Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Rehydroxylation: new dating for brick, tile and pottery
#1
I'm not sure if this came up before, but I would like to draw attention to a new dating technique for bricks, tiles and pottery, which managed to date objects awfully secure.

An article from the BBC:
A new way of dating archaeological objects has been found, using water to unlock their "internal clocks".

Fired clay ceramics start to react chemically with atmospheric moisture as soon as it is removed from the kiln.

Researchers believe they can pinpoint the precise age of materials like brick, tile and pottery by calculating how much its weight has changed.

The team from Edinburgh and Manchester universities hope the method will prove as significant as radiocarbon dating.

Edinburgh University's Christopher Hall explained: "Almost every archaeological site has old bits of old pot but there's no good method to date it."

Radiocarbon dating, used for bone or wood, cannot be used for ceramic material because it does not contain carbon.

Their new rehydroxylation dating method, reported in Proceedings of the Royal Society A, measures the amount of water the material has "recombined with".

Professor Hall, who described the advance as "very exciting", said it would plug a "yawning gap in the dating methods for ceramics".

He and his team, from the universities of Edinburgh and Manchester and the Museum of London, were able to date brick samples from Roman, medieval and modern periods with remarkable accuracy.

They have established that their technique can be used to determine the age of objects up to 2,000 years old but believe it has the potential to be used to date samples around 10,000 years old.

Researchers are now planning to look at whether the new dating technique can be applied to earthenware, bone china and porcelain.

"The recombination goes on for several thousands of years," said Professor Hall.

"And what's strange about it is that it abides by a precise physical law.

"If we can work out how much moisture has been taken up, we can estimate the age of the sample."

Extreme heat

Dr Moira Wilson from Manchester University led the research. She said the technique could also be "turned on its head and used to establish the mean temperature of a material over its lifetime".

"If a precise date of firing were known, this could potentially be useful in climate change studies."

The technique involves measuring the mass of a sample and then heating it to around 500C in a furnace. This removes the water that has combined with it over its lifetime.

The sample is then weighed in a "super-accurate" device, known as a microbalance, to determine the precise rate at which the material will combine with water over time.

Using the time law, it is possible to extrapolate the data to calculate the time it will take to regain the mass lost on heating - revealing the sample's age.

The researchers applied this technique to a range of brick and tile samples.

They have calculated that a Roman brick sample with a known age of about 2,000 years was 2,001 years old. A further sample with a known age of between 708 and 758 years was calculated to have an age of 748 years.

The researchers also tested a 'mystery brick', with the real age only revealed to them once they had completed their process. The known age was between 339 and 344 years - and the new technique suggested the brick was 340 years old.

The team also found that ceramic objects have their internal date clocks reset if they are exposed to temperatures of 500C.

Bombing raids

Used on medieval brick from Canterbury, the technique repeatedly dated the sample as being 66 years old.

Further investigation revealed that Canterbury was devastated by incendiary bombs and fires during World War II bombing raids in 1942.

The intense heat generated by the bombing had reset the dating clock by, in effect, re-firing the bricks.

The results also proved accurate enough to show that a brick sample from the King Charles building in Greenwich came from reconstruction carried out in the 1690s, and not from the original building which was constructed between 1664 and 1649.

Professor Hall said: "This new technique could allow us to discover a great deal about ancient artefacts by pinpointing their age and, as we have shown in our experiments, it is also useful in determining the age of modern materials.

"We believe the method will become standard practice."

While he pointed out that its accuracy would need to be validated many times, he added that it is much cheaper and simpler than current available methods.

The most widely-used technique, thermoluminescence, requires a lot of information about the the archaeological site, he said.

"This cannot be applied to objects which have been removed from the site to a museum. Our method does not have this problem."


[end]
Robert Vermaat
MODERATOR
FECTIO Late Romans
THE CAUSE OF WAR MUST BE JUST
(Maurikios-Strategikon, book VIII.2: Maxim 12)
Reply
#2
Sounds exciting, Robert. Let's hope they get to work on the Haltern ceramics first.
posted by Duncan B Campbell
https://ninth-legion.blogspot.com/
Reply
#3
Wow, that certainly has real potential. Hopefully they'll be able to take it back at least 4000 years, that would REALLY help with the mess that the Bronze Age is. I wonder how large a sample has to be, and if this is a destructive technique? Not that most sites don't have a few tons of potsherds they can spare, of course! But there are also famous intact items that could use a good date.

