[Home ] [Archive]   [ فارسی ]  
:: Main :: About :: Current Issue :: Archive :: Search :: Submit :: Contact ::
:: year 3, Issue 9 (12-2019) ::
Parseh J Archaeol Stud 2019, 3(9): 109-127 Back to browse issues page
Analytical Studıes on the Chel Maran Ancient Stone Quarry and Comparison with the Stones of Anahita Temple of Kangavar
Atefeh Shekofteh1, Omid Oudbashi 2, Giuseppe Cultrone3, Masoud Ansari4
1- Ph.D. Department of Restoration of Historical and Cultural Objects, Institute of Conservation and Restoration, Isfahan University of Arts, Isfahan, Iran
2- Assistant Professor, Department of Restoration of Historical and Cultural Objects, Institute of Conservation and Restoration, Isfahan University of Arts, Isfahan, Iran , o.oudbashi@aui.ac.ir
3- Professor, Department of Mineralogy and Petrology, University of Granada, Granada, Spain
4- M.A. in Restoration, Department of Restoration of Historical and Cultural Objects, Institute of Conservation and Restoration, Isfahan University of Arts, Isfahan, Iran
Abstract:   (6141 Views)
Abstract
Identification of resources and quarries used for extraction of raw materials in the ancient time is a very interesting subject matter for researchers and archaeologists. Results of analysis and study of ancient mines and quarries may lead to characterize the know- how of ancient technology of production of materials and tools in the old world and shows the techniques rendered by artists and craftsmen to apply raw materials for producing different artistic and ordinary objects. Moreover, identification of ancient mines and quarries (especially stone quarries) provide unaltered materials for conservators to reconstruct archaeological and historical stone monuments. In this paper, stone blocks used in Anahita Temple in Kangavar and ancient stone quarry of Chel Maran (Chehel Maran) were studied by analytical methods. The aim of this study is to determine chemical composition and microstructure of stones used in the Anahita Temple and their correlation with the stone mining evidences observed in the Chel Maran quarry. For this purpose, some samples from the temple and the quarry were analyzed by X-ray fluorescence and polarized optical microscopy methods. The results indicated that the stones used in the temple and those of the quarry are limestones and Si and Mg were identified in the analysed samples as minor constituents. Microscopic structure of samples presented calcite as the main phase including some dolomite crystals and clay minerals as impurities. Based on the results obtained, the Chel Maran ancient stone quarry was widely used for the construction of the Anahita Temple. 
Keywords: Ancient Mining, Anahita Temple of Kangavar, Chel Maran Quarry, Limestone, Calcite.

Introduction
Stone has been used widely during the ancient time to make different artefacts and monuments including small ritual and decorative objects, reliefs, decorative monuments and buildings. The studies on quarrying and manufacturing of stone objects as well as the provenance of raw materials are an interesting subject in geoarchaeological and archaeometric investigations (Goldberg et al, 2006), and this is a useful study when restoration interventions are required. 
The large archaeological complex of Anahita Temple is located in western Iran, in the city of Kangavar and based on the archaeological excavations and findings, it was dated from the Achaemenid to the Sasanian periods (Azarnoush, 1981; Kambakhsh Fard, 1994). It was constructed on a natural hill and it was erected by stone and gypsum mortars. The main building was built with large stone blocks including cubic blocks for walls and very large and thick circular columns. There are some evidences of stone quarrying in different areas near the Anahita Temple. The main and important stone quarry in this region is Chel Maran (Chehel Maran) stone quarry located in the west of the Temple in a mountain with the same name (Chel Maran mount) (Oudbashi, 2008). The aim of this paper is to analyse the stones from Anahita Temple and the Chel Maran quarry in order to compare their chemical and microstructural features and to find a possible relationship between the building and the quarry. 

