their territories to the shepherds in exchange for products. The consequences were the complete integration of the steppe nomads with the elaboration of both culture, where are adopted tradition and two philosophies of life became interconnected.

The site of Takhirbaj 3 of Final Bronze Age is the perfect example of complete integration between nomadic and sedentary elements. Andronovo site are positioned around a farming village in homogeneous and continuative way.

They are characterized from the same decorated pottery production, but they are distinguished by the chronology and local variation.

During Iron age (Achaeminid Period) the centre of economic and political life is located in the new capital of Yaz-tepe on the Bayram-ali alluvial fan. At the end of the Iron Age the intake of water diminished and the populations migrated to Merv, the new regional centre.

2.4. Archaeological Site Description In general, in Margiana during the survey, it is possible to hit on three categories of sites: − Mounds, formed of massive remains of superimposed architectural masses, which correspond to long-duration central sites; − Low Elevation, from artefact concentration and shallow architectural remains, which correspond to medium-to-short- duration dwelling and industrial areas of permanent settlements; Scatters of artefacts, with almost no surviving sediment, which indicate seasonal occupation. (Cattani, Cerasetti, Salvatori, & Tosi, 2008).

Intermediate situations between three types of sites are not excluded.

Sites under the silt layer, of later alluviation, are not included in this survey

classification, because they are only exposed by occasional archaeological excavations.

During the archaeological campaign, in 2009, the archaeologists focused their attention in an area located in north-West of the alluvial fun of Murghab River where they made transects to study nomadic frequentation. Archaeologists found there site 1744, between Gonur and Auchin (transet c-d). Now, the area is characterized by the presence of palaeochannels and large takyr surrounded by an intense sand covering (Cerasetti & Rouse, 2010).The archaeologist attributed the area to the Andronovo Culture for the exclusive presence of the Incise Coarse Ware and hand-made pottery. The presence of a low central mound confirms the presence of nomadic culture.

In the 2010 the major aim was the exploration of the site 1744, focused on the excavation of sites No.: 1685, 1681, and 1684. The sites No. 1681,1684 and 1685 are EDA4.

SITE No.1681 The area seems to present two phases: the previous as a built up area and the second one as a living area with a large fire-place. The record of Handmade and coarse incised ware potsherds highlight the presence related to the population of Andronovo Culture (Cerasetti & Rouse, 2010).

SITE No.1685 The site represents the working-production area with the Kiln structure and non-permanent living structures. The kiln has central chamber and radial arms.

The central chamber has the principal opening towards the east. The chamber has a depth of over 1m and it is squared with rounded corners and each corner emanates an arm in a radial way. The arm emanated from the middle of the northern wall was not preserved. In the sandy fill of the kiln was found fired and unfired pottery, hand-made sherds and several incised coarse ware sherds but also teeth and bones of several animals intentionally placed (Cerasetti & Rouse, 2010).

SITE No.1684 The site represents a living area. On the topsoil level was present postholes an several fire pits and areas with soil discoloration. Under the topsoil it is identified an area of refuse spread. The stratigraphy shows two phases of the site: the first one living and working area and second one linked to the fire pits and probably with kitchen activities associated to rough ceramics (Cerasetti & Rouse, 2010).

4 Elevate Depositional Area

Fig. 2: Archaeological Area 1744.

Fig. 3: Kiln.

Fig. 4. Site 1684, Living Area

3. Samples 3.1.Data Samples I examined 51 samples including: • 6 wattle and daub from the interior surface walls of the ceramic kiln, taken at the different depths. They are signed with “S” and the progressive number of the depths, 1 was near the top of the Kiln and 5 was near the bottom.

• 45 ceramic fragments signed with “ID” and the progressive number of the sample.

The 45 ceramic fragments came from different archaeological sites.

The samples from ID1 to ID 30 are from excaveted contexts at Site No.1744, which is suddivided into three areas: • Site 1681 living area, samples from ID1 to ID10; • Site 1684 living area, samples from ID11 to ID20 • Site 1685 Production/working area, samples from ID21 to ID30. ID27, ID28, ID29 and ID30 were found inside the fill of a ceramic kiln.

These samples were choosen because they are reppresentative of different paste and inclusion types that were observed during visual/macroscopics analysis carried out in the field in May 2011.

The samples from ID31 to ID44 are surface finds from various sites in the Murghab area, and they are choosen as reppresentative of Andronovo pottery encountered there. They are related to the Late and Final Bronze Ages (ca 1950-1300 BC). In partuicular ID32 comes from a TEPE 2 type site, and the others come from small potsherds scatters or low lying depositional areas (LLDA).

ID45 comes from a Bronze Age house at the rock art site of Tamgaly in Kazakhstan, though archeologists identified it as “BMAC” and thought that it has Murghab origins.

Table 1 shows archaeological information. The samples are arranged following the order of the region, where the sites and the presumed manifacturing are located.In the table the ceramic classes also specified.

The archaeologic table is completed with pottery photos, which complete the description of the samples.

Table 1: Archaeological references.

Fig. 5: Map of Archaeological Sites (Turkmenistan).

Fig.6: Archaeological Site Tamgali in Kazakstan.

Fig. 7a: ID1.

Fig. 7b: ID1, stereomicroscope image of fractured surface. Max.thickness 6 mm Min. Thickness 5 mm.

Fig. 8a: ID2.

Fig. 8b: ID2, stereomicroscope image of fractured surface. Max.thickness 5 mm, Min. Thickness 5 mm.

Fig. 9: ID3.

Fig. 9b: ID3, stereomicroscope image of fractured surface. Max.thickness 10 mm, Min. Thickness 10 mm.

Fig. 10a: ID4.

Fig. 10b: ID4, stereomicroscope image of fractured surface. Max.thickness 7,5 mm, Min. Thickness 6,5 mm.

Fig. 11a: ID5.

Fig. 11b: ID5, stereomicroscope image of fractured surface. Max.thickness 6,5 mm, Min. Thickness 5,5 mm.

