A method for the evaluation of surface cohesion of consolidated

archaeological wood

Petrou M*1 ; D.Tsipotas2 and P.K. Kavvouras3

1. Division of archaeological, Geographical and Environmental Sciences, University

of Bradford, UK.
*petroumar@yahoo.gr
2. Faculty of Creativity & Culture, Buckinghamshire Chilterns University College
(BCUC) UK
3. Division of Wood Technology, National Agricultural Research Foundation
(N.AG.RE.F.), Forest Research Institute of Athens, Greece

Abstract

Once unearthed, besides the processes of chemical and physical deterioration,

organic archaeological materials might be subjected to mechanical damage during
handling. In wooden artifacts splintering may occur together with loss of surface detail.
Consolidants are often applied to artifact before lifting in order to increase surface
consistency.
This poster illustrates an easily applied, reliable and relatively inexpensive method
which was developed for the evaluation of surface effectiveness. The method is based on
the measurement of consolidated test pieces weight loss resulting from a laboratory trial
simulating excavation handling. A wood chip grating laboratory rotating sieve has been
used as excavation handling simulator. The shaking time and amplitude of shaking were
fixed through preliminary experiments. For the evaluation of the methods reliability a
series of experiments were carried out as follows: three synthetic resins (Paraloid B-72,
Butvar B98, Mowilith 50) and one natural resin (Wax- Rosin mixture), in two different
solvents were applied on archaeological wood by spaying. The surface cohesion of test
pieces was measured using the method. The results were found to be mostly similar with
those mentioned in related literature.
Keywords: surface cohesion, archaeological wood, consolidation, sieve

1. Introduction

Organic archaeological materials are quite often found to be facing the risk of
disintegration immediately after excavation. Once unearthed, besides the processes of
chemical and physical deterioration, organic materials might be subject to mechanical
damage during lifting or handling.
During handling wooden artifacts splintering may occur, which may result in loss of
surface detail (see Figure 1). Attributes that impart value to a wooden archaeological object
and affect the appearance of the object are very important. Surface detail is extremely
important in imparting value to archaeological wood (Peterson 1990). For example
information concerning past woodworking techniques and technology, are regarded as the
most obvious potential of a worked wood assemblage (Brunning 1995). Woodworking
technologies and woodworking
tools can be usually examined in
detail, since every activity can
leave characteristic traces on the
surface (Coles 1984).
During excavation
procedures, fragile objects are
often consolidated to allow for
lifting and handling and protect
surfaces from wear and
environmental changes for future
study, interpretation and exhibition.
This is especially applied to small
wooden objects where the only
concern might be stabilizing the
surface against abrasion during
handling. As consolidation is
Figure 1: Splitting and collapsing of archaeological wood
sample during handling. required only for the surface of the
object, while in most cases will be
removed in the laboratory, application by brushing or spraying may be sufficient.
The consolidants should have adhesive and cohesive properties, achieve adequate
penetration, and be durable, stable and removable without any negative effects to the
object. An effective consolidant must adhere well to the material to be treated and must act
as an adhesive to reattach loose fragments. The choice of resin, solvent or concentration
cannot be made on absolute terms, and must be tailored to the particular requirements and
conditions of the object to be treated.
Scniewind et al. (1984) found that Butvar, provided the best improvement in
strength, followed by Paraloid B-72. This is the same conclusion that Wang and
Scniewind (1985) reached to. Sakuno and Scniewind (1990) report that Butvar in the
mixture of solvents was found to be somewhat less strong. In general they report that
several studies of the effectiveness of consolidants for deteriorated wood have ranked
Butvar B98 first, followed by Paraloid B-72 and the PVA (Mowilith 50 for example).
But it is outmentioned that in terms of adhesive qualities it appears that the most important
choice to be made is that of the solvent, which provides the cohesive strength to the resin.
Polar solvents give much better results than nonpolar ones (Ref).
The evaluation of treatment effectiveness on the stabilisation of the object's surface
against abrasion during handling cannot be based on mechanical properties. Static and
impact bending tests, and Janka hardness test are applicable under the provision that the test
piece is fully impregnated with consolidant. Moreover, as far as the abilities of the
consolidant to increase the surface cohesion are concerned, only some subjective ways of
evaluation are mentioned in the bibliography, such as digging a finger or a nail into the
surface or cutting with a saw as well as using a suitable drill (Nakhla 1986). Other methods
that are mentioned in the bibliography like visual end-point method, weight loss, volume
loss, depth of wear etc., are not applicable to small, non-specific in size and shape samples
of wood.
The aim of this research is to develop an easy, reliable and relatively cheap test
method, for the evaluation of surface cohesion of fragile archaeological wood artifacts. This
method should be able to use test specimens or irregular shape and variable size.
2. Materials and methods

