Dear Matthijs,
Thank you for your quick reply. I have already contacted Ineke about both
finds (the slag, the calcite and the zeolite). The calcite and zeolite still
puzzles me: I hoped it had an obvious use (may be in the context of metal
preparation. In the form it is in now it is unlikely to be some kind of
building material, for it is far too soft, but may be this has been caused
by the waterlogged conditions. The composition of the slag strongly reminds
of oven lining material (as presented in Ineke's dissertation). Is this not
the most probable explanation ? About the dating of all the materials
mentioned: they are all found in a layer of 4th century Roman waste. Many
finds of various objects (including coins) confirm this.
Best regards,
Peter
----- Original Message -----
From: "m.van.nie" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Wednesday, October 19, 2005 5:49 PM
Subject: Re: Roman material related to metal production
> Peter,
>
> First your last question. As Chris already said: most unlikely that this
> material is related to any metallurgical proces. What you mention
> correlates to the material found among the stuff used to consolidate the
> riverbed near the bridge at Maastricht. Near Cuijk however I would have
> expected more robust material since the riverbed there is less stable than
> at Maastricht (this surely might not have been known to the Romans). I
> vaguely remember there is even a report (I only have oral information) on
> the material found at Maastricht, ask Titus Panhuijsen or Wim Dijkman
> (archaeological service Maastricht).
>
> Yes, Ineke Joosten is one of them, mainly into the analytical part.
> Macroscopic identification (iron related): Patrice de Rijk currently
> working with the ADC
> And me (the fool said) for identification as well as archaeological
> setting. [log in to unmask]
>
> As my collegue Evelyne Godfrey already told you, you most probably not are
> dealing with metallurgical material. Material I've seen from the bridge as
> well as surface finds in the surroundings suggest that some smithing took
> place but also that there might have been some brickmaking. The latter is
> difficult to connect to the Roman period since there were no accompanying,
> dated, finds (this seems to be an indication for a later date).
>
> cheers,
>
> Matthijs
>
>
>
>
|