Forensic metallurgy investigations in archaeology and aerospace engineering follow similar technical protocols but serve different objectives. Archaeometallurgical analyses focus on artifact provenance and cultural heritage management with minimal invasive sampling, while aerospace investigations prioritize rapid failure analysis for operational problems. Four case studies illustrate the approaches: noninvasive macrophotographic analysis of an ancient silver cup revealed stress corrosion cracking, noninvasive investigation of a Boeing 747 accident identified fatigue failure in fuse pins due to inadequate load knowledge, invasive lead isotope analysis successfully provenanced Chinese bronzes using kernel density methods, and comprehensive testing of F-16 wing bolts ruled out hydrogen embrittlement. Both fields employ similar analytical techniques, including microscopy, fractography, and chemical analysis, but differ in sampling constraints, time pressures, and reporting goals, with successful investigations in both domains requiring interdisciplinary teamwork.

This article summarizes the more common analytical techniques for studying ancient metal artifacts, illustrated by case histories. There are two main classifications: noninvasive and invasive techniques. This distinction is of prime importance because some heritage objects may be too rare or valuable for invasive sampling, or there may be ethical objections to certain types of examination. Noninvasive examination of ancient metal artifacts is important, yet it cannot provide the detailed information obtainable from invasive techniques. This is especially true when artifacts contain “hidden” damage and there is also a need for accurate quantitative analyses.