UCL INSTITUTE OF ARCHAEOLOGY

ARCL0170: LABORATORY AND INSTRUMENTALSKILLS IN ARCHAEOLOGICAL SCIENCE

Module Handbook for 2018/2019

Core Course for the MSc Archaeological Science: Technology and MaterialsTerm I, 15 Credits

Term I: Wed 9-11 (room B13) plus lab practical sessions

Co-ordinator: Mike Charltonm.charlton@ucl.ac.uk

Office 210, Tel 020 7679 7498

Turnitin Class ID: 3885676—Password IoA1819

Assesment deadlines for this module: 1. Term I, end of week 7 (23 Nov 2018)2. Term II, end of week 10 (22 Mar 2019)

Target dates for return of marked assessments:

1. Term I, end of week 10 (14 Dec 2018)2. Beginning of term 3 (23 April 2019)

Please see the last page of this document for important information about submission and markingprocedures, or links to the relevant webpages.

1

Short descriptionScientific techniques are increasingly used to characterise archaeological materials. This information may then be used to address questions related to technological transfer, exchange, innovation, and identity, in addition to aiding conservation planning. This course is designed to provide students with a critical understanding of some of the main laboratory based techniques employed for archaeological research, including their potentials, limitations, and protocols of best practice.

Combining class-based introductions with extensive practical sessions in the laboratory, it aims to introduce students to the necessary research skills to design, implement and report instrumental analyses of archaeological materials. Though instruction focuses on the most common inorganic artefacts (ceramics, metals, glass and lithics), the instrumental skills are transferable to other archaeological and environmental materials.

The course includes practical training in sample preparation and use of optical microscopy, SEM-EDS, XRF, FTIR and XRD, in addition to critical discussion of several other techniques such as ICP and isotopic analysis.

WEEK Wed LECTURES (Wed 9-11, B13) LAB/OTHER

1 3 Oct Lab-based archaeology (MC, MR)

2 10 OctMaterials and analytical techniques: practical and ethical considerations (MC)

Lab: conduct and safety (AB)

3 17 OctAtoms, molecules, and crystal structures (MC)

Deadline: practice essay (MSc only)

4 24 OctMicroscopy and microanalysis: SEM-EDS and WD-EPMA (MC)

Lab: SEM-EDS (TG, AB, UV)

5 31 Oct Bulk chemical analyses: XRF and ICP (MC) Lab: pXRF (PQ)

5-9 November READING WEEK

6 14 NovCompound identification: XRD, FTIR, Raman (AB)

Lab: FTIR and XRD (AB)

7 21 Nov Isotopes (RhS)Lab: Isotopes (RhS, HR)Deadline: Assessment 1 (report)

8 28 Nov Organic residues (ReS) Lab: organic residues (ReS)

9 5 DecData quality, processing, and presentation (MC, MR)

Lab: sample preparation: polished blocks

10 12 Dec Report and publication (MC, MR)Lab: sample preparation: powders and thin-sections (PQ)

Lecturers: AB=Agnese Benzonelli; MC=Mike Charlton; MR=Miljana Radivojević; TG=Tom Gregory; PQ=Patrick Quinn; HR=Hazel Reade, RhS=Rhiannon Stevens, ReS=RebeccaStacey; UV=Umberto Veronesi

2

AIMS, OBJECTIVES AND ASSESSMENT

AimsThis module aims to bridge the gap between archaeology and science by equipping students withthe necessary skills to design and carry out lab-based archaeological projects, and to engagecritically with the work of others. More specifically, the course aims:

To introduce students to the principles and practice of the instrumental analysis ofarchaeological materials, including issues of sampling, calibration and data quality,reporting and interpretation, as well as practical training in the use of some of the mostcommon analytical instruments.

To provide a wide-ranging and challenging introduction to the role of artefact studies andmaterials analysis in modern archaeology.

To engage with current debates about the collection, analysis, interpretation, reporting andcuration of archaeological materials.

Objectives and Learning OutcomesUpon successful completion of this module, students will, among other objectives:

Have the basic skills necessary to acquire, process, report, and interpret archaeometricdata from a number of techniques, including sample preparation and analysis by opticalmicroscopy, SEM-EDS, XRF, FTIR and XRD.

Be familiar with a range of practical approaches to the study of materials in relation to widerarchaeological research questions.

Be able to debate the role of science-based studies in archaeology, including the potentialadvantages and constraints inherent within different approaches.

Have the ability to critically assess reports and publications deriving from archaeometricwork, as well as to propose analytical projects with archaeological relevance.

N.B. This constitutes the core course of the MSc Archaeological Science: Technology andMaterials. Although the formal taught components take place during the first two terms only, it isexpected that students will continue to fulfill the above aims and objectives through directedreading and practical training, as well as in special seminars and tutorials arranged throughout theyear. This is particularly relevant to the practical aspects of archaeometric analyses andinterpretation, which require more extended training than feasible in an ordinary taught module.

Teaching methodsThe course is taught through a combination of formal lectures, practical demonstrations andpractical exercises at the Wolfson Archaeological Science Laboratories. In general, discussion of aparticular technique in the class will be followed by a demonstration and subsequent trainingsessions so that individual students can develop the autonomy to carry out their own analyticalwork with supervised staff support.

You will have formative assignments at the end of some lectures that are designed to improveyour critical thinking skills.

WorkloadThe core course will be taught over ten weeks during the first term on Wednesdays (9-11) makinga total of 20 hours. In addition, students are expected to spend approximately 60 hours in thelaboratory (including practical sessions and work for assessment #2), and a further 70 hoursreading for the course and writing assessed work. This adds up to a total workload of 150 hoursfor the module.

3

There is a reading week in term 1 and another one in term 2; this time should be used to catch-upwith any reading associated with lectures and to research and prepare assessed work.

Methods of assessmentFormal assessment is based on one scientific investigation report (1425-1575 words, 25% of thefinal mark) and one lab-based analytical report (2375-2625 words, 75%). More details are includedat the end of this course handbook.

All work must be fully referenced; your attention is drawn to methods of referencing and to thestatements on plagiarism and ‘self-plagiarism’ available on the website. The topics and deadlinesfor each assessment are specified below, and further details are given in the last few pages of thishandbook. If students are unclear about the nature of an assignment, please contact the ModuleCo-ordinator. If you wish to discuss essay topics or prepare a brief (single- page maximum) outlineof how you intend to approach your assignment, he will be happy to discuss this.Word counts[N.B. The weeks as used in this coursebook correspond to teaching weeks and therefore skip reading week, i.e. ‘week 6’ is the first week after reading week]

Scientific investigation report (Assessment 1): Term I, end of week 7. Word limit: 950- 1050.Weighting: 25% of the final mark.

Lab-based analytical report (Assessment 2): Term II, end of week 10. Word limit: 1425- 1575 Weighting: 75% of the final mark.

All written work submitted as coursework should include a word count.The following should not be included in the word-count: title page, contents pages, lists of figure and tables, abstract, preface, acknowledgements, bibliography, lists of references, captions and contents of tables and figures, appendices.

Penalties will only be imposed if you exceed the upper figure in the range. There is no penalty for using fewer words than the lower figure in the range: the lower figure is simply for your guidance toindicate the sort of length that is expected.

In the 2018-19 session penalties for overlength work will be as follows:

For work that exceeds the specified maximum length by less than 10% the mark will be re-duced by five percentage marks, but the penalised mark will not be reduced below the passmark, assuming the work merited a Pass.

For work that exceeds the specified maximum length by 10% or more the mark will be re-duced by ten percentage marks, but the penalised mark will not be reduced below the pass mark, assuming the work merited a Pass.

Coursework submission procedures All coursework must normally be submitted both as hard copy and electronically. (The

only exceptions are bulky portfolios and lab books which are normally submitted as hard copy only.)

