Tang fragment of a knife HR-6567
Marianne. Senn (Empa, Dübendorf, Zurich, Switzerland) & Christian. Degrigny (HE-Arc CR, Neuchâtel, Neuchâtel, Switzerland) & Naima. Gutknecht (HE-Arc CR, Neuchâtel, Neuchâtel, Switzerland) & Rémy. Léopold (HE-Arc CR, Neuchâtel, Neuchâtel, Switzerland)
Tang fragment with shiny brown-yellow corrosion products still in place locally (Fig. 2). Dimensions: L = 2.9cm; Ømax. = 6.8mm; WT = 4.9g.
Household implement
Hauterive - Champréveyres, Neuchâtel, Neuchâtel, Switzerland
Excavation in 1983-1985, layer 3
Late Bronze Age
Hallstatt B1 (1054/1037BC _ 1000BC)
Lake
Laténium, Neuchâtel, Neuchâtel
Laténium, Neuchâtel, Neuchâtel
HR 6567
No conservation data available, but a coating and inventory number is visible on the surface.
The object was sampled in 1987 for analysis. Documentation of the strata in binocular mode on the remaining fragment of the object was performed in 2022.
The schematic representation below gives an overview of the corrosion structure encountered on the fragment from a first visual macroscopic observation.
Strata | Type of stratum | Principal characteristics |
NMM1 | Non-metalic material | Film/coating, transparent, thin, continuous |
CP1 | Corrosion product | Brown, pearly, thin, discontinuous, compact |
CP2 | Corrosion product | Dark yellow, thick, discontinuous, compact, hard |
CP3 |
Corrosion product | Layer, dark grey, thin, scattered, non-compact, soft |
M1 | Metal | Olive, thick, metallic, soft |
Table 1: Description of the principal characteristics of the strata as observed under binocular and described according to Bertholon's method.
The NMM1 seems to be a polymer coating added after excavation of the object.
This cross-section shows a lateral cut through the tang (Fig. 3). Most of the corrosion structure is absent (Fig. 7).
Leaded Bronze
Cold worked with partial annealing
MAH 87-196
Musées d'art et d'histoire, Genève, Geneva
Musées d'art et d'histoire, Genève, Geneva
1987, metallography and corrosion characterisation
None.
Analyses performed:
Non-invasive approach
XRF with handheld portable X-ray fluorescence spectrometer (NITON XL5). General Metal mode, acquisition time 60s (filters: Li20/Lo20/M20).
Invasive approach (on the sample)
Metallography (etched with ferric chloride reagent), Vickers hardness testing, ICP-OES, SEM/EDS (conditions provided in the About tab of the MiCorr application), XRD.
XRF analyses of the tang fragment of a knife were carried out on two representative areas (Fig. 3). Point 1 was done on the dark yellow corrosion layer (CP2), while point 2 was performed on the remaining metal surface. For both points, soil, corrosion products and metal are analyzed at the same time.
The metal is presumably a tin bronze alloy. The other elements detected are: Fe, S, Pb, Si, Al, Sb, As, Co, Ag, Zn.
Results of point 1 are very different from those of point 2, they indicate the enrichment in Fe and in S and depletion in Cu.
Elements (mass %) |
Cu |
Fe |
S |
Sn |
Pb |
Si |
Al |
Sb |
As |
Co |
Ag |
Zn |
|
||||||||||||
|
% |
+\-2σ |
% |
+\-2σ |
% |
+\-2σ |
% |
+\-2σ |
% |
+\-2σ |
% |
+\-2σ |
% |
+\-2σ |
% |
+\-2σ |
% |
+\-2σ |
% |
+\-2σ |
% |
+\-2σ |
% |
+\-2σ |
Total |
1 |
37.0 |
0.1 |
32.0 |
0.09 |
23.5 |
0.08 |
4.0 |
0.02 |
<0.1 |
0.01 |
1.5 |
0.06 |
0.5 |
0.1 |
0.4 |
0.01 |
0.2 |
0.01 |
0.2 |
0.04 |
0.1 |
0.01 |
<0.1 |
0.02 |
99.4 |
2 |
77.0 |
0.1 |
1.0 |
0.02 |
3.5 |
0.03 |
9.0 |
0.04 |
2.0 |
0.03 |
2.0 |
0.05 |
0.5 |
0.1 |
0.7 |
0.02 |
2.0 |
0.04 |
0.2 |
0.01 |
0.3 |
0.01 |
<0.1 |
0.02 |
99.5 |
Table 2: Chemical composition of the surface of the tang at two representative areas shown in Fig. 3. Method of analysis: XRF, UR-Arc CR.
The remaining metal is a leaded bronze (Table 2) containing numerous copper sulphide and tiny Pb inclusions (Figs. 8-10, 12 and Table 4). The porosity within the metal is high, particularly along a band through the middle of the sample (Figs. 7 and 8). The etched structure of the leaded bronze shows small, regular polygonal grains, some with twinning (Fig. 9). Slip lines appear in grains close to the metal surface (Fig. 9). The average hardness of the metal is HV1 120.
Elements | Cu | Sn | Pb | Ni | Sb | As | Co | Ag | Fe | Zn |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
mass% | 87.52 | 8.02 | 1.46 | 1.04 | 0.81 | 0.60 | 0.24 | 0.21 | 0.05 | 0.03 |
Table 3: Chemical composition of the metal. Method of analysis: ICP-OES, Laboratory of Analytical Chemistry, Empa.
Elements | O | S | Fe | Cu | Total |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
mass% | 1.5 | 20 | 1.0 | 71 | 93 |
Table 4: Chemical composition of dark-grey inclusions. Method of analysis: SEM/EDS, Laboratory of Analytical Chemistry, Empa.
