Conclusions

There have been many general statements made about faience technology in Egypt, and how the technology changed from one period to the next (see Chapter 1 and 2 above). These statements will be discussed next, and then all of the results from the SEM-EDS analysis will be compared, so that conclusions may be drawn concerning the ways in which faience technology changed from one period to the next. These interpretations will be based on the chemical composition results from the EDS system and the interstitial glass levels apparent in the SEM-BSI images of each sample.

5.5.1 Middle Kingdom Results

The faience made in this time period, according to previous publications, is usually produced with sand as the silica source, plant ash as the alkali, copper as the colourant in a range of 0.5-5%, and utilising all three glazing methods (Shortland et al. 2006: 522). The results obtained from the analysis of the sample assemblage hold true to these generalisations except for the quantities of copper, the addition of other colourants, the types of glazing methods used, and the possibility of other alkalis being used.

The copper quantities in the faience beads analysed for this research far exceeded the concentrations mentioned above (from the limit of detection <0.85 to 27.08%). This could be due to the method of spot analysis used, which aims for the interparticle glass, which would be higher in copper. Alternatively, the higher quantities could be due to the vast majority of past research being conducted as bulk analyses, in which the larger quantities of silica would overshadow the smaller amount of copper by a calculated percentage.

Copper is not the only colourant present in the Middle Kingdom. Iron and manganese are also present as colourants. Out of 81 beads, four beads were

produced using iron as the colourant, and eight beads were produced with manganese. However, the vast majority of the beads were produced with copper as the colourant, which was the expected result. This assemblage just shows that there is a little more variability than suggested or expected, on the basis of previous publications on this topic.

Another difference between this assemblage and that of previous works is that there was only one case of application glaze, which was used for a stone bead (bead 9384-10). The majority of the other beads from this period were glazed by efflorescence (53 beads out of 81 of the assemblage) and only twenty beads were glazed by cementation. The remaining seven beads fall into the category of unknown material type, and were likely glazed by the cementation method. These beads were originally thought to be frit, however they are now classified as mineral- based, because of their dissimilarity to the descriptions presented in published studies of frit. These beads compositionally match the Wollastonite standard used for the EDS calibration; therefore they will be referred to as Wollastonite beads for lack of a better description.

The final difference between this assemblage and the published research on faience is that there is more variability in the alkali sources. There are eleven beads, which possibly have natron as their alkali source, and there are also two beads that could incorporate a mixed alkali. These conclusions led to several questions about the best way to determine which alkali was utilised. The quantities can be so low, and with the possibility of sodium burn-off, another analytical method (strontium isotope analysis) was used to determine the alkali. This method will be presented in Chapter 6.

5.5.2 Second Intermediate Period Results

Not much has been written about Second Intermediate Period beads other than that they are similar to the Middle Kingdom beads in their production methods. In this assemblage there are two distinct bead groups: the ‘normal’ and the ‘unknown’ or Wollastonite beads. Those of the ‘normal’ faience variety are very similar to Middle Kingdom beads. The three beads that fall into this group are produced with sand as the silica source, and plant ash as the alkali and copper as the colourant. Two of the beads are glazed with efflorescence and one with cementation. The remaining seven beads fall within the ‘unknown’ type; these are the beads mentioned earlier, which were initially thought to be frit but are now simply classified as unknown material or possibly Wollastonite beads. These beads were likely cementation glazed. These beads were also subjected to strontium isotope

analysis to better understand their production methods, and the results will be presented in Chapter 6.

5.5.3 New Kingdom Results

New Kingdom faience seems to have been studied a lot more frequently than faience from other time periods, judging from sheer number of publications alone. This is probably because the introduction of glass technology happened during this time, and this was thought to have produced changes in the ways in which faience was made. These changes include the introduction of cobalt as a colourant for blue and purple faience, and the introduction of other colourants. It has also been suggested that (1) the average New Kingdom faience bead would have been produced with sand or quartz pebbles, (2) the alkali sources would more likely have been natron than plant ash, especially if cobalt was used as the colourant, and (3) the glazing methods would have been efflorescence or application, with a drop in the use of cementation-glazing (Shortland and Tite 2000: 141).

The New Kingdom faience beads from this sample assemblage seem to have been made in the same way as the Middle Kingdom beads. The silica source was sand, the alkali was mostly plant ash, with a few exceptions (six possible natron beads, and four possible mixed alkali beads), and the colourant was usually copper. There is no cobalt present in any of the beads. Cobalt would be determined on the basis of a lack of copper and the beads being blue, but all beads have a component of copper and, if not, their colourant is either manganese (five beads) or iron (seven beads). However, there are two beads that are different: one is coloured with lead (possibly with antimony) and is yellow in colour, the other has no obvious colourant, although it is white, and the absence of colourant was presumably intentional.

As for glazing methods, 45 out of 60 New Kingdom beads were glazed by efflorescence and five were glazed by cementation. This verifies the expected drop in the use of cementation glazing during this time period. It should be noted that the remaining ten beads fall into the category mentioned above as the unknown or Wollastonite types and were possibly glazed by cementation. For the most part, the New Kingdom beads in this assemblage lack the variability that was expected on the basis of past research.

5.5.4 Comparison of Results

The Middle Kingdom, Second Intermediate Period, and New Kingdom beads were more similar in their production methods and chemical composition than originally thought. The primary production methods of the three assemblages

comprised (1) sand as the silica source, (2) plant ash as the alkali, and (3) copper as the colourant, with a few variables by time period mentioned above (Appendix H). The glazing methods were usually efflorescence, with some cases of cementation, and one application glazed stone bead. The expected variations and differences between time periods are not pronounced in this sample assemblage, and the characterisations of the time periods do not apply. Therefore, these generalisations should be modified and possibly discarded altogether.

The approach to faience should be modified and, instead of searching for variability in time periods, a search for variability in material type might be better suited for observing the technological changes. The technology might have varied depending on what type of object was being made. Since all of these faience samples were beads, the possibility is that all faience beads were produced in very similar ways throughout the history of the material. If one were to inspect other artefacts, such as vessels or rings, they might lack variability in the assemblages too. The Egyptians might have modified faience technology to suit the artefact they were producing, and even though the introduction of glass technology changed some of the production methods, they might not necessarily have been incorporated into the standard bead production strategies. This will be discussed further in Chapter 8.