You should staple the appropriate colour-coded IoA coversheet (available in the IoA library and outside room 411a) to the front of each piece of work and submit it to the red box at theReception Desk (or room 411a in the case of Year 1 undergraduate work)

All coursework should be uploaded to Turnitin by midnight on the day of the deadline. This will date-stamp your work. It is essential to upload all parts of your work as this is sometimes the version that will be marked.

Instructions are given below.

4

Note that Turnitin uses the term ‘class’ for what we normally call a ‘module’.1. Ensure that your essay or other item of coursework has been saved as a Word doc., docx. or PDFdocument, and that you have the Class ID for the module (available from the module handbook) and enrolment password (this is IoA1819 for all modules this session - note that this is capital letter I, lowercase letter o, upper case A, followed by the current academic year)2. Click on http://www.turnitinuk.com/en_gb/login 3. Click on ‘Create account’4. Select your category as ‘Student’5. Create an account using your UCL email address. Note that you will be asked to specify a new password for your account - do not use your UCL password or the enrolment password, but invent one of your own (Turnitin will permanently associate this with your account, so you will not have to change itevery 6 months, unlike your UCL password). In addition, you will be asked for a “Class ID” and a “Class enrolment password” (see point 1 above). 6. Once you have created an account you can just log in at http://www.turnitinuk.com/en_gb/login and enrol for your other classes without going through the new user process again. Simply click on ‘Enrol in a class’. Make sure you have all the relevant “class IDs” at hand.7. Click on the module to which you wish to submit your work.8. Click on the correct assignment (e.g. Essay 1).9. Double-check that you are in the correct module and assignment and then click ‘Submit’10. Attach document as a “Single file upload”11. Enter your name (the examiner will not be able to see this)12. Fill in the “Submission title” field with the right details: It is essential that the first word in the title is your examination candidate number (e.g. YGBR8 In what sense can culture be said to evolve?), 13. Click “Upload”. When the upload is finished, you will be able to see a text-only version of your submission.14 Click on “Submit”.

If you have problems, please email the IoA Turnitin Advisers on ioa-turnitin@ucl.ac.uk, explaining the nature of the problem and the exact module and assignment involved.

One of the Turnitin Advisers will normally respond within 24 hours, Monday-Friday during term. Please be sure to email the Turnitin Advisers if technical problems prevent you from uploading work in time to meet a submission deadline - even if you do not obtain an immediate response from one of the Advisers they will be able to notify the relevant Module Coordinator that you had attempted to submit the work before the deadline

Prerequisites There are no formal prerequisites for this course. Students are encouraged to discuss theirindividual needs and expectations with the course co-ordinator

Intercollegiate and interdepartmental studentsStudents enrolled in Departments outside the Institute should obtain the Institute’s courseworkguidelines from Judy Medrington (j.medrington@ucl.ac.uk), which will also be available on Moodle.

Health and safetyThe Institute has a Health and Safety policy and code of practice which provides guidance onlaboratory work, etc. This is revised annually. All work undertaken in the Institute is governed bythese guidelines and students have a duty to be aware of them and to adhere to them at all times.This is particularly important in the context of the laboratory work which will be undertaken as partof this course. Do not do anything you are not absolutely sure and comfortable about. Neverhesitate to ask. That’s what we are here for.

TimetableOrdinary sessions will take place on Wednesdays 9-11 (Term I only). In addition to these, thecore course will include practical sessions at the laboratory throughout terms I and II, to bearranged individually. For term I, these will take place most Fridays, but a more detailedschedule will follow in week 2.

A detailed timetable can be found on the last page of this coursebook.5

INTRODUCTORY READING AND ONLINE RESOURCES

Please note that many of the papers and book chapters listed below are available online through UCL Reading Lists. In addition, the Moodle page for this course includes numerous links to useful resources. I keep updating the online version of the reading list during the year.

There is an increasing number of handbooks of archaeological science. Some are organised in chapters by analytical techniques (e.g. microscopy, chemical analysis...), and others are organisedby material (e.g. metals, ceramics...). Either way, they are useful introductions and starting points. You are strongly encouraged to read some of these as the course progresses, and before you start using the instruments yourself.

In addition to the books listed below, you will find relevant case studies, depending on your material or instrument of interest, by searching in the following essential resources:

Journals (all available online through UCL Library Services):Archaeometry

Journal of Archaeological Science

Archaeological and Anthropological Sciences

The British Museum Technical Research Bulletin, available onhttp://www.britishmuseum.org/research/publications/online_journals/technical_research_bulletin.aspx

Art and Archaeology Technical Abstracts (AATA), available on http://aata.getty.edu/NPS

Published proceedings of the following conferences:International Symposium on Archaeometry

UK Archaeological Science

Materials Issues in Art and Archaeology

Some handbooks, introductory papers and collections of case studies:Archaeometry 49/2 (2007). Special issue devoted to Neutron Activation Analysis in Archaeology.INST ARCH Pers

Archaeometry 50/2 and 50/6 50th anniversary issues with good review papers on a number oftopics, including artefact analysis INST ARCH Pers

Artioli, G. 2010. Scientific Methods and Cultural Heritage: An Introduction to the Application of Materials Science to Archaeometry and Conservation Science. Oxford: Oxford University Press.INST ARCH LA ART

Bowman, S. (ed), 1991. Science and the Past. London: British Museum Press. INST ARCH AJ BOW[increasingly out of date, but the book remains one of the nicest and most accessible

6

introductions to the analysis of archaeological materials – if you can find a second-hand copy,buy it!]

Brothwell, D. R. and Pollard, A. M. (eds), 2001. Handbook of Archaeological Sciences. Chichester,New York, Weinheim, Brisbane, Singapore, Toronto: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. INST ARCH AJ BRO

Demortier, G. and Adriaens, A. (eds), 2000. Ion beam study of art and archaeological objects. A contribution by members of the COST G1 Action. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities. INST ARCH LA Qto DEM

Dran J. C. et al, 2004. Ion beam analysis of art works: 14 years of use in the Louvre. Nuclear Instruments & Methods In Physics Research Section B-beam Interactio, 219, 7-15.

Ciliberto, E. and Spoto, G. (eds), 2000. Modern Analytical Methods in Art and Archaeology. (Chemical Analysis, 155). New York, Chichester, Weinheim, Brisbane, Singapore, Toronto: Wiley-Interscience. INST ARCH JDD CIL

Edwards, H. G. M. and Chalmers, J. M. 2005. Raman spectroscopy in archaeology and art history.Cambridge: Royal Society of Chemistry INST ARCH JKB EDW

Giumlia-Mair A. et al., 2010. Surface characterisation techniques in the study and conservation of art and archaeological artefacts: a review. Materials technology 25(5), 345-261.

Goffer, Z. 2007. Archaeological chemistry. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley INST ARCH JD GOF, ISSUE DESK, IOA JD GOF

Henderson, J. (ed), 1989. Scientific Analysis in Archaeology and its Interpretation. (Monograph 19;Archaeological Research Tools 5). Oxford and Los Angeles: Oxford University Committee for Archaeology and UCLA Institute of Archaeology INST ARCH AJ HEN

Henderson, J. 2000. The science and archaeology of materials: an investigation of inorganic materials. London: Routledge. INST ARCH JDA HEN, ISSUE DESK IOA HEN 11

Janssens, K. and van Grieken, R. E. (eds), 2004. Non-destructive Microanalysis of Cultural Heritage Materials. (Wilson & Wilson's Comprehensive Analytical Chemistry, XLII). Amsterdam, Boston, Heidelberg, London, New York, Oxford, Paris, San Diego, San Francisco, Singapore, Sydney, Tokio: Elsevier. INST ARCH JDD JAN

Lambert, J. B., 1997. Traces of the Past: Unraveling the Secrets of Archaeology Through Chemisty. Reading (Mass.): Helix Books and Addison-Wesley. INST ARCH JD LAM

Martini, A., Milazzo, M. and Piacentini, M. 2004. Physics methods in Archaeometry. Amsterdam; Oxford: IOS Press. INST ARCH AJ MAR

7

Martinón-Torres, M. and Rehren, Th. (eds) 2008. Archaeology, History and Science: Integrating Approaches to Ancient Materials. (UCL Institute of Archaeology Publications). Walnut Creek, CA: Left Coast Press INST ARCH AJ MAR, ISSUE DESK IOA MAR 9

Moreau, J.F., Auger, R., Chabot, J. and Herzog, A. (eds), 2009. Proceedings of the 36 th International Symposium on Archaeometry, April 2006, Quebec (Les cahiers d'archeologie du CELAT, 25; Series Archeometrie, 7), Quebec: Universite Laval. INST ARCH AJ MOR

National Academy of Sciences, 2005. Scientific examination of art: modern techniques in conservation and analysis (Arthur M. Sackler Colloquia of the National Academy of Sciences). Washington, DC: National Academies Press. INST ARCH KN 1 NAT

Nesse, W. D. 2004. Introduction to optical mineralogy, 3rd edn. New York; Oxford: Oxford University Press. GEOLOGY D32 NES

Olsen, S. L. (ed) 1988. Scanning electron microscopy in archaeology. (BAR International Series 452). Oxford: BAR. INST ARCH AJ 10 Qto OLS

Parkes, P. A. 1986. Current scientific techniques in archaeology. London: Croom Helm. INST ARCH AJ PAR

Pérez-Arantegui, J. (ed), 2006. Proceedings of the 34th International Symposium on Archaeometry, Zaragoza, 3-7 May 2004. Zaragoza: Institución Fernando el Católico.http://ifc.dpz.es/publicaciones/ebooks/id/2610

Pollard, A. M., Heron, C., Armitage, R.A. 2017. Archaeological Chemistry. Cambridge: Royal Society of Chemistry. INST ARCH JD POL

Pollard, A. M., Batt, C. M., Stern, B. and Young, S. M. M. 2007. Analytical Chemistry in Archaeology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press INST ARCH JDD POL

Shackley, M. S. (ed), 2011. X-Ray Flourescence Spectrometry in Archaeology. New York: Springer[mostly focused on lithic materials, but it also includes a good generic introduction to the basics of XRF in archaeology, available here.]

Torrence, R., Rehren, T., Martinon-Torres, M. (eds.), 2015. Scoping the Future of Archaeological Science: Papers in Honour of Richard Klein. Journal of Archaeological Science 56, special issue. [a recent compilation of papers reviewing recent research, suggesting best practice strategies and outlining future challenges for archaeological science in a wide range of subfields]

Uda, M., Demortier, G. and Nakai, I. 2005. International Symposium on X-ray Archaeometry (Tokyo, Japan). Dordrecht: Springer. INST ARCH JM UDA

8

Non-destructive analysis and testing of museum objects: An overview of 5 years of research. Spectrochimica Acta Part B: Atomic Spectroscopy, 2005, Vol.60(12), pp.1503-1516. (a lot of interesting papers in the bibliography).

9

1. Introduction to the course. Lab-based archaeologyMike Charlton, Miljana Radivojević

Why are we here? Introduction to the structure, aims and methods of this course. What do we want to know? What’s the point of doing analyses? Current research topics, problems and potentials. “Possible” vs “impossible” research questions. Material-oriented vs question-oriented research. Characterisation vs interpretation.

ReadingAll of the papers below address interesting debates about the relationships between archaeology and materials science. For those less familiar with archaeological science, you may find Tite’s paper a simple and succint introduction to the typical questions and approaches. This can be followed by Sillar and Tite’s paper. You can also have a look at Martinón-Torres and Killick’s recent paper, which challenges archaeologists to learn more science.

De Atley, S. P. and Bishop, R. L., 1991. Toward an Integrated Interface for Archaeology and Archaeometry, in R. L. Bishop and F. W. Lange (eds), The Ceramic Legacy of Anna O. Shepard, 358-381. Niwot: University Press of Colorado. INST ARCH KD 3 BIS

Hamilton, E., 2004. The Four Scales of Technical Analysis; or, How to Make Archaeometry More Useful, in J. R. Mathieu and R. E. Scott (eds), Exploring the Role of Analytical Scale in Archaeological Interpretation, 45-48. (BAR International Series 1261). Oxford: Archaeopress.INST ARCH AH Qto MAT

Killick, D. and Young, S. M. M. 1997. Archaeology and archaeometry: from casual dating to a meaningful relationship? Antiquity 71 (273): 518-524. INST ARCH Pers

Killick, D. 2015. The awkward adolescence of archaeological science. Journal of Archaeological Science 56: 242-247. INST ARCH Pers

Jones, A. 2001. Archaeological Theory and Scientific Practice. (Topics in Contemporary Archaeology). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. INST ARCH AJ 10 JON

Jones, A. 2004. Archaeometry and materiality: materials-based analysis in theory and practice. Archaeometry 46: 327-338. INST ARCH Pers

Martinón-Torres, M. 2008. Why should archaeologists take history and science seriously? in M. Martinón-Torres and Th. Rehren (eds), Archaeology, History and Science: IntegratingApproaches to Ancient Materials, 15-36 (UCL Institute of Archaeology Publications). Walnut Creek CA: Left Coast Press. INST ARCH AJ MAR, ISSUE DESK IOA MAR 9

Martinón-Torres, M. and Killick, D.C. 2015. Archaeological theories and archaeological sciences, in A. Gardner, M. Lake and U. Sommer (eds.), Oxford Handbook of Archaeological Theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Online

10

Rehren, Th., Pusch, E. & Herold, A., 2001 Qantir-Piramesses and the organisation of the Egyptianglass industry. In: A. Shortland (ed) The Social Context of Technological Change Oxford: Oxbow Books, 223-238. INST ARCH DBA 100 SHO

Sillar, B. and Tite, M. S. 2000. The challenge of the 'technological choices' for materials science approaches in archaeology, Archaeometry 42: 2-20. INST ARCH Pers

Tite, M. S., 2001. Overview - Materials Study in Archaeology, in D. R. Brothwell and A. M. Pollard (eds), Handbook of Archaeological Sciences, 443-448. Chichester, New York, Weinheim, Brisbane, Singapore, Toronto: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. INST ARCH JD POL

11

2. Materials and analytical techniques. Practical and ethical considerations.

Mike Charlton

In this session we will provide an overview of the main categories of archaeological materials and the most important analytical techniques. We will discuss the suitability of different techniques for different materials and questions.

After this, we will discuss the various aspects that affect sampling and the selection of analytical equipment for specific research questions of archaeological relevance. Practical aspects of science-based analyses. Invasive vs non-invasive. Destructive vs non-destructive. Research agenda vs equipment availability. Ethics.

Some frequent concerns: how many samples? where from? is this representative? Is invasive sampling acceptable? Is authentication of unprovenanced objects permisible?

Learning objectives:The main purpose of this session is not to learn by heart all the fancy acronyms. You will be familiarising yourself with them as we go along. More important than that is to have a general understanding of the following:

spectrometry/spectroscopy: interactions between radiation and matter

the difference between an excitation source and a detector

three main types of detectors: MS, EDS, WDS

In addition, you will be encouraged to consider issues that will continue to arise in the rest of this course (and career!), balancing your research needs with the preservation of heritage as a public resource.

ReadingYou will find introductions to the different instruments in the general handbooks given in the introductory reading (top block of the Moodle page), as well as excellent tutorials online (google byyourself!).

Regarding sampling, Clive Orton's book offers the best coverage of sampling in archaeology, introducing a variety of sampling frames and strategies with their potentials and limitations. The book is concerned with sampling at the scale of sites and assemblages, not with the removal of samples from objects for analytical purposes.

