Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Comparative analysis reveals copper alloy differences and corrosion behavior in ancient Kushana and Gupta coins, suggesting distinct metallurgical practices.
This study presents a comparative archaeometallurgical analysis of copper coins from the Kushana (30-310 CE) and Gupta (240-550 CE) empires using Field-Emission Scanning Electron Microscopy with Energy-Dispersive X-ray Spectroscopy (FESEM-EDS) and X-ray Diffraction (XRD). Five coins were examined to assess alloy composition, microstructure, and corrosion behavior. Kushana coins exhibit lower copper purity (47.57-57.49 wt%) with elevated Fe, Si, Ca, S, and Cl, may reflect limited refining and the use of polymetallic ores, leading to heterogeneous corrosion dominated by Cu 2 O and silicate phases. Surface EDS analyses show higher copper concentrations in Gupta coins (67.80-74.74 wt%) with minor silver additions (0.75-3.32 wt%), suggesting differences in ore selection and metallurgical practices. Their surfaces show relatively compact, oxide-dominated corrosion assemblages. EDS analysis was conducted on corroded coin surfaces, the reported elemental compositions represent surface signatures inclusive of corrosion products and soil-derived contaminants, rather than original bulk alloy purity. The results suggest possible differences in surface compositional characteristics and corrosion behavior between the analyzed Kushana and Gupta specimens. The non-destructive nature of the combined FESEM-EDS and XRD approach makes it particularly suitable for the physicochemical investigation of rare heritage objects.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Kori et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: