Lost-wax is a process family
A model is invested in a refractory mould, the model material is removed, molten metal fills the cavity, and the mould is broken away. Direct and indirect methods, piece moulds, cores, joins, repairs and finishing can produce different traces. Similar shapes do not prove the same workshop tradition.
Surface
Tool marks, seams, repairs and corrosion are observations, not a full sequence.
Interior
Radiography or CT can reveal cores, porosity, walls and joins.
Material
Metallography and chemistry address alloy and working history under sampling limits.
Composition is not a fingerprint by itself
Portable XRF often represents a small surface volume affected by corrosion, enrichment, coatings and geometry. Bulk or micro-samples answer different questions. Alloy similarity may reflect recycling or broad recipes rather than a shared source.
Record the intervention
- Instrument, settings, calibration, sampled location and uncertainty.
- Surface condition, cleaning, coating and corrosion state.
- Whether sampling was non-invasive, minimally invasive or destructive.
- Conservation treatment history and permission.
Evidence exercise
An object has a visible seam and hollow interior. Write two competing sequences: a joined multi-part casting and a core-supported casting with later finishing. Identify which radiographic or microscopic observations would distinguish them.
Sources
- Historic England: Archaeometallurgy guidelines.
- Getty Conservation Institute: Copper and Bronze in Art.
Sources accessed 10 October 2026. Educational method guide, not an authentication or treatment report.
Casting Evidence and Archaeometallurgy
A finished surface can suggest manufacture, but radiography, microscopy, composition and production context are needed to test a casting sequence.
| Observe | Describe material, form, marks, wear or spatial relation without assigning identity or purpose. Begin with “Lost-wax is a process family.” |
|---|---|
| Context | Locate the record in excavation, collection, restoration and display history. Check the chain against Historic England: Archaeometallurgy guidelines and Getty Conservation Institute: Copper and Bronze in Art. |
| Infer | Composition and microstructure can illuminate recipes and production sequences, but recycling, repair and contamination complicate workshop attribution. Tie every attribution to the feature that supports it and retain competing readings. |
| Withhold | Do not extend “Surface” beyond the date, sample, comparison or provenance actually documented. |
Provenance checkpoint
List each custody or documentation gap separately; an unknown interval is evidence about the record, not permission to invent continuity.
Catalogue note
A model is invested in a refractory mould, the model material is removed, molten metal fills the cavity, and the mould is broken away. Mark later repairs, labels and digital reconstructions as later interventions rather than original features.
Research-room promptWhat single comparison object, technical test or archive entry would most change the interpretation of Casting Evidence and Archaeometallurgy?