Methods
Five fragments from the Anahita Temple and two big samples from the Chel Maran quarry were selected. Ten grams of each sample was powdered for chemical analysis. A thin section was prepared from each sample for microscopic studies. The chemical composition of samples was characterized by X-ray Fluorescence (XRF) analysis by using a S4 Pioneer model X-ray fluorescence spectrometer manufactured by Bruker. Microscopic observation of fragments and stones were done on thin sections by using a Primotech model Zeiss polarized optical microscope. Thin sections were studied by alizarin-red method to identify presence of dolomite in the texture of stone samples (Flügel et al., 2010)

Findings and Argument
The results of XRF analysis of the stone samples are presented in Table 1. The results show that all samples are calcarous stones as can be deduced by the high amount of CaO and the loss on ignition (LOI). Furthermore, SiO2, MgO and Al2O3 were detected as minor constituents in the composition of the stone samples. Other elements were detected as minor/trace content in the compsoition of samples. Although, the stones shows variable amounts of some constituents such as Na2O or Al2O3 , it is visible that the chemical compsoiton of stone samples of the Temple and the quarry is quite similar. 
The pertographic study showed a layerad texture of micrite to sparite in all samples. There were many veins of secondary calcite in the texture of the samples. Alizarine-red test indicated the presence of sporadic dolomite crystals in the texture of the stone samples. Furthermore, some compact clay veins were visible with dark colors in the microstructure of the samples (Bausch, 1968). The compariosn of the petrographic micrographs of samples from the Anahita Temple and the Chel Maran quarry reveals that they are very similar from textural point of view, in particular, sample CM-2 that was taken from the western part of the Chel Maran mount, where many evidences of quarrying and stone extraction are visible in that area.

Conclusion
The results of chemical and petrographic analysis of the stone samples from the Anahita Temple of Kangavar and the Chel Maran stone quarry showed that the Chel Maran stone quarry was used as a main resource to provide stone blocks for the construction of the Anahita Temple. The analysis indicated that the stone samples can be classified as limestone with some impurities such as SiO2, Al2O3 and MgO that are due to presence of clay minerals and dolomite in the structure of both the stone of the Temple and the quarry. The petrographic studies also showed a micrite to sparite texture with evidences of clay veins and small amounts of dolomite spread in the texture of the stones. The results obtained proved the similarity of the chemistry and the texture of samples from Anahita Temple and the quarry which indicate that the ancient quarry of Chel Maran was one of the source of the stones used in the historic monument of Anahita Temple.
Keywords: Ancient Mining, Anahita Temple of Kangavar, Chel Maran Quarry, Limestone, Calcite.
Full-Text [PDF 1732 kb]   (392 Downloads)    
Type of Study: Research | Subject: Interdisciplinary
Received: 2019/05/24 | Accepted: 2019/08/13 | Published: 2019/12/19
References
1. - کامبخش‌فرد، سیف‌الله. (1350). «کاوش‌های علمی در کنگاور». باستان‌شناسی و هنر ایران، شمارۀ 6، صص: 31-10.
2. - کامبخش‌فرد، سیف‌الله. (1374). معبد آناهیتا کنگاور، کاوش‌ها و پژوهش‌های باستان‌شناسی و بازسازی و احیای معماری معبد ناهید و تاق گرا. تهران: سازمان میراث‌فرهنگی کشور.
3. - ملائی، حبیب. (1385). اطلس کانی‌شناسی نوری. مشهد: انتشارات سخن‌گستر، معاونت پژوهشی دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی مشهد.
4. - مهریار، محمد؛ و کبیری، احمد. (1383). کارنامه کاوش، پژوهش، ساماندهی و معرفی «چهارمین گروه باستان‌شناسی» (از ۱۳۶۷ - ‎۱۳۸0)، ادامه کنکاش‌ها در معبد آناهیتا کنگاور. تهران: سازمان میراث‌فرهنگی و گردشگری.
5. - نظری، فرهاد؛ و دوستانی، سعید. (1386). «پژوهشی در معادن سنگ معبد آناهیتا کنگاور». اثر. شماره 42 و 43. صص: 64-52.
7. - Azarnoush, M. (1981). “Excavations at Kangavar”. Archaologische Mitteilungen aus Iran, 14. Pp: 69-94.
8. - Bausch, W. M. (1968). “Clay content and calcite crystal size of limestones”. Sedimentology. 10(1). Pp: 71-75.
9. - Beardsley, F. R. & Goles, G. G. (2001). “Sampling for Provenance: Tailings from Prehistoric Stone Quarries in the South Pacific”. Journal of Archaeological Science, 28. Pp: 587-595.
10. - Bianco, L. (2017). “Techniques to determine the provenance of limestone used in Neolithic Architecture of Malta”. Romanian Journal of Physics 62, 901. Pp: 1-10.
11. - Chilingar, G. V. (1957). “Classification of limestones and dolomites on basis of Ca/Mg ratio”. Journal of Sedimentary Research. 27 (2). Pp: 187-189.
12. - Chilingar, G. V. (1960). “Classification of Carbonate Rocks on Basis of Chemical Composition: NOTES”. Journal of Sedimentary Petrology. 30 (1). Pp: 157-158.
13. - Davidson, D. A. & Shackley, M. L. (Eds.), (1976). Geoarchaeology: Earth Science and the Past. London, Gerald Duckworth and Co. Ltd.
14. - De Paepe, P.; Moens, L. & De Donder, J. (2005). “Provenance assignment of archaeological marbles in the museum of Ballıhisar (Central Anatolia, Turkey), Anatolia antiqua. Eski Anadolu”. Année, 13. Pp: 161-170.
15. - Emami, S. M. (2010). “Preliminary studies on mining methods used in Sivand quarries during the Achaemenian period in Fars province, Irán”. Geología Colombiana - An International Journal on Geosciences, 35. Pp: 175-185.
16. - Emami, M.; Eslami, M.; Fadaei, H.; Karami, H. R & Ahmadi, K. (2018). “Mineralogical–Geochemical Characterization and Provenance of the Stones Used at the Pasargadae Complex in Iran: A New Perspective”. Archaeometry, First published: 22 April 2018, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/arcm.12395.
17. - Flügel, E. & Munnecke, A. (2010). Microfacies of carbonate rocks: analysis, interpretation and application. Springer-Verlag, Berlin.
18. - Frolova, E. K. (1959). On classification of carbonate rocks of limestone-dolomlte-magnesite series: Novosti Neft. Tekhniki (Geology), No,3.
19. - Geyssant, J. (2001). “Geology of Calcium Carbonate, from Mineral to Rock-the Deposits”. In: Calcium Carbonate, from the Cretaceous Period into the 21th Century, Tegethoff, F. W. (Ed.), in collaboration with J. Rohleder and E. Kroker, Springer, Basel: 1-52.
