THE PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY

SCHREYER HONORS COLLEGE

DEPARTMENTS OF MATERIALS SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING

AND ART HISTORY

EXPLORING ANCIENT EGYPTIAN FAIENCE WITH

NANOTECHNOLOGY:
COMPOSITIONAL MAPPINGS, MICROSTRUCTURE ANALYSIS, AND
MODERN APPLICATIONS

ELYSSA IRIS OKKELBERG

Summer 2011

A thesis
submitted in partial fulfillment
of the requirements
for baccalaureate degrees
in Materials Science and Engineering and Art History
with interdisciplinary honors in Materials Science and Engineering
and Art History

Reviewed and approved∗ by the following:

Paul Howell
Professor of Metallurgy
Thesis Supervisor
Honors Advisor

Elizabeth Walters
Associate Professor of Art History
Honors Advisor

Digby MacDonald
Distinguished Professor of Materials Science and Engineering
Faculty Reader

∗
Signatures are on file in the Schreyer Honors College.
Abstract

This thesis investigated Egyptian faience, an ancient ceramic material that consists
of granular quartz or sand coated with an alkali-based glaze. Of interest is the pro-
duction process of faience, in particular the raw materials and the glazing method.
Previous investigations examined the production process using compositional and
microstructural data from ancient and replicate faience. This study confirmed
prior results by investigating faience beads produced in Abydos, Egypt during the
22nd Dynasty (c. 940–720 BC). Furthermore, this investigation improved upon
earlier works by creating compositional mappings and analyzing previously over-
looked parts of faience. Moreover, modern applications for faience technology were
explored.

i
Table of Contents

Abstract i

List of Figures iv

List of Tables vi

Acknowledgments vii

Chapter 1
Egyptian Faience 1
1.1 Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
1.2 Production . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.2.1 Raw materials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1.2.2 Shaping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
1.2.3 Glazing Method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
1.2.4 Firing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
1.3 State of the Art . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
1.4 Contributions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

Chapter 2
Methodology 24

Chapter 3
Results 29
3.1 Bead Sample 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
3.2 Bead Sample 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
3.2.1 Sample 2a: Fragment Showing Outer Surface . . . . . . . . . 36
3.2.2 Sample 2b: Fragment Showing Inner Surface . . . . . . . . . 43
3.2.3 Sample 2c: Cross-Section . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
3.3 Bead Sample 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
3.3.1 Sample 3a: Bead with Removed Fragment . . . . . . . . . . 52

ii
 3.3.2 Sample 3b: Removed Fragment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61

Chapter 4
Discussion 68
4.1 Raw Materials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68
4.1.1 Quartz . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68
4.1.2 Alkali Flux . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69
4.1.3 Colorants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69
4.2 Glazing Method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70
4.2.1 Bead 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71
4.2.2 Bead 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71
4.2.3 Bead 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72
4.3 Comparison with Previous Studies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72
4.3.1 Ancient Faience Comparisons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73
4.3.2 Replicate Faience Comparisons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74

Chapter 5
Modern Applications 76
5.1 Applications of Self-Glazing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76
5.2 Applications of Low Firing Temperature . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77
5.3 Applications of Antimicrobial Properties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78
5.4 Economic and Environmental Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78

Chapter 6
Conclusions and Future Work 80
6.1 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80
6.2 Future Work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81

Bibliography 82

Appendix A
Academic Vita 85

iii
List of Figures

1.1 Examples of faience from the Louvre. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

1.2 The three methods of glazing faience . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
1.3 SEM photographs of sections through select replicate faience from
Tite’s 2007 study. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

2.1 Photos of some of the faience beads analyzed by this study. . . . . . 25

3.1 Bead sample prepared for examination. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

3.2 Naming convention of locations on faience bead . . . . . . . . . . . 31
3.3 Sample 1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
3.4 Close-up of sample 1, showing its porous nature. . . . . . . . . . . . 33
3.5 Close-up of sample 1, centered on a nonporous area. . . . . . . . . . 34
3.6 (a) SEM image and (b) EDS analysis of a pore on sample 1. . . . . 35
3.7 EDS analyses comparing a pore on and an nonporous area of sample
1. The pore analysis is in light blue, and the nonporous analysis is
in black. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
3.8 Reference image for sample 2 showing samples (2a) fragment show-
ing outer surface, (2b) fragment showing inner surface, and (2c)
cross-section. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
3.9 Sample 2a. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
3.10 (a) SEM image and (b) EDS analysis of a close-up of sample 2a. . . 38
3.11 Two different pores on sample 2a. (a) Pore 1 is formed around a
glass grain, and (b) pore 2 has calcium deposits. . . . . . . . . . . . 40
3.12 (a) SEM image and (b) EDS analysis of pore 1 on sample 2a. . . . . 41
3.13 (a) SEM image and (b) EDS analysis of pore 2 on sample 2a. . . . . 42
3.14 Sample 2b. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
3.15 Close-up of sample 2b, better showing the inner surface and body. . 44
3.16 (a) SEM image and (b) EDS analysis of the faience body of sample
2b. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
3.17 (a) SEM image and (b) EDS analysis of sand grain in sample 2b. . 46
3.18 Sample 2c. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
3.19 Close-up of sample 2c, showing the boundary between the glaze and
body. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48

iv
3.20 Close-up of sample 2c, better showing the lack of an interaction
layer between the glaze and body. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
3.21 Close-up of the glaze on sample 2c. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
3.22 Close-up of sample 2c, showing a different boundary between the
glaze and body. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
3.23 (a) SEM image and (b) EDS analysis of the glaze on sample 2c. . . 51
3.24 Reference image showing samples (3a) bead with a fragment re-
moved and (3b) the removed fragment. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
3.25 Sample 3a, centered on cross-sections of (a) the middle and (b) the
end of the bead. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
3.26 Reference image for the compositional mapping of sample 3a at the
middle of the bead. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
3.27 Compositional mapping of sample 3a at the middle of the bead . . . 57
3.28 Reference image for the compositional mapping of sample 3a at the
end of the bead. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
3.29 Compositional mapping of sample 3a at the end of the bead . . . . 59
3.30 (a) SEM image and (b) EDS analysis of a phosphorous-rich area in
sample 3a near the end of the bead. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
3.31 Sample 3b, showing the four locations where compositions were
obtained. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
3.32 (a) SEM image and (b) EDS analysis of sample 3b at location α. . . 62
3.33 (a) SEM image and (b) EDS analysis of sample 3b at location β. . . 63
3.34 (a) SEM image and (b) EDS analysis of sample 3b at location δ. . . 64
3.35 (a) SEM image and (b) EDS analysis of sample 3b at location γ. . . 65
3.36 Composite image of sample 3b. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67

v
List of Tables

1.1 Average cupric oxide concentrations in faience glazes from Kacz-

marczyk and Hedges’s 1983 book. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
1.2 caption . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
1.3 Summary of concentration profiles for replicate faience from Tite’s
2007 study. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
1.4 Average glaze/glass composition for select replicate faience from
Tite’s 2007 study. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

vi
Acknowledgments

First and foremost, I would like to thank my honors and thesis advisors, Dr.
Elizabeth Walters in Art History and Dr. Paul Howell in Materials Science and
Engineering, and Dr. Digby MacDonald for being a faculty reader. Their assistance
and guidance on this project have been invaluable. I would like to recognize Ms.
Stacy Davidson and Dr. Judy Ozment for their advice and support as well as Mr.
Mike Fleck for photographing the beads.
I would also like to thank my grandparents Harriet and Herbert Miller for being
amazing and supportive of me as well as for providing a warm welcoming home
for my friends and me on several breaks. My parents, Eileen and Joe, also deserve
credit.
I would like to acknowledge my classmates, BS, MP, CE, JL, SC, JS and ZR.
Somewhere in between the class work and road trips to Tampa, San Francisco or
Chicago, we truly became a family. Finally I would like to thank Klaus Zhang for
his unyielding support and love.

vii
Chapter 1
Egyptian Faience

The ancient material known as Egyptian faience bears no relationship to

the tin-glazed pottery from Faenza, Italy from which the term originally
derived. Because the Italian pottery is now commonly referred to as
majolica, this thesis refers to Egyptian faience as faience [1].

1.1 Background

Egyptian faience is a ceramic material that consists of granular quartz or sand

coated with an alkali-based glaze [1–5]. Some academics also include similarly
glazed steatite in the definition of faience [2, 6]. Examples of museum-quality

faience from the Louvre are shown in Figure 1.1. Unlike conventional, clay-based
ceramics, the raw materials of faience react when fired to produce a result quite

different from its components, making it the “first high-tech ceramic” [7]. The
ancient Egyptians refered to faience as tjehenet, from the root tjehen meaning to

dazzle or gleam [8, 9]. It was also called khesbed, their word for lapis lazuli and,
sometimes, the color blue [8, 10].
 2

(a) Box cover on behalf of the divine wor- (b) Servant of the funeral
shipper of Amon, Nitocris; of King Seti I;
Reign of Psammetichus I (664–610 BC, 1294–1279 BC (19th Dy-
26th Dynasty) nasty)
Figure 1.1. Examples of faience from the Louvre (Photographed by Elyssa Okkelberg).

This study employs faience beads of a deep blue color that may fulfill an ancient

Egyptian interest in having lapis lazuli or the broader interest in colors connected
to the sky [11–13]. These beads are provisionally regarded by Dr. Elizabeth Walters

as examples of the mature Egyptian interest—lasting from the New Kingdom till
Roman times (c. 1550 BC–AD 400)—in deep blue [14]. This pronounced deep blue
is part of a taste or preference for works of art, remarkable to beads and amulets

from Dynasty 21 (c. 1070 BC) and later, and may also evoke the appearance
of the semi-precious stone lapis lazuli, a rare commodity from Afghanstan and

Sinai [12, 15]. Production of faience in ancient Egypt is known as early as the
Predynastic Period (c. 6000 BC) where a preference for very pale green faience
 3

existed. Color symbolism was significant to ancient Egyptians—evoking life, new

greenery, young and vital plants, and fertility with the green hues (copper-induced)

and the more pronounced blues with calcium (added to the copper) for the sky
to lapis lazuli hues. Color symbolism is probably an avenue for future research

beyond the scope of this thesis.

The Egyptians used faience to produce many objects, including bowls, tiles,
amulets, beads, figurines, and scarabs [3]. It could be made in a wide variety of

hues, such as white, yellow, violet, black, red, and brown [3, 5] but was typically
shades of blue or green, possibly in imitation of semi-precious stones such as lapis

lazuli, turquoise, and green feldspar [12]. Over time, faience would acquire some
of the cultural significance and magical powers of the semi-precious stones it was

meant to imitate [13, 14]. These overtones may have come from the magical trans-
formation of “an ugly mass of sand and plant ash to a brilliant, light-reflecting
piece of art” [13]. Faience was greatly sought after, being highly traded and widely

exported. It has been found in Egypt, Mesopotamia, Europe, and the Mediter-
ranean [1].

