European Journal of Mineralogy · 2007 · 20 citations · 7 references
Natural SciencesEarth SciencesGeologyGeomorphologyClassical AntiquityQuarrying ArchaeologyQuarry PetrologyQuarry Production SequencesQuarry Site Analysis
The Iberian peninsula is rich inmarble, both white and coloured, of excellent quality, used in the past (Pliny NH, XXXVI, \nII) and also at the present time asmaterial for building and decoration. Many types of these marbles are similar to some, better known, \nGreek, Italian, Egyptian and Asian marbles. During the Roman Empire “marmor carystium” was extensively used. Taking into \naccount the great similarity of this marble with the “anasol” and “anasol”-types mined in Spain and Portugal, this work presents a \nminero-petrographic, chemical and geochemical characterisation of these lithotypes, aiming at finding parameters to distinguish \nthem from the better-known Greek and Italian “cipollino verde”. This result is of great importance in solving archaeological \nquestions regarding the provenance of artifacts made of this marble. In fact, as hypothesised by some researchers, mainly in the \nIberian peninsula (i.e., archaeological sites of Italica and Cartagena) inRoman Empire times the less expensive local marble was used \ninstead of importing that from the imperial quarries. Study samples come from well-known Spanish (21 samples; Macael-Almeria, \nAlmaden de la Plata-Seville) and Portuguese (14 samples; Viana do Alentejo-Evora, Vilavicosa-Evora) quarries. Thin sections \nmicroscopy, X-ray diffractometry, qualitative and quantitative determination of insoluble residues, chemistry, and O, C and Sr \nisotopeswere carried out on these samples. \nThe results clearly distinguish Spanish “anasol” from the Portuguese “anasol”-type, and also the Iberian “cipollino verde” from \nGreek and Apuan types based on petrographic and geochemical parameters including occurrence of dolomite and other noncarbonate \nminerals,metamorphic facies, rock texture and structure, insoluble residue contents, δ13C vs δ18O, and/or δ18O vs 87Sr/86Sr.
7