17th April 2012, 11:19 AM
Hi,
I am a RA working on the RHX validation project. Glad the newsletter has been well received.
The application of this method as an archaeological dating technique is a happy accident, the 2009 paper proved that RHX can work on bricks and tiles. The research was originally intended to help with the design of brick built structures, using medieval and Roman bricks demonstrated that the rate law that had been discovered works over long time scales. The reason that nothing has happened since 2009 is that we have been attempting to secure funding and samples to do a validation study to determine if RHX can be a dating technique for archaeological materials.
@ pdurdin Yes, the website is in need of much work and I am currently writing the content. I hope to build the website and have the new content up and running by mid of June.
@ Wax The event that RHX would be dating is when it was last heated to over 500 degree celcius. So, for most artefacts that will be when it was taken out of the kiln. There may be situations when there is evidence to suggest that it was heated to that temperature again, for example in a building fire. Cooking vessels (repeated heating events) may present a problem, which we will be investigating.
@ dinosaur We are hoping that it will be a widely available technique. It is too early to be able to give any indication of the costs involved. RHX is still very much in the research/development stage.
With regards to your other concerns, RHX is a self calibrating method so the adsorption (not absorption, as the moisture chemically combines with the ceramic material) rate is specific to each individual ceramic. Furthermore, the moisture requirements for the RHX reaction are very small so we do not need to estimate the amount of water present in the burial environment. However, as it is a chemical reaction, we do need to get an estimate of the average temperature that the artefact has been at during it's lifetime. Our colleagues at Edinburgh have developed a model that can calculate this. The current study will be looking at many different burial environments (for example marine, cave, freshwater, temperature, tropical) to determine if any specific burial environment may be a problem.
@ kevin wooldridge Yes you are correct about the precision. Another aspect of the current study is to collect sufficient data to be able to quantify the errors involved and get an idea of the precision that can be obtained by this method. Regarding prehistoric pottery, I have only been involved in this project for 2 months but how well fired the ceramic is may not present a significant problem. I know that very well fired material, such as porcelain, currently cannot be dated by RHX as most of the ceramic has become fused. Although the RHX reaction is still occuring, the mass gain is so minute it is beyond current instrumentation to measure. Again, the ability for RHX to date poorly fired ceramics is something that we will be investigating over the next two years.
I am a RA working on the RHX validation project. Glad the newsletter has been well received.
The application of this method as an archaeological dating technique is a happy accident, the 2009 paper proved that RHX can work on bricks and tiles. The research was originally intended to help with the design of brick built structures, using medieval and Roman bricks demonstrated that the rate law that had been discovered works over long time scales. The reason that nothing has happened since 2009 is that we have been attempting to secure funding and samples to do a validation study to determine if RHX can be a dating technique for archaeological materials.
@ pdurdin Yes, the website is in need of much work and I am currently writing the content. I hope to build the website and have the new content up and running by mid of June.
@ Wax The event that RHX would be dating is when it was last heated to over 500 degree celcius. So, for most artefacts that will be when it was taken out of the kiln. There may be situations when there is evidence to suggest that it was heated to that temperature again, for example in a building fire. Cooking vessels (repeated heating events) may present a problem, which we will be investigating.
@ dinosaur We are hoping that it will be a widely available technique. It is too early to be able to give any indication of the costs involved. RHX is still very much in the research/development stage.
With regards to your other concerns, RHX is a self calibrating method so the adsorption (not absorption, as the moisture chemically combines with the ceramic material) rate is specific to each individual ceramic. Furthermore, the moisture requirements for the RHX reaction are very small so we do not need to estimate the amount of water present in the burial environment. However, as it is a chemical reaction, we do need to get an estimate of the average temperature that the artefact has been at during it's lifetime. Our colleagues at Edinburgh have developed a model that can calculate this. The current study will be looking at many different burial environments (for example marine, cave, freshwater, temperature, tropical) to determine if any specific burial environment may be a problem.
@ kevin wooldridge Yes you are correct about the precision. Another aspect of the current study is to collect sufficient data to be able to quantify the errors involved and get an idea of the precision that can be obtained by this method. Regarding prehistoric pottery, I have only been involved in this project for 2 months but how well fired the ceramic is may not present a significant problem. I know that very well fired material, such as porcelain, currently cannot be dated by RHX as most of the ceramic has become fused. Although the RHX reaction is still occuring, the mass gain is so minute it is beyond current instrumentation to measure. Again, the ability for RHX to date poorly fired ceramics is something that we will be investigating over the next two years.