1.2 Production

The first significant investigation on the production of Egyptian faience was per-

formed by Lucas [3]. He classified faience as ordinary faience and variants A

through F, according to appearance. The variants were faience with an extra

layer (variant A), black faience (variant B), red faience (variant C), blue- or green-
bodied faience (variant D), glassy faience (variant E), and faience with lead glazing
(variant F) [2]. Recently, some of his variations have been criticized for being too

similar. For example, Kaczmarczyk and Hedges proposed that variants B, C, and
 4

D be combined, because they considered it arbitrary to classify some faience colors

as variants but not others [3]. Noble simplified the classification further and only

differentiated between standard and semi-glass faience [6]. This thesis only consid-
ers the production process for ordinary faience, which has a quartz body directly

coated with an alkali-based glaze.

The production of ordinary faience requires several steps. Nicholson separates
them into the primary processing of raw materials and secondary processing, which

involves shaping, glaze application, and firing [16]. These steps are described
in more detail in the following sections. Section 1.2.1 discusses the raw materi-

als and their processing. Section 1.2.2 focuses on the formation of objects. In
Section 1.2.3, glazing methods and their effect on the resulting faience are ex-

plained. Section 1.2.4 details the firing of faience.

1.2.1 Raw materials

For ordinary faience, the raw materials for the body consists of mainly quartz with

additions of lime and one or more alkali salts [16]. The quartz of the body can
be either coarse- or fine-grained and was either from sand or produced by grind-

ing quartzite or flint. The lime, whether intentional or not, was either naturally
present in the sand or from crushed or calcined limestone. The alkali was often
natron (Na2 CO3 · 10 H2 O) from salt lakes as it was commonly used in Ancient

Egypt in the mummification process. Another alkali used was potassium carbon-
ate (K2 CO3 ) from the ash of burnt halophilic (salt-loving) plants. The lime and

alkali acted as a flux to lower the high melting point of silica (1600–1725◦ C) and
promote glass formation in the body. They do so by breaking up the tetrahe-

dral bonding of the silica and introducing loose electrons. The resulting lattice is
 5

disrupted, and the weakly bonded silica breaks down at a lower temperature. To
strengthen the disrupted matrix network, modifiers like calcium were added to sta-

bilize the faience [17]. Lime also increased durability by making the object water
resistant [18]. A typical composition for the faience body was 92–99% silica (SiO2 ),

1–5% lime (CaO), and 0–5% alkai, such as soda (Na2 O) or potash (K2 O) [4, 18].
The body would also contain lesser amounts of aluminum oxide (Al2 O3 ), ferric
oxide (Fe2 O3 ), magnesium oxide (MgO), cupric oxide (CuO), and potassium oxide

(K2 O), with trace amounts of other elements [4, 11]. Note that the form in which
these materials were added is not known with certainty, only their final forms after

firing. In rare cases, clay was added as a plasticizer to make the faience easier to
shape [18].

The raw materials for the glaze consists of much the same components as the
body as well as a metallic oxide for coloring. The metal in the oxide is typ-
ically copper, sometimes with added calcium [3, 7]. Copper would have been

present in nature in its native state (as a metal) and in ores—primarily azurite
(Cu3 (OH)2 (CO3 )2 ), malachite (Cu2 CO3 (OH)2 ), and chrysocolla (CuSiO3 · 2 H2 O) [19].

Copper oxide by itself can produce a range of colors between blue and green de-
pending on the specific composition. The addition of calcium oxide produces the

crystalline double salt “Egyptian Blue” (CaO · CuO · 4 SiO2 ), also known as the
mineral cuprorivaite. A wide range of copper and calcium oxide concentrations
produce this salt, which has an intense blue color [3].

The earliest faience was available in only blue or green. Starting in the New
Kingdom (c. 1550 BC), the available colors were extended, which coincided with

the introduction of glass to Egypt. Some believed that ground glass was added
to the body in order to increase the number of colors as well as the strength of

the material [4]. However, recent work has shown that the composition of the
 6

body does not show evidence of this [20], though it is possible that colored frit,
a material similar in composition to glass, was used rather than ground glass.

Glass was probably a component of some applied glazes, especially for yellows
and lime greens. Other colors were produced using metal oxides such as iron

oxide (brown to red), cobalt (dark blue), lead and antimony (yellow), and lead
(white) [11, 18]. Regardless of the glaze color, black manganese was commonly
used to add hieroglyphs and decorative patterns [11].

The color of the faience is also affected by the silica present in both the body and
the glaze. The clarity of the quartz particles changes how the light is reflected.

Starting during the Old Kingdom (c. 2700–2200 BC), a layer of clear and fine-
grained white faience body material would be added above a grayish or brownish

and coarse-grained body and below the glaze. This middle layer was the ideal,
dense foundation for the glaze, with the brilliancy of the glaze’s color dependent
on the purity of the quartz sand [2, 18].

Related to the vitreous material faience is glass. Egyptian faience, with its
largely silica core, has the same basic components as glass but in different propor-

tions [12]. When making glass, silica reacts with lime and soda at about 1000–
1100◦ C to form a non-crystalline material. Faience has a much higher silica con-

centration than glass, so the concentrations of lime and soda are not sufficient to
completely melt the silica at the firing temperature of 800–1000◦ C. When fired, a
crystalline ceramic material is formed along with interparticle glass that strength-

ens the faience by strongly binding the quartz grains of the body [1, 3, 7, 18, 21].
Many recognize frit as a link between faience and true glass. Frit is a fused

ceramic that has been quenched to form glass and granulated. Frit is typically blue
or green, though other colors do exist [1]. Blue frits have a dominant crystalline

phase of calcium copper silicate, also known as Egyptian blue, in a matrix of glass.
 7

Green frits have a dominant crystalline phase of wollastonite (CaSiO3 ), which is

crystallized from a copper-rich glass matrix. Similar to the quartz body of faience,

frit can be further classified as coarse- and fine-textured. It may be of scholarly

interest to determine the technical distinction between faience and frit.

1.2.2 Shaping

The faience paste formed after primary processing is difficult to work with com-
pared to potting clay. The platelets that form clay slide easily when wet and fuse

together when heated to 600◦ C. In contrast, the silica particles in faience are an-
gular, which impedes their movement even when wetted [1]. Indeed, the typical

faience paste can be classified as a non-Newtonian material, meaning it exhibits a

non-constant viscosity. More specifically, it is thixotropic, because its viscosity de-
creases over time when subject to a constant shear rate. The material would have

been challenging to shape and prone to losing detail if worked too quickly [1, 11].
It had to be worked in much the same manner as with sand sculptures using gentle

patting and simple tooling [22].

The earliest faience objects were simple and shaped only by hand. To achieve

more detail than was possible with hand-molding, a common technique was to
approximate the shape in wet faience paste and then, after the material has dried,
abrade it to its final shape with sharp tools. This abrasion method was widely

used to make small figurines [11]. When multiples of the same object are needed,
for instance furniture inlays or amulets, molding was used instead. A piece of clay

was made into the desired shape either by carving or by being impressed with an
existing object. The clay was then fired to make a mold. The faience pieces were

not fired in the mold but rather tipped out to dry, so one mold could make many
 8

pieces at once. Eventually the porous mold would soak up too much paste material
and would need to be discarded. It is thought that the glazed tiles used in the

Step Pyramid complex of Djoser (c. 2667–2648 BC), constructed during the 3rd
Dynasty, were made using molds and are an early example of mass production [11].

For a larger object, such as a vessel, a typical technique was to form it over
a core of straw or some other plant material. The organic core would act as a
temporary support and burn away during firing. It could also aid in the faience-

making process by wicking away excess water [22]. Another technique was to make
the object in pieces, for example using molds, and join them together with a wet

paste of faience material. One of the largest faience pieces, a scepter for Amenhotep
II measuring 2.158 m long, was made this way by joining short sections together

with faience paste [11]. Potter’s wheels were also used to make vessels, especially
from the New Kingdom onwards. To enable throwing on a potter’s wheel, clay
would have been added to the body in order to increase its plasticity [4, 18].

1.2.3 Glazing Method

There are currently three known methods to affix the coloration glaze to the body:

efflorescence, cementation, and application. A graphic depiction of the methods is

shown in Figure 1.2. It should be noted that these methods can be used in com-
bination and that the method(s) used are not always identifiable [4, 16, 21]. These

glazing methods cause the glaze material to penetrate the body of the faience
differently, resulting in differences in the resulting microstructures. In describing

the microstructures of faience, this thesis follows Tite et al. and distinguishes be-
tween the glaze, the interaction layer, and the body. The glaze contains essentially

no quartz. The interaction layer between the glaze and body consists of quartz
 9

Figure 1.2. The three methods of glazing faience as described by Vandiver. Reproduced
from Moorey [4, 23].
 10

embedded in a continuous matrix of glass. The body consists of quartz particles

held together by interparticle glass [5], which is formed when fired from glaze that

entered the body. There is evidence to suggest that the glazing method was cho-
sen according to the size of the object in order to achieve a certain strength [5].

It appears that smaller objects contained a higher amount of interparticle glass

within the body so as to increase the strength of the object.
The first method, efflorescence, is a self-glazing method. It was the typical

glazing method during the Old Kingdom [24]. The glazing materials are soluble
salts, primarily sodium-carbonates as well as potassium-carbonates, sulphates and

chlorides. While wet, these are mixed with the ground quartz and alkali of the
body. As the mixture dries, the water-soluble salts are drawn to the surface and

form a “scum” layer on the surface [11]. This process, where water with dissolved
salts is drawn to the surface and evaporates, leaving behind a salt deposit, is
known as efflorescence. There appears to be a preferential efflorescence of sodium

carbonate versus potassium, calcium, and magnesium carbonates and copper oxide,
possibly because of its significantly lower solubility [5]. When the faience is fired,

the precipitated salts react with the silica to form a glaze whose thickness depends
on the drying time, with faster drying leading to thicker glazes [25]. The glaze is

typically narrow, but over-firing or too much alkali, which acts like a flux to lower
melting temperatures, may result in a thicker layer [16]. Faience produced with
efflorescence has extensive interparticle glass due to the alkali salts that failed to

reach the surface. This effect is more pronounced when coarse-grained quartz is
used for the body, with the resulting faience consisting almost entirely of quartz

embedded in a continuous matrix of glass [21]. The interparticle glass in the body
extends to the surface, where it forms the glaze [11]. The boundaries between

the body, interaction layer, and glaze are not well-defined, because the number of
 11

embedded quartz particles decreases gradually from the body to the glaze, with
the glaze containing no particles of quartz.

The second method, cementation, is also self-glazing. Evidence suggests that

this method was not used until the Middle Kingdom (c. 2040–1640 BC) [1]. It is

also known as the Qom technique, named after Qom in Iran, where in the 1960s
Wulff et al. discovered the method in use to produce bright turquoise beads [26].
In Qom, the beads were formed from a mixture of finely ground quartzite and gum

tragacanth dissolved in water. Instead of gum tragacanth, the Ancient Egyptians

had access to gum from acacias, some of which can be found in the Nile Valley.

The best known acacia gum is gum arabic, which was produced from shrubs found
in eastern Africa as far north as Sudan [27]. The addition of gum to the mixture

turned it into a paste for easier shaping. The paste were shaped into beads and
buried in a glazing mixture of plant ash, hydrated lime, powdered quartz, copper
oxide, and charcoal. Subsequently, the faience was fired to 1000◦ C. The cemen-

tation process occurs gradually, so very long firing times are required. Wulff et al.
recorded a twelve-hour firing period and a cooling period of similar length. Af-

terwards, the sintered yet friable glazing mixture was crumbled away to leave the
glazed beads [26]. Vandiver theorizes that the low melting alkalis are drawn to and

react with the quartz upon firing; afterwards, the unreacted portion of the glazing
mixture can be removed [4]. On the other hand, Dr. William O. Williamson be-
lieves that the glazing mechanism is a vapor phase reaction similar to that found

in salt glazing [4]. There appears to be a preferential absorption into the glaze of
potash over soda, possibly because potash is a more effective flux of silica. Charac-

teristics of this method are an even glaze and a copper concentration that rapidly
decreases away from the surface [16]. If fine-grained quartz is used for the body,

there is a pronounced surface layer that is free of quartz [21]. The interaction
 12

layer between the glaze and body is typically thick and has both quartz and glass.
In contrast, the body is largely quartz and only minimal amounts of interparticle

glass, because the glaze has to penetrate from the outside. This results in a pro-
nounced division between the interaction layer and the body. The glaze is usually

thin, because it has to penetrate from the outside [16, 21].

The final method is application, which was previously thought to be the only
method of glazing [2]. In this method, a slurry of water and ground-up silica,

lime and alkali is applied to the quartz body. The result is then fired with the
slurry forming a glaze. This is similar to the glazing process for stone, whose

glazing predates faience production, and pottery. Cylindrical containers called

saggars were often used with the application method. In these saggars, vessels

to be glazed were stacked up with cones as separators, which left telltale marks.
Other signs of the application method are brush strokes, drips and runs of glaze,
and finger marks [11]. The applied glaze tends to vary in thickness, because the

glazing slurry runs and tends to pool on lower surfaces. The glazing components
do not penetrate far into the body, which means the body has little interparticle

glass. This may cause the body to be soft and friable [16]. Additionally, the lack
of penetration by the glazing components results in a thin and diffuse interaction

layer. However, the size of the interaction layer and the strength of the body
greatly depends on the firing method and the flux content of the body, and the
two parameters appear to be directly related [4].

Glazing techniques were sometimes combined in ancient times to minimize sur-

face flaws and create objects of greater beauty. An additional glaze could be applied

over an efflorescence glaze to touch up irregularities due to carving or drying. This

was especially common with vessels and bowls from the New Kingdom [22]. Tech-

niques could also be combined for decoration. For instance, an inlaid headdress
 13

dating to the 18th dynasty had a lavender effloresced glaze with a deep-blue glaze
applied on top to create a “rich, scintillating effect” [22]. Sometimes, a polychrome

effect was achieved by molding together two effloresced pastes. This “decorative
repertoire” for faience culminated in the Greco-Roman periods. One of the best

examples is a fragment of a Mit Rahina vessel that combined “molded and applied
effloresced pastes, applied glazes, applied pigment wash, and gilding” [22]

1.2.4 Firing

The last step of faience production is firing. Faience was generally fired at temper-
atures of 800–1000◦ C [1]. Higher temperatures produced a smoother glaze that

penetrated further into the body and embedded with rounded bubbles [11,24]. Un-
like with unglazed pottery, care was necessary to prevent the faience from sticking
together. It is assumed that trays or saggar vessels were used and lime or quartz

pebbles acted as a separating layer to prevent sticking [11].

The firing of faience was done in any of a number of structures. The earliest

known examples are brick-lined pits that date from the mid-Old Kingdom to the
early Middle Kingdom (c. 2500–2000 BC) [1]. Later, faience was fired in kilns that

could also have served as pottery or glass kilns. By the Roman Era (c. 50 BC–AD
400), large furnaces that could fire numerous pieces at once were employed [11].
The fuel was composed of mostly wood or charcoal with possibly additions of

straw, domestic rubbish, and dung. The additions were probably an attempt at
economizing fuel usage in a country deficient of timber [1].
 14

1.3 State of the Art

The first notable accounts of faience production were by Sir Flinders Petrie from

the 1890s through the 1910s. However, from the results of recent studies, much
of his work has been shown to be only partially correct [11]. The pioneering

examination of faience was conducted in the 1920s by Alfred Lucas [3]. The latest
edition of his work was published in 1962. Lucas attempted a classification of

faience variants. He also investigated faience production but incorrectly thought

that application was the only glazing method for faience. Charles F. Binns was
the first to recognize the possibility of self-glazing faience using the efflorescence

method [6]. Through ethnographic work in the late 1960s, Wulff et al. showed that
faience could also be glazed by cementation [11]. Shortly after their publication,

Kühne published his study on faience of the second millennium BC, and Kiefer
and Albert developed the work of Binns on glazing by efflorescence [11].

With the discovery of the different glazing methods, there was a renewed inter-
est in how to determine the faience production techniques employed for an object.
Pioneering studies were published by Tite et al. in 1983 and Tite and Bimson in

1986. The work of Tite established the background for later works [11], such as the
1983 work of Kaczmarczyk and Hedges, the 1983 work of Pamela Vandiver, and

the 1987 works by Vandiver and Kingery. The study of Kaczmarczyk and Hedges
with its large technological appendix by Vandiver is still the most significant ana-

lytical study of faience. A summary of faience production and the range of objects
that could be produced using faience was written by Friedman in 1998.
A wide range of analytical techniques are employed in the examination of

faience. The most reliable instrument for determining the glazing method is the
scanning electron microscope (SEM) using either secondary or backscattered elec-
 15

trons [3,21,22]. Other techniques in use include energy dispersive X-ray spectrom-
etry (EDS), wavelength dispersive spectrometry (WDS), and laser ablation induc-

tively coupled plasma mass spectrometry (LA-ICP-MS). For objects that cannot
be sampled, atomic absorption spectrometry (AAS) and X-ray fluorescence (XRF)

are used. Recently, laser-induced breakdown spectroscopy (LIBS) was used by D.

Anglos to examine a large number of artifacts, because it is both non-destructive
and rapid [13].

A number of studies on the composition of faience have been made. One of

the most inclusive works is the 1983 book by Kaczmarczyk and Hedges with Van-

diver’s appendix. A summary of their results on faience composition are given in

Tables 1.1 and 1.2, respectively [3, 4]. Of particular interest are the glaze compo-

sitions from the New Kingdom (18th–20th Dynasties) and the glass compositions
of beads as these pertain to the scope of this work. However, this work is more
focused on a qualitative study of faience, so the results are hard to compare. Also

of importance is Tite’s 2007 study. One marked improvement of this study upon
previous ones is that concentration profiles for soda, potash, lime, and copper oxide

were made for the faience replicates. The concentration profiles consisted of the
concentrations of the components at five to seven locations from the glaze to the

body. However, the study did not create concentration profiles for ancient faience.
A summary of the concentration profiles for the efflorescence replicates E1–E4 and
the cementation replicates C1–C4 is given in Table 1.3 [5]. Though much is known

about the composition of faience from these and other studies, this knowledge is
incomplete and leaves several questions unanswered, as described in Chapter 2.
 16

Table 1.1. Average cupric oxide concentrations in faience glazes from

Kaczmarczyk and Hedges’s 1983 book (Percent weight).
Purple Black Brown
Time Period White Yellow Green Blue and and and
Violet Gray Red
Predynastic — — 2.99 3.51 — — 0.25
Dyn. 1–2 0.14 — 2.33 2.39 1.79 1.81 2.89
Dyn. 3–6 0.02 — 2.41 6.09 — 3.41 0.34
Dyn. 7–10 0.15 — 3.29 5.85 — 2.91 4.20
Dyn. 11–12 0.13 — 3.74 4.69 — 4.88 0.59
Dyn. 13–17 0.07 — 4.00 4.05 — 4.43 3.81
Early 18th 0.03 0.06 4.37 5.11 — 7.09 0.04
Late 18th 0.06 0.17 2.82 3.99 0.94 0.19 0.13
Dyn. 19–20 0.04 0.02 2.55 3.06 0.09 1.60 0.16
Dyn. 21–25 0.19 — 2.27 4.70 2.58 2.93 1.72
Dyn. 26–30 0.24 0.17 1.78 2.53 2.45 1.45 0.10
Ptolemaic 0.13 0.58 1.35 2.37 1.32 1.35 0.32
Table 1.2. Average glass composition in glaze and body from Vandiver’s 1983 appendix (Percent
weight).
Sampled Object SiO2 Al2 O3 FeO MgO CaO Na2 O K2 O CuO Cl
M.I.T. Glass Standard #II 69.56 10.72 0.00 4.42 5.24 4.78 5.17 0.02 0.00
Steatite glaze from beada 60.08 0.56 0.20 25.94 0.72 5.40 0.09 5.21 1.09
Glazeb 78.97 0.51 0.19 0.00 0.70 0.25 0.24 9.46 0.59
Glazec 81.55 0.42 0.12 0.00 0.95 0.49 0.44 3.56 1.59
Glaze and interparticle glassd 70.79 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.53 2.24 0.37 14.66 1.16
Bodyd 69.51 0.11 0.00 0.00 1.00 5.89 4.96 11.78 1.00
Glazee 76.33 0.22 0.11 0.03 5.14 0.01 0.00 5.88 0.75
Glaze and interparticle glassf 64.67 0.83 0.37 3.36 8.06 18.35 1.60 1.48 1.06
Interparticle glassf 73.75 7.63 0.72 1.77 1.80 9.52 1.91 1.75 0.30
Plano convexg 66.83 0.57 0.11 0.56 0.91 1.99 1.23 16.28 0.84
Plano convexh 65.08 0.15 0.06 0.03 2.37 8.64 5.71 18.11 0.51
Concave convexi 69.61 0.28 0.33 0.00 0.79 0.87 2.12 14.73 1.36
a
Inhomogeneous glaze with undetermined 1 µm inclusions
b
Predynastic bead; homogeneous glaze with traces of sulfur
c
IB hieroglyph gray substrate, 5th Dynasty; heavily weathered, homogeneous glaze
d
Vessel, Middle Kingdom; some weathering
e
Bead, Middle Kingdom; surface weathered and cracked, quartz and minor potassium feldspar inclusions
f
Bowl, New Kingdom; trace of manganese in glaze, inclusions of CaSb2 O4 and possibly CaSiO3 , possibly
clay in body
g
Soft-bodied tile, Second Intermediate Period; heterogeneous glaze, patches of weathering and some
striations in glaze high in sulfur
h
Hard-bodied tile, Middle Kingdom; high fired, unweathered body, presence of cristobalite
i
Hard-bodied tile, Second Intermediate Period; surface weathering layer, presence of cristobalite

17
 18

Table 1.3. Summary of concentration profiles for replicate faience from

Tite’s 2007 study.
Regiona Na2 O K2 O CaO CuO
Efflorescence faience replicates
E1 GLZ—IAL → — → →
IAL—IPG ← → ← →
E2 GLZ—IAL — — → →
IAL—IPG ← — ← →
E3 GLZ—IAL ← → → →
IAL—IPG — → ← ←
E4 GLZ—IAL ← → → →
IAL—IPG ← — → —
Cementation faience replicatesb
C1 GLZ—IAL ← ← ← ←
C2 GLZ—IAL — → — ←
C3 GLZ—IAL ← ← → →
C4 GLZ—IAL ← ← ← ←
→ Increase in oxide content from GLZ to IAL to IPG.
— No change in oxide content.
← Decrease in oxide content from GLZ to IAL to IPG.
a
GLZ—glaze layer; IAL—interaction layer; IPG—interparticle glass in body.
b
There is no IPG for cementation replicates.

The most recent, and possibly the best, reproduction attempt was made by Tite
et al. at the Cardiff University in Wales in 2006 and published the next year. His

lab replicated faience using efflorescence and cementation techniques. The replica-
tions were small, round beads, approximately 10 mm in diameter. The replicates

using efflorescence were 90% quartz with the remainder being the glazing compo-
nents of sodium, potassium, calcium, and magnesium carbonates and copper oxide.
The quartz had 80% quartz grains less than 63 µm and 20% grains from 125 to

250 µm. The glazing components were all less than 63 µm. The mixtures were
wet with either water or a 5% gum Arabic solution (by weight) to aid shaping.

After shaping by hand, the beads were dried and then fired at 950◦ C for up to
5 hours. The replicates using cementation had a core of quartz grains less than

63 µm in size. This was also moistened with either water or a gum Arabic solution
 19

and shaped by hand. The beads were then fired at 1000◦ C for up to 12 hours in
a glazing mixture of quartz grains from 250 to 500 µm in size as well as sodium,

potassium, calcium and magnesium carbonates, copper oxide, alumina, and char-
coal. The differing characteristics of faience produced by the two methods can be

noted in the efflorescence replicate E1 and the cementation replicate C2, shown
in Figures 1.3a and 1.3b, respectively. Efflorescence replicate E1 was made with
glazing components of sodium and calcium carbonates and copper oxide only; it

was wet with water and allowed to dry in a 20◦ C room. Cementation replicate
C2 was wet with gum Arabic and put into the glazing mixture whose composi-

tion is shown in Table 1.4. Also shown in Table 1.4 are the compositions for the
mentioned replicate faience, more specifically the composition in the glaze layer

(GLZ), interaction layer (IAL), and interparticle glass in the body (IPG) [5]. In
the figures, pores are black, quartz particles are dark gray, and glass is light gray.
As can be seen, the efflorescence replicate had a diffuse boundary for interaction

layer and extensive interparticle glass in the body, while the cementation replicate
had a defined boundary for the interaction layer and little interparticle glass.

Though the replication of faience has improved, replicate faience still does not
resemble ancient faience. The thickness of the glaze for the authentic faience

studied by Tite et al. varied from 20 to 70 µm, while replicate faience had glaze
thicknesses from less than 50 µm to 200 µm. In addition, the real faience had either
no interaction layer or one ranging from 70 to 500 µm, while the replicate faience

had much thicker interaction layers, up to or more than 1000 µm, depending on the
glazing method. Furthermore, hybrid glazing methods involving two or more of the

basic glazing methods have yet to be fully explored or understood. Lastly, coloring
of the faience is still primitive and restricted to single colors. The polychrome tiles

of later Egyptian dynasties have yet to be duplicated.

Table 1.4. Average glaze/glass composition for select replicate faience from Tite’s 2007 study (Percent weight, normalized to
100%).
Componenta SiO2 Na2 O K2 O CaO MgO CuO Al2 O3 Charcoal Na2 O/K2 O Na2 O/CaO Na2 O/MgO Na2 O/CuO
b
Efflorescence replicate E1
GLZ 80.66 14.46 0.06 1.92 0.02 2.87 7.52 5.04
IAL 74.85 15.51 0.10 4.33 0.07 5.14 3.58 3.02
IPG 75.24 10.15 0.19 3.44 0.09 10.89 2.95 0.93
Cementation replicate C2c
GLZ 63.54 16.09 6.34 8.17 1.41 1.18 3.23 2.54 1.97 11.42 13.61
IAL 75.10 9.33 7.00 5.57 0.60 0.25 2.01 1.33 1.67 15.45 37.81
Glaze mixture 39.00 25.00 2.70 17.50 2.00 1.00 5.50 7.30 9.26 1.43 12.50 25.00
a
GLZ—glaze layer; IAL—interaction layer; IPG—interparticle glass in body.
b
Quartz of body moistened with water; left to dry in room at 20◦ C.
c
Quartz of body moistened with 5% gum Arabic solution, by weight.

20
 21

BDY
GLZ
BDY
IAL IAL

GLZ

(a) (b)
Figure 1.3. SEM photographs of sections through glaze (GLZ), interaction layer (IAL),
and body (BDY) of replicate (a) efflorescence faience E1 and (b) cementation faience C2
from Tite’s 2007 study.

1.4 Contributions

The aims of this thesis are twofold. First, this study seeks to confirm and expand
upon previous investigations of faience. Second, this paper wants to determine
potential modern applications of faience technology.

Previous studies attempted to analyze a representative sample of Egyptian

faience by including objects of each color and type from each of the traditional

periods of ancient Egyptian history. This meant that their methodology had to be
suitable for the large diversity in their samples and had to be tolerant of faience

of poor quality (e.g. heavily weathered or damaged) [3,4]. Often, the data was av-
eraged, which potentially removed valuable information. There was also selection
bias, because some object types are more common than others. For example, beads

are much more common than amulets, and objects from the Third Intermediate
Period (c. 1100–650 BC) are primarily ushabtis [3]. Additionally, previous studies

have been conducted from a materials science perspective only. However, Vandiver
 22

demonstrated the need for “an interdisciplinary approach combining Egyptian his-
tory and art, materials science, and ceramic technology” in order to fully study

faience [4].
The primary aim of this thesis is to add to and improve upon previous ex-

aminations of faience. The average composition and microstructures of faience

are well explored, but it is not known whether different types of objects differ in
these aspects. This study adds to the available knowledge by analyzing a common

faience object, beads. The beads were of a funerary nature and were donated by
Dr. Elizabeth Walters from the Fairservis Archives of Penn State’s Department of

Art History. They originated from Abydos, Egypt and, from their characteristic
blue color, were produced between the 22nd Dynasty of Egypt and the Roman Era

(c. 950 BC–AD 400) [14].

This thesis improved on previous studies of faience by only considering the best
preserved beads (whole and unweathered). This means that any imperfections were

a result of the production process. These imperfections could potentially be ana-

lyzed to more accurately determine the steps of faience production. Furthermore,

this study is done from both a materials science and engineering perspective and
an art history perspective, which is revolutionary. This interdisciplinary approach

allows for a better understanding of the faience studied and its relationship to
other wares.
The second aim is to explore potential modern applications of the faience pro-

duction process. Just as zirconia (ZrO2 ) was intended to simulate diamond but
has engineering uses in oxygen sensors and thermal barrier coatings, faience could

also have uses other than as a substitute for semi-precious stones. In particular,
the self-glazing property of faience produced by efflorescence or cementation could

be useful in the creation of small ceramic objects. Additionally, faience is produced

 23

at low temperatures under 1000◦ C, which can be beneficial in the production of

ceramics with heat-sensitive components. Finally, the antimicrobial properties of

faience [5] may be transferable to ceramic items used in sensitive conditions like
hospitals or food services.
Chapter 2
Methodology

This thesis studied funerary faience beads originating from Abydos, Egypt. Four

of these beads are shown in Figure 2.1. Their particular shades of blue are charac-
teristic of the 22nd Dynasty, but the beads could have been produced as late as the
Roman Era. The beads are hollow cylinders with a length of 5.5 mm, an outside

diameter of 2 mm, and an inside diameter of 1 mm. Their small size suggests that
the glazing was done by efflorescence, but glazing by cementation is also a possi-

bility [5]. The holes through the beads were likely stuffed with papyrus reed or
metal wires to prevent glazing. The beads were donated by Dr. Elizabeth Walters

from the Fairservis Archives of Penn State’s Department of Art History.

Faience has been analyzed in several previous investigations. The earliest stud-
ies looked at the overall chemical composition to determine the raw materials.

However, they failed to investigate the interaction layer [2, 3]. More recent studies
considered the composition of the interaction layer in addition to that of the glaze

and body. They also examined the microstructures in an attempt to determine the
production methods [21, 24, 28]. Tite even went as far as to develop composition

profiles through replicate faience [5]. However, no similar study of composition

 25

(a) (b)

(c)

Figure 2.1. Photos of some of the faience beads analyzed by this study (Photographed
by Mike Fleck).

profiles has been performed for authentic faience. Therefore, this study conducted
a more in-depth investigation of the beads by creating a compositional mapping
of the faience.

In addition, previous studies failed to investigate the composition of a deliber-

ately unglazed surface, such as the inner surface of a hollow bead. An unglazed

faience surface, particularly one belonging to effloresced faience, could better reveal
the raw materials of the faience. Also missing is an investigation of the microstruc-
tures of unglazed faience. This study accomplished both by analyzing the unglazed

inner surface of the hollow beads.

 26

Furthermore, this study analyzed imperfections in the faience, such as pores in

the surface or abnormal deposits. Previous studies have mentioned how weather-

ing could change the composition at the surface [4, 5, 21]. It is possible that the
composition in pores could be closer to the original composition, because those

areas would have been subject to less weathering. Additionally, abnormal deposits
could have been from the surrounding environment or characteristic of the raw
materials. These could better reveal the sources of the raw materials.

To perform these tasks, this thesis examined the microstructures and the com-
position along cross-sections of the faience beads using a scanning electron micro-

scope (SEM). An SEM images an object by scanning it with a beam of electrons.

The electrons interact with atoms at or near the surface of the object to produce

signals that reveal information about the topography, composition, and other prop-
erties of the object’s surface. The types of signals produced by an SEM include
secondary electrons, back-scattered electrons, and characteristic X-rays. Imaging

with secondary electrons can produce a very high-resolution image of the surface,
revealing details less than 1 nm. Back-scattered electrons (BSE) are commonly

used in analytical SEM, because the intensity of the BSE signal is strongly related
to the atomic number of the specimen. The characteristic X-rays allows for the

use of energy-dispersive X-ray spectroscopy (EDS), a variant of X-ray fluorescence

spectroscopy. The X-rays are termed such, because their energies are characteristic
of the atoms which constitute the sample, which allows the elemental composition

to be analyzed.
The SEM and EDS analyses were conducted with an ESEM-FEI Quanta 200

microscope equipped with an Oxford Instruments INCAx-sight EDS system. It

was set to a low vacuum (producing 0.68–0.75 Torr in this study, depending on the

temperature and humility of the environment) and an accelerating voltage of 20 kV.

 27

Because this is mainly an exploratory study, the EDS system was not calibrated.
This means a quantitative study of the elemental components is not possible.

Rather, a qualitative study of the distribution of each element was conducted.

The SEM was in secondary electron imaging mode to analyze the first two bead

samples. This allowed the topology of the fragmented surfaces to be studied.

However, little information was revealed about the microstructures. Therefore, the
other bead sample was analyzed with BSE. When imaged with BSE, the quartz

particles appear dark while the higher atomic number glass phase appears light [21].
This method better revealed the microstructures. Additionally, imperfections such

tin or phosphate were easily distinguishable as they appeared white compared to

the surrounding material.

The method of glazing can be determined by examining the faience. Initial

examination of the objects for drips of glaze, marks from drying or firing, and
changes in the glaze thickness is often an important first step in determining the

glazing method [4], but sufficient evidence was not detected on the faience sam-
ples. Therefore, microstructural and compositional data was used instead. Tite

and Bimson proposed that the glazing method can be determined from the thick-
nesses of the glaze and interaction layer, the boundary between the interaction

layer and body, and the presence or lack thereof of interparticle glass in the body.
In particular, they stated that efflorescence glazing could be differentiated from
the other methods on the basis of interparticle glass in the body [28]. Vandiver

argued that microstructural data is not definitive, because with both cementation
and application glazing, some glazing material would commonly have been added

to the quartz body in order to facilitate forming the faience and to increase its
strength before and after firing [24]. This would cause the formation of interparti-

cle glass and produce microstructures similar to those associated with efflorescence
 28

glazing. Furthermore, recent experiments have shown that the interaction layer in
cementation faience can penetrate up to 1 mm into the object. So for objects with

thin cross-sections, such as the tubular beads examined by this thesis, cementation
glazing could result in a glass matrix throughout the body [5, 24].

To solve this dilemma, Tite et al. proposed two new criteria to determine the
method of glazing. First, the copper oxide content tends to increase from the
glaze through the interaction layer into the body for efflorescence glazing, while it

tends to decrease from the glaze into the interaction layer for cementation glazing.
Second, it is important to consider the appropriate glazing method for the object

being examined. Efflorescence glazing, when combined with shaping by molding, is

an efficient method for large scale production of objects 20–30 cm across. Cemen-

tation glazing is appropriate for producing large quantities of small objects but is
less so for bigger objects because large quantities of the glazing material would be
required. Application glazing is particularly appropriate for objects that are only

glazed on one side like tiles and inlays [5]. This thesis used these criteria along
with microstructural data in order to determine the glazing method.
Chapter 3
Results

These results were collected following the procedure outlined in Chapter 2. To do

so, the beads had to be prepared by first fragmenting them using a razor blade
and then carbon taping the larger fragments onto a metal stub. In one case, a
bead was mounted whole. An example of a prepared bead sample can be seen in

Figure 3.1. Care was taken to orient the surfaces of interest parallel to the top of
the metal stub in order to prevent inaccuracies during EDS. SEM and EDS data

were collected for three bead samples. The data sets for these samples are detailed
in Sections 3.1 through 3.3.

In describing the location of the bead from which the samples were taken, this
thesis follows the naming convention in Figure 3.2. As can be seen, in addition to
the usual glaze, interaction layer and body, an outer surface and an inner surface

are named, corresponding to the boundary between the air and glaze and the
boundary between the air and body, respectively.
 30

Figure 3.1. Bead sample prepared for examination by mounting a fragmented bead on
a metal stub (Photographed by Mike Fleck).
 31

Figure 3.2. Naming convention of locations on faience bead (Created by Paul Howell).
 32

3.1 Bead Sample 1

This bead sample was imaged with the SEM in secondary electron mode. Figure 3.3

shows sample 1, the outer surface of a typical, whole faience bead. Notice that the
surface is uneven with many pores. Figure 3.4 is a close-up of the surface, better

showing its porous nature. Figure 3.5 shows that the outer surface is uniform in
nonporous areas. Figure 3.6a shows a pore on the outer surface, and Figure 3.6b

shows the corresponding EDS analysis. The pore is deeper than the surface and
may be as deep as the interaction layer. However, the presence of copper, sodium,
and potassium suggest that the pore is made up of glaze. In Figure 3.7, this EDS

analysis is compared with that of the nonporous area. The pore analysis is in
light blue, and the nonporous analysis is in black. The similar proportions of the

previously mentioned elements suggest that the glazes of the outer surface and of
pores are nearly identical.
 33

Figure 3.3. Sample 1.

Figure 3.4. Close-up of sample 1, showing its porous nature.

 34

Figure 3.5. Close-up of sample 1, centered on a nonporous area.

 35

(a)

(b)
Figure 3.6. (a) SEM image and (b) EDS analysis of a pore on sample 1.
 36

Figure 3.7. EDS analyses comparing a pore on and an nonporous area of sample 1.
The pore analysis is in light blue, and the nonporous analysis is in black.

3.2 Bead Sample 2

This bead sample was imaged with the SEM in secondary electron mode. Sample
2 consists of three fragments, which are shown on the right side of the reference

image in Figure 3.8. The fragments depict an outer surface (sample 2a), an inner
surface (sample 2b), and a cross-section (sample 2c) of the faience material as well

as the inner surface. These samples are described in greater detail in Sections 3.2.1
through 3.2.3.

3.2.1 Sample 2a: Fragment Showing Outer Surface

Figure 3.9 shows sample 2a, a fragment of faience showing the outer surface.
Figures 3.10a and 3.10b show a close-up of the surface and the corresponding

EDS analysis. It is interesting that the EDS analysis shows the presence of copper
but no sodium or potassium, even though glaze is pictured. These elements may
have been leeched from the surface over time.
 37

2b

2a

2c

Figure 3.8. Reference image for sample 2 showing samples (2a) fragment showing outer
surface, (2b) fragment showing inner surface, and (2c) cross-section.

Figure 3.9. Sample 2a.

 38

(a)

(b)
Figure 3.10. (a) SEM image and (b) EDS analysis of a close-up of sample 2a.
 39

To get a more accurate composition, two different pores on the sample, shown
in Figure 3.11, were studied. Pore 1 is formed around a glass grain, while pore 2 is

similar to the pore on sample 1 pictured in Figure 3.6a but with calcium deposits.
Figure 3.12a is an enlargement of an area next to the grain of glass in pore 1. The

EDS analysis in Figure 3.12b shows a surprising lack of sodium and calcium in the
surrounding area of the grain. Figure 3.13a is an enlargement of the deposits in
pore 2. As expected, the EDS analysis in Figure 3.13b is similar to Figure 3.6b,

the EDS analysis of the pore on sample 1, except for the higher calcium content
caused by the deposits of such.
 40

(a)

(b)
Figure 3.11. Two different pores on sample 2a. (a) Pore 1 is formed around a glass
grain, and (b) pore 2 has calcium deposits.
 41

(a)

(b)
Figure 3.12. (a) SEM image and (b) EDS analysis of pore 1 on sample 2a.
 42

(a)

(b)
Figure 3.13. (a) SEM image and (b) EDS analysis of pore 2 on sample 2a.
 43

3.2.2 Sample 2b: Fragment Showing Inner Surface

Figure 3.14 shows sample 2b, a fragment of faience with two regions of inner sur-

face, surrounded by dotted lines in the figure. The other areas show the body
through the glaze. A close-up, better showing the inner surface and body, can be
found in Figure 3.15. Again, the inner surface is surrounded by dotted lines.

Figure 3.14. Sample 2b.

 44

Figure 3.15. Close-up of sample 2b, better showing the inner surface and body.

Figure 3.16a shows the faience body, from below the inner surface region pic-
tured in Figure 3.15. It can be seen that the body consists of angular quartz

particles held together by what appears to be interparticle glass. The EDS anal-
ysis in Figure 3.16b shows that the body is mainly silica, with small amounts of

sodium and potassium.

A single sand grain is shown in Figure 3.17a. It has to have a diameter of
approximately 22 µm. As expected, the EDS analysis in Figure 3.17b shows no

sodium or potassium, but there is calcium.

 45

(a)

(b)
Figure 3.16. (a) SEM image and (b) EDS analysis of the faience body of sample 2b.
 46

(a)

(b)
Figure 3.17. (a) SEM image and (b) EDS analysis of sand grain in sample 2b.
 47

3.2.3 Sample 2c: Cross-Section

Figure 3.18 shows sample 2c, a length-wise cross-section through a faience bead.

The middle of the cross-section is the inner surface. In either direction of the inner
surface are the body, interaction layer, and glaze.
Figure 3.19 shows the glaze and body from the top of the cross-section. The

dotted line is the approximate boundary between the glaze and body. The glaze in
this image approximately ranges in thickness between 130 and 190 µm. The inter-

action layer is nonexistent as is typical of efflorescence and application faience [5,16,

21]. The glaze can be found above the dotted line and the body below. Figure 3.20

shows a close-up of the boundary between the glaze and body. Again, the glaze
is above the line and the body below. Notice the definite lack of an interaction
layer. The smooth glaze transitions suddenly to the grain-like body. Figure 3.21 is

a further close-up, showing only the glaze. It is interesting to note what appears to
be conchoidal fracture pattern, like that found in pure glass. The fracture pattern

appears to begin at particulates.

 48

Figure 3.18. Sample 2c.

Figure 3.19. Close-up of sample 2c, showing the boundary between the glaze and body.
 49

Figure 3.20. Close-up of sample 2c, better showing the lack of an interaction layer
between the glaze and body.

Figure 3.21. Close-up of the glaze on sample 2c.

 50

Figure 3.22 shows the glaze and body, this time from the bottom of the cross-
section. As before, the dotted line indicates the boundary between the glaze and

body. The glaze in this image is approximately 190 µm in thickness. This time the
body is above the line and the glaze below. Again, notice the lack of an interaction

layer. Figure 3.23a is a close-up of the glaze. Again, there is what appears to be
a conchoidal fracture pattern.

Figure 3.22. Close-up of sample 2c, showing a different boundary between the glaze
and body.
 51

(a)

(b)
Figure 3.23. (a) SEM image and (b) EDS analysis of the glaze on sample 2c.
 52

3.3 Bead Sample 3

Figure 3.24 shows the reference image for bead sample 3. The SEM was set in

secondary electron mode for this figure. It shows a bead with a small fragment
removed (sample 3a) and the removed fragment (sample 3b). The samples are

described in greater detail in Sections 3.3.1 and 3.3.2. The SEM images in those
sections were made using back-scattered electrons (BSE).

3a 3b

Figure 3.24. Reference image showing samples (3a) bead with a fragment removed and
(3b) the removed fragment.

3.3.1 Sample 3a: Bead with Removed Fragment

Figure 3.25 shows two regions of sample 3a that were of interest. Figure 3.25a

shows a cross-section near the middle of the bead, while Figure 3.25b shows a cross-
section near the end of the bead. The boundaries between the glaze, interaction

layer, and body in these figures are indicated by the dotted lines. These regions
were chosen to determine the differences in composition and microstructures, if any,

between the middle and end of a faience bead. Both cross-sections show extensive
 53

interparticle glass and similar thicknesses for the glaze (approximately 50 µm), but
the interaction layer is thicker near the end of the bead—the interaction layer is

100–150 µm in the middle and >200 µm near the end.

To examine the composition of the two regions, mappings were created for

the elements for which there were significant concentrations, which were silicon,
calcium, sodium, potassium, copper, aluminum, iron, magnesium, chlorine, carbon,
tin, and oxygen. The reference images for these mappings are shown in Figures 3.26

for the middle of the bead and 3.28 for the end. As before, the dotted lines indicate
the boundaries between the glaze, interaction layer, and body. The corresponding

mappings are shown in Figures 3.27 and 3.29.

Notice that the concentration of copper, shown in Figures 3.27e and 3.29e for

the two middle and end of the bead, respectively, decreases rapidly from the glaze
to the interaction layer. Also of interest is the large amount of sodium in the
interaction layer, while the glaze has little sodium, as can be seen in Figure 3.27c

and Figure 3.29c. This is likely an effect of weathering. Additionally, regions of

tin were found in the sample. The largest concentration of tin was found at the

middle of the bead and appears as a white dot in Figure 3.27k. It is interesting
to note that a large concentration of potassium is situated at the same location,

as can be seen in Figure 3.27d. The impurity of tin could have come from clay
that had been added as a plasticizer. It also have come from bronze in the area,
as bronze is an alloy of copper and tin.

Another area of interest is the white spot seen in Figure 3.25b. A close-up of
the area is shown in Figure 3.30a. The EDS analysis of the area in Figure 3.30b

shows the presence of phosphorous in addition to the expected elements. It is

possible that this is a piece of apatite, a group of phosphate minerals. Apatite

can occasionally contain large amounts of rare earth elements and can be used as
 54

an ore for those minerals. This impurity could also have come from clay that had
been added as a plasticizer.
 55

(a)

(b)
Figure 3.25. Sample 3a, centered on cross-sections of (a) the middle and (b) the end
of the bead.
 56

Figure 3.26. Reference image for the compositional mapping of sample 3a at the middle
of the bead.
 57

(a) Si (b) Ca (c) Na

(d) K (e) Cu (f) Al

(g) Fe (h) Mg (i) Cl

(j) C (k) Sn (l) O

Figure 3.27. Compositional mapping of sample 3a at the middle of the bead
 58

Figure 3.28. Reference image for the compositional mapping of sample 3a at the end
of the bead.
 59

(a) Si (b) Ca (c) Na

(d) K (e) Cu (f) Al

(g) Fe (h) Mg (i) Cl

(j) C (k) Sn (l) O

Figure 3.29. Compositional mapping of sample 3a at the end of the bead
 60

(a)

(b)
Figure 3.30. (a) SEM image and (b) EDS analysis of a phosphorous-rich area in sample
3a near the end of the bead.
 61

3.3.2 Sample 3b: Removed Fragment

This study used this sample in order to compare the compositions of the body and

and the inner surface. Compositions of the body and inner surface were obtained
from the end and the middle of the fragment. Figure 3.31 shows the four locations
for which EDS was performed. Figures 3.32 through 3.35 show the SEM and EDS

analyses of sample 3b from locations α, β, δ and γ, respectively.

Note that the composition of the body is the same at locations β and γ, while

the composition of the inner surface at α has phosphorous and has less calcium
than at δ. Additionally, the inner surface contains titanium, while the body does

not.

α
β

δ
γ

Figure 3.31. Sample 3b, showing the four locations where compositions were obtained.
 62

(a)

(b)
Figure 3.32. (a) SEM image and (b) EDS analysis of sample 3b at location α.
 63

(a)

(b)
Figure 3.33. (a) SEM image and (b) EDS analysis of sample 3b at location β.
 64

(a)

(b)
Figure 3.34. (a) SEM image and (b) EDS analysis of sample 3b at location δ.
 65

(a)

(b)
Figure 3.35. (a) SEM image and (b) EDS analysis of sample 3b at location γ.
 66

Figure 3.36 shows a composite image of a cross-section of sample 3b, split into
two columns. The composite image was created by merging together ten images

using Adobe Photoshop. The glaze is at the top of the left-hand column, and
the body is at the bottom of the right-hand column. The interaction layer—at

the bottom of the left-hand column and the top of the right-hand column—is
split across the two columns. The dotted lines show the approximate boundaries
between the glaze, interaction layer, and body. Notice that the boundaries between

the layers are very diffuse. It is difficult to tell where the continuous glass matrix
of the body ends and the iteraction layer begins. Also, the glaze and interaction

layer are approximately the same thickness (∼120 µm).

 67

Figure 3.36. Composite image of sample 3b.

Chapter 4
Discussion

This chapter is organized as follows. Section 4.1 discusses the main raw materials.

Section 4.2 determines the glazing method. Section 4.3 compares the results of
this study to that of prior studies.

4.1 Raw Materials

4.1.1 Quartz

There are two main sources of quartz: crushed quartz pebbles and quartz sand.
Crushed quartz pebbles are generally of a high purity, in particular low alumina,
lime, and iron oxide contents, and have angular particles. Quartz sand can contain

significant amounts of limestone and shell fragments, feldspars and iron-titanium

oxides. Also, the sand particles tend to be rounded [5].

The quartz found in the beads are mostly angular, but there are some rounded
grains. It is generally of a high purity, but some contaminates of calcium oxide

and some form of titanium oxide. These factors suggest that the quartz is mainly
from crushed quartz pebbles with small additions of quartz sand (to account for
 69

the impurities). Additionally, the quartz is fine-grained with a diameter of roughly

20 µm. The quartz would have required grinding to reach this small size.

4.1.2 Alkali Flux

Two two sources of alkali flux are natron and the ash of halophytic plants. Natron
is mostly sodium carbonate and sodium bicarbonate and has very low potash, lime,

and magnesia contents. In contrast, plant ash is a source for all of those [5].
The beads contain high levels of both sodium and potassium, so the alkalis

were probably added in the form of plant ash. It is interesting to note that bead
2 only has traces of calcium and magnesium. Tite et al. suggested that this could

be caused by a purification of the plant ashes by dissolution to leave insoluable

calcium and magnesium carbonates [5].

4.1.3 Colorants

Both copper and calcium oxides are present as colorants in the glaze. The presence
of both oxides means that the blue color of the beads is primarily from Egyptian

blue [2, 3]. Small amounts of tin oxide were found, which suggests that the source
of the copper was almost certainly from the oxidation of bronze with 5–10% tin [5].
Bronze was available in Egypt starting in the New Kingdom. The calcium oxide

was probably due to the use of quartz sand, which contains such impurities as
shown in Figure 3.17b.
 70

4.2 Glazing Method

The small size of the faience beads and their mass production mean that cementa-

tion and efflorescence were more appropriate methods than application—it would
have been slow and tedious to apply glaze to numerous beads. The cementation

and efflorescence methods would be better suited for the beads and would have
caused the formation of interparticle glass to give strength to the small objects.

Both methods required about the same amount of labor and similar lengths of
time—cementation needed a longer firing time, but efflorescence required a drying
period. The cementation method was probably more economical in terms of fuel

usage, because many layers of beads could be placed in the glazing mixture and
fired at the same time. With the discovery of the cementation method during

the Middle Kingdom [1], production of faience beads potentially switched to this
cost-effective method. The beads in this thesis were made after the New Kingdom,

so it is likely that the cementation method was used. However, Tite et al. noted
a conservatism in the production technology of Egyptian faience and stated that
the glazing method did not change from the Middle Kingdom to the 22nd Dynasty

(c. 2050–950 BC) [5], so efflorescence is also likely. There is also the possibility
that the cementation and efflorescence methods were combined to produce more

interparticle glass [4].

A more accurate prediction of the glazing method can be produced by taking

into account the composition and microstructures of each bead. Tite and Bim-
son, Tite et al. and Vandiver showed that the compositional and microstuctural
data can be used to determine the glazing method [5, 24, 28]. Their criteria for

determining the glazing method are detailed in Chapter 2. The remainder of this
section applies their criteria to each bead.
 71

4.2.1 Bead 1

It is difficult to determine the production method for bead 1, because only the

outer surface of the glaze was analyzed. No drying or firing marks are on the
visible portion of the sample, which suggests that glazing by application was not
used, though these marks could be present on the hidden portion of the sample.

Additionally, glazing by application is difficult to perform on a small object such

as the bead. However, it is difficult to rule out the application method without

examining the thicknesses of the glaze, interaction layer, and body as well as the
extent of the interparticle glass in the body. Even so, using the criteria in Chapter

2, the glazing method was probably cementation, efflorescence, or a combination

of the two.

4.2.2 Bead 2

Bead 2 has some interparticle glass, to strengthen the small bead, and no interac-
tion layer. These observations suggest that the bead was glazed by efflorescence.

However, the greater concentration of copper in the glaze versus the body (see
Figures 3.10b and 3.23b versus Figure 3.16b) rules out pure efflorescence glazing.
The efflorescence method was probably used with one of the other methods in or-

der to increase the strength of the bead. It is very difficult to determine which one
of the other methods was used in conjunction, because the efflorescence character-

istics are dominant [4, 16, 21]. By taking into account which methods would have
been appropriate for the bead (cementation and efflorescence), this thesis believes

that this bead was glazed by a combination of the cementation and efflorescence
methods.
 72

4.2.3 Bead 3

Bead 3 has extensive interparticle glass, a large interaction layer, and a thin wall,

which suggest glazing by cementation or efflorescence. The rapid decrease in the

concentration of copper from the glaze to the interaction layer (see Figures 3.27e
and 3.29e) is characteristic of the cementation method. The diffuse boundaries

between the glaze, interaction layer, and body (see Figure 3.36) are also character-
istic of the cementation method. However, notice that Figure 3.25 shows that the

interaction layer and glaze are thicker near the end of the bead versus the middle.
This suggests efflorescence glazing–in which the greater air contact at the end of

the bead would have caused faster drying, and thus, a thicker interaction layer—
but these microstructures could also have been caused by the cementation method
because of the greater contact with the glazing mixture at the end of the bead.