Polygonal and twinned grains + strain lines (metal surface) with pores
Cu
Co, Ni, As, Ag, Sn, Sb, Pb
None.
The metal has lost most of its original corrosion layer, the remainder having an average thickness between 60 and 190µm (Fig. 6). In some areas up to three corrosion strata are visible (Fig. 11). In polarised light (Fig. 12), the corrosion stratigraphy appears more clearly: it is composed of a dense black inner layer, an intermediate thick brown layer with bright spots (indicating porosity) and an outer red layer with white particles. The elemental chemical distribution of the SEM image reveals that the black inner layer (CP3) is Sn-rich, but contains Cu, O, Fe, Si, P, Pb, Ni, As, Ca and S (Table 5, Figs. 12-13). The brown layer (CP2) contains S, Fe and Cu and has a composition similar to chalcopyrite/CuFeS2 (Table 5, Figs. 12-13). This was confirmed by past XRD analyses carried out by Schweizer (1994, museum report (1987)). The red layer (CP1) is an iron oxide (main elements Fe and O) and is contaminated with calcite/CaCO3 particles (S1) (Table 5, Figs. 12-13).
Elements |
O | Fe | Ni | Cu | Si | P | S | Ca | As | Sn | Pb | Total |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
CP1, red layer | 37 | 51 | 1.8 | < | < | < | < | 1.5 | 0.8 | < | < | 93 |
CP2, brown layer | < | 30 | < | 42 | < | < | 35 | < | < | < | < | 107 |
CP2, white particles | 50 | < | < | 0.6 | < | < | < | 39 | < | < | < | 90 |
CP3, black layer | 39 | 4.8 | 1.2 | 5.2 | 3.9 | 3.7 | < | < | 0.7 | 37 | 3.7 | 100 |
Table 5: Chemical composition (mass %) of the corrosion layers (from Figs. 12). Method of analysis: SEM/EDS, Laboratory of Analytical Chemistry, Empa.
Fig. 11: Micrograph of the metal sample from Fig. 7 (reversed picture, detail), unetched, bright field. From left to right: metal (in pink), inner light-grey layer, intermediate brown layer and top dark-grey layer. The area selected for elemental chemical distribution (Fig. 13) is marked by a red rectangle,
Fig. 12: Micrograph of the same area as Fig. 11 and corresponding to the stratigraphy of Fig. 14, polarized light. From left to right: metal (in brown) covered with a corrosion layer consisting of a black layer, an intermediate brown layer with bright spots, a crack (white line) and a red layer with white particles,
Uniform
lake patina (Schweizer 1994)
None.
NMM1 in binocular mode is not observed in cross-section mode, as the cross-section does not show any coating.
CP1 in binocular mode is documented as sediment (S1) and CP1 in cross-section mode. But it is not clear if it matches the CP1 from cross-section, which is a Fe-rich layer, or if CP1 from binocular mode developed as an atmospheric corrosion after the excavation and is therefore not present on the embedded sample.
CP2 and CP3 in binocular mode match CP2 and CP3 in cross-section mode.
On cross-section, it was possible to describe and analyze the microstructure of the metal.
The tang fragment is made from a leaded bronze and has been cold worked on the top surface after annealing. The SEM/EDS examination and past XRD analyses indicate the presence of chalcopyrite in the corrosion layer, typical of lake context (Schweizer 1994). This corrosion layer is enriched with Sn close to the metal surface and depleted of Cu on the outer surface. The limit of the original surface most probably lies between the Sn-rich inner layer and the Fe and S-rich outer layers. The presence of iron oxides on top of the copper corrosion layer has not yet been explained. The corrosion is a type 1 according Robbiola et al. 1998.
This object was first sampled in 1987. Thanks to an extensive documentation on cross-section and comparison with similar objects (see references), Schweizer defines a "lake patina" typology on this object that gives information about the burial's environment. In fact, according to his research, the dense "lake patina", analyzed as chalcopyrite, can only be generated in the presence of sulfate-reducing bacteria. Conditions for those bacteria are an anaerobic, humid, and S and Fe-rich environment. This object was probably abandoned directly into the lake
References on object and sample
Object files in MiCorr
1. MiCorr_Pin or needle fragment HR-3031
2. MiCorr_Tang fragment of a knife HR-6246
3. MiCorr_Pin HR-18152
4. MiCorr_Pin HR-17773
5. MiCorr_Pin HR-3071
6. MiCorr_Pin HR-18603
7. MiCorr_Pin HR-3389
References object
8. Rychner-Faraggi A-M. (1993) Hauterive – Champréveyres 9. Métal et parure au Bronze final. Archéologie neuchâteloise, 17 (Neuchâtel).
9. Hochuli, S. et al. (1988) SPM III Bronzezeit , Verlag Schweizerische Gesellschaft für Ur- und Frühgschichte Basel, 76-77, 379.
References sample
10. Empa Report 137 695/1991, P.O. Boll.
11. Rapport d'examen, Lab. Musées d'Art et d'Histoire, Geneva GE, 87-194 à 87-197.
12. Schweizer, F. (1994) Bronze objects from Lake sites: from patina to bibliography. In: Ancient and historic metals, conservation and scientific research (eds. Scott, D.A., Podany, J. and Considine B.B.), The Getty Conservation Institute, 33-50.
References on analytic methods and interpretation
13. Robbiola, L., Blengino, J-M., Fiaud, C. (1998) Morphology and mechanisms of formation of natural patinas on archaeological Cu-Sn alloys, Corrosion Science, 40, 12, 2083-2111.