For the latter topic, Mike Tite's article, and the replies to his paper, highlight many relevant practical and ethical issues. I strongly encourage you to read this discussion to form your own opinion about the ethics of what we do.

And while we are discussing ethics, you should also read Kathy Tubb’s paper and responses.

Orton, C. R. 2000. Sampling in Archaeology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Pp, 40-66 and 148-170. INST ARCH AK 10 ORT

12

Tite, M. S. 2002. Archaeological Collections: Invasive Sampling versus Object Integrity. Papers from the Institute of Archaeology 13, 1-6. [and replies in the same volume] INST ARCH Pers, and available online

Tubb, K. W. 2007. Irreconcilable differences? Problems with unprovenanced antiquities. Papers from the Institute of Archaeology 18, 3-11. [and replies in the same volume] INST ARCH Pers, and available online

13

3. The nature and identification of materials. Atoms, molecules and crystal structuresMike Charlton

We will be looking at the fundamental structures of materials, using simple, descriptive models. This will include a look at individual atoms and their various components; isotopes; the periodic table of elements; different bonding models to form molecules; valencies and stoichiometry; alloys and solid solutions; from molecules to crystal structures; and how various aspects of this are beingexploited for analytical purposes.

Learning objectives:The amount of physics and chemistry that you need for this course is actually quite limited.However, it is crucial that you understand these very basics so that we have a solid foundationto build on. If any of the above terms is unclear, please seek clarification!

ReadingAny basic textbook on inorganic chemistry can give you the relevant background for this. Andyou can also try the Internet! I have provided in Moodle a link to a simple introduction to atomsand molecules, but many other similar introductions are available.

14

4. Optical microscopy. Scanning electron microscopy and microanalysis (SEM-EDS, WD-EPMA)Mike Charlton

Applications of microscopy and microanalysis. Principles of SEM-EDS and WD-EPMA. Imaging and practical procedures. Recording and comparing microanalytical data.

Learning objectives:As with the XRF, this session will provide you with a basic foundation before you start your practical training at the labs. Whilst you will be expected to conduct SEM-EDS analyses independently, MSc students do not typically do their own analytical work with the EPMA. However, both instruments are available to you. If you have a good reason, you can request that some of your samples are analysed at the EPMA (particularly when you begin work on your dissertation), and you are welcome to look over the technician's shoulder as they do the work.

In any case, what is important is that you understand the potentials and limitations of both instruments and their respective detectors, including their similarities and differences.

And remember…

You should bring the class handouts from this session with you the first few times that you go to the SEM. You may find them useful as a guide or reminder, and many ideas that seemed abstract and irrelevant in the classroom will hopefully become more useful.

ReadingThere are no specific readings for this session. With the handouts and online tutorials available through Moodle you should have enough to get started. We are listing below a few key examples of SEM analysis. If you would like to find examples of specific applications of these instruments in archaeometric studies, just go to the journals Archaeometry or Journal of Archaeological Science, and search by keyword. In addition, you may want to have a look at the reading list for the undergraduate course on Microscopy and Dating (ARCL3093).

Freestone, I. C. and Middleton, A. P. 1987. Mineralogical applications of the analytical SEM in archaeology. Mineralogical Magazine 51, 21-31.

Ingo, G.M. et al., 2006. Combined use of SEM-EDS, OM and XRD for the characterization of corrosion products grown on silver roman coins. Applied Physics A, 83(4), 493-497.

Martinón-Torres, M. and Uribe-Villegas, M.A. 2016. The prehistoric individual, connoisseurship and archaeological science: the Muisca goldwork of Colombia. Journal of Archaeological Science 63: 136-155.

Sax, M., Walsh, J.M., Freestone, I.C., Rankin, A.H., and Meeks, N.D. 2008. The origins of two purportedly pre-Columbian Mexican crystal skulls. Journal of Archaeological Science 35, 2751-2760.

15

5. Bulk chemical analysis: X-ray fluorescence (XRF) and inductively coupled plasma-mass spectrometry (ICP-MS)Mike Charlton

Applications of bulk chemical analyses in archaeometry. Uses of major, minor and trace elements.Foundations of XRF and ICP and a comparison between both methods, including sampling requirements, pros and cons.

Learning objectives:From now onwards, your practical training with the analytical instruments will start. Most of your training with bulk analysis will take place using the Institute's portable XRF instruments. However, it is important to be aware that other techniques of bulk chemical analyses are available, each of them with their advantages and limitations.

It is very helpful to have some idea of what goes on inside the XRF instrument before you start your practical training - make sure you refresh your basic knowledge before turning up at the lab!

ReadingThere are no specific readings for this session. With the handouts and online tutorials available through Moodle you should have enough to get started. If you would like to find examples of specific applications of these instruments in archaeometric studies, just go to the journals Archaeometry or Journal of Archaeological Science, and search by keyword.

The paper below is pointed out here because it covers quite succintly the applications of chemical analyses in archaeological materials.

Hancock, R. G. V., 2000. Elemental analysis, in E. Ciliberto and G. Spoto (eds), Modern AnalyticalMethods in Art and Archaeology, 11-20. New York, Chichester, Weinheim, Brisbane, Singapore, Toronto: Wiley-Interscience. INST ARCH JDD CIL

Specifically on XRF, two good introductions to fundamentals and applications can be found inthe following, available online

Shackley, M. S. 2011. An introduction to X-ray fluorescence (XRF) analysis in archaeology, in M. S. Shackley (ed), X-Ray Flourescence Spectrometry in Archaeology. New York: Springer.

Markowicz, A. 2011. An overview of quantification methods in energy-dispersive X-ray flourescence analysis. Pramana – Journal of Physics 76/2, 321-329.

On LA-ICP-MS, the following volumes are good starting points:

Speakman, R.J.,Neff, H. (eds) 2005. Laser ablation ICP-MS in archaeological research.Albuquerque : University of New Mexico Press. INST ARCH JDD SPE

Dussubieux, L., Golitko, M., Gratuze, B. (eds)2016. Recent advances in laser ablation ICP-MS for archaeology. Springer. INST ARCH JH DUS

16

Portable XRFBelow, a few introductory references on portable XRF, a popular technique that is widely availableand offers great potential – but also many risks. This list is not comprehensive but it provides some basic foundations and examples of use. Some of the references, particularly are not strictly concerned with portable XRF but with the more traditional stationary XRF. However, they are included here because the applications and problems are very similar.

Conrey, G. M., Goodman-Elgar, M., Bettencourt, N., Seyfarth, A., Van Hoose, A., Wolff, J.A. 2014.Calibration of a portable X-ray fluorescence spectrometer in the analysis of archaeological samples using influence coefficients. Geochemistry: Exploration, Environment, Analysis 14(3), 291-301.

General articles and collectionsFrahm, E. and Doonan, R. C. P. 2013. The technological versus methodological revolution of portable XRF in archaeology. Journal of Archaeological Science, 40, 2: 1425–1434.

Shackley, M. S. 2010. Is there reliability and vailidity in portable X-ray fluorescence spectrometry (PXRF)? The SAA Archaeological Record, November 2010, 17-20.

Shackley, M. S. 2012. Portable X-ray Fluorescence Spectrometry (pXRF): The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly. Archaeology Southwest Magazine 26, 2.

Shugar, A. N. and Mass, J. L. (eds) 2012. Handheld XRF for Art and Archaeology. Leuven University Press, Studies in Archaeological Sciences.

Shugar, A. N. 2013. Portable X-ray Fluorescence and Archaeology: Limitations of the Instrument and Suggested Methods To Achieve Desired Results. Archaeological Chemistry VIII, 173-189. Washington DC: ACS.

Wilke, D., 2017. Some updated quality concerns on non-destructive geochemical analysis with XRF spectrometry. Advances in Applied Science Research 8(2), 90-94.

MetalsCharalambous, A., Kassianidou, V., Papasavvas, G., 2014. A compositional study of Cypriot bronzes dating to the Early Iron Age using portable X-ray fluorescence spectrometry (pXRF). Journal of Archaeological Science 46, 205–216.

Dussubieux, L. and Walder, H. 2015. Identifying American native and European smelted coppers with pXRF: A case study of artifacts from the Upper Great Lakes region. Journal of Archaeological Science 59, 169-178.

Kearns, T. Martinón-Torres, M. and Rehren, Th. 2010. Metal to mould: alloy identification in experimental casting moulds using XRF. Historical Metallurgy 44,1: 48-58.

Martinón-Torres, M., Li, X. J., Bevan, A., Xia, Y., Zhao, K. and Rehren, Th. 2014. Forty thousand arms for a single Emperor: from chemical data to the labor organization behind the bronze arrows of the Terracotta Army. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 21 (3), 534-562.

Martinón-Torres, M., Valcarcel Rojas, R., Guerra, M. F. and Saenz Samper, J. 2012 Metallic encounters in Cuba: the technology, exchange and meaning of metals before and after Columbus.Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 31, 4: 439-454.

17

Martinón-Torres, M. and Uribe-Villegas, M.A. in press. The prehistoric individual, connoisseurship, and archaeological science: the Muisca goldwork of Colombia. Journal of Archaeological Science.

Nicholas, M., Manti, P., 2014. Testing the applicability of handheld portable XRF to the characterisation of archaeological copper alloys. In J. Bridgland (ed.) ICOM-CC 17th Triennial Conference Preprints, Melbourne 15–19 September 2014, 1-13. Paris: International Council of Museums.

Orfanou, V., Rehren, Th., 2014. A (not so) dangerous method: pXRF vs. EPMA-WDS analyses of copper-based artefacts. Archaeological and Anthropological Sciences, June 2014, 1-11.

CeramicsForster, N., Grave, P., Vickery, N. and Kealhofer, L. 2011.Non-destructive analysis using PXRF: methodology and application to archaeological ceramics. X-Ray Spectrometry, 40, 5: 389-398.

Goren, Y., Mommsen, H. and Klinger, J. 2011. Non-destructive provenance study of cuneiform tablets using portable X-ray fluorescence (pXRF). Journal of Archaeological Science, 38, 3: 684-696.

Hunt, A.M.W. and Speakman, R.J. 2015. Portable XRF analysis of archaeological sediments and ceramics. Journal of Archaeological Science 53, 628-638.

Speakman, R. J., Little, N. C., Creel, D., Miller, M. R. and Inanez, J. G. 2011. Sourcing ceramics with portable XRF spectrometers? A comparison with INAA using Mimbres pottery from the American Southwest , Journal of Archaeological Science, 38, 12: 3483-3496.

Wilke, D., Rauch, D., Rauch, P. 2016. Is Non-destructive Provenancing of Pottery Possible With Just a Few Discriminative Trace Elements?STAR: Science & Technology of Archaeological Research 2(2), 141-158.

GlassDungworth, D. and Girbal, B. 2011. Waler Castle, Deal, Kent: Analysis of Window Glass. English Heritage Research Department Series 2-2011.

Liu, S., Li, Q. F., Gan, F., Zhang, P. and Lankton, J. W. 2012. Silk Road glass in Xinjiang, China: chemical compositional analysis and interpretation using a high-resolution portable XRF spectrometer. Journal of Archaeological Science 39, 7: 2128-2142.

ObsidianNazaroff, A. J., Prufer, K. M. and Drake, B. L. 2010. Assessing the applicability of portable X-ray fluorescence spectrometry for obsidian provenance research in the Maya lowlands. Journal of Archaeological Science, 37, 4: 885–895.

Frahm, E. 2013. Validity of “off-the-shelf” handheld portable XRF for sourcing Near Eastern obsidian chip debris. Journal of Archaeological Science, 40, 2: 1080–1092.

Speakman, R. J. and Shackley, M. S. 2013. Silo science and portable XRF in archaeology: a response to Frahm. Journal of Archaeological Science, 40, 2: 1435–1443.

Frahm, E. 2013. Is obsidian sourcing about geochemistry or archaeology? A reply to Speakman and Shackley. Journal of Archaeological Science, 40, 2: 1444–1448.

18

Milic, M. 2014. PXRF characterisation of obsidian from central Anatolia, the Aegean and central Europe. Journal of Archaeological Science, 41: 285-296.

StoneGrave, P., Attenbrow, V., Sutherland, L., Pogson, R. and Forster, N. 2012. Non-destructive pXRF of mafic stone tools. Journal of Archaeological Science, 39, 6: 1674-1686.

Ogburn, D., Sillar, B., Sierra, J.C. 2013. Evaluating effects of chemical weathering and surfacecontamination on the in situ provenance analysis of building stones in the Cuzco region of Peru with portable XRF. Journal of Archaeological Science, 40, 4: 1823–1837.

PigmentsColombo, C., Bracci, S., Conti, C., Greco, M. and Realini, M. 2011. Non-invasive approach in the study of polychrome terracotta sculptures: employment of the portable XRF to investigate complexstratigraphy. X-Ray Spectrometry, 40, 4: 273-279.

Chaplin, T. D., Clark, R. J. H. and Martinón-Torres, M. 2010. A combined Raman microscopy, XRF and SEM–EDX study of three valuable objects – A large painted leather screen and two illuminated title pages in 17th century books of ordinances of the Worshipful Company of Barbers, London. Journal of Molecular Structure 976, 350–359.

Geochemical surveyEliyahu-Behar, A., Shilstein, S., Raban-Gerstel, N., Goren, N., Gilboa, A., Sharon, I. and Weiner, S.2008. An integrated approach to reconstructing primary activities from pit deposits: iron smithingand other activities at Tel Dor under Neo-Assyrian domination. Journal of Archaeological Science, Volume 35, Issue 11, November 2008, Pages 2895-2908.

Gauss, R. K., Batora, J., Nowaczinski, E., Rassmann, K. and Schukraft, G. 2013. The Early Bronze Age settlement of Fidvár, Vráble (Slovakia): reconstructing prehistoric settlement patterns using portable XRF Journal of Archaeological Science, 40, 7: 2942-2960.

19

6. Compound identification: Fourier-Transform Infra-Red Spectroscopy (FTIR), X-Ray Diffraction (XRD) and Raman SpectroscopyAgnese Benzonelli

This session will focus on a range of spectroscopic techniques that are employed to identify compounds, minerals or phases, as opposed to chemical compositions or microstructures.

Learning objectives:Like with the other techniques discussed, the class presentation will focus on their basic foundations and some of their applications – to be followed by practical demonstrations in the lab.

ReadingLike in the previous introductory sessions on analytical techniques, there are no specific readings for these. With the handouts and online tutorials available through Moodle you should have enough to get started. Below, you can find a few examples of the application of XRD, FTIR and Raman – again, many more can be found online.

Abe, Y. et.al, 2009. On-site analysis of archaeological artifacts excavated from the site on the outcrop at Northwest Saqqara, Egypt, by using a newly developed portable fluorescence spectrometer and diffractometer. Analytical and Bioanalytical Chemistry 395(7), 1987-1996.

Cotte, M. et al., 2009. Recent applications and current trends in Cultural Heritage Science using synchrotron-based Fourier transform infrared micro-spectroscopy. Comptes rendus – Physique 10(7), 590-600.

De Benedetto, G.E. et al, 2002. Infrared spectroscopy in the mineralogical characterization of ancient pottery. Journal of Cultural Heritage 3(3), 177-186.

Eiland, M.L., Williams, Q, 2001. Investigation of Islamic Ceramics from Tell Tuneinir Using X-Ray Diffraction. Geoarchaeology 16(8), 875-903.

