Could this pottery shard be a 1k-year-old hand grenade?
arstechnica.com
arstechnica.com
The rest of the article says they found residue that might have been explosives, but might also have been medicine, perfume, or some other sort of oily substance. The article says they examined a few different fragments and concluded those those were likely not explosives. The size, shape, thickness and unadorned nature of fragment #737 seems like the strongest evidence of it being a grenade while the chemical analysis seems inconclusive, contrary to the subtitle.
> "Matheson et al. noted that this suggests plant oils, glycerol, and animal fats, consistent with the vessel being used to hold oils, perfumes, or medicines and as a fuel source for a weapon or a lamp. It may have had multiple uses, but the authors think the possibility it was used as a grenade is worth serious consideration."
Inconclusive and suggests are not incompatible words. In fact, the subtitle provides a great answer to "what does inconclusive mean?".
They analyzed several shards found in the same area. They found traces of sulfur, mercury, and oil on several of them. Most of them are concluded to be some sort of medical or perfume containers, because they're fancy. One of the shards is plain and thick. That's the one they think could have been a grenade, because it's plain and thick like ceramic grenades were.
(I've used the clip in my classes.)