Journal of Archaeological Science (1999) 26, 851–853Article No. jasc.1999.0468, available online at http://www.idealibrary.com on

Introduction to Select Papers Delivered at the 1996International Symposium on Archaeometry, Held at theUniversity of Illinois at Urbana–Champaign

Julian Henderson

Department of Archaeology, University Park, Nottingham, NG7 2RD, U.K.

Hector Neff

Missouri University Research Reactor Center, University of Missouri, Columbia, MO 65211, U.S.A.

Thilo Rehren

Deutsches Bergbau-Museum, Institut fur Archaometallurgie, Herner Str. 45, D-44787 Bochum, Germany

T his collection of papers was originally presentedat the International Archaeometry Symposiumin Urbana–Champaign, University of Illinois,

U.S.A. The symposium was organized by ProfessorSarah Wisseman and a local organizing committee andheld between the 20th and 24th May 1996. The papersform only a proportion of those delivered at theconference; apart from inorganic materials coveredhere, the balance of papers included themes on biologi-cal remains and organic residues, geophysical prospec-tion and dating of organic and inorganic materials. Allthe papers accepted for publication in this volume havebeen subjected to the normal rigorous refereeing pro-cedures which are applied to Journal of ArchaeologicalScience papers. Not all papers that were submittedhave been accepted for publication and by no means allparticipants submitted papers.

The three editors of these Proceedings have dividedthe papers equally, partly according to their specializ-ations. The 30 papers include studies of obsidian,glasses, enamels, glazes, jet, ceramic bodies and metals.The order of the published papers in this volume isbased on this list of materials.

The three papers on the analysis of obsidian includeanalytical studies of material from both the Old andthe New worlds. Obsidian is a material which ‘‘lends’’itself to sourcing—one might say in an almost excep-tional way when compared to raw materials whichhave been created or manipulated by man. Bellot-Gurlet et al. have used a combination of PIXE andfission-track dating to determine sources of obsidianfrom Columbia and Ecuador; Glascock et al. alsocombine techniques, neutron activation analysis andX-ray fluorescence, to source obsidian from New

8510305–4403/99/080851+03 $30.00/0

Mexico; Gratuze uses a relatively new technique, laserablated inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry,to examine obsidian from the Cappadocian source andits use on archaeological sites in Turkey, Syria andCyprus. All three papers provide some significantinsights, partly because they have used techniques withlow detection limits.

Unlike obsidian, man-made glass does not lend itselfto sourcing in the same ways; the three studies pre-sented here are mainly based on the study of changingtechnology over time—from the 1st century to the20th century . The paper by Aerts et al. is a reporton the use of a relatively new analytical technique inthe context of archaeological science—synchrotronradiation induced X-ray fluorescence (ìSR-XRF)—with its significantly enhanced ability to detectelements at low levels over traditional XRF-basedtechniques. Two papers deal with glass of MiddleEastern origin and the third with the characterizationof glass beads exported to the New World in the 17thto 20th centuries. Fischer & McCray have found, usingboth energy- and wavelength-dispersive X-ray basedtechniques, significantly little variation in the chemicalcompositions of glass (and therefore raw materialsused) from Sepphoris, Israel dating between the 1stcentury and 1500 . Hancock et al.’s studydemonstrates something that is rare in glassstudies—the ability to provide a ‘‘chemical chronol-ogy’’ for glass using neutron activation analysis ofbeads found in the New World.

Another vitreous material, enamel, is the subject ofthe paper by Stapleton et al. The authors used X-rayfluorescence analysis and scanning electron microscopyto define the material used as Early Mediaeval opaque

? 1999 Academic Press

852 J. Henderson et al.

red enamel. They discovered that the ‘‘enamel’’ was notof the expected pre-Roman and Roman enamel com-positions but most probably represents the re-use ofmetallurgical raffination slags. A study of jet andsimilar black lithic materials using Py-GCMS by Wattset al. is the only paper in this issue which focuses onminerals of organic origin. These analyses link dis-tinctive pyrolysis products to probable depositionalenvironments. The paper by Perez-Arantegui et al. is atechnological study of the cuerda seca technique ofIslamic glazing. Glaze compositions, pigments andceramic body compositions were studied.

Provenance investigations predominated among thepapers on ceramics presented at the Urbana confer-ence, and this carries over into the selection of ceramicspapers included here. Reliable mineralogical andchemical characterization techniques have been avail-able to provenance researchers for some time, so it maynot be surprising that few of the papers propose newtechniques. Research directed toward technical inno-vation has not stopped, however, as demonstrated byPicouet et al., who evaluate the potential of cathodo-luminescence spectroscopy on quartz grains.

Most of the reported studies utilize establishedmineralogical or chemical characterization techniquesto illuminate questions about ceramic resource use andeconomic interaction in different parts of the world. Ina study of Preclassic Maya ceramics from northernBelize, Iceland & Goldberg demonstrate the continuedviability of a trusty workhorse, petrographic analysisof thin sections. Elsewhere in Mesoamerica, Herreraet al. employ instrumental neutron activation analysis(INAA) to document movement of Formative periodceramics within the highlands of Oaxaca, Mexico. Inthe Old World, Gunneweg et al. bring INAA to bearon the nature of interaction between northern Canaanand other locations in the eastern Mediterraneanduring the Late Bronze Age, while Balla et al. utilizeINAA to investigate whether people in the Romantown of Aquincum (the predecessor of Budapest,Hungary) utilized the ceramic products of local work-shops. Shang Dynasty China is the geographic focus ofChen et al., who employ INAA to determine whetherearthenwares and protoporcelains were made from thesame or different raw material sources. The paper byErtem & Demirci, while not phrased in terms ofprovenance, addresses the interface between rawmaterials and technology in a study employing SEMand EDX analysis of Hittite pottery.

Several papers reporting INAA data are as muchconcerned with methodological issues as with archaeo-logical questions about the investigated regions. Dayet al. build a case for combining chemical and petro-graphic analysis by showing how one without the otherwould foster a misleading picture of ceramic produc-tion and interaction patterns in Early Bronze AgeCrete. Utilizing Pacific Guatemala as an example, Neff& Bove discuss quantitative methods for extractinginformation about ceramic sources from chemical data

in regions without strong geological contrasts, andHein et al. show that ceramics from throughout BronzeAge Greece are surprisingly homogeneous, which com-plicates the task of differentiating groups from differentregions and accentuates the need for high-precision,multi-element analysis. In different ways, all three ofthese methodological studies demonstrate that the levelof geographical resolution achievable in a provenanceinvestigation depends not just on natural variation inceramic raw materials but also on the methods andtechniques employed.

The continued reliance on INAA for chemistry-based ceramic provenance determination is a remark-able aspect of this collection of papers. Techniquessuch as ICP-MS, ICP-AES, and high-precision XRFoffer the potential for equivalent or superior precisionand sensitivity. However, not a single paper based onany of these techniques was submitted for inclusionwith the Urbana conference proceedings. Assumingthat the availability of INAA will decline as researchreactors are decommissioned over the coming decades,one can only hope that the silence from researchersworking with techniques other than INAA is just ananomaly and that future International ArchaeometrySymposium proceedings will show a more even mixof chemical characterization techniques applied toceramics.

The metals papers, arranged in chronological se-quence, cover a particularly wide range. The firsttwo papers present very early evidence for smeltingcomplex ores in crucibles. Ryndina et al. illuminateEneolithic copper production in the Balkans, whileAdriaens et al. present new data on Bronze Agecrucibles from Turkey related to tin smelting. The nexttwo papers focus on fully fledged metal industries inthe Iron Age and Roman period. Klein & Hauptmannreport their investigation of leaded tin bronzes inJordan, while Rehren discusses brass production at theopposite fringes of the Roman Empire, on the banks ofthe river Rhine. This section on the primary produc-tion of metals and alloys is followed by two papersrelated to their working. Eggert et al. report the use ofsulphur as a mechanical aid in shaping hollow gold,and Eniosova & Murashova present new informationconcerning the manufacture of Mediaeval brass andbronze fittings in Mediaeval Eastern Europe.

Archaeometallurgy, however, is more than just thestudy of primary and secondary metallurgical tech-niques in antiquity. It also comprises the wide field ofprovenancing and studies in long distance trade,and we are happy to present two papers on thissubject. Guerra et al. apply one of the most recentlydeveloped powerful analytical tools, LA-ICP-MS, ongold objects, while Grant significantly adds to ourknowledge of trace elements as source indicators forAfrican tin using NAA analyses. The same analyticaltechnique is used in the paper by Moreau & Hancock,investigating the effects of corrosion on brass kettlesimported into North America. Finally, the last two

Introduction to Select Papers, 1996 International Symposium on Archaeometry 853

papers address iron metallurgy. Starley presents newthoughts on how to distinguish the different techno-logical origins of early modern period iron and steel, anera which saw the transition to and rapid developmentof the blast furnace and the indirect steel makingprocess. Lastly, Ackerman et al. report an experimen-tal study of traditional iron smelting following thebloomery process in equatorial Africa.

In summary, the 11 papers presented here provide anexcellent overview of the diversity and richness ofcurrent archaeometallurgical research. With papers ongold, copper, tin, bronze, brass, iron and steel, almostall of the metals of antiquity are present. Similarly,the chronological range covers the entire time framerelevant for metallurgy, from its very beginnings in theLate Neolithic up to the modern period and current

experimental work. Gaps are only apparent in thegeographical coverage, with most of Asia and Centraland South America missing. Putting this into a positiveperspective, however, reveals that from easternmostEurope to North America, from the north of Englandthrough Central Europe and the Levant up to Centraland South Africa an impressive area is covered, em-phasizing the ability—and need—for current researchto view technological developments and interactionsnot only within their respective archaeological andhistorical context, but on a global scale. This, inparticular, justifies the effort (and the lapse of time)in compiling this issue. Our thanks are due not only tothe authors of these papers, but in particular to thenumerous referees involved in the editing process.Their guidance and advice is much appreciated.