20. - Gaied, M. E.; Younès, A. & Gallala, W. (2010). “A geoarchaeological study of the ancient quarries of Sidi Ghedamsy Island (monastir, Tunisia)”. Archaeometry 52(4). Pp: 531-549.
21. - Goldberg, P. & Macphail, R. I. (2006). Practical and Theoretical Geoarchaeology. Blackwell Publishing, Malden.
22. - Huff, D. (2004). “Pre-Islamic Quarry- and Stone-technology in Iran”. In: Persiens Antike Pracht, Bergbau Hand-werk Archaologie, Katalogbeitrage in englischer sparche, Dautsches Bergbau-museum Bochum. Pp: 294-309.
23. - Lynn, J. D. (2011). “A New Method to Determine Marble Provenance with XRD Accessory Mineralogy”. In: SPE/DGS Saudi Arabia Section Technical Symposium and Exhibition, 15-18 May, Al-Khobar, Saudi Arabia. Pp: 1-17.
24. - MacKenzie, W. S.; Adams, A. E. & Brodie, K. H. (2017). Rocks and Minerals in Thin Section: A Colour Atlas. CRC Press, Taylor and Francis Group, London. Second Edition.
25. - Macphail, R. I. (2017). Experimental Geoarchaeology. In: Encyclopedia of Geoarchaeology, Encyclopedia of Earth Science Series. Gilbert, A. S., Goldberg, P., Holliday, V. T., Mandel, R. D., Sternberg, R. S. (Eds.), Springer, Heidelberg. Pp: 251-262.
26. - Miche, H.; Simler, R.; Affaton, P.; Mickala, O.; Boudzoumou, F. & Mbina, M. (2013). “New Computerized Method for the Geochemical Classification of Precambrian Carbonate Rocks: Case of a Set of African Cap Carbonates”. International Journal of Geosciences, 4. Pp: 1-13.
27. - Miletić, S.; Kramer, S.; Lux, J.; Šmuc, A. & Zupančič, N. (2016). “Provenience analysis of Roman stone artefacts from sedimentary rocks from the archaeological site near Mošnje, NW Slovenia”. Geologija, 59/1. Pp: 35-54.
28. - Oates, J. A. H. (1998). Lime and Limstone, Chemistry and Technology, Production and Uses. Wiley-VCH, Weinheim.
29. - Oudbashi, O. (2008). “Ancient Stone Quarry in Chehel Maran closed by Kangavar Archaeological complex (Anahita Temple), west of Iran”. Proceeding of International Conference AMiTEM 2008, June 15-22, 2008, ANKARA, TURKEY, ATILIM university Publications. Pp: 371-381.
30. - Polikreti, K.; Maniatis, Y.; Bassiakos, Y.; Kourou, N. & Karageorghis, V. (2004). “Provenance of archaeological limestone with EPR spectroscopy: the case of the Cypriote-type statuettes”. Journal of Archaeological Science 31. Pp: 1015-1028.
31. - Pollard, A. M.; Batt, C. M., Stern, B. & Young, S. M. M. (2006). Analytical Chemistry in Archaeology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
32. - Serra, M.; Mameli, V. & Cannas, C. (2017). “Geo-material provenance and technological properties investigation in Copper Age menhirs production at Allai (central-western Sardinia, Italy)”. STAR: Science & Technology of Archaeological Research, 3. Pp: 391-404.
33. - Shin, D. & Lee, I. (2002). “Carbonate-hosted talc deposits in the contact aureole of an igneous intrusion (Hwanggangri mineralized zone, South Korea): geochemistry, phase relationships, and stable isotope studies”. Ore Geology Reviews, 22. Pp: 17-39.
34. - Tilia, A. B. (1968). “A study on the methods of working and restoring stone and on the parts left unfinished in Achaemenian architecture and sculpture”. East and West, Pp: 68-95, new series, vol. 18, nos. 1-2.
35. - Vaggelli, G.; Serra, M.; Cossio, R. & Borghi, A. (2014). “A New Approach for Provenance Studies of Archaeological Finds: Inferences from Trace Elements in Carbonate Minerals of Alpine White Marbles by a Bench-to-Top 𝜇-XRF Spectrometer”. International Journal of Mineralogy, Volume 2014. Pp: 1-11.
Send email to the article author

Add your comments about this article
Your username or Email:

CAPTCHA



XML   Persian Abstract   Print


Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:

Shekofteh A, Oudbashi O, Cultrone G, Ansari M. Analytical Studıes on the Chel Maran Ancient Stone Quarry and Comparison with the Stones of Anahita Temple of Kangavar. Parseh J Archaeol Stud. 2019; 3 (9) :109-127
URL: http://journal.richt.ir/mbp/article-1-264-en.html


Rights and permissions
Creative Commons License This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
year 3, Issue 9 (12-2019) Back to browse issues page
فصلنامه مطالعات باستان شناسی پارسه Parseh Journal of Archaeological Studies
Persian site map - English site map - Created in 0.16 seconds with 30 queries by YEKTAWEB 4361