Thanks for posting that!

Matthew
Matthew Amt (Quintus)
Legio XX, USA
<a class="postlink" href="http://www.larp.com/legioxx/">http://www.larp.com/legioxx/
Reply
#4
If this technique really is this accurate (and it seems to be) then this will be of inestimable value in dating such ceramic products as 'samian' ware. At present these can only be dated by: (a) comparing the style of design to other [known] designs, (b) hoping that there is something found with the pottery that can be dated as well, e.g. a coin. As pottery is often used to date other artefacts with which it is found, this will lead back to dating things like helmets and other military fitments.

The only 'fly' that I can see here is the one mentioned for the Canterbury brick samples, where the clock is 'reset' by some later event, such as a disasterous fire, which then puts the 'clock' back to zero. Pottery from the Colchester pottery shop, destroyed in the Boudiccan revolt or the crate of samian ware that was found at Pompeii would come under this category.

Caratacus
(Mike Thomas)
visne scire quod credam? credo orbes volantes exstare.
Reply
#5
Quote:... dating such ceramic products as 'samian' ware. At present these can only be dated by: (a) comparing the style of design to other [known] designs, (b) hoping that there is something found with the pottery that can be dated as well, e.g. a coin.
Hence, my reference to Haltern, which provides the lynchpin holding the entire TS chronology together!
posted by Duncan B Campbell
https://ninth-legion.blogspot.com/
Reply
#6
If true, this is the greatest archaeological revolution I have ever heard of. It will totally revolutionize the field and make hekatombs of research obsolete. It can only get one step better by working out a dating method on cut stone.
Stefan (Literary references to the discussed topics are always appreciated.)
Reply
#7
A dating method "cut in stone" is actually several dating methods combined for greater accuracy. All too often, natural scientific analysis is regarded by the public and even professional archaeologists as "foolproof" methods giving definite results...but of course, there is a lot of interpretation in natural science as well. But yes, this sounds very promising, and above all, very simple and cheap (museums curators worldwide must be dancing jigs). Why, even the archaeologists can carry this one out, if they can learn to count decimals correctly (sounds arrogant, but I have received 0,01mg samples when I requrested 0,1mg samples Big Grin ...and not just once). I've heard about this before though the grapewine, but that was at the planning stage.

I am not a ceramics guy, but from my basic training I have some issues:

1) Ambient humidity - more water will probably be absorbed in wet sites than in dry sites? Much like dendrochronology, reference tables might have to be constructed for different locations...that applies to above-and below ground in equal measure.
2) Waterlogged ceramics - very common in archaeology - will often not survive re-firing, depending on how much moisture they have absorbed. There is a lot of badly fired ware out there as well...how will it be affected by refiring?
3) (out on a limb) Is there different kinds of moistyre uptake in different kind of fired ware? It sounds reasonable, but I' m not sure.

But, please, please, let this work! Thermoluminiscence is a crappy method of dating ware.

[edit]
Found the article:
http://rspa.royalsocietypublishing.org/ ... 7.abstract

The more I think about it, the more I believe this will work best for relatively recent samples, from periods where we have good knowledge of the climate conditions, and above-ground finds. But all new methods will be improved over time. They are already considering some of the issues and find context, I see from the article. It will be interesting to see how this works when applied practically on a wider scale.
Reply
#8
Quote:I am not a ceramics guy, but from my basic training I have some issues:

1) Ambient humidity - more water will probably be absorbed in wet sites than in dry sites? Much like dendrochronology, reference tables might have to be constructed for different locations...that applies to above-and below ground in equal measure.
2) Waterlogged ceramics - very common in archaeology - will often not survive re-firing, depending on how much moisture they have absorbed. There is a lot of badly fired ware out there as well...how will it be affected by refiring?
3) (out on a limb) Is there different kinds of moisture uptake in different kind of fired ware? It sounds reasonable, but I' m not sure.

Having read the paper through, I can see that none of these will/should make any difference to the measurement.

