You might do well to ask the scientists what would be of most interest to them when it comes to shooting the artifacts. It might be tempting to make something artful when in fact, something more clinical would suit their needs better. Inclusion of a ruler or scale for instance. Or in the case of smaller objects, fairly accurate magnification (i.e., one to one).
Long ago I shot some bones in support of a theory of cannibalism in Southwest Native American tribes. The bones were beautiful (if grisly with holes in the skulls) but the academics doing the paper were looking more for accuracy and definition rather than elegant lighting. On the other hand, having one doesn't necessarily have to be at the expense of the other. Good luck!
Tim