Fig. 12a: ID6.

Fig. 12b: ID6, stereomicroscope image of fractured surface. Max.thickness 8 mm, Min. Thickness 7 mm.

Fig. 13a: ID7.

Fig. 13b: ID7, stereomicroscope image of fractured surface. Max.thickness 8,5 mm, Min. Thickness 8 mm.

Fig. 14a: ID8.

Fig.14b: ID8, stereomicroscope image of fractured surface. Max.thickness 8 mm, Min. Thickness 6 mm.

Fig.15a: ID9.

Fig.15b: ID9, stereomicroscope image of fractured surface. Max.thickness 7 mm, Min. Thickness 7 mm.

Fig. 16a: ID10.

Fig.16b, ID10, stereomicroscope image of fractured surface. Max.thickness 6,5 mm, Min. Thickness 6,5 mm.

Fig. 17a: ID11.

Fig. 17b: ID11, stereomicroscope image of fractured surface. Max.thickness 12 mm, Min. Thickness 9 mm.

Fig. 18a: ID12.

Fig.18b, ID12, stereomicroscope image of fractured surface. Max.thickness 6 mm, Min. Thickness 6 mm.

Fig. 19a: ID13.

Fig.19b: ID13, stereomicroscope image of fractured surface. Max.thickness 7 mm, Min. Thickness 7 mm.

Fig .20a: ID14.

Fig.20b: ID14, stereomicroscope image of fractured surface. Max.thickness 6,5 mm, Min. Thickness 6,5 mm.

Fig.21a: ID15.

Fig. 21b: ID15, stereomicroscope image of fractured surface. Max.thickness 9 mm, Min. Thickness 7 mm.

Fig. 22a: ID16.

Fig. 22b: ID16, stereomicroscope image of fractured surface. Max.thickness 6 mm, Min. Thickness 6 mm.

Fig. 23a: ID17.

Fig. 23b: ID17, stereomicroscope image of fractured surface. Max.thickness 11 mm, Min. Thickness 11 mm.

Fig. 24a: ID18.

Fig. 24b: ID18, stereomicroscope image of fractured surface. Max.thickness 7 mm, Min. Thickness 6 mm.

Fig. 25a: ID19.

Fig. 25b: ID19, stereomicroscope image of fractured surface. Max. thickness 6,5 mm, Min. Thickness 6,5 mm.

Fig.26a: ID20.

Fig. 26b: ID20, stereomicroscope image of fractured surface. Max .thickness 9 mm, Min. Thickness 9 mm.

Fig. 27a: ID21.

Fig. 27b: ID21, stereomicroscope image of fractured surface. Max. thickness 8 mm, Min. Thickness 8 mm.

Fig. 28a: ID22.

Fig. 28b: ID22, stereomicroscope image of fractured surface. Max. thickness 10 mm, Min. Thickness 10 mm.

Fig. 29a: ID23.

Fig. 29b: ID23, stereomicroscope image of fractured surface. Max. thickness 7 mm, Min. Thickness 6 mm.

Fig. 30a: ID24.

Fig. 30b: ID24, stereomicroscope image of fractured surface. Max. thickness 7,5 mm, Min. Thickness 6 mm.

Fig.31a: ID25.

Fig. 31b: ID25, stereomicroscope image of fractured surface. Max. thickness 6,5 mm, Min. Thickness 6,5 mm.

Fig. 32a: ID26.

Fig. 32b: ID26, stereomicroscope image of fractured surface. Max. thickness 5 mm, Min. Thickness 4,5 mm.

Fig. 33a: ID27.

Fig. 33: ID27, stereomicroscope image of fractured surface. Max. thickness 10 mm, Min. Thickness 9 mm.

Fig. 34a: ID28.

Fig. 34b: ID28, stereomicroscope image of fractured surface. Max. thickness 7 mm, Min. Thickness 7 mm.

Fig. 35a: ID29.

Fig. 35b: ID29, stereomicroscope image of fractured surface. Max. thickness 5,5 mm, Min. Thickness 5,5 mm.

Fig. 36a: ID30.

Fig. 36b: ID30, stereomicroscope image of fractured surface. Max. thickness 13,5 mm, Min. Thickness 11,5 mm.

Fig. 37a: ID31.

Fig. 37b: ID31, stereomicroscope image of fractured surface. Max. thickness 7 mm, Min. Thickness 6 mm.

Fig. 38a: ID32.

Fig. 38b: ID32, stereomicroscope image of fractured surface. Max. thickness 10 mm, Min. Thickness 10 mm.

Fig.39a: ID33.

Fig. 39b, stereomicroscope image of fractured surface. Max. thickness 9,5 mm, Min. Thickness 9,5 mm.

Fig. 40a: ID34.

Fig. 40b: ID34, stereomicroscope image of fractured surface. Max. thickness 5 mm, Min. Thickness 4,5 mm.

Fig. 41a: ID35.

Fig. 41b: ID35, stereomicroscope image of fractured surface. Max. thickness 8 mm, Min. Thickness 7 mm.

Fig. 42a: ID36.

Fig. 42b: ID36, stereomicroscope image of fractured surface. Max. thickness 6,5 mm, Min. Thickness 6 mm.

Fig. 43a: ID37.

Fig. 43b: ID37, stereomicroscope image of fractured surface. Max. thickness 6,5 mm, Min. Thickness 6 mm.

Fig.44a: ID38.

Fig. 44b: ID38, stereomicroscope image of fractured surface. Max. thickness 6 mm, Min. Thickness 6 mm.

Fig.45a: ID39.

Fig.45b: ID39, stereomicroscope image of fractured surface. Max. thickness 8 mm, Min. Thickness 8 mm.

Fig. 46a: ID40.

Fig. 46b: ID40, stereomicroscope image of fractured surface. Max. thickness 10 mm, Min. Thickness 9 mm.

Fig.47a: ID41.

Fig.47b: ID41, stereomicroscope image of fractured surface. Max. thickness 8 mm, Min. Thickness 7,5 mm.