Therefore, this bead was probably glazed by the cementation method, though a
combination of the cementation and efflorescence methods may have been used.

4.3 Comparison with Previous Studies

This section compares the compositional and microstructural data of this study to

that of previous ones. Only beads 2 and 3 are compared as the composition and
microstructures of bead 1 were not analyzed. Unfortunately, the EDS system used

in this investigation was not calibrated, so the compositional data are not directly
comparable to the results of prior studies. Instead, the compositional results are
compared qualitatively. In contrast, the microstructural data is directly compared

with that of previous results. The main comparison is with Tite et al. They
studied beads from Abydos with wall-thicknesses of 800-1200 µm [5], which are

directly comparable to the beads analyzed in this study. Additionally, there are
 73

comparisons with studies on replicate faience by Tite et al. and by Vandiver.

4.3.1 Ancient Faience Comparisons

The study by Tite et al. encountered compositions and microstructures in their

Abydos beads similar to those found in this study. In terms of composition, they
encountered a pronounced drop in the copper oxide content from the glaze to the

interaction layer. They also noted the presence of sodium, potassium, calcium,
and magnesium with traces of tin in the beads from the 22nd Dynasty. The beads

analyzed by this thesis had the same compositions qualitatively. In terms of mi-
crostructures, their beads colored by copper had barely distinguishable interaction

layers and bodies of angular quartz particles in continuous glass matrices, while
their black beads had defined interaction layers [5]. The microstructures of bead
2 show no interaction layer (similar to the beads colored by copper studied Tite

et al.), while those of bead 3 show a pronounced interaction (similar to the black
beads studied by Tite et al.). The rest of the microstructures are the same between

the two studies.

Because of the similarity in the composition and microstructures of the beads,

the study by Tite et al. reached similar conclusions on the nature of the raw
materials and the glazing method for their Abydos beads. In common with this
thesis, they decided the quartz was crushed quartz pebbles, the alkali flux was

plant ash, and the copper oxide was from oxidized bronze. However, while this
thesis thought the glazing was a combination of the cementation and efflorescence

method, they thought the glazing was by either efflorescence or cementation for the
beads colored by copper and a hybrid of the two methods for the black beads [5].

Still, the conclusions on glazing methods are similar for the two studies.
 74

Also in the study by Tite et al. were faience beads from Esna and Amarna. They
note many differences in microstructure among the beads from these different areas

of Egypt, such as the thicknesses of the glaze and interaction layer, the amount of
interparticle glass, the amount of pores on the surface and inside the body, and the

definition of the boundaries between the layers; they also noted some differences in
the concentration profiles [5]. Therefore, comparisons between beads of this study
with beads from Esna or Amarna were not made, as the differences would have

been too numerous. The differences in faience among these production sites could
be of scholary interest.

4.3.2 Replicate Faience Comparisons

The comparisons with replicate faience will focus on the microstructures, because
the composition of ancient faience may have changed due to weathering or through

use and can vary widely depending on the choice of raw materials. In addition,
only the efflorescence and cementation replicates are considered, because these are

the likely glazing methods for the beads studied by this thesis.
Bead 2 has a thick glaze (∼190 µm) and no interaction layer, which is only seen

in replicates with an applied glaze. However, it also has moderate amounts of in-
terparticle glass, which is never found in applied replicates [24,28]. In addition, the
concentration of copper oxide at the surface in the glaze suggests the cementation

method [24]. These characteristics suggest that glazing was done with a combi-
nation of methods, most likely application and efflorescence. This is contrary to

the conclusions of the current investigation and previous ones by Tite et al. and
Vandiver on ancient faience [5, 24, 28]—the application method is not appropriate

for the glazing of small beads.

 75

Bead 3 has a thin glaze (∼50 µm) and an interaction layer of 100–150 µm.
There is also extensive interparticle glass in the body. These characteristics are

consistent with cementation replicates [5, 21, 24, 28]. This agrees with the belief of
this thesis that the bead was glazed by cementation.
Chapter 5
Modern Applications

Even though faience is an ancient material, it has certain properties not commonly

found in modern materials. Its notable properties include self-glazing, low firing
temperature, and antimicrobial attributes. The applications of these properties
in modern industry are explored in Sections 5.1 through 5.3. The economic and

environmental considerations associated with faience technology are described in

Section 5.4.

5.1 Applications of Self-Glazing

Modern ceramics are glazed using a method similar to the application method of

glazing associated with faience production. As in faience, this applied glaze can
bear drying or firing marks and is prone to runs or drips. These marks can be

prevented with the self-glazing methods of faience, of which cementation is better

suited as it does not require a granular body unlike efflorescence. In addition, the

production process would be simplified as glazing would be done in conjunction

with firing.
 77

A method similar to cementation is salt glazing (according to Dr. Williamson [4]),

which was widely used before environmental clean air restrictions led to its demise [29].

Glazing by cementation may be used in place of salt glazing to produce similar

results but without the associated air pollution and with a simpler firing process.

Another use of self-glazing could be to simulate enamels and glazes made using
frit, which is similar in composition to faience glaze. There are many modern
uses for frit. For example, frits of primarily silica, diboron trioxide, and soda

have been used as enamels on steel pipes. However, creating frit is a complicated
process that involves fusing the components, quenching them to form glass, and

then granulating the glass. The simpler cementation glazing method could be used
to produce similar enamels and glazes as with frit.

5.2 Applications of Low Firing Temperature

Faience has a lower firing temperature (<1000◦ C) than most modern ceramics.

Thus, faience could be used in place of modern ceramics when materials sensitive
to heat are used.
Current packagings for semiconductor chips are made from ceramics or glass-

ceramics. The high heat of the production process necessitates that the semicon-
ductor chips be attached after the ceramic has been made [30, 31]. Presently, the

chips are attached using solder. Solder is harmful to the environment (often lead-
based) and less conductive than copper wiring, which restricts operating speeds.

Using faience as the package allows the semiconductor chip to be placed prior to
firing, eliminating the use of solder.
Additionally, advances have been made in the field of organic semiconductors.

Organic semiconductors are of interest due to the low cost of their manufacture—
 78

they could theoretically be manufactured using simple inkjet printer techniques [32].
However, they are very sensitive to heat, which makes them difficult to package

using modern ceramics or glass-ceramics. The low heat of faience manufacturing

could potentially be used with organic semiconductors.

5.3 Applications of Antimicrobial Properties

There are many antimicrobial surfaces approved by the EPA. These surfaces use

copper or silver alloys, which have certain antimicrobial properties [33, 34]. How-
ever, no ceramic material has been approved. For aesthetic and practical purposes
(e.g. tiles), it would be beneficial to have an antimicrobial ceramic material. The

obvious choice is faience, which has some antimicrobial properties due to the cop-
per oxide colorant in the glaze. These antimicrobial properties can be improved

with cementation or application glazing, which result in thick glazes high in copper
oxide.

Faience can be made into tiles for use in such places as hospitals and kitchens.
Faience tiles would not only prevent the spread of disease, but also serve a decora-
tive function. Also, the faience glaze may be applied to metals to further improve

their antimicrobial properties.

5.4 Economic and Environmental Considerations

The use of faience in modern industry would be beneficial both economically and
environmentally. Faience production requires fewer steps than traditional ceramics.

Reducing steps in processing ceramics leads to an increase in efficiency. This

reduction may cause a reduction in energy used creating a lower impact on the
 79

environment. Additionally, the low firing temperature of faience also lends to a

reduction in energy use.

Environmentally, faience production uses little energy, which would have been
necessary in Egypt, a country devoid of ample fuel. Faience can be used in place

of more environmentally damaging processes, such as salt glazing. Additionally,

faience is nontoxic—ancient Egyptians would even ingest faience as medicine [35].
Chapter 6
Conclusions and Future Work

6.1 Summary

This thesis confirmed the results of previous investigations. In particular, the 22nd

Dynasty Abydos faience beads of this study have compositions and microstructures
similar to the beads in the 2007 study by Tite et al. with the same distinctions
(time period and production site). Similar conclusions on the raw materials and

glazing method were reached by both investigations.

This thesis also improved upon previous studies by employing new techniques.

Compositional mappings were made that showed the concentration of each element
over an area of the faience. This technique allows the investigator to easily notice
how the concentration of certain elements change in two dimensions and not just

one. In addition, an attempt was made to analyze the unglazed inner surface found
in faience beads. While some differences between it and the body were noted, the

cause of these differences was not determined.

Lastly, this thesis explored potential modern applications for faience technology.

It was determined that there are areas that could benefit from the technology of
 81

faience. The economic and environmental considerations of faience usage were also
determined.

6.2 Future Work

Future studies of faience will need to consider three factors: the time period,

the production site, and the specific type of object. This study and previous
ones [4,5,24] have noted how these factors can greatly impact the composition and

microstructures of faience. However, it would be difficult for one study to have

diversity in each of these areas. Therefore, another recommendation is that future
researchers need to collaborate in order to map the entire spectrum of faience.

A different area of study is the replication of faience, which still needs a lot
of research. Future replication studies should focus on hybrid glazing methods

to better understand how ancient faience was glazed. Furthermore, replication

studies need to consider the wide range of colors found in ancient faience.