The uptake of water by the ceramic that is being measured here is ADsorbed water, i.e. chemically bound water, and not ABsorbed moisture (physically bound - wet water, if you like). The ceramic could have been dumped into a lake or river, or left in the desert and it wouldn't matter a jot. What is being measured is a rate constant which applies only to that sample. The re-adsorbtion of water apparently proceeds in two stages. The first is relatively rapid, while the second is very slow and proceeds over time indefinitely. It's this last that is being measured and it obeys a "fourth order rate law", precisely. Moreover, the measurement can be applied to a piece of brick that was made last week, or a sample of Roman brick that was fired 2,000 years ago. The paper's authors think that the technique could be applied to ceramic objects as old as 10,000 years - which would take us back to the very first cities!

I see your point about the second one but two things here: (a) the sample isn't being 're-fired', it's being heated to only 500 deg. C or so and (b) it doesn't matter if the object does fall apart, the measurement can still be made. OK, so you've lost the sample but (except in rare instances) there's plenty of ceramics out there.

Yes, there are different kinds of moisture uptake for different kinds of ceramic ware (depends on the precise mineral make-up of the original clay) - but it doesn't matter as each sample is treated separately.

The technique is self-monitoring in that each sample is treated uniquely - unlike radiocarbon dating where we are using an external standard (which may, or may not, be 'standard' at all). A colleague of mine mused that it might even be possible to date the bottom part of a ceramic altar (when it was made and fired) from the top part (where the sacrifice was carried out and the offering burned), thus showing for how long the altar was in use! Awesome!

Caratacus
(Mike Thomas)
visne scire quod credam? credo orbes volantes exstare.
Reply
#9
Quote:What is being measured is a rate constant which applies only to that sample.
That was my understanding, too.
Quote:Yes, there are different kinds of moisture uptake for different kinds of ceramic ware (depends on the precise mineral make-up of the original clay) - but it doesn't matter as each sample is treated separately.
Although all the tests have been done on English material. It would be more reasuring if they had samples from other climates.
Quote:A colleague of mine mused that it might even be possible to date the bottom part of a ceramic altar (when it was made and fired) from the top part (where the sacrifice was carried out and the offering burned), thus showing for how long the altar was in use!
Interesting, but would the focus ever be hot enough to "re-fire" the stone?
posted by Duncan B Campbell
https://ninth-legion.blogspot.com/
Reply
#10
Not a ceramics guy (and it has been some time since my last lesson in material science relevant to this), as I said, but the applications for the method is so interesting - I'd love it if it work. I'll have to read properly through the paper later, though...otherwise occupied at the moment.

So the internal standard is completely independent of any external factors - be it heat, pressure, anoxic conditions (thus alkaline and reducing), or even absence of moisture?

Quote:I see your point about the second one but two things here: (a) the sample isn't being 're-fired', it's being heated to only 500 deg. C or so and (b) it doesn't matter if the object does fall apart, the measurement can still be made. OK, so you've lost the sample but (except in rare instances) there's plenty of ceramics out there.

There is the issue that a lot of ceramics really aren't ceramics anymore when dug up (primarily because they were either not fired, but aircured, or badly fired). You can actually wash them away with water. It was more that kind of material I was thinking about: I am unsure whether or not they can establish an internal standard in those cases.
Reply
#11
This sounds wonderfully promising Smile

Just mind boggling. Big Grin
Jef Pinceel
a.k.a.
Marcvs Mvmmivs Falco

LEG XI CPF vzw
>Q SER FEST
www.LEGIOXI.be
Reply
#12
What I don't understand is how you can reconcile this statement

Quote:The ceramic could have been dumped into a lake or river, or left in the desert and it wouldn't matter a jot.

and this one:

Quote:Dr Moira Wilson from Manchester University led the research. She said the technique could also be "turned on its head and used to establish the mean temperature of a material over its lifetime".
"If a precise date of firing were known, this could potentially be useful in climate change studies."
Jef Pinceel
a.k.a.
Marcvs Mvmmivs Falco

LEG XI CPF vzw
>Q SER FEST
www.LEGIOXI.be
Reply


Possibly Related Threads…
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Roof tile LEGTFM Jona Lendering 9 3,333 09-20-2005, 09:30 PM
Last Post: Jona Lendering
  Legio X Gemina Tile stamp on e-bay Peroni 0 1,187 04-20-2005, 11:53 AM
Last Post: Peroni
  Legionary brick stamps Anonymous 5 2,737 06-23-2004, 08:52 AM
Last Post: hansvl

Forum Jump: