ADVANCED MATERIALS & PROCESSES | NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2025 21 contextual analyses to be from the Bronze and Iron Ages in Iran (3000‒1000 BC). • A parallel LIA investigation revealed that they have different provenances[3]. • From minor element chemical analyses, it is known that the four elements Ag, As, Ni, and Sb are reliable for identifying relationships between copper-base objects and ores[2,10]. • Figures 2 and 3 use logarithmic coordinates to cover a necessarily wide range of minor element contents. The results shown in Figs. 2 and 3 led to the following conclusions: (1) Overlapping correlations between the ore samples and Deh Dumen vessels were found only for the arsenic versus antimony contents of Deh Hosein ores, Fig. 2a. There was no overlap between the silver versus nickel content of Deh Dumen vessels and ore samples, Fig. 3a. (2) There were multiple overlaps between the arsenic versus antimony and silver versus nickel contents of the Deh Dumen vessels and artifacts from the other burial sites, Figs. 2b and 3b. Detailed archaeometallurgical and archaeological discussions enabled concluding that the Deh Dumen vessels could be sourced to several provenances within Iran. This agreed with concomitant LIAs[3]. However, the LIA data also revealed overlapping between Deh Dumen artifacts and ores and those from the Bronze Age Harappan civilization in the southeast Indus Valley. LIA compatibilities with three of the Deh Dumen artifacts suggested a long-distance socioeconomic connection between western Iran and the Indus Valley during the middle of the third millennium BCE (3000‒2000 BC). Additional archaeometallurgical analyses could contribute to an improved understanding of this aspect of provenance[3]. PROVENANCE AND CONTEXT ISSUES As presented, the foregoing examples of provenance determinations seemingly differ in complexity. In fact, both required the acquisition and analysis of many archaeometallurgical data and the evaluation of much contextual information. There are several key issues that need to be addressed when investigating archaeometallurgical provenances. These issues are summarized here, drawing upon broad-based research efforts[2,6,8-12]. Many scientific projects since the 1970s have led to a vast accumulation of data and conflicting views on provenances both at regional levels and over widespread geological and geographical areas. This is especially the case for copper-based alloys in Eurasia, notwithstanding the studies[8] mentioned earlier. There is a need for better documentation and ensuring data compatibility; improved scope and statistical analyses of chemical data, notably lead isotope determinations; and cross- disciplinary research[5,8-12]. For example, additional analyses have recently assessed the authenticity and origins of previously unprovenanced artifacts, particularly from alloy compositions, manufacturing techniques, and corrosion features[13]. An issue especially relevant to later periods of archaeometallurgical development is the possibility or likelihood of compositional heterogeneity[12,14]. This can occur from mixing different ores, metal recycling, and alloying, which may alter the original isotopic signatures and trace element compositions. Potential and actual contributing factors are metals circulation Fig. 3 — Silver versus nickel scatter plot comparisons for nine samples from copper alloy vessels disinterred from the Bronze Age Deh Dumen cemetery site in southwestern Iran with (a) four ore locations in Iran, and (b) artifacts from nine other Iranian burial sites. (a) (b)
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTYyMzk3NQ==