Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-ndw9j Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-20T02:35:23.903Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Distribution of Phosphorus in Romano-British Ironwork

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 February 2011

Alain E. Kaloyeros  and
Robert M. Ehrenreich
Alain E. Kaloyeros
Affiliation:
Physics Department, The University at Albany-Suny, Albany, NY 12222
Robert M. Ehrenreich
Affiliation:
National Materials Advisory Board, National Academy of Sciences, 2101 Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20418
Get access

Abstract

Phosphorus is found to be a common impurity in many of the iron tools and weapons produced during the pre-Roman and Roman Iron Ages of Britain (600 BC - 300 AD). The effects of this impurity on the properties and performance of antiquarian materials is not well understood, however. This paper presents the initial findings of an in-depth study of the distribution, chemistry, and effects of phosphorus in Romano-British ironwork. For this purpose, two Romano-British iron artifacts from the site of Ircheoter, Northamptonshire, were examined using powerful techniques for archeological materials analysis that include electron microprobe, secondary ion mass spectroscopy (SIMS), transmission electron microscopy (TEM) with energydispersive x-ray spectroscopy capabilities (EDXS), and Auger electron spectroscopy (AES). It was found that phosphorous was indeed present in the artifacts. The phosphorus atoms were predominantly segregated at grain boundaries and thus should have led to a lowering of grain boundary cohesion and a degradation in the performance of the tools.

Type
Research Article
Information
MRS Online Proceedings Library (OPL) , Volume 185: Symposium G – Materials Issues in Art and Archaeology II , 1990 , 725
Copyright
Copyright © Materials Research Society 1990

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Hohmuth, A., Rauschenbach, B., Kolitsch, A., and Richter, E., Nuclear Instrum. Methods 209, 249, (1983).Google Scholar
2 Luckman, G., Adler, L.R., and Graham, W.R., Surface Science 121, 61, (1982).Google Scholar
3 Rutkowski, W., Planseeberichte fur Pulvermetallurgie 28, 39, (1980).Google Scholar
4 Hashimoto, M., Ishida, Y., Yamamoto, R., Doyama, M., and Fujiwara, T., Scripta Metallurgica 16, 267, (1982).Google Scholar
5 Sakurai, T., Kuk, Y., Birchenall, A.K., Pickering, H.W., and Grabke, H.J., Scripta Metallurgica 15, 535, (1981).Google Scholar
6 Mulford, R.A., McMahon, C.J. Jr., Pope, D.P., and Feng, H.C., Metall. trans. A7, 1183, (1976).Google Scholar
7 Tu, L.K.L. and Seth, B.B., Met. Tech. 5, 79, (1978).Google Scholar
8 Moloznik, K.L., Briant, G.L. and McMahon, C.J. Jr., Corrosion 35, 331, (1979).Google Scholar
9 Abiko, K., Suzuki, S., and Kimura, H., Transactions of Jpn. Inst. Metals 23, 43, (1982).Google Scholar
10 Erhart, H. and Grabke, H.J., Metal Science 15, 410, (1981).Google Scholar
11 Ehrenreich, R.M., Trade, Technology and the Ironworking Community of the Iron Ages of Southern Britain (BAR British Series 144, Oxford, 1985).Google Scholar
12 Goodway, M., Science 236, 932, (1987).Google Scholar