2.1 Description of the material

The archaeological wood samples used in this experiment were of small size and
undefined shape, as the amorphous fragments found in an excavation site, offered as test
samples, are usually like that.

2.2 Surface Consolidation

Three types of synthetic resins generally considered suitable as consolidants for

degraded wood were tested (Wang 1985, Tomoyasu et al 1990, Schniewind 1994). These
were an acrylic (Paraloid B-72), a polyvinyl butyral (Butvar B98), and a polyvinyl
acetate (Mowilith 50). In addition to them, a mixture of rosin and wax was tested.
Solutions (4%) of the resins, suitable to be applied by spray gun on wood, were prepared
using acetone, toluene, ethanol and mixture of the last two, as shown in table 1.
In order to evaluate the effect of each treatment to the surface cohesion, six groups,
of six test pieces each, were used. The pieces of a seventh, equally numbered group, were
used as controls. Each of the pre-mentioned consolidant was dissolved in its respective
solvent at the prescribed concentration. The six test pieces of each group were consolidated.
The treatment was repeated three times, with a resting time of 15 minutes between each
application. At the end of the last spraying the specimens were left to dry for one day to
reassure the total evaporation of the solvent and full consolidation of the wood.

2.3 Test method using sieving machine

The tests for the evaluation of the surface cohesion were carried out in a wood chip
grating laboratory sieve (Retac 3D), used in quality control procedures during
particleboard production (ASTM E 11-70) rate of rotation and intensity of sieve shaking are
adjustable (see Figure 2). The test pieces were placed in the sieve equipped with a screen
(400mm, DIN 4188). In the procedure 30 glass spheres with diameter of 1.5 cm were also
placed within the screen to ensure constant movement and create surface abrasion and
mechanical stress to the specimens (see Figure 3). Such a procedure could resemble a
possible wear of an object during handling, storing or displaying.
The test pieces were labeled and then weighted. They were placed one after the
other into the sieve with the glass spheres. In order to have measurable loss of material and
be able to compare results between each group of test samples, a series of preliminary
experiments were carried out. The shaking was applied for 10 minutes to each sample. The
material detached from every sample was collected in the special utensil adapted
underneath the screen (see Figure 4). At the end of the shaking period, each test piece was
weighted again to measure the loss of material

Figure 2: The sieving machine including the screen with the glass spheres and
the wooden sample and below the special utensil to collect the detached material.
Figure 3: The glass spheres used in the screen to ensure constant movement and create
surface abrasion and mechanical stress to the test piece.

Figure 4: The material detached from every test piece during the three-dimensional shaking
motion was collected in the special utensil adapted underneath the sieve.
3. Results

In general terms, the results were found in accordance with the related literature.
Test samples consolidated with Butvar in ethanol subjected to the shaking-abrasion
procedure lost the minimal amount of material i.e. 0.44%, assuming that it provides the best
surface cohesion, in accordance with the related literature (Scniewind et al. 1984, Wang
and Scniewind 1984, Sakuno and Scniewind 1990). The same applies for Paraloid B-72
in acetone, Butvar in ethanole/toluene, Paraloid B-72in toluene, Rosin-wax and
Mowilith 50 (see Table 1).

