Advances in Archaeomaterials最新文献

The article is devoted to the Chinese mirrors found in the burials of the nomads of Asian Sarmatia. The typology and chronology of mirrors is presented, the earliest of which dates back to the period of the Warring States, but most of them, dating back to the 1st century BC – 2nd century AD. In the complexes of the second half of the 1st century BC – the first half of the 1st century AD the number of Chinese items in Asiatic Sarmatia is increasing. They are represented, among others, by two mirrors of the Western Han type, which come from the Lower Volga and Don regions; they are not known in the South Urals. In the complexes of the second half of the 1st– the first half of the 2nd century AD the Chinese mirrors are much more common. As before, they are not known in the Urals, but they are also represented in the Kuban and Lower Volga, and especially in the Lower Don region. In the burials of the late Sarmatian period of the late 2nd – middle / second half of the 3rd century AD Chinese mirrors are relatively abundant in the Urals, where the mapping of finds allows us to distinguish two local groups (1 – South Urals: Lebedevka and burial grounds in the Ilek river basin; 2 - South Bashkiria, interfluve of the Sakmara and the Urals rivers, and the Trans-Urals), while further to the west – in the Lower Volga and Don regions, they generally ceased to fall, only two mirrors are known outside the South Urals – in Trans-Kuban and Central Ciscaucasia. The issue of deliberate damage to mirrors is specially considered.

Is it possible to consider the Chinese bronze mirrors as trade items? If we assume that they belonged to the items of trade along the Silk Road, then two conclusions following from the dating of the finds should be taken into consideration. Firstly, these mirrors were not distributed to the ancient centers of the North Pontic area and further to the territory of the Roman provinces. Thus, the way of the mirrors ended in the steppe. Moreover, starting from the second half of the 2^nd century AD (late Sarmatian culture) Chinese mirrors cease to fall to the west of the Urals – their finds are unknown neither in the Lower Volga region, nor on the Don. This means that the connection between the distribution of the Chinese mirrors and the functioning of the northern branch of the Silk Road is unlikely.

Recent new evidence emerged from the crucible steel production site of Konasamudram, Telangana, India. A hoard of 60 crucible steel ingots from this site offers a unique opportunity to study details of the early large-scale production of this fabled material, beginning with a detailed documentation of the weights and sizes of 45 of them. Historically, Konasamudram has been an important pre-modern crucible steel manufacturing and trading centre in India, as reported by Persian and European travelogues, and may have been the source of many of the early ingots studied during the past 200 years. The aim of this work is to present a dimensional analysis of these ingots and interpret the data in the context of earlier studies, to address questions of consistency in manufacturing, standardization of weights and other physical attributes. The newly-discovered ingots show considerable uniformity in shape, size and weights, indicative of a single production event during the heydays of crucible steel making, while the ingots previously reported in the literature vary much more widely.

This study combines an analysis of archaeological remains, geographic background, and ethnoarchaeological research to gain insights into preconditions and processes of pottery making in northern China during the Yangshao period (5000–3000 BCE). Previous research on Neolithic ceramics from this region focused on typochronology while ethnoarchaeological research has largely been limited to southern China, where geology, geomorphology, and thus resource availability are entirely different. In this study, for the first time we connect ethnographic research in northern China with an analysis of local archaeological ceramics and raw material sources to gain insight into patterns of raw material choice, ceramic production and distribution, and their connection with geographic preconditions. In this fashion, we are able to show that potters, both past and present, systematically sought out suitable raw material and worked close to abundant water and clay resources and major routes of distribution. Standardization is shown to be a problematic concept as ceramic measurements may vary even in large-scale specialized production, but clay recipes and procedures may be standardized. It also becomes clear that in recent times, migrating or travelling potters are responsible for the spread of ceramic production techniques and types. Similar processes may have taken place in the past as well.

The field of archaeomaterials research has enormous potential to shed light on past innovation processes. However, this potential has been only partially recognized outside its immediate practitioners, despite the fact that innovation and technology change are topics of enduring interest in archaeology and the broader social sciences. This review explores the relationship between archaeomaterials research and the interdisciplinary study of innovation, and maps out a path toward greater integration of materials analysis into these discussions.

To foster this integration, this review has three aims. First, I sketch the theoretical landscape of approaches to the study of innovation in archaeology and neighboring disciplines. I trace how theoretical traditions like evolutionary archaeology have influenced archaeomaterials approaches to questions of technological change while also highlighting cases where work by archaeomaterials researchers anticipated trends in the anthropology of technology. Next, I distill a series of core concerns that crosscut these different theoretical perspectives. Finally, I describe examples where archaeomaterials research has deepened scholarly understanding of innovation processes and addressed these core questions. The future of archaeomaterials research lies in engagement with these broader discussions and effective communication of the contributions that materials analysis can make to building a comparative understanding of innovation processes.

This paper presents an overview of techniques employed in antiquity—in different regions and at different times—for decorating metals by plating or applying surface treatments. Quite often the intention was to disguise metals and alloys to give the impression of better-quality materials. In other cases, the treatments produced special decorative effects and unusual colors.

This paper deals with plating with gold and silver, various methods of gilding and silvering, depletion of gold and silver, and different kinds of artificial patination on various copper-based alloys. The best-known artificially patinated alloys are certainly shakudo-type alloys—that is, black-patinated copper-based alloys containing small amounts of gold and often silver and other metals. These alloys are inlaid with precious metals of contrasting colors and have been discovered in various archaeological contexts and historical times. Several other patinated alloys of various colors, including red, yellow, brown, orange, and olive, often rather similar to Japanese irogane (the word means “colored metal”), have been identified in recent times. The ancient methods of patination of iron will be briefly discussed. Ancient texts related to surface treatments will be commented upon.