| Abstract: |
Fourteen papers, arising partly from a conference held in 1986 and partly from invited papers. The status of instrumental neutron activation analysis (INAA) and inductively coupled plasma spectroscopy (ICPS) at that time and the advances since are evaluated by M J Hughes, M R Cowell & D R Hook (ix-xi) in their preface. G R Gilmore (1-28) reviews the `Sources of uncertainty in the neutron activation analysis of pottery'. These include sampling, standards, irradiation, counting geometry, coincidence losses, analysis of the spectra and nuclear interferences. The `Neutron activation analysis procedures at the British Museum Research Laboratory' are described by M J Hughes, M R Cowell & D R Hook (29-46) and some recent applications are cited. Ch Lahanier, J-M Malfoy & R-P Zirnheld (47-56) discuss the `Analysis of white clay Gallo-Roman figurines by neutron activation'. In `Provenancing of pottery: a status report on neutron activation analysis and classification' H Mommsen, A Kreuser, E Lewandowski & J Weber (57-65) outline their analytical and statistical methodologies. The question of local versus foreign manufacture is approached using `Neutron activation and advanced pattern recognition analyses of Roman and Near Eastern pottery' by S U Wiseman & P K Hopke (67-90). Trade connections are also investigated in `The origin of the Tel Batash-Timna ceramics of the seventh century BC in the light of instrumental neutron activation analysis' presented by J Gunneweg & J Yellin (91-103). C T Williams & F Wall (105-19) describe `An INAA scheme for the routine determination of 27 elements in geological and archaeological samples' and propose further inter-laboratory comparisons to improve accuracy and precision. INAA is compared with other analytical methods and then applied to medieval material from Bulgaria in `Provenance study of pottery and glass by INAA' by R Djingova & I Kuleff (121-41). The procedures followed to achieve the analysis of glass are summarized in `ICPS and glass: The multi-element approach' by M P Heyworth, J R Hunter, S E Warren & J N Walsh (143-54). Twenty-six elements allow a chemical distinction to be made between groups of Anglo-Saxon material from Winchester and Southampton. In `INAA of lithic material from Cummins site Thunder Bay: determination of raw material sources', P J Julig, L A Pavlish & R G V Hancock (155-67) show that Palaeo-Indian populations used local agate pebbles for their tools. M Milburn, D R C Kempe & C T Williams (169-83) use INAA and multivariate analysis in `Provenance of some black soapstone "crosses" (pendants) from northern Niger'. INAA is combined with petrographic and stable isotope methods in `Instrumental neutron activation analysis of white marble: a contribution to the provenance determination of ancient Greek and Roman artefacts' by L Moens, P Roos, P De Paepe & M Waelkens (185-202). E A Slater & J Grünberg (203-26) outline chemical sub-groupings of flint and quartzite from the lower Rhine in `Analysis of lithic artefacts and source material from Palaeolithic sites in northern Europe'. The potential for provenancing Bronze Age material from the Mediterranean using elemental and isotopic data is discussed by Z Stos-Gale (227-48) in `Neutron activation analysis of copper ores, copper-based metals and slags'. |