Ricciardi, P. et al., 2009. A non-invasive study of Roman Age mosaic glass tesserae by means of Raman spectroscopy. Journal of Archaeological Science 30, 1-9.

The Getty Conservation institute, 1999. Infrared spectroscopy in conservation science.

Young, M. et al., 2010. Non-invasive characterization of manufacturing techniques and corrosion of ancient Chinese bronzes and a later replica using synchrotron X-ray diffraction. Applied PhysicsA, 100(3), 635-646.

20

7. IsotopesRhiannon Stevens

Isotopic analysis has played a powerful role in the characterization of the archaeological record fordecades, and instrumental advances coupled with expanding interests in the geosciences makes them more important than ever. These studies can be very useful to determine the geographic origins of animals and things, as well as aspects of their behaviour such as diet.

Learning objectives:In addition to learning the foundations, potentials and limitations of isotope studies, it is crucial thatyou understand that, ultimately, isotope studies are all based on the same phenomena. If you get this, you’ll feel a lot less overwhelmed about the growing numbers of papers on all kinds of isotopes.

ReadingArchaeological and Athropological Sciences 1/3 (2009), special issue: Lead isotopes and archaeometallurgy. Especially papers by Villa and Stos-Gale. Online.

Ben-David, M. and Flaherty, E. A. 2012. Stable isotopes in mammalian research: a beginner's guide. Journal of Mammalogy 93(2), 312–328. Online

Bentley A. 2006. Strontium isotopes from the earth to the archaeological skeleton: A review.Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 13(3), 135-187.Online

Degryse, P. 2013. Isotope-ratio techniques in glass studies. In Janssens, K. (ed.), Modern Methods for Analysing Archaeological and Historical Glass, vol. 1. Chichester: Wiley and Sons.Online.

Degryse, P., Henderson, J. and Hodgins, A. (eds.) 2008. Isotopes in Vitreous Materials. Studies inArchaeological Sciences 1. Leuven: Leuven University Press. INST ARCH KL DEG, ISSUE DESK IOA DEG

Freestone, I.C., Leslie, K. A., Thirlwall, M. and Gorin-Rosen, Y. 2003. Strontium isotopes in the investigation of early glass production: Byzantine and early Isalmic glass from the Near East. Archaeometry 45, 19-32. Online

Haustein, M., Gillis, C. and Pernicka, E. 2010. Tin isotopy – a new method for solving old questions. Archaeometry 52, 816-832. Online.

Lee-Thorp, J. 2008. On isotopes and old bones. Archaeometry 50, 925-950. Online

Pollard, A. M. and Wilson, L. 2001. Global biogeochemical cycles and isotope systematics – how the world works. In D. Brothwell and A. M. Pollard (eds.) Handbook of Archaeological Sciences, 191-201.Chichester: Wiley and Sons. INST ARCH AJ BRO, ISSUE DESK IOA BRO 15

21

8. Organic residue analysis

Rebecca Stacey

Analytical techniques used for characterisation of archaeological organic residues (and amorphous organic materials), with focus on molecular characterisation using chromatography and mass spectrometry techniques. We will consider: the range of different organic materials that can be analysed; the principles of the techniques; the sampling and sample preparation requirements. Challenges and limitations of the techniques applied to archaeological materials will be discussed.

Learning objectives:To gain an overview of the range of material/residue types that can be studied using these techniques and a basic understanding of the analytical principles. To understand the practical aspects of sample preparation and a basic understanding of the data generated. To be aware of the limitations of the analytical techniques and the kinds of archaeological questions that can be productively addressed by such studies.

ReadingColombini, P. M. P. and F. Modugno (2009). Organic Mass Spectrometry in Art and Archaeology, Wiley.

Evershed, R. P. (2008). Organic residue analysis in archaeology: the archaeological biomarker revolution. Archaeometry 50(6): 895-924.

McMaster, M. and McMaster, C. (2008) GC-MS. A Practical Users Guide, 2 edn. London: John Wiley & Sons

Mills, J. S. and R. White (1994). The Organic Chemistry of Museum Objects. Oxford, Butterworth-Heinemann.

Roffet-Salque, M., Dunne, J., Altoft, D. T., Casanova, E., Cramp, Lucy J. E., Smyth, J., Whelton, H. L. and Evershed, R. P. (2017). From the inside out: Upscaling organic residue analyses of archaeological ceramics. Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports.

Stacey, R (2009) Organic residues: origins, analysis and scope - a subject overview for the archaeological ceramicist. Old Potters Almanack 14 (1): 1-9.

Smith, R. M. and Busch, K. L. (1999) Understanding Mass Spectra – A Basic Approach. London: John Wiley & Sons

22

9. Data quality, processing and presentationMike Charlton, Miljana Radivojević

Is the analysis correct? Can we trust the numbers? How many decimal places? Why should we worry anyway? We will discuss ways of monitoring the quality of the data, particularly for accuracy and precision, but also including detection limits, error margins, and normalisation.

And once you’ve established your data quality, whatever your research topic, you are likely to end up with tables full of numbers. The really interesting part starts here: how to make sense of the data? How to present, analyse and interpret your data? We will introduce and discuss critically some examples of data processing and presentation.

Learning objectives:As with sampling, one needs to be able to assess (and report!) the quality of the analytical data. Sometimes, relatively "bad" data may be good enough for certain purposes (e.g. differentiating bronze from brass). However, we need to be able to recognise the degree of data quality needed for specific questions, and how to rectify errors.

It is impossible to learn statistics in one hour. However, after this session you should be familiar with the potential applications of a range of data processing and presentation techniques, so that you can assess whether they are useful for your particular dataset. If you choose to use them, be prepared to invest some more time…

Student activity BEFORE the class:Read one of the two papers listed below and suggest a more-attractive title. How would you structure it to reach a scientific audience, a general archaeology audience, or a general public audience?

Charlton, M. F., Crew, P., Rehren, Th. & Shennan, S. J. 2010. Explaining the evolution of ironmaking recipes - an example from northwest Wales. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 29: 352-367.Available online

Radivojević, M. & Rehren, Th. 2016. Paint It Black: The Rise of Metallurgy in the Balkans. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 23: 200-237.Available online

Reading on data qualityYou can find brief and useful introductions to many relevant issues in the AMC Technical Briefs of the Royal Society of Chemistry. We have included some of these in the Moodle page but you’re encouraged to explore for more.http://www.rsc.org/Membership/Networking/InterestGroups/Analytical/AMC/TechnicalBriefs.asp

Below, some examples of calibrations and reproducibility studies

Hein, A., Tsolakidou, A., Iliopoulos, I., Mommsen, H., Buxeda i Garrigos, J., Montana, G. and Kilikoglou, V. 2002. Standardisation of elemental analytical techniques applied to provenance studies of archaeological ceramics: an inter laboratory calibration study. The Analyst 127, 542-553.

23

Heginbotham A. et al, 2010. An Evaluation of inter-laboratory reproducibility for quantitative XRF of historic copper. In Mardikian, P. et al. (eds.) Metal 2010. Proceedings of the International Conference on Metal Conservation, Charleston, South Carolina, USA, October 11-15, 2010. Clemson University, 244-255.

Kovacs, R., Schlosser, S., Staub, S.P., Schmiderer, A., Pernicka, E. and Gunter, D. 2009 Characterization of calibration materials for trace element analysis and fingerprint studies of gold using LA-ICP-MS. Journal of Analytical Atomic Spectrometry 24: 476-483.

Reading on data processing and statisticsBaxter, M. J. 1994. Exploratory multivariate analysis in archaeology. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. STORE 00-03201

Baxter, M. J. 2003. Statistics in Archaeology. London: Arnold. INST ARCH AK 10 BAX

Baxter, M. J. and Buck, C. E., 2000. Data handling and statistical analysis, in E. Ciliberto and G. Spoto (eds), Modern Analytical Methods in Art and Archaeology, 681-746. New York, Chichester, Weinheim, Brisbane, Singapore, Toronto: Wiley-Interscience. INST ARCH JDD CIL

Baxter, M., Cool, H., 2016. Basic statistical graphics for archaeology with R: Life beyond Excel. Nottingham, Barbican Research Associates. Available online: http://www.barbicanra.co.uk/assets/basic-statistical-graphics.pdf

Baxter, M. J. and Freestone, I. 2006. Log-ratio compositional data analysis in Archaeometry. Archaeometry 48(3): 511-531. Available online

Charlton, M. F., Blakelock, E., Martinón-Torres, M. and Young, T. 2012. Investigating the production provenance of iron artifacts with multivariate methods. Journal of Archaeological Science 39, 2280-2293. Available online

Drennan, R. D. 1996. Statistics for archaeologists:A commonsense approach. New York; London: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Press. INST ARCH AK 10 DRE

Fletcher, M. and Lock, G. 2005. Digging numbers: elementary statistics for archaeologists. Oxford:Oxford University School of Archaeology. INST ARCH AK 10 FLE

Orton, C. 1980. Mathematics in Archaeology. London: Collins. INST ARCH AK 10 SHE, ISSUE DESK IOA ORT 1

Shennan, S J, 1997. Quantifying Archaeology. 2nd edition. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. INST ARCH AK 10 SHE

24

10. Report and publication. Concluding discussionMike Charlton, Miljana Radivojević

Making our data and interpretation available to others to use, discuss and enjoy is an ethical duty. After all, we often work with public heritage and funded by public resources. What is the best way of doing so?

Defining an audience. Deciding a publication venue. Comparing data and interpretations to originalresearch questions. Structuring a report. Acknowledging weaknesses and potentials.

Learning objectives:An MSc dissertation: where do I start? We will use this session to discuss general practical aspects of research design, as well as any other relevant subject that you may wish to talk about.

Student activity BEFORE the class:Read the three papers required (two of them noted below and available via Moodle, a third one to be distributed in the previous class): what do you think of the methods employed and the way theyreport their results? are their conclusions supported by the data? what do you think of the project design overall?

Thornton, C.P. et al. 2002. On pins and needles: tracing the evolution of copper-based alloying at Tepe Yahya, Iran, via ICP-MS analysis of common-place items. Journal of Archaeological Science, 29: 1451-1460.

Ponting, M. J. 2002. Keeping up with the Romans? Romanisation and copper alloys in First RevoltPalestine. IAMS (Institute for Archaeo-Metallurgical Studies Newsletter), 22: 3-6.

ReadingChippindale, C. 2006. Colleagues, Talking, Writing, Publishing, in Maschner, H. D. G. and Chippindale, C. (eds) Handbook of archaeological methods, vol. 2, 1339-1371. Lanham, Md.; Oxford: Altamira Press. INST ARCH AH MAS

Sand-Jensen, K., 2007. How to write consistently boring scientific literature. Oikos 116(5): 723-727. Available online

Smith, M.E. 2015. How can archaeologists make better arguments? The SAA Arch Record 15(4), .Available online

White, P. 2006. Producing the Record, in Balme, J. and Malden, A. (eds) Archaeology in practice: a student guide to archaeological analyses. Malden, MA; Oxford: Blackwell. INST ARCH AH BAL

25

ASSESSMENT

Assessment 1: Scientific investigation reportDeadline: Term I, end of week 7

This assessment requires you to:

Demonstrate an understanding of a range of different types of analytical information.

Use the information to make an argument about the history of an object.

Explain your methods and results in terms that can be understood by an informed lay-person.

Present your data and arguments in the form of an official scientific report and in an objective, structured and formal manner, suitable for presentation to the Board of Trustees of a Museum.

The word length for your report is 1425-1575 words, plus diagrams and tables. This assessment amounts to 25% of your final module mark.

The scenarioYou are a scientist in the laboratory of the National Museum of Transylvania. You have a small laboratory, equipped with a range of equipment for the investigation of archaeological and museum artefacts.

The head curator of the Department of European Art and Archaeology is very excited. The Museum has been offered a rare Renaissance enamelled ewer, believed to have been made in Limoges, France and dating to the sixteenth century. The item has been in a private collection for many decades and hence purchasing it would be legal and bring the artefact to public view. This will fill an important gap in the collections. The curator wishes to buy the object at the price being offered by the dealer, which is slightly below the market value for such an object.

The Director of the Museum, while sympathetic to the enthusiasm of the curator, is more cautious. The cost of the ewer will consume the total funds available for acquisitions in the current financial year. He will have to justify the expenditure to the Museum’s Trustees and is ultimately responsible to the Culture Department of the government. If the object is purchased and later turnsout to be problematic, his job will be on the line. Therefore he has told the European department torefer it to the scientific laboratory for careful evaluation.

Your job is to examine the object and to produce a report on its condition and authenticity. Your report needs to present the details of your findings, in an objective way. You are not required to comment upon value or cost, and should not do so. Remember that examinations of this type often do not “prove” something, they “suggest” or are “consistent with” with a process or characteristic. This report, particularly if unfavourable in some way to the object, might well be used by the Museum in negotiations with the owner. Therefore it is crucial that it is as objective as possible, and does not leave the Museum liable to legal action.

The InvestigationYou are provided with the results of the investigation (via Moodle):

A picture of the artefact Two radiographs of the artefact A page from a lab book with a sketch of the appearance of the artefact in ultraviolet light

26

The results of an X-Ray Fluorescence examination of the object XRF results for a standard A radiograph showing the appearance of the central join in a typical 16th century enamelled

ewer from Limoges A report on something completely different (glass from Cluny), which shows how a report of

this type might be organised.

Your ReportYour report should include the following (you should use sub-headings as appropriate). Refer to the example of a report provided via Moodle but use a style and layout that you think looks appropriate (typeface, paragraph spacing, etc.). YOU MUST USE DOUBLE LINE SPACINGS IN YOUR REPORT.

Title of your Institution and Department (Top of page) Title of the Report (“Report on ........”) Department requesting the report (in brackets: “(Requested by Department of.........)”.) At the beginning a short summary or abstract (up to 4 sentences) of what you have done

and what you have found. An introduction indicating what you are looking at and why A description of the methods used – indicate the methods used and the reasons for using

them. You should indicate clearly any limitations. A section outlining the results – what you found/observed. Refer to figures (as fig. 1, 2 etc)

and any tables. An interpretation section – what do the results mean? Refer back to the previous section as

you develop your argument. A concise conclusion – very clearly and simply state what you have concluded about the

object. On the left hand side at the bottom of the report, you should sign it, type your name, the

date and a file number for this study Your report will have referred to previous work in the literature, and references should be

provided in the standard way. Figures and also tables, if any, should be numbered sequentially and referred to in the text.

They should be embedded in the report and always accompanied by captions.

Reading materialBowman S G E (1991) Science and The Past. London:British Museum Press. esp Chapter 5.

Röhrs, S. and Stege, H., (2004). ‘Analysing Limoges painted enamels from the 16th to 19 th centuries by using a portable micro X-ray fluorescence spectrometer’. X-ray Spectrom. 33, 396-401.

Röhrs, S., Biron, I. and Stege, H. (2006) About Limoges Painted Enamels – Chronological Evolution of the Glass Chemical Composition, Association International pour l’histoire du Verre, Annales du 17e congres, 500-509.

27

Assessment 2: Practical essay: analytical reportDeadline: Term II, end of week 10

This essay comprises practical work in the laboratory (sample preparation and analysis), to give you experience in the preparation of specimens, selection of analytical techniques, and the presentation of the resulting data.

The word count should be 2375-2625: you are expected to write a concise report characterising the sample and the specimen preparation, explaining and justifying the analytical procedures, and reporting your results and primary interpretation in a suitable way.

The emphasis here is on the technical and methodological side: ideally your essay will demonstrate that you can generate useful analytical data and report your results clearly, with just some primary technological interpretation. You are not expected to perform in-depth bibliographic research (although you may want to survey the literature just to see how other people have reported their analyses).

Each student will be provided with a different sample, considering their specific interests.

Start with an IntroductionHere, you give a brief mention of the material and the task in front: i.e. the characterisation or description of the sample including a photograph or drawing (scale bar!), what you know about it (origin, data, nature), and what the task is: Material identification and characterisation.

Discuss your approachExplain why you chose a specific analytical approach (microscopy, SEM-EDS, XRF), and which sample preparation this includes / requires. Also say why you are not using another of the available methods!!

Describe the sample preparation and analysis to the level of documentation necessary for someone else in five years to understand what you’ve done, when looking at your report, without giving a step-by-step description.

Here you have to find the balance between over-describing your manual steps of preparation and analysis, and giving the necessary detail for a knowledgeable reader to follow your work.

Report your resultsThis should be the body of your report, including illustrations (e.g. micrographs of sections; tables of analysis; graphical presentation of data), enabling the reader to evaluate the results, and possibly compare them with other reports / published evidence from elsewhere. Here, it is important to decide what should be in the text in what in an appendix, to what extent the data can be summarised using tables or figures, etc.

There is no need for a long discussion in this essay, but a concluding paragraph would be sensible, summarising the results on the level of sample identification and characterisation.

Take care to neatly present and proof read your text; if you as the author don’t think it’s worth this effort, then any reader will assume it probably isn’t a good text anyway.

28

SubmissionThe printed essay should be submitted together with a suitably labelled CD-ROM, including a digital version of the essay as presented, as well as any further documentation generated (i.e. filesand raw data from SEM-EDS, additional micrographs, etc).

The sample studied and the specimens produced for analyses should all be properly labelled and returned with the essay.

This essay counts as 75% of your assessed coursework for this course.

29

APPENDIX A: POLICIES AND PROCEDURES 2018-19 (PLEASE READ CAREFULLY)

This appendix provides a short précis of policies and procedures relating to modules. It is not a substitute for the full documentation, with which all students should become familiar. For full information on Institute policies and procedures, see the IoA Student Administration section of Moodle:

https://moodle.ucl.ac.uk/module/view.php?id=40867

For UCL policies and procedures, see the Academic Regulations and the UCL Academic Manual:http://www.ucl.ac.uk/srs/academic-regulations ; http://www.ucl.ac.uk/academic-manual/

GENERAL MATTERSATTENDANCE: A register will be taken at each class. If you are unable to attend a class, please notifythe lecturer by email. DYSLEXIA: If you have dyslexia or any other disability, please discuss with your lecturers whether there isany way in which they can help you. Students with dyslexia should indicate it on each coursework coversheet.

COURSEWORKLATE SUBMISSION: Late submission will be penalized in accordance with current UCL regulations, unlessformal permission for late submission has been granted. The UCL penalties are as follows:

The marks for coursework received up to two working days after the published date and time will in-cur a 10 percentage point deduction in marks (but no lower than the pass mark).

The marks for coursework received more than two working days and up to five working days after the published date and time will receive no more than the pass mark (40% for UG modules, 50% forPGT modules).

Work submitted more than five working days after the published date and time, but before the sec-ond week of the third term will receive a mark of zero but will be considered complete.

GRANTING OF EXTENSIONS: Please note that there are strict UCL-wide regulations with regard to the granting of extensions for coursework. You are reminded that Module Coordinators are not permitted to grant extensions. All requests for extensions must be submitted on a the appropriate UCL form, together with supporting documentation, via Judy Medrington’s office and will then be referred on for consideration. Please be aware that the grounds that are acceptable are limited. Those with long-term difficulties should contact UCL Student Disability Services to make special arrangements. Please see the IoA website for fur-ther information. Additional information is given here

http://www.ucl.ac.uk/srs/academic-manual/c4/extenuating-circumstances/

RETURN OF COURSEWORK AND RESUBMISSION: You should receive your marked coursework withinone month of the submission deadline. If you do not receive your work within this period, or a writtenexplanation, notify the Academic Administrator. When your marked essay is returned to you, return it to theModule Co-ordinator within two weeks. You must retain a copy of all coursework submitted.

CITING OF SOURCES and AVOIDING PLAGIARISM: Coursework must be expressed in your own words,citing the exact source (author, date and page number; website address if applicable) of any ideas, information, diagrams, etc., that are taken from the work of others. This applies to all media (books, articles,websites, images, figures, etc.). Any direct quotations from the work of others must be indicated as such by being placed between quotation marks. Plagiarism is a very serious irregularity, which can carry heavy penalties. It is your responsibility to abide by requirements for presentation, referencing and avoidance of plagiarism. Make sure you understand definitions of plagiarism and the procedures and penalties as detailed in UCL regulations: http://www.ucl.ac.uk/current-students/guidelines/plagiarism

RESOURCESMOODLE: Please ensure you are signed up to the module on Moodle. For help with Moodle, pleasecontact Charlotte Frearson (c.frearson@ucl.ac.uk )

30

APPENDIX TO BE INCLUDED AT THE END OF EVERY MODULE HANDBOOK, EXCEPT THOSE FOR CORE MODULES, WHICH SHOULD INCLUDE THE PAGE ABOVE INSTEAD

INSTITUTE OF ARCHAELOGY COURSEWORK PROCEDURESGeneral policies and procedures concerning modules and coursework, including submission procedures, assessment criteria, and general resources, are available on the IoA Student Administration section of Moodle:

https://moodle.ucl.ac.uk/module/view.php?id=40867

. It is essential that you read and comply with these. Note that some of the policies and procedures will be different depending on your status (e.g. undergraduate, postgraduate taught, affiliate, graduate diploma, intercollegiate, interdepartmental). If in doubt, please consult your module co-ordinator.

GRANTING OF EXTENSIONS: Note that there are strict UCL-wide regulations with regard to the granting of extensions for coursework. Note that Module Coordinators are not permitted to grant extensions. All requests for extensions must be submitted on a the appropriate UCL form, together with supporting docu-mentation, via Judy Medrington’s office and will then be referred on for consideration. Please be aware that the grounds that are acceptable are limited. Those with long-term difficulties should contact UCL Stu-dent Support and Wellbeing to make special arrangements. Please see the IoA Student Administration section of Moodle for further information. Additional information is given here

http://www.ucl.ac.uk/srs/academic-manual/c4/extenuating-circumstances/

31

WEEK Wed LECTURES (Wed 9-11, B13) LAB/OTHER

1 3 Oct Lab-based archaeology (MC, MR)

2 10 OctMaterials and analytical techniques: practical and ethical considerations (MC)

Lab: conduct and safety (AB)

3 17 OctAtoms, molecules, and crystal structures (MC)

Deadline: practice essay (MSc only)

4 24 OctMicroscopy and microanalysis: SEM-EDS and WD-EPMA (MC)

Lab: SEM-EDS (TG, AB, UV)

5 31 Oct Bulk chemical analyses: XRF and ICP (MC) Lab: pXRF (PQ)

5-9 November READING WEEK

6 14 NovCompound identification: XRD, FTIR, Raman (AB)

Lab: FTIR and XRD (AB)

7 21 Nov Isotopes (RhS)Lab: Isotopes (RhS, HR)Deadline: Assessment 1 (report)

8 28 Nov Organic residues (ReS) Lab: organic residues (ReS)

9 5 DecData quality, processing, and presentation (MC, MR)

Lab: sample preparation: polished blocks

10 12 Dec Report and publication (MC, MR)Lab: sample preparation: powders and thin-sections (PQ)

32