Full text
| |
| Author(s): |
Rosimeiri Galbiati Toyota
Total Authors: 1
|
| Document type: | Master's Dissertation |
| Press: | São Paulo. |
| Institution: | Universidade de São Paulo (USP). Instituto de Pesquisas Energéticas e Nucleares (IPEN/BT) |
| Defense date: | 2009-02-11 |
| Examining board members: |
Casimiro Jayme Alfredo Sepulveda Munita;
Déborah Inês Teixeira Fávaro;
Jose Luiz de Morais
|
| Advisor: | Casimiro Jayme Alfredo Sepulveda Munita |
| Abstract | |
In this study the elemental concentration of Ce, Co, Cr, Cs, Eu, Fe, Hf, K, La, Lu, Na, Nd, Rb, Sc, Sm, Ta, Tb, Th, U, Yb and Zn were determined by instrumental neutron activation analysis (INAA) in 204 fragments of Marajoara archeological ceramics, of which 156 were provided by the Archeology and Etnology Museum of São Paulo University (MAE) and 48 were provided by Dr. Denise Pahl Schaan, Marajó Museum curator. Also, 9 contemporary ceramics produced and marketed at Marajó Island were analyzed. Electron paramagnetic resonance (EPR) analyses were performed in 8 archeological samples and 1 contemporary sample in order to identify the burning temperature of the samples. X-ray diffraction (XRD) analyses were performed in 13 archeological samples and 2 contemporary samples for the investigation of their mineralogical composition. Mahalanobis distance was used for the study of outlier while modified filter was used for the study of the temper added to the ceramic paste. Result interpretation was performed using cluster analysis, principal components analysis and discriminant analysis. Procrustes analysis was used for variable selection and it showed that the Ce, Fe, Eu, Hf, K and Th variables are adequate for the characterization of the analyzed samples. The comparative study among the archeological and contemporary ceramics showed the arrangement of two well-defined and close groups for the archeological samples and a third, distant group for the contemporary ones. This result indicates that the archeological and contemporary ceramics differ in their composition. EPR and XRD analysis were inconclusive for the differentiation of archeological and contemporaty ceramics. (AU) | |