The One-Minute Interview (The Crucible 2014)

Welcome to our EAA-session on archaeometallurgy: #501 WIDENING THE HORIZONS OF ARCHAEOLOGICAL METALWORKING STUDIES - ARCHAEOMETALLURGY@EAA, PART 2 Time: 9:00 - 16:30 CEST, 11 September 2021 (cf. attachment for schedual & abstracts)

Experimental approaches have occupied a central position within archaeometallurgy with the result that the range of methods and contexts of practices have flourished. It is apparent that there is now no single approach to experiment when it comes to exploring past metallurgical practices and there is a danger that such diversity may lead to fragmentation. Here it is argued that there are a number of key issues that if recognised and addressed may initiate and sustain significant collaborations that in turn may allow a common, yet wide framework to be developed. Issues highlighted in this paper include the understandings brought to and gained from experimental practice, the problems of the (un)skilled practitioner, the challenges with documenting and recording experiments and the enduring issue of publication and dissemination.

2015

Archaeological Science - an introduction, 2020

Metals have always fascinated humans, for reasons ranging from practical through aesthetic to philosophical considerations. More than for other materials, this fascination can be seen to cover both the production of metals and their use. In most societies ceramics play a much more fundamental and ubiquitous role than metals, but it is only the high-end varieties, such as porcelain, terra sigillata or colourful glazed wares that attract particular attention. Few people, past and present, philosophise about the transformational processes involved in changing the plastic, pliable clay into a hard and rigid water-resistant ceramic. Interest in wool, linen and other fibres is almost entirely restricted to our obsession with fashion and the social expressions it allows, but the production processes involved are a minority interest and outside the general folklore. In contrast, metals play not only a role in many societies’ mythology and moral narrative, assigning notions of nobility, strength and value to them, but even their production forms the basis for many metaphors, tales and symbolic expressions. The ‘trial by fire’ makes direct reference to cupellation, an obscure and specialised metallurgical operation in which the quality of gold or silver is tested for any debasement by copper – but as a metaphor it already appears in the Old Testament, and is still understood today. ‘Brass’ evokes a very different connotation from ‘gold’ when talking about values and appearances. Prospects of a ‘mother lode’ or ‘bonanza’ resonate with many people even if they are not metal prospectors. In archaeology, metals not only make a disproportionally high contribution to structuring major periods of cultural development and evolution, but archaeometallurgists specialising in the study of their production have even been referred to as a ‘priesthood’ trying to exploit secret knowledge and driving hidden agendas, potentially not in the best interest of the wider scholarly community (Doonan and Day 2007); a charge that to the best of my knowledge has not been levelled against any other science-based discipline within archaeology, such as archaeo-botany or -zoology, or ceramic petrography. Clearly, metals fascinate humans, whether it is for the right or wrong reasons.

Archaeometry, 2008

which had been founded by Christopher Hawkes and Lord Cherwell, under the leadership of E. T. (Teddy) Hall, in 1955 (Hawkes 1986). This first volume was 'not intended to bypass the normal channels of publication': instead, its purpose was to 'provide a rapid means of circulating the results of completed research, to record partially successful projects which are not worthy of normal publication', and 'to give interim reports on some of the work in progress in the laboratory' (Hall 1958). It contained five contributions-two on the chemical analysis of Greek coinage, one describing the application of neutron activation analysis to samian ware and coinage, one on the use of directional measurements of the Earth's magnetic field as a dating technique for Chinese Yüeh (Yue) ware, and one on the use magnetic prospection as a location technique for Roman-British kilns at Water Newton. Despite the relatively modest aims of the bulletin, it is worth noting that this slim volume contained two particularly significant contributions-the presentation of data from the world's first archaeological geomagnetic survey (Aitken 1958) and the second report of the analysis of archaeological material by neutron activation analysis (Emeleus 1958; the first being Sayre and Dodson 1957). This latter was significant because it was J. Robert Oppenheimer, the 'father' of the atomic bomb, who had suggested to Sayre and Dodson in 1954 that NAA might be useful to carry out the chemical analysis of archaeological ceramics for the purposes of determining their provenance, thus pre-dating its use in the field of geochemistry (Pollard et al. 2007, 131). The journal developed rapidly under the joint editorship of Teddy Hall and Martin Aitken. The first contributions from non-Oxford authors were in volume 3 (1960), in which Charleston wrote on lead in glass, Thomsen wrote on Athenian silver coinage, and Simpson wrote on the implications of the analyses of samian pottery. In fact, these contributions were essentially continuing the policy established in the first issue, and carried out from the second, where archaeologists were invited to write a contextual introduction to the implications of the work carried out by scientists-a division of labour which, fortunately, given the stated aim of RLAHA to 'initiate the closer marrying of science and archaeology', was increasingly to become redundant from the third issue onwards. The content of the journal also continued to expand. Although chemical analysis by optical emission and NAA, magnetic prospection and magnetic directional dating continued to be important themes, new ones were introduced. Teddy Hall introduced the X-ray fluorescence spectrometer in 1960 as a new tool for the analysis of museum objects (Hall 1960). The

Newsletter of TAU Archaeology, 2017

Modern archaeology is a complicated discipline, one that is executed in both the classroom and the field. Such a practice requires the integration and cooperation of numerous experts who work together to excavate, analyse, and interpret the multitude of excavation results and finds.

A rchaeologists are relevant social agents, and they should aim to demonstrably present our work as interesting and useful. We have the social responsibility to make knowledge available for the public engage with our audience, and to reach people outside the discipline. The practical side of archaeology can be one potential scenario. As Lilla Vonk notes, the possibility of interacting and experiencing the past through and engagement with heritage generates fascination and activates imagination, positively impacting the wellbeing of dementia and arguably other mental health patients. Our discipline can provide an invaluable source of motivation for continuing healthcare in a more enjoyable and meaningful way. Another possibility for public engagement is through the presentation of both research and interpretation. Antonio Sánchez, in his study of Roman viae in Hispania, convincingly argues that archaeology is not limited to excavation and recording. The public dimension of heritage ownership demands that it should be known and respected by everyone, and museums can become a platform for this shared exploration of the significance of archaeological remains. The conservation and curation of museum pieces thus become a paramount dimension of archaeological practice due to their relevance in public presentation and heritage display as embodied materiality of historical memory. Wael Gabo Elgat reports the scientific methodology behind the treatment of Khedive Ismail's antique gun at the NMM-Saladin Citadel in Egypt after suffering a certain degree of decay.

This paper explores the use of experimental archaeology within education and its role in exploring archaeological process. Through a case study where students replicate Egyptian faience manufacture in the laboratory, the concepts of operational sequences, technological choice and variability are discussed. The value to students through increased motivation, self-directed and inquiry based learning are explored, and how this informs their future career in teaching or in research. *

Newsletter of TAU Archaeology, 2017

in the largest and most dynamic archaeological institution operating in Israel today, both in the quantity and quality of research.