Fig. 48a: ID42.

Fig. 48b: ID42, stereomicroscope image of fractured surface. Max. thickness 8 mm, Min. Thickness 8 mm.

Fig. 49a: ID43.

Fig. 49b: ID43, stereomicroscope image of fractured surface. Max. thickness 8 mm, Min. Thickness 7 mm.

Fig. 50a: ID44.

Fig. 50b: ID44, stereomicroscope image of fractured surface. Max. thickness 8 mm, Min. Thickness 8 mm.

Fig. 51a: ID45.

Fig. 51b: ID45, stereomicroscope image of fractured surface. Max. Thickness 8 mm, Min. Thickness 8 mm.

Fig. 52a: S1.

Fig. 52b: S1, stereomicroscope image.

Fig. 53a: S2.

Fig. 53b: S2, stereomicroscope image.

Fig. 54a: S3.

Fig. 54b: S3 stereomicroscope image.

Fig. 55a: S4.

Fig. 55b: S4 stereomicroscope image.

Fig.56a: S5A.

Fig.56b: S5A, stereomicroscope image.

Fig. 57a:S5B.

Fig. 57b: S5B stereomicroscope image.

4. Analytical Techniques 4.1. Samples treatment Before performing the analysis I cleaned the samples by abrasion with a diamond file, in order to avoid possible soil contaminants. Then I pulverized all samples with a mechanical and manual agate mortar, for obtaining a fine powder used to determine: − Mineralogical composition by X-Ray Diffraction Analysis (XRD); − Thermal behaviour by thermal analysis (TG, DTG, DTA); − Chemical composition of major elements, trace elements by X-Ray Fluorescence (XRF); − Statistical elaboration.

4.2. X-Ray Diffraction With the XRD technique is possible to identify and distinguish the different mineralogical phases present in each sample.

The Diffractometre autoscan PHILIPS PW1710 was used for mineralogical analysis. It has a copper tube, which emits monochromatic Cu (Kα) radiation with a wavelength equal to =1.542, and a computer that calculates through a Philips software the interplanar distances “d(hkl)” equal to each angle 2θ and calculates relative intensity of each reflection.

In order to perform the analysis, the pulverized powder from the samples with a drop of deionised water was placed on glass slide.

The samples were analyzed maintaining unchanged angular interval and the following instrumental conditions: − Alimentation: 30mA e 40 KV − Sensibility: 1000 stoks per second − T.C. (Time Constant): 2 − Velocity goniometer: 1 degree/minute. − Range: 3°-70° (2θ).

In addition to the mineralogical phases investigation, the XRD analysis allows to a semi-quantitative analysis showing the intensity of the main peaks of each phases.

4.3.Thermal Analysis (TG, DTG, DTA) For performing this analysis I used a SETARAM Apparatus, Labys model, which required about 40 ml ~ of powered sample.

The analysis is carried out by subjecting the samples to a progressive heating rate, with constant velocity, starting from ambiental temperature to a predetermined temperature. In this case the operating conditions were: − Heating rate = 20°/minute − Heating range 20°-1000°C − CO2 atmosphere, for identifying and quantifying of the carbonates.

The thermal analysis allowed us to identify and to quantify the LOSS ON IGNITION (LOI) to which the samples were submitted in determinate temperature range.

The LOI less than 200°C was not considered in the calculation of LOI inserted in the chemical analysis, because it is retained variable and casual parameter, and it is not so discriminating. The loss included in the range between 600° and 1000°C was attributed to CO2 tied to the calcite present in the sample and therefore used for its quantification.

CaCO3

CaO + CO2

For calculating the Calcite, the loss of weight (%) relative to CO2 is used.

Then, for quantifying this phase , the loss of weight measurement is multiplied with the factor of transformation 2.2742.

4.4. X-Ray Fluorescence In order to perform the analysis It is necessary to prepare the samples in pressed pellets. I carried out the analysis with a spectrometer PHILIPS PW 1480/10 with a tube in Rh. This technique shows information about value of concentration of major elements, expressed in oxides (wt %), and trace elements, expressed in ppm (part per million): − Major elements: Si, Ti, Al, Fe, Mn, Mg, Ca, Na, K, P. − Trace elements: V, Cr, Co, Ni, Cu, Zn, Rb, Sr, Y, Zr, Nb, Ba, La, Ce. Values of the chemical elements are calculated by the LOI (200°-1000°C), which was obtained with the thermal analysis.

4.5. Statistical elaboration The chemical data obtained are elaborated through cluster analysis and scatter graphs.

4.5.1. Cluster Analysis Cluster analysis or clustering is the task of grouping a set of objects. These groups, called clusters, share the same characteristics. In this case they are based on the measure of the chemical elements obtained by the XRF analysis.

The clusters are built through a specific algorithm; the first step is the “measure� that evaluates similarity or dissimilarity, between the elements. Measurement of dissimilarity is calculated from the choice of a function of pairs of variables in the two cases (similarity or dissimilarity). The function takes the general name of Distance.

The distance index used in my analysis is the Squared Euclidean Distance:

It gives greater importance to the elements over to a certain distance.

The second step of the clustering elaboration is to choose the method of classification. There are many clustering methods that allow different groupings of a dataset. Generally they may be divided in Non-hierarchical and Hierarchical methods. In this study it has been chosen the Method of Hierarchical classification because is based on the idea that: the closer elements have a closer relationship, compared to the elements farther away.

The groups are represented through a dendrogram, where the Y axis marks the distances between the groups and the X axis marks the individual units.

Each branch in the diagram is a group (cluster), while the line of conjunction (horizontal line) of the branches identifies the level of distances where the groups are linked.

To evaluate the distance the Average-Linkage Method is used, which is based on the average of distances.

This statistical analysis is calculated with SPSS Software.

In the calculation of cluster analysis I have excluded P2O5 because it is linked to pollution agents and it would lead astray the results.