Table 1. Average measurements of weight loss (% of the initial weight) after the application of
the test method

Treatment Weight loss %

1 Paraloid B-72 in acetone 4% 1.47
2 Paraloid B-72 in toluene 4% 3.1
3 Butvar B98 in ethanol 4% 0.44
4 Butvar B98 in ethanol/toluene (40/60) 4% 2.51
5 Mowilith 50 in acetone 4% 8.2
6 Rosin/wax (1/1) in toluene 4% 3.15
7 Control Samples 16.92

18
16
14
12
W e ig h t lo ss

10
8
6
4
2
0
Paraloid B- Paraloid B- Butvar B98 Butvar B98 Mowilith 50 Rosin/wax (1/) Control
72 in acetone 72 in toluene in ethanol 4% in eth/tol in acetone 4% in toluene 4% samples
4% 4% (40/60) 4%

Consolidants

Figure 5: Average measurements of weight loss (% of the initial weight) after the application of the six
4. Discussion

The method has been proved to be sensitive enough evaluation of consolidation

treatments and gives objective, measurable results. Results were correspondingly identified
in similar research.
The method was easily applicable to irregular wood samples, overcoming the
problem of species, size and preservation state, providing comparable results regarding
surface cohesion.
It is obvious that besides the sieving machine used in this work, other similar
laboratory equipment can be used providing it has got the ability of controlled shaking e.g.
a reciprocating shaker.

Bibliography

Brunning R., (1995), Waterlogged wood: guidelines on the recording, sampling,

conservation and curation of waterlogged wood, London, English Heritage.

Coles B., (1984), The archaeology of wetlands, Edinburgh.

Cronyn J.M., (1990), The elements of archaeological conservation, Routlege.

Hedges J. I., (1990), The chemistry of Archaeological wood, in Archaeological wood.

Properties, chemistry and preservation, advances in chemistry series 225, Washington DC,
American Chemical Society, pp 111-140.

Kollmann F.P., and W.A.Jr. Cote, (1968), Principles of Wood Science and Technology: I
Solid Wood. New York.

Madsen H.B., (1994), Handbook of Field Conservation, Royal Danish Academy of Fine
Arts, School of Conservation.

Nakhla S.M., (1986), A comparative study of resins for the consolidation of wooden
objects, Studies in Conservation 31, 1986, pp 38-44.

Payton R., (1992), On Site Conservation Techniques: Lifting Techniques, in Retrieval of

Objects from Archaeological Excavations, Archetype publications.

Peterson C.E., (1990), New directions in the conservation of archaeological wood, in

Archaeological wood. Properties, chemistry and preservation, advances in chemistry series
225, Washington DC, American Chemical Society, pp 123-128.
Sakuno T., and A. P. Schniewind., (1990), Adhesive qualities of consolidants for
deteriorated wood, Journal of the American Institute for Conservation 29, 1990, pp 3344.

Sands R., (1997), Prehistoric woodworking: The Analysis and Interpretation of Bronze and
Iron Age Toolmarks, Institute of Archaeology, University College London

Schniewind A. P., and P.Y. Eastman, (1994), Consolidant distribution in deteriorated wood
treated with soluble resins, Journal of the American Institute for Conservation 33, 3, 1994,
pp 247255.

Schniewind A. P., (1990), Physical and mechanical properties of archaeological wood, in

Archaeological wood: Properties, chemistry and preservation, advances in chemistry series
225, Washington DC, American Chemical Society, pp 157-162.

Schniewind A.P., Gammon B., Bendsten B.A., and D.P. Kronkright, (1984), Strength
evaluation of deteriorated wood treated with consolidants, in Brommelle N.S., Pye E.M.,
Smith P., and Thomson G. (editors), Adhesives and consolidants, London, The
International Institute for Conservation of Historic and Artistic Works, pp 146-150.

Wang Y., and A.P. Schniewind, (1985), Consolidation of wood with soluble resins, Journal
of the American Institute for Conservation 24, 1985, pp 7791.

Griset S., and M. Kodack, (1999), Guidelines for the field collection of archaeological
materials and standard operating procedures for curating, Department of Defense
Archaeological Collections. US Army Corps of Engineers. Department of Defense, Legacy
Project No. 98-1714.