archaeological tradition of licking things

[Iain Stuart]

I know Michael was joking a bit but having done my time as part of a company whose specialisation was contaminated sites; Don’t do it!!!!!!!  

 

Cheers

 

Dr Iain Stuart

 

JCIS Consultants

P.O. Box 2397

Burwood North

NSW 2134

Australia

 

(02) 97010191

Ia...@jcis.net.au

 

[Michael Lever]

Absolutely agreed.

However, in training I  had often been told that the best way to distinguish between e.g. ceramic and glass, bone, wood and stone - and other substances, was to lick or bite an artefact.

I wonder if this is a widespread method?

I stopped after spending two days vomiting violently as a result of 'testing' an an article in the field (it had been washed). 

Cheers

[Gary Vines]

I recall someone on HistArch (possibly Smoke Pfeiffer) recalling an excavation of a hobo camp or some such site, where the archaeologist licked some bones, only to later find they were those of the hobo he had interviewed and got to know well years before.

g

[Cosmos Coroneos]

On dry dusty sites like those in Greece I’ve licked rock/ceramic to try and work out what it is.  The idea being if your tongue sticks to it, it is ceramic, it being porous and all that.  Works best with Bronze Age cruddily fired unburnished domestic and roof tile sherds.  Less intrusive than smacking the object with the butt of your trowel – powderised = ceramic while shattered = rock.   Recalling that vomiting on some digs was not uncommon between dinner and bed time I can’t be sure that licking rock/ceramic has had any ill-effect on my health.  Just made sure that I didn’t put anything in my mouth  that came out of a pit with green tinged soil.  

I recall that here in Oz being told of a lick test for telling whether a terracotta pipe was manufactured for sewer or water.  Cant remember the details but reckon it was a piss take.  

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "OzArch" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to ozarch+un...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to oza...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/ozarch.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[Steve Corsini]

Some Traditional Owners would consider any bone-licking quite offensive and/or disgusting.

 

But, certainly bone sticks to the tongue, shell and wood doesn’t – I was taught that as an undergrad, sorting (from memory) the 3mm-6mm fraction, for a PhD student.

 

You don’t have to give the suspected item a big lick; just touch to the tip of the tongue.

 

I prefer a visual examination with a x10 hand-lens, particularly given the point made above: it’s sometimes culturally inappropriate to lick a bone!

 

Its also poor technique, as noted by others, you could easily  contaminate the piece

And I would think twice about doing it if there was a risk of pathogens, eg a medieval plague cemetery

 

sjc  

[Shaun Canning]

Got to know him even better posthumously then…….!

 

Regards,

 

Dr Shaun Canning
Managing Director and Principal Heritage Advisor
M	0400 204 536
E	Shaun....@achm.com.au
Australian Cultural Heritage Management
Adelaide | Brisbane | Melbourne | Sydney | Perth
P	1300 724 913
W	www.achm.com.au
Find me at LinkedIn

 

From: oza...@googlegroups.com [mailto:oza...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Gary Vines
Sent: Thursday, 5 January 2017 10:50 AM
To: OzArch <oza...@googlegroups.com>
Cc: ia...@jcis.net.au
Subject: {OzArch} Re: archaeological tradition of licking things

 

I recall someone on HistArch (possibly Smoke Pfeiffer) recalling an excavation of a hobo camp or some such site, where the archaeologist licked some bones, only to later find they were those of the hobo he had interviewed and got to know well years before.

 

g

--

[Eleanor Crosby]

I understand, from my (oh so long ago) undergraduate geology days that geologists are also giving to licking rocks, so perhaps archaeologists are merely subscribing to a long established tradition?
Eleanor

[Jo Wilson]

Having worked for a ceramics company (my grandmother sold clays, glazes, raw materials etc. for nearly 50 years, and is something of a legend in Victorian Ceramics circles), she told me NEVER EVER lick ANYTHING. Many glazes, especially older ones, have nasties in them, ie lead and cadmium, especially the bright reds and oranges.

Seeing as this theory (in ceramics at least) is based on how vitrified the clay is, she suggested licking one's finger until it was quite wet, then appying it to a broken edge, and seeing if the finger "dried". If the clay takes up more spit, it's less vitrified, so likely to have been fired at a lower temperature. Higher fired= more vitrification, ie sealed by heat, so the clay can't suck up the liquid. 

For reference: Raku; 800-1000 degrees celcius. Earthernware: 1000-1100. Porcelain (depending on company- some have special high or low temp varieties these days); 1050-1150 ish. Stoneware; 1200-1300. 

This is rough- all kilns have variations, and the temperatures these days are quite prescribed- and most clays are now made using raw materials and mixing machines, so are quite uniform in firing results when fired in the same kiln. In saying that, I've always been warned never to fall in love with a piece until after it's final firing. Ceramics is a finicky thing by nature.

[Michael Lever]

I'd like to state that I am NOT the facilitator of the Facebook "Licking Artefacts" page - but it does appear to be a Melbourne archaeologist. Any ideas whom this might be?

https://www.facebook.com/Licking-Artefacts-159874740691841/?ref=page_internal

[john...@ozemail.com.au]

 

Hello,

I've heard it is how you can tell siltstone from shale.  

Also some sorts of stone/materials will stick to the tongue as mentioned.

It is, or was, called the tongue test but I think only very poor geos would use it still    ( ... but this is the first time I've heard of anyone vomiting from it.

Most nowadays could afford a good magnifier for about thirty dollars.

For a bit more I would recommend (and I have one myself) the "Digitech 5MP USB Microscope Camera"  (sold by Jaycar and I imagine by others too).

 

( http://www.jepspectro.com/img/micro/Barrytown%20site%203b.jpg )

Above sand was photographed with one according to here:  http://www.jepspectro.com/htm/micro.htm 

        
As he says, the winding gear is rather loose .... so difficult to keep it focussed .. fiddly to use.    He especially fixed it up.  I just tolerate such, but what the heck .. at the cheap price I think it's good.

I have a much better big old binoc .. but nowhere at present to put it as we have gone from a house into a unit.    By contrast the microscope camera is very light and of tiny footprint .. easily fits on any desk besides a computer.

I also take transmitted light pics but putting leaves over an elongate light tube.

Cheers,

 

John

----- Original Message -----

From:

oza...@googlegroups.com

To:

<oza...@googlegroups.com>

Cc:

Sent:

Thu, 5 Jan 2017 11:53:40 +1000

[Eleanor Crosby]

I got mine from K-Mart in the toy section, $5.00.  Same thing at the Qld Museum is $24.00!
Eleanor

On 5/01/2017 11:40 PM, john...@ozemail.com.au wrote:

[john...@ozemail.com.au]

 
Hello,

Five dollars is a good price.

You can hardly buy the two newspapers (DT+SMH) for that anymore.

Cheers,

 

John

 

----- Original Message -----

From:

oza...@googlegroups.com

To:

<oza...@googlegroups.com>

Cc:

Sent:

Fri, 6 Jan 2017 09:22:08 +1000

Subject:

Re: {OzArch} Re: archaeological tradition of licking things

[john...@ozemail.com.au]

 
Hello,

Re small stuff like 3mm, might it adhere to a moistened artist's brush for diagnosis (and/or transfer) .. instead of needing constant licking or tongue-touching?

Cheers,

 

John

 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

----- Original Message -----

From:

oza...@googlegroups.com

To:

<oza...@googlegroups.com>

Cc:

Sent:

Thu, 5 Jan 2017 09:38:22 +0800

Subject:

RE: {OzArch} Re: archaeological tradition of licking things