4.5.2. Scatter graphs Scatter graphs are used in order to visualize relations and variations between numerical values of two groups in a unique serial of coordinate XY. In this study they have been used for better understanding the relations between the samples using chemical data that are heterogeneous.

5. Analytical Data 5.1. Mineralogical Data The mineralogical study has been performed on all samples illustrated in the previous Chapter (Table 1) with X-Ray Diffraction.

In Figures 58, 59, 60 and 61, I report the diffractometric spectra considered most representative of some types of paragenesis observed in the samples studied.

Fig. 58: Diffractometric spectra of sample ID26.

Qz = Quartz; Plg = Plagioclase; K-Feld = K-Feldspars; Cpx = Clinopyroxene; Cal = Calcite; Hem = Hematite; Anal =Analcime.

Fig. 59: Diffractometric spectra of sample ID33.

Qz = Quartz; Plg = Plagioclase; K-Feld = K-Feldspars; Cpx = Clinopyroxene; Cal = Calcite; Hem = Hematite; Anal =Analcime.

Fig. 60: Diffractometric spectra of sample ID37.

Qz = Quartz; Plg = Plagioclase; K-Feld = K-Feldspars; Cpx = Clinopyroxene; Cal = Calcite; Hem = Hematite; Anal =Analcime.

Fig. 61: Diffractometric spectra of sample S5B. Qz = Quartz; Plg = Plagioclase; K-Feld = K-Feldspars; Cpx = Clinopyroxene; Cal = Calcite; Hem = Hematite; Anal =Analcime.

In each spectra I pointed out the mineralogical phases present, indicating the peak with the highest intensity.

The mineralogical data obtained from diffractometric analysis are summarized in table 2.

The table is rearranged according to petrographical observations1 in three categories: • Homogeneous samples, which are characterized by a purified clay matrix corresponding to wheel-made pottery; • Heterogeneous samples, which are characterized by a coarse matrix 1 The petrographical observation were performed by Roberta Piermartiri in: Ceramiche di Cultura Andronovo e Namazga VI proveniente dal Conoide alluvionale del Fiume Murghab: caratterizzazione Minero-Petrografica

with “cocciopesto” fragments corresponding to hand-made pottery; • Wattle and Daub, which are heterogeneous material with the presence of vegetal residues.

The table shows the semi-quantitative estimate relative to each recognized mineralogical phase, reporting the relative contents of the individual sample.

In the Homogeneous group, the main phase is Quartz as well as in some samples Clinopyroxenes and Plagioclases. In particular ID1 has Quartz and Clinopyroxenes as the main phases followed by an abundant content of Plagioclases, significant presence of K-feldspars and modest content of Micas and Calcite. ID9 is similar to ID1, but it has also Plagioclases with Quartz and Clinopyroxenes as the main phases, with the absence of Micas and traces of Hematite. ID12 and ID26 have a modest content of Plagioclases and Micas, significant content of Calcite and traces of K-Feldspars and in ID26 traces of Hematite. In ID29 there is significant content of Plagioclases, Clinopyroxenes and Gehlenite, and traces of Calcite and Hematite.

The Clinopyroxenes present, not having been detected by petrographical observations, are of secondary origin derived from firing of the carbonates with present clay minerals.

In the Heterogeneous group optical observations point out big clasts that create a certain disconnection. The main phase is Quartz and also in some samples Plagioclases and Clinopyroxenes. Clinopyroxenes are present very abundant to modest quantities, except in ID27, ID39, ID41 ID42, ID43, ID44 and ID45, where they are absent.

Clinopyroxenes in ID14 are present in little primary crystals formed at high temperature.

K-Feldspars are present in heterogeneous group from modest to abundant amount and absent in ID34 and ID39. Micas is present from modest quantities to traces. Calcite and Gehlenite are present in ID5, ID8, ID10, ID21, ID31, ID36, ID44 and ID45 from significant to traces quantities. In addition there is a significant presence of Analcime in ID14, ID18, ID19, ID37, ID38 and traces of Chlorite in ID7 and ID40.

In samples ID3, ID4, ID8, ID10, ID15, ID16, ID18, ID26, ID27, ID31, ID33, and ID39, Calcite is present in secondary and primary form. In ID27 and ID39 the presence of primary and secondary calcite and the absence of secondary Clinopyroxenes means that they were not fired at a high temperature.

In samples ID41, ID42, ID43, ID44 and ID45 Calcite varies from traces to absent and there are no Clinopyroxenes, this is due to a raw material poor in carbonates.

Table 2: Semiquantitative mineralogical analysis obtained by XRD and ordered according to petrographical observations. Qz = Quartz; Plg = Plagioclase; K-Feld = K-Feldspars; Ill/Mic =Illite/Micas; Cpx = Clinopyroxene; Cal = Calcite; Dol = Dolomite; Gehl = Gehlenite; Hem = Hematite; Anal = Analcime; Gy = Gypsum; Chl = Chlorite.; xxxx = very abundant quantity; xxx = abundant; xx = significant; x = modest; Tr = traces.

The wattle and daub from the optical (petrographical) observation, are considered different material; they present vegetal residues that are typical of plaster. In this group the main phase is Quartz, then followed by significant to modest content of Plagioclases, K-Feldspars and Calcite, with significant to trace content of Clinopyroxenes and Gehlenite. In sample S5A, S5B there are traces of Micas, Hematite and Dolomite, Gypsum in samples S3, S4, S5, and Chlorite (clay product) in samples S5A and S5B. Calcite is both primary and secondary in samples S1, S2, S3, S4 and ID11, while in samples S5A, S5B and ID30 it is only primary because there was not a deposition.

5.2. Thermal Data Thermal Analysis was performed on all samples in order to quantify LOI for completing the chemical analysis, it is also possible to characterize and quantify CO2 and clay phases for completing Diffractometric Analysis.

I reported some representative spectra, where it is possible to distinguish

Fig. 62: Thermal curves of sample ID25.

Fig. 63: Thermal curves of sample S5A.

Organic substance

Fig. 64: Thermal curves of sample S5B.

primary and secondary Calcite.

From the analysis of the curves and data, it is possible to make a table of LOI where: − LOI from 200 to 1000°C is utilized for XRF Analysis − LOI from 600 to 1000°C is conferred to CO2, relative to the loos of carbonatic phases (Calcite and Dolomite).

CO2, present in the range from 600 to 1000°C, is all transformed into Calcite and also when it was present Dolomite, because it was not possible to quantify the two phases separately.

Dolomite has loss of CO2 at two times (Fig. 64): one around 700°C, when it is linked to CO2 bounded with Mg, and the second one around 900°C linked

Table 3: Percentage data of Loss in the different range.

with CaCO3.

5.3. Chemical Data Table 4 shows the chemical analysis of pottery and wattle and daub samples.

The samples were ordered according archaeological sites and divided into: Incised Coarse Ware (Andronovo Culture), Hand-made and Wheel-Made (Namazga VI culture).

Major elements and trace elements are not present homogeneously in the samples of Table 4: − SiO2 : it is heterogeneous and has a range from 47 to 63 W%.

The group from Egripo-Goz (ICW) is richest in SiO2 content and it presents a range from 52 to 63 W%. − TiO2: It is homogeneous. The kiln group of (Ojakly-Kiln) has less amount of TiO2 with a range from 0,47 to 0,60 W%. The pottery groups have a range from 0,65 to 0,74 W%. − Al2O3: It is heterogeneous; the samples that present less quantity of Aluminium are ID 26 (14,17W%), ID30 (13,56W%) and the remains from the kiln. The other samples present a range from 14 to 18 W% ~. − Fe2O3: It is heterogeneous. The wattle and daub have lower iron content than the ceramic samples and ID 30. ID45 has a major amount compared to the other ceramic groups. The range of Fe2O3 amount, in the other groups, is from 5 to 7 W% ~. − MnO: it is homogeneous with a range from 0,9 to 0,15 W% . − MgO: it is homogeneous with a range from 3 to 4 W% ~. − P2O3: It is homogeneous with a range from 0,19 to 0,79 W%. − CaO: it is quite homogeneous. Samples ID41,ID42,ID43,ID44 (Egripo-Goz) and ID45 are very poor in calcium content (4W%~). − Na2O: It is homogeneous, with a range from 1 to 2 W% ~. − K2O: it is homogeneous, with a range from 1 to 3 W% ~. − V: It is heterogeneous. Egripo-Goz samples present the highest content of Vanadium from 178 to 215 ppm and ID30 the lowest, at 94ppm, followed by ID26. − Cr: it is heterogeneous in the Ojakly ceramic groups especially in the hand-made pottery group 82-139 ppm ~. ID41, ID42, ID43 and ID44 present the highest quantity of Cromium from 137 to 147 ppm. − Co: it is homogeneous in each groups. ID30 (10 ppm) has the lowest quantity of cobalt and ID44 the higher (24 ppm). Wattle and Daub

Table 4: Chemical Analysis of Major elements are expressed in W% and trace elements in ppm, arranged according to archaeological table.

ICW: Incised Coarse Ware; HM: Hand-made; WM: Wheel-made; Kiln: Wattle and Daub or Plaster

samples present a low content of Cobalt. − Ni: It is homogeneous. Slight variation in the group of Egripogoz samples from 47 to 68 ppm and samples from theTakhirbai region from 59 to 72 ppm. Wattle and daub samples have the lowest quantity of Nickel. − Cu: It is heterogeneous, from 13 to 47ppm in the ceramics group and from 17 to 38ppm in wattle and daub samples. − Zn: It is heterogeneous. From 190 (ID4) to 107 (ID30) ppm.

Wattle and daub samples have the lowest amount of Zinc from 70 to 123 ppm. − Rb: It is heterogeneous. ID26 has the lowest amount of Rubidium (54 ppm) while ID45 the highest (159 ppm). − Sr: it is heterogeneous and has very high amounts in the range are from 400 to 800 ppm ~. ID33 the highest amount of Strontium and ID45 the lowest . − Y: It is homogeneous; ID26 has the lowest amount in contrast to ID45 with the highest. There are some variations in the Ojakly group in the Wheel-made subgroup. − Zr: It is heterogeneous with a range from 21 (ID26) to 148 (ID42) ppm. − Nb: it, is heterogeneous with a range from 14 to 7ppm. − Ba: it is heterogeneous in the ceramic samples with high values.

ID26 has a very high amount of Barium (1523 ppm) and ID30 has the lowest amount (481 ppm) in the ceramic samples. In Wattle and Daub samples, the barium is quite homogeneous, the range is from 400 to 550 ~ ppm. − La: it is heterogeneous. The amount of Lanthanum varies from 15 to 51 ppm ~. − Ce: It is heterogeneous. the amount of Cesium varies from 88 to 55 ppm ~.

In general, ID 45 is chemically different from the other ceramics samples and ID30 and ID26 are more similar to the Kiln samples than the ceramic samples.

In the Kiln group sample S5A has a different variation respect to the other wattle and daub samples.

In order to compare chemical and diffractometric data, Table 5, the samples are ordered according to petrographical observation. The table doesn’t show a substantial change respect the previous observation, but note the similarity of

Table 5: Chemical Analysis, of Major elements are expressed in W% and trace elements in ppm, arranged according to petrographical description.

Homo = Homogeneous; Het = Heterogeneous; W.D.= Wattle and Daub.

ID11 and ID30 with wattle and daub coming from the kiln.

On the basis of optical observation, performed on samples, the Calcite present is in secondary form and in same case primary form, but subordinate to the secondary. It had been possible to distinguish thermally the secondary Calcite and quantify the Calcite of carbonates (CaCO3), It was left the Calcium, relative to total Calcite (LOI from 200 to 1000째C), and the CO2, relative to Calcite (LOI 600 to 1000째C). The analysis was reported to 100 and I report in table 6 the correct analysis where I removed the secondary Calcite, that was foreign to the composition of the pottery.

It was not possible to correct the Gypsum because the H2O, usefull for the quantification of the Gypsum, has its loss between 100 and 200째C and it is removed from LOI. Furthermore the water of Gypsum is mixed with water

Table 6: Chemical Analysis of Major elements are expressed in W% and trace elements in ppm, arranged according to petrographical description with recalculation of Calcite.

Homo = Homogeneous; Het = Heterogeneous; W.D. = Wattle and Daub.

absorbed from the soil during the burial.

5.4. Statistical data elaboration Data obtained from chemical analysis are used for elaborating the cluster analysis

Fig.65: Cluster Analysis.

show in fig. 65 The dendrogram obtained shows three groups:

− Group 1 includes ID41, ID42, ID43 and ID44 from Egripo-Goz; − Group 2 includes S1, S2, S3, S4, S5B, ID11 and ID30; − Group 3 includes the remaining samples except ID26 and ID45. The group is divided in three subgroups.

The group 1 is coherent with diffractometric analysis, the samples are rich in silica and they don’t have Clinopyroxenes. The group has a very close relationship.

The samples ID45, ID26 and S5A don’t have similarity with the other samples.

They present anomalies in the chemical and diffractometric analysis.

In order to point out the relationships and clustering, I created different scatter graphs.

In the scatter graphs the relationship is evident between ID41, ID42, ID43 and ID44; the group has always the same ranges and it is distinct from the other ceramic samples.

The Wattle and Daub group is compact, excluding S5A, which has different range. ID30 and ID11have the same chemical value, they are chemically compatible.

Regarding the petrographical aspect the Homogeneous samples (Violet colour) don’t form a group, but they are scattered in the Heterogeneous group.

ID26, often, is isolated respect with its range to the ceramic samples.

ID45 has different variations but the graphs point out its chemical difference.

Scatter graph legend

Fig. 66: Scatter graph CaO vs Ni.

Fig. 67: Scatter graph CaO vs SiO2.

Fig. 68: Scatter graphTiO2 vs SiO2.

Fig. 69: Scatter graph V vs Co.

Fig. 70: Scatter graph V vs Cr.

Fig. 71: Scatter graph TiO2 vs Al2O

6. Discussion From the mineralogical and geochemical data presented above, I can glean composition, temperature and technologies used to produce the pottery.

The mineralogical data show information about firing temperature and chemical data about the raw material used to make the pottery.

6.1. Composition Geochemical and Mineralogical data allow to infer a ceramic artifact’s composition. Chemical results show the presence of an independent group of sample, confirmed by cluster analysis (group 1).The group is formed by ID 41, ID42, ID43 and ID44 and they are rich in silicium and poor in calcium content with respect to the other samples. The scatter graph SiO2 vs CaO shows the relation between the two chemical components that differentiate ID 41, ID42, ID43 and ID44 from the other ceramic samples.

Despite having in ID 41, ID42, ID43 and ID44, the presence of Iron (Tab. 2) in Hematite is not detected in the chemical results. The samples have a blackish color that comes from a reducing atmosphere during firing.

The low quantity of calcium could come from the scarcity of carbonates in the raw material used.

The group 3 of the cluster analysis (fig. 65) corresponds to petrographical groups of heterogeneous group plus samples of homogeneous group (excluded ID26). Chemical results are quite homogeneous excluding some variation in the trace elements.

From a mineralogical point of view all samples have hematite from traces to modest amounts except ID12, ID27, ID39, where it is not present, though they have in the chemical results a quantity of iron that is comparable to the other samples.

ID26, which belong to the homogeneous petrographical, is isolated in the cluster analysis. Chemically it has different ranges than the other samples, this is pointed out by scatter graphs (Fig. 66, 67, 68 and 71). The raw material derives from a sandy material, very rich in quartz-feldespatic components.

ID45, coming from Kazakhstan, is chemically different, for this reason in the cluster analysis it remains alone. This confirms its geographical distance.

In the petrographical observation and cluster analysis I observed two ceramic potsherds similar to wattle and daub: ID11 and ID30. They were made with the

same material as wattle and daub.

The cluster group of wattle and daub is composed of samples S1, S2, S3, S4 and S5B with ID11 and ID30.

Sample S5A is chemically different but its mineralogical composition is similar to S5B with the presence of primary calcite and gypsum due to the deposition.

In general, for ceramic samples, I can presume that the raw material was a carbonate clay, except the group of sample composed by ID41, ID42, ID43 and ID44.

The contaminant presence of secondary calcite, in the majority of the samples, may be due to re-carbonation during cooling or burial processes.

However the exact cause cannot be determinate with these analyses because the clay samples relative to the Bronze Age layers were not analyzed.

6.2. Manufacturing techniques The optical observation, the lack of variability in mineralogical and geochemical composition leads us to think there was an homogeneity of manufacturing techniques for the petrographical heterogeneous group.

6.3. Firing temperature The group formed by ID41, ID42, ID43 and ID44, shows a lack of Clinopyroxenes and Ghelenite and the presence of Chlorite (ID41). Regarding these samples it is difficult to establish the firing temperature with certainty, because they derive from poor raw material in carbonates. The lack of secondary Clinopyroxenes and Gehlenite could be attributed to the poor raw material or/and low firing temperature.

From diffractometric analysis, ID12, ID27 and ID39 show the presence of primary and secondary calcite and they are not associated to Ghelenite and Clinopyroxenes and they don’t have Hematite. The firing temperature related to ID12, ID27 and ID39 is < 800°C (Veniale, 1994) (Maggetti, 1994).

The other samples belonging to group 3 of the cluster analysis (fig. 65) have undergone a firing temperature > 800°C. This is confirmed by the presence of Clinopyroxenes and the absence of primary calcite.

ID5,ID8,ID29, ID10, ID21, ID31, and ID36 have also the presence of Ghelenite that highlights the high firing temperature.

For ID26, the mineralogical analysis shows the lack of Clinopyroxenes and the presence of primary and secondary Calcite, this means that the samples was fired < 800°C.

Mineralogical results show in ID11 S1, S2, S3, and S4 that there is the presence of secondary Clinopyroxenes, primary and secondary Calcite, Gehlenite and Hematite. The firing temperature is therefore estimated at > 800째C. The presence of primary calcite is due to big clasts that are not completely dissolved.

Sample S5B in tab.M. shows traces of Clinopyroxenes and the presence of primary calcite, dolomite, gypsum and chlorite that indicate a low firing temperature < 800째C. The decomposition of clay minerals (chlorite) is between 450-650째C with the liberation of the structural OH. Dolomite decomposes at ca. 800째C .

Sample S5A presents traces of Clinopyroxenes, Chlorite and Dolomite. It seem to have reached a low firing temperature than S5B.

7. Conclusion Starting from the archaeological evidence with the study of palaeochannels and the ancient settlements from Later Bronze Age, we can begin to study the relationship between the nomadic and sedentary populations. An important marker of this relation is the pottery with the different manufacturing techniques.

The pottery is distinguished into three categories: − Incised Coarse ware belonging to Andronovo Culture1; − Hand-made pottery, ceramic fragments without decoration, that could belong to either population; − Wheel-made pottery , belonging to Namazga VI population2.

The mineralogical and geochemical study of the samples coming from Murghab Alluvial Fan has as aimed to define composition, manufacturing technique and firing temperature.

I analyzed 50 samples becoming from different archaeological sites of Murghab Alluvial Fan and 1 sample coming from Kazakhstan. The samples are divided in 45 ceramic potsherd and 6 wattle and daub3. The potsherds are representative of the tree categories previously mentioned.

The Analytical technique performed on all samples were: − X-Ray Diffraction − Thermal analysis − X-Ray Fluorescence Then the chemical data has been elaborated with statistical analysis.

The data obtained from the analysis performed on the ceramic body are organized following the groups identified petrographical observations: Homogeneous, Heterogeneous and Wattle and daub.

Homogeneous: ID1, ID9, ID12, ID16 and ID29. They are wheel-made samples found in site 1744 belonging to Namazga VI population.

Heterogeneous: ID2, ID3,ID4,ID5,ID6,ID7, ID8, ID10, ID13, ID14, ID15, ID16, ID17, ID18, ID19, ID20, ID21, ID22, ID23, ID24, ID25, ID27, ID28, ID31, ID32, ID33, ID34, ID35, ID36 ID37, ID38, ID39, ID40, ID41, ID42, ID43, ID44 and ID45. They include potsherds belonging to Andronovo and Namazga VI 1 Nomadic population of Central Asia 2 Sedentary population of Turkmenistan (Later and Final Bronze Age) 3 The wattle and daub has been found in the Kiln remains.

culture.

Wattle and daub: S1, S2, S3, S4, ID11, ID30, S5A and S5B. These samples include two potsherds that have vegetable traces, typical of plasters.

Through the elaboration and cross/checking of the data I have identified different groups.

A first group formed by ID41, ID42, ID43 and ID44 come from the Egripo-Goz region. These potsherds belong to the Andronovo Culture. The samples are composed by clay without carbonates and they undergo temperature which could not be well defined.

Another group is formed by major parts of the petrographically Homogeneous and petrographically Heterogeneous samples and correspond to group 3 of cluster analysis : ID1, ID9, ID29, ID2, ID3, ID4, ID5, ID6, ID7, ID8, ID10, ID13, ID14, ID15, ID16, ID17, ID18, ID19, ID20, ID21, ID22, ID24, ID25, ID28, ID31, ID32, ID33, ID34, ID35, ID36, ID37, ID38, ID40. They came from different regions. The Andronovo fragments have a strictly similarity with those from Namazga VI. These samples are made with a carbonates clay (or marly clay) with the presence of Hematite, Clinopyroxenes and Calcite.

The formation of hematite occur when ceramics were fired in an oxidizing environment. They temperature of firing is > 800째C. ID12,ID27 (found in kiln) and ID39 form a little group of samples that belonging to a group 3 of the cluster analysis. They represent the three type of pottery found in Margiana: Wheel-made, Hand-made and Incised coarse ware. These samples are different from the previous group because they have undergone a temperature of firing < 800째C. ID26 from Site 1744, is sandy in the optical observation. This is observed also in chemical and mineralogical analysis and then confirmed by statistical analysis, where it does not have similarity to the other samples. It is a poorlyfired sample.

ID45 comes from Kazakhstan, and is a wheel-made sample. It is optical similar to the heterogeneous sample group.

Chemically it is quite different, in the cluster analysis it does not have similarity with the other samples analysed, but mineralogically it is similar to the group of heterogeneous samples. Its firing temperature is > 800째C. ID11 and ID30 they are two samples handmade coming from Site 1744, found in the production/working area. ID30 was found in the

fill of ceramic kiln. From the optical observation, they are considered wattle and daub because their texture is similar to a plaster.

Also in chemical data they are more similar to a wattle and daub than to the ceramic samples and the cluster analysis shows that. They have undergone a low firing temperature.

S1, S2, S3 and S4 undergone a firing temperature > 800째C, while S5A and S5B < 700째C. In general the ceramic samples present uniform data specially group 3 of cluster analysis. They have been realized probably with the same raw materials and manufacturing techniques.

While the group formed by ID41, ID42, ID43, and ID44 have been made probably with different or purified raw materials used during the first phases of production. The samples ID34 and ID35 coming from the same site are similar to the petrographical group of heterogeneous sample.

Bibligraphy Cattani, M. (2008). The Final Phase of the Bronze Age and the “Andronovo Question” in Margiana. In S. Salvatori, M. Tosi, et al., The Bronze Age and Early Iron Age in the Margian. Oxford: Archeopress.

Cattani, M., & Salvatori, S. (2008). Transects and other Techniques for Systematic Sampling. In S. Salvatori, M. Tosi, et al., The Bronze Age and Early Iron Age in the Margiana Lowlands. Oxford: Archaeopress.

Cattani, M., Cerasetti, B., Salvatori, S., & Tosi, M. (2008). The Murghab Delta in Central Asia 1990-2001: the GIS from research resource to a reasoning tool for the study os settlement change in long-term fluctuations. In S. Salvatori, & M. Tosi, The Bronze Age and Early Iron Age in the Margiana Lowlands. Facts and Metodological Proposal for a Redefinition of the Research Strategies. The Archaeological Map of the Murghab Delta. Studies and Reports,II. Oxford: Archaeopress.

Cerasetti, B. (2001). Studio delle fluttuazioni fluviali e della storia del popolamento del delta endoreico del fiume Murghab (Turkmenistan) del Tardo Calcolitico dell’Impero Achemenide. Tesi di Dottorato in Archeologia (Rapporto tra Oriente ed Occidente). XII Ciclo. Coordinatore: Ida Baldassarre; Napoli: Istituto Universitario Orientale.

Cerasetti, B., & Rouse, L. (2010). Joint Turkmen-Italian Archaeological Mission in the Murghab Alluvial Fan (Turkmenistan). Report from May10th to June 04th 2010. Bologna: Alma Mather Studiorum, Università di Bologna, Dipartimento di Archeologia.

Cerasetti, B., & Rouse, L. (2010). Joint Turkmen-Italian Archaeological Mission in the Murghab Alluvial Fan (Turkmenistan). Report from October 1th to October25th 2010. Bologna: Alma Mather Studiorum, Università di Bologna, Dipartimento di Archeologia.

Cerasetti, B., Genito, B., & D’Angelo, M. (2009). Missione archeologica congiunta italo-turcomanna nel conoide alluvionale del fiume Murghab (Turkmenistan). Studio del fenomeno urbano nel Bronzo e nel Ferro: scavo archeologico e analisi territoriale. Report Missione archeologica congiunta italo-turcomanna nel conoide alluvionale del fiume Murghab, Turkmenistan.

Bologna: Alma Mather Studiorum, Università di Bologna, Dipartimento di Archeologia.

Cerasetti, B., Genito, B., & D’Angelo, M. (2009). Remote Sensing and Survey of the Murghab Alluvial Fan, Southern Turkmenistan: The Coexistence of Nomadic Herders and Sedentary Farmers in the Late Bronze Age and Early Ir on Age. In Matthews, R. & Curtis, J., Proceedings of the 7th International Congress on the Archaeology of the Ancient Near East 12 April – 16 April 2010, the British Museum and UCL, London, Volume I, Mega-cities & Megasites The Archaeology of Consumption & Disposal Landscape, Transport & Communication. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag.

Coolidge, J. (2005). Southern Turkmenistan in the Neolithic : a petrographic case study. Oxford: Archaeopress.

Cuomo Di Caprio, N. (2007). Ceramica in Archeologia, Vol. II. Antiche tecniche di lavorazione e moderni metodi di indagine. Roma: L’Erma di Bretschneider.

Esquilini, E. (2011). Produzione e circolazione delle anfore greco italiche in area adriatica. Dottorato di Ricerca in Scienze della Terra XXIII ciclo. Bologna: Alma Mather Studiorum, Università di Bologna.

Gubaev, A., & Koshelenko, G. T. (1998). The archaeological map of the Murghab delta. Preliminary reports 1990-95. Roma: IsIAO. Maggetti, M. (1994). Mineralogical and petrographical methods for the study of ancient pottery. In F. Burrogato et al., 1st European Workshop on Archaeological Ceramics, pp. 23-35. Roma: Università degli Studi di Roma, La Sapienza.

Minguzzi, V., & Nannetti, M. C. (2008). A mineralogical-geochemical approach to pottery characterization. In N. Marchetti, & I. Thuesen, ARCHAIA: Case Studies on Research Planning, Characterisation, Conservation and Management of Archaeological Sites. Oxford: Archeopress.

Minguzzi, V., Morandi, N., Nannetti, M. C., Trentini, P., Mattioli, C., Marchesi, M., et al. (1995). Caratterizzazione minero-geochimica e studi termici di varie tipologie e Concotto di Età Etrusca, pp. 1-9. Bologna: Miner.Petrogr. Acta 38.

Olcese, G. (1994). Ceramiche comuni ed archeometriche. Firenze: Edizioni all’Insegna del Giglio.

Olcese, G. (1994). Per una classificazione in laboratorio delle ceramiche comini. In G. Olcese, & G. Olcese, Ceramica romana e archeometria: lo stato degli studi, pp. 105-114. Firenze: Edizione all’Insegna del Giglio.

Tosi, M., & Cerasetti, B. Once upon a time...A brief reflection on the history of <<the archaeological map of the Murghab delta>> (AMM) Project in relation to fundamental role of V.I. Sarianidi. In N. Margiana, Gubaev, A., Koshelenko, G., Tosi, M. et al. The Archaeological Map of the Murghab Delta: Preliminary Reports 1990-1995, pp. 26-34. Roma: IsIAO. Tosi, M., Cesaretti, B., & Salvatori, S. (2008). The Bronze Age and early Iron Age in the Margiana Lowlands : facts and methodological proposals for a redefinition of the research strategies. Oxford: Archaeopress.

Veniale, F. (1994). Raw materials manufacturing precesses in ancient ceramic artefacts. In F. Burragato et al., 1st European Workshop on Archaeological Ceramics, pp. 55-72. Roma: Università degli Studi di Roma, La Sapienza.

Acknowledgements I would like to thank Professor Giuseppe Maria Bargossi for giving me the opportunity to work on this project and Professor Vanna Minguzzi for sharing her knowledge with me and for her supervising during my graduate experience.

I also want to thank dott. Barbara Cerasetti and Lynne M. Rouse, who provided me samples and font material. Special thanks to Lynne M. Rouse for her patience during the correction of my drafts.

I also want to acknowledge dott. Elisa Zantedeschi and dott. Elisa Esquilini for their willingness and for teaching me how to use the software for my analysis.