Un-stability Reasons of Recent Restored Sections of Konar Sandal Historical Citadel Compared to Stable Ancient Parts (Halilrud Cultural Area)

Document Type : Research Article

Authors

• Saleh Sanjari ¹
• M.H. Farpoor ²

¹ Shahid Bahonar Univ. of Kerman

² Shahid Bahonar University of Kerman

https://doi.org/10.22067/jsw.v33i2.78702

Abstract

Introduction: Soil studies have been used as complementary data in archaeological investigations. Review and acceptance of papers focusing on the use of micromorphology in archaeology were discussed and agreed in the 12th International Micromorphology Meeting in Turkey (8). Morphology, physicochemical, clay mineralogy, and micromorphology investigations may provide invaluable data about the way ancient people used to live, the source of soil that was used for pottery and architecture, the reason of degradation or existence of monuments, and the suitable soil for the restoration of monuments. On the other hand, the restoration of our ancestor's monuments could be better performed if soil data and micromorphology techniques are used.
Materials and Methods: The present research was conducted to study the ancient and restored sections of Konar Sandal historical (5000 YBP) citadel, South Jiroft, Iran. The area under study located 30 km south of Jiroft in the Halilrud cultural area. Samples were collected from both ancient (3 samples) and restores (1 sample) sections of the citadel. Representative samples (3 from the ancient and the other from the restored sections) were also collected for clay mineralogy and micromorphology (undisturbed samples) investigations after physicochemical analysis performed on all samples. Routine physicochemical analysis performed on the air-dried samples that were passed through a 2 mm sieve.
Results and Discussion: Results of the study showed that the clay percentage of the ancient section was rough twice the restored section. On the other hand, soluble salts were about 3 times higher in the restored section than the ancient section. High salinity and solubility of salts caused restored sections to have lower resistance to environmental variations of the recent years. It seems that saline and gypsiferous soils close to the citadel were used for the restoration of Konar Sandal citadel. However, no gypsum was found in the thin section of the ancient section. Besides, Na monovalent cation plays an important role in the dispersion of soil particles  compared to divalent Ca cation. Results of this study showed that soil with low clay content and high salinity was used for restoration recently. On the other hand, soils for construction of ancient sections with higher clay and lower salinity (compared to restored sections) were probably transferred from another area by our ancestors. Besides, pottery pieces to provide more stickiness and charcoal for more resistance to environmental variations were also used to construct the raw bricks in the old (5000 YBP) monument.
Illite, chlorite, smectite, and kaolinite clay minerals were found in the samples from the ancient section (Fig. 3). Palygorskite, quartz and trace amounts of sepiolite were only found in the restored sections together with the previously mentioned clay minerals (Fig. 4). The absence of palygorskite in the ancient samples may prove the presence of paleoclimate with more available humidity in the area because palygorskite is unstable in humid environments and transforms to smectite. It seems that palygorskite has a pedogenic origin in the area.
Micromorphological observations showed that the organic matter in the groundmass of the ancient samples (Fig. 6 a, b) is the reason for stability in this section. The same conclusion was also reported for samples of Bam citadel by Farpoor (4). Lenticular and interlocked plates of gypsum were found in the restored section (Figs. 6 c, and 7 a, b). Gypsum crystals were not observed in the thin sections of ancient samples. Calcium carbonate nodules were also observed in the ancient section (Fig. 7c). It seems that additives such as pottery pieces together with calcium carbonate have probably increased the stability of raw bricks through time.
Conclusion: Physicochemical properties showed more salinity in the restored compared to ancient sections and micromorphology showed gypsum crystals only in the restored samples. Besides, clay content and organic matter in the ancient section are about twice the restored section. Meanwhile, pottery pieces and charcoal were also found in the ancient section. These seem to be a reason for higher stability of ancient sections against environmental variations compared to restores sections with low clay content and high gypsum and more soluble salts that were degraded in 5 years. Illite, chlorite, kaolinite, and smectite clay minerals were investigated in both sections, but palygorskite and quarts were only found in the restored section. Results of the study clearly showed that soil data might be used as a helpful technique in archaeology studies and projects. 

Keywords

• Modern archaeology
• clay
• Jiroft
• Konar Sandal
• Mineral
• restoration

20.1001.1.20084757.1398.33.2.11.4

References

1- Angelucci D.E. 2003. Geoarchaelogy and Micromorphology of Abric de la Cativera (Catalonia, Spain). Catena 54.573-601.

2- Baldrama A.Kh., and Jiakomo K. 1998. Restoration and conservation of raw brick structures explored from archaeological investigations. In Price, S., Conservation and restoration of archaeological investigations. Translated by Mousavi, M.M. Tehran University Press.

3- Boroomand N., and Sanjari S. 2012. Impacts of climate change on soil clay mineral composition of the Jiroft region. The first desert Conference, International desert Research Center, Tehran University. (In Persian)

4- Bouyoucos G.J. 1962. Hydrometer method improved for making particle size analysis of soil. Agron. Journal 54: 464-465.

5- Farpoor M.H. 2010. Soil Data Comparison in the Old vs. Restored Section of the Bam Citadel Archaeological site in Kerman,Iran. Journal Agricultur Science Technology 12: 91-98.

6- Hadian Dehkordi M., Vatandoust M., Vatandoust R., Majidzadeh Y., and Kashi M. 2008. Archaeological Site of Konar Sandal, Jiroft, Iran Conservation of Earthen Remains. In 10th International conference on; Study and Conservation of earthen Architectural heritage, Bamako, Mali.

7- Hadian Dehkordi M. 2016. Soil science studies in historical and archaeological raw bricks of different areas in Iran. Science, Technology, Art Journal 75: 86-96.

8- 12th International meeting on Soil Micromorphology, Adana, Turkey, 2004.

9- Jackson M.L. 1975. Soil Chemical Analysis-advanced Course. University of Wisconsin College of Agriculture, Department of Soil Science, Madison, WI.

10- Karimi A., Khademi H., and Jalalian A. 2009. Genesis and distribution of palygorskite and associated clay minerals in soils and sediments of southern Mashhad. Irananin Journal of Crystallography and Mineralogy 16(4): 545-558. (In Persian with English abstract)

11- Khademi H., and Mermut A.R. 1998. Source of palygorskite in gypsiferous aridisols and associated sediments from central Iran. Clay Mineralogy 33: 561-578.

12- Kittrik J.A., and Hope E.W. 1963. A procedure for the particle size separation of soil for X-ray diffraction analysis. Soil Science Society 96: 312-325.

13- Majidzadeh Y. 2003a. Jiroft, the oldest orient civilization. Country heritage organization. P: 248.

14- Majidzadeh Y. 2003b. Jiroft, the oldest orient civilization. Anthropology Journal 2(4): 197-208.

15- Majidzadeh Y. 2009. Jiroft raw bricks and Ilami handwriting. Anthropology Journal 2(10): 97-126.

16- Nelson R.E. 1982. Carbonate and Gypsum. P. 181-196. In: A. L. Page et al.(ed), Methods of Soil Analysis. Part II. 2nd ed., Agron. Monogar. No: 9. ASA and SSSA. Madison, WI.

17- Nelson D.W., and Sommer L.E. 1982. Total Carbon, Organic Carbon and Organic Matter. pp. 539-577. In: A.L. Page et al., (Ed), Methods of Soil Analysis. Part II. 2nd ed., Agron. Monogar. No: 9, ASA and SSSA. Madison, WI.

18- Sanjari S., Farpoor M.H., Eghbal M.K., and Esfandiarpour I. 2011(a). Genesis, micromorphology and clay mineralogy of soils located on different geomorphic surfaces in Jiroft area. Journal Water Soil 25(2): 411-425. (In Persian with English abstract)

19- Sanjari S., Farpour M.H., Esfandiarpour I., and Karimian M. 2011(b). Micromorphology and clay mineralogy comparison of past and present soils in Jiroft area. Journal Water and Soil Science 15(58): 173-185. (In Persian with English abstract)

20- Stoops G. 2003. Guidelines for the analysis and description of soils and regolith thin sections. SSSA, Madison, WI. 182 p.

21- Watanabe K., Vatandoust R., and Okada Y. 2003. Physical, mineralogical and chemical properties of mud brick of the Choga Zanbi. In 9th International conference on the study and conservation of earthen architecture Terra 2003, Yazd, Iran.