Additionally, modern applications of faience technology should be further ex-

plored. Conversely, current nanotechnology could be used to improve faience by
increasing the quality of the raw materials to allow for better glazing.
Bibliography

[1] Nicholson, P. T. and E. Peltenburg (2000) “Egyptian Faience,” in An-

cient Egyptian Materials and Technology (P. T. Nicholson and I. Shaw, eds.),
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 177–94.
[2] Lucas, A. and J. R. Harris (1962) Ancient Egyptian Materials and Indus-
tries, E. Arnold, London.
[3] Kaczmarczyk, A. and R. E. M. Hedges (1983) Ancient Egyptian Faience,
Aris and Phillips Ltd., Warminster, England.
[4] Vandiver, P. B. (1983) “Appendix A: The Manufacture of Faience,” in
Ancient Egyptian Faience (A. Kaczmarczyk and R. E. M. Hedges, eds.), Aris
and Phillips Ltd., Warminster, England, pp. A1–A144.
[5] Tite, M. S., P. Manti, and A. J. Shortland (2007) “A Technological
Study of Ancient Faience from Egypt,” Journal of Archaeological Science, 34,
pp. 1568–83.
[6] Noble, J. V. (1969) “The Technique of Egyptian Faı̈ence,” American Journal
of Archaeology, 73, pp. 435–39.
[7] Vandiver, P. B. and W. D. Kingery (1987) “Egyptian faience: The
First High-Tech Ceramic,” in Ceramics and Civilization (W. D. Kingery, ed.),
American Ceramic Society, Westerville, OH, pp. 19–34.
[8] Nolte, B. (1977) “Fayence,” in Lexikon der Ägyptologie (W. Helck, E. Otto,
and W. Westendorf, eds.), vol. II, Otto Harrassowitz, Wiesbaden, Germany,
pp. 138–42.
[9] Robins, G. (2008) The Art of Ancient Egypt, Harvard University Press.
[10] Brunner-Traut, E. (1977) “Farben,” in Lexikon der Ägyptologie
(W. Helck, E. Otto, and W. Westendorf, eds.), vol. II, Otto Harrassowitz,
Wiesbaden, Germany, pp. 117–28.
 83

[11] Nicholson, P. T. (2009) “Faience Technology,” in UCLA En-

cyclopedia of Egyptology (W. Wendrich, J. Dieleman, E. Frood,
and J. Baines, eds.), UCLA, Los Angeles, CA, pp. 1–11,
http://digital2.library.ucla.edu/viewItem.do?ark=21198/zz0017jtts.

[12] Friedman, F. D., G. Borromeo, and M. Leveque (1998) Gifts of the

Nile: Ancient Egyptian Faience, Thames and Hudson, New York.

[13] Panagiotaki, M. (2008) “The Technological Development of Aegean Vitre-

ous Materials,” in Vitreous Materials in the Late Bronze Age Aegean (C. M.
Jackson and E. C. Wager, eds.), Oxbow Books, Oxford, pp. 34–63.

[14] Walters, E. (2011), personal communication.

[15] Nibbi, A. (1981) Ancient Egypt and Some Eastern Neighbours, Noyes Press,
Park Ridge, New Jersey.

[16] Nicholson, P. T. (1993) Egyptian Faience and Glass, Shire Publications,

Princes Risborough, Buckinghamshire, UK.

[17] Sadoway, D., “3.091SC Introduction to Solid State Chemistry, Fall

2010,” (Massachusetts Institute of Technology: MIT OpenCourseWare),
http://http://ocw.mit.edu/ (Accessed 20 Jul, 2011). License: Creative
Commons BY-NC-SA.

[18] Andrews, C. A. R. and J. van Dijk (2006) Objects for Eternity, Verlag
Philipp von Zabern, Mainz, Germany.

[19] Lavenex Vergès, F. (1992) Bleus Égyptiens, Éditions Peeters, Leuven,

Belgium.

[20] Shortland, A. J. (2000) “Vitreous Materials at Amarna: The Production

of Glass and Faience in 18th Dynasty Egypt,” British Archaeological Reports
International Series, 827.

[21] Tite, M. S., I. C. Freestone, and M. Bimson (1983) “Egyptian Faience:

An Investigation of the Methods of Production,” Archaeometry, 25, pp. 17–27.

[22] Griffin, P. S. (2002) “Reconstructing the Materials and Technology of

Egyptian Faience and Frit,” in Materials Issues in Art and Archaeology VI
(P. B. Vandiver, M. Goodway, and J. L. Mass, eds.), Materials Research So-
ciety, Warrendale, PA, pp. 323–55.

[23] Moorey, P. R. S. (1994) Ancient Mesopotamian Materials and Industries,

Clarendon Press, Oxford.
 84

[24] Vandiver, P. B. (1998) “A Review and Proposal of New Criteria for Pro-
duction Technologies of Egyptian Faience,” in La Couleur dans le Peinture et
l’Émaillage de l’Egypte Ancienne (S. Colinart and M. Menu, eds.), Edipuglia,
Bari, Italy, pp. 121–139.

[25] La Delfa, S. (2008) “Laboratory Production of Egyptian Faiences and Their

Characterization,” Journal of Cultural Heritage, 9, pp. e113–e116.

[26] Wulff, H. E., H. S. Wulff, and L. Koch (1968) “Egyptian Faience – A

Possible Survival in Iran,” Archaeology, 21, pp. 98–107.

[27] Newman, R. and M. Serpico (2000) “Adhesives and Binders,” in Ancient

Egyptian Materials and Technology (P. T. Nicholson and I. Shaw, eds.), Cam-
bridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 475–94.

[28] Tite, M. S. and M. Bimson (1986) “Faience: An Investigation of the Mi-

crostructures Associated with the Different Methods of Glazing,” Archaeom-
etry, 28, pp. 69–78.

[29] Dodd, A. and D. Murfin (1994) Dictionary of Ceramics, 3rd ed., Maney
Publishing.

[30] Tummala, R. R. (1991) “Ceramic and Glass-Ceramic Packaging in the

1990s,” Journal of the American Ceramic Society, 74, pp. 895–908.

[31] IVF – The Swedish Institute of Production Engineer-

ing Research, “The Nordic Electronics Packaging Guideline,”
http://extra.ivf.se/ngl/.

[32] Chiang, C. K., C. R. Fincher, Jr., Y. W. Park, and A. J. Heeger

(1977) “Electrical Conductivity in Doped Polyacetylene,” Physical Review Let-
ters, 39, pp. 1098–1101.

[33] U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,

“EPA Registers Copper-Containing Alloy Products,”
http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/factsheets/copper-alloy-products.htm.

[34] Surfaces, C. T., “Antimicrobial Properties of Copper,”

http://coppertouchsurfaces.org/antimicrobial/index.html.

[35] Bittle, R. J. and C. C. Bittle (2011) “The Ancient Use of Fa ience in

Paediatric Illness,” South African Medical Journal, 101, pp. 384–85.
Appendix A
Academic Vita

Name: Elyssa Iris Okkelberg

Address: 960 Vallamont Drive

Williamsport, PA 17701

Email: thewho@gmail.com

Education:
The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA
B. S. in Materials Science and Engineering, August 2011
B. A. in Art History, August 2011
Minor in Nanotechnology, August 2011

Honors: Schreyer Honors College

Thesis Title: Exploring Ancient Egyptian Faience with Nanotechnology:

Compositional Mappings, Microstructure Analysis, and Modern
Applications

Thesis Supervisors: Paul Howell

Professor of Metallurgy

Elizabeth Walters
Associate Professor of Art History
 86

Research:
Early Identification Intern May 2010 to Aug 2010
General Electric – Energy Minden, NV
• Polymer and electronic material interaction assignment to protect circuit
boards from harsh conditions
• Completed several manufacturing engineering tests and worked in supply
chain
Early Identification Intern May 2009 to Aug 2009
General Electric – Oil & Gas Houston, TX
• Worked on corrosion prevention, hydrogen cracking, tribology, surface coat-
ings, and hardfacings
• Performed literature reviews, edited specifications, and prepared engineering
lab reports
• Involved with the Edison Engineering Development Program
Research Assistant Jan 2008 to Jan 2009
Penn State University Park, PA
• NASA funded Women in Science and Engineering Research (WISER)
• Created slurries, tape cast, prepared, sintered, polished and analyzed YAG
ceramics doped gemstones for application in high powered lasers and body
armor with Dr. Gary Messing’s lab
Research Assistant Jun 2008 to Sep 2008
Penn State University Park, PA
• Worked independently under the supervision of Dr. Clive Randall and Dr.
Tony Perrotta on driving chemical transitions with ultrasound waves to lower
the activation energy needed to oxidize cerium
Research Assistant Jun 2008 to Sep 2008
Penn State University Park, PA
• Worked independently under the supervision of Dr. Clive Randall and Dr.
Tony Perrotta on driving chemical transitions with ultrasound waves to lower
the activation energy needed to oxidize cerium

Work:
Resident Assistant Jun 2008
Penn State University Park, PA
• Instructed and mentored high school girls for the Women in the Sciences and
Engineering Camp
Tutor Nov 2006 to May 2007
Williamsport, PA
• Helped underprivileged children in Math, Science and Languages for 12 hours
per week
 87

Leadership:
• 2008–2011 STUDENT SENATOR, serves on Faculty Senate representing
thousands of students
• 2008–2009 ACADEMIC REPRESENTATIVE, Student Government for Un-
dergraduates (UPUA)
• 2009–2011 PRESIDENT, 2008–2009 VICE-PRESIDENT – Arts and Archi-
tecture Student Council
• 2010–2011 VICE PRESIDENT, 2008–2010 SECRETARY, Math Club
• 2009–2010 SECRETARY, Motorcycle Club – Social organization for motor-
cycle enthusiasts
• 2007–2011 SECRETARY, Penn State Quiz Bowl – A-Team member of an
academic competition club
• 2008 and 2009 SHO Time Mentor – Student to student mentor to help in-
coming Schreyer Scholars
• 2008 LeaderShape – Week-long program dedicated to honing the skills of top
campus leaders
• 2007 Leadership Jumpstart – Selected for intensive semester long training on
leadership theory and practice

Membership:
• Gulf States Service Project – Traveled to Mississippi to build new homes for
victims of Hurricane Katrina
• 2007–2010 Society of Women Engineers
• 2007–2010 Material Advantage Club
• 2008–2010 Beta Pi Kappa – Keramos – Materials Science Honors Fraternity
• 2009–2010 National Association of Corrosion Engineers
• 2009–2010 Society of Petroleum Engineers

Awards:
• 2011 1st Place Group Poster Competition for Powder Metallurgy Design
Project
• 2010 Phi Kappa Phi Peter T. Luckie Research Excellence Award
Top Research Award Given for a Junior in Science and Engineering
• 2010 President’s Research Grant from the College of Arts and Architecture
• 2010 Penn State Student Scholarship for Excellence in Leadership
• 2008–2009 Undergraduate Research Fellow in Materials Science and Engi-
neering
• 2009 2nd Place, University Wide, Undergraduate Research Poster Competi-
tion in Engineering
 88

• 2009 Penn State Undergraduate Leader Award and Scholarship for Excep-
tional Service on Campus
• 2008 3rd Place, University Wide, Undergraduate Research Poster Competi-
tion in Public Scholarship
• 2008 Schreyer Honors College Research Excellence Award and Grant
• 2007 Carl E. Stotz Little League Scholarship and Top Award
• 2006 1st Place C++ Programming Competition – Pennsylvania Governor’s
School for Information Technology
• 2006 Francis L. Tipton Award for Young Artists – art permanently displayed
in local library
• 2006 Pennsylvania Scholastic Silver Key Winner for Creative Writing
• 2006 Participant in Pennsylvania Governor’s School for Information, Society
and Technology at Drexel University