The quest for the Holy relic of archaeology: part two

The electron microprobe shown here is virtually an antique: probably dating to circa 1960, its appearance borders on the steampunk. Today, we would expect to see one connected to a desktop computer and monitor and  a lot of what was done with hardware back then is now done with software. You can buy used examples for as little as  the price of a very good used car, but don't expect maintenance and parts replacement costs to compare to those of your local automotive shop. Having an oil leak is one thing, X-ray leaks are quite another matter. Think about that should see  a really cheap one offered on Ebay.

Continuing with Ray's hypothetical Roman coin from yesterday's post: we could take the one from the collection, or the same type and variety  from an archaeological excavation, analyse it with such an instrument and not only discover its alloy but also find trace element impurities we can measure accurately down to about 0.1%. When I discovered 0.303% cobalt in my Celtic Plastic Style sword pommel it was cause for wild celebration. It seemed virtually riddled with cobalt. That small measurement was at the upper end percentage for what I was hoping for. With an electron microprobe highly significant percentages can be very small indeed. Before I could get this measurement, I had to brightly polish a small area on the socket of the pommel, and for any sample, be it from a collection or an archaeological dig, you have to do the same if you want to know things about its original state. If, however, you have an ancient coin and want to know something of its internal structure, you have to go a lot deeper than a good polish. Sawing it in half is not going to help, you really need to put it in a bench-vice and hit it very hard with a steel hammer to break it.

There are a large number of excavated metal objects sitting in museums which could provide very valuable scientific data if it was allowed to even just polish a tiny, unobtrusive area. Some people make the claim that archaeology is a science. I do not agree, but it can certainly use science. A number of analyses have been done on coins, however, probably because they are multiple items. I cannot recall such an analysis being done on a unique coin, though. Hopefully such a thing has been done at least once or twice. Analyses of the metal of other Celtic objects are extremely rare. Why would this be so? Surely, if archaeology has scientific pretensions, then everything should be so analysed as a matter of course until we have samples large enough to make further testing a waste of time and money. Most examples of early Celtic art are unique, not because we have only found one of them, but because only was one was ever made. We do get multiples of  the more domestic objects like brooches and simple harness fittings and even military sword furniture of plain design have been made in multiples, but shields and decorated sword scabbards; anything commissioned by the elite, are a one-off.

Many archaeologists are frustrated that they cannot get permission to have something analysed, and many other archaeologists are frustrated about being asked for such an analysis.You  read about an archaeologist stressing the value of tactile communication with the object and see others wearing white gloves so as not to damage the surface. The latter is almost always an unnecessary precaution as many patinas start from people handling objects and unless you have some bizarre medical condition even an electron microprobe would be unable to detect cumulative damage on a patinated object. It would be different matter, of course, if you were handling biological samples for dna testing, or handling modern proof coins that have never been touched. Something else is going on, something religious and/or pathological.

The very best definition of archaeology is simply: the study of the past from its material remains. If you are doing that, you are doing archaeology. But archaeology has another component that does not seem very strange to those whose experience is only within its discipline, but is actually very strange, indeed. It is theory-ridden. Even theoretical physics, which by its very name, is theoretical, does not have such widely divergent theories that change with such rapidity. Other science's general theories change but little at all over decades and changes are to do more with methods and so on. Philosophical thought can be quite diverse and there are battles between religions that are amazingly similar to each other to any outside observer. Science and mechanics are heavily pragmatic: was the experiment successful? is it working? If the answer is "no" then it is back to the drawing board. Theories come about through inductive, scientific reasoning based on experiments, even thought experiments (as happens in theoretical physics). But if archaeology is the study of the past from its material remains, you would think that there is at least some room for science in it, even though you cannot run experiments on the past. All that is material is physical; is an object. When you see objects being discussed in a derogatory way by an archaeologist you are seeing a symptom of "mind-suicide". I will start to explain this tomorrow.


John's Coydog Community page