Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-mlc7c Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-05T09:25:00.236Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Effects of Desalination on Archaeological Ceramics From The Casas Grandes Region in Northern Mexico

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 February 2011

Jo Willey
Jo Willey*
Affiliation:
Sherman Fairchild Center for Objects Conservation, The Metropolitan Museum of Art, 1000 Fifth Avenue, New York, NY 10028, U.S.A
Get access

Abstract

A preliminary investigation into the effects of desalination on archaeological ceramics with evidence of use as cooking pots, from the Casas Grandes region in northern Mexico, was carried out. Soluble salts extracted during desalination were identified by ion chromatography (IC) and inductively coupled plasma emission spectroscopy (ICP), and related to local raw materials and the burial environment. The extraction of other soluble components in the ceramics during desalination, such as organic materials used in the manufacture or present as a result of the ceramic's use, was investigated by analysing dry residues of the desalination solutions. Fourier transform infra red spectroscopy (FTIR), pyrolysis gas chromatography (Py-GC) and X-ray diffraction (XRD) were used to analyse the desalination residues. Changes in the microstructure as a result of prolonged immersion in distilled/deionised water were examined by petrographic analysis and scanning electron microscopy coupled with energy dispersive X-ray spectroscopy (SEM/EDS) of thin sections prepared from six sherds before and after desalination. The effect of desalination on the physical property of colour was also examined. The results of the experimental work suggest that desalination has significant limitations that need to be considered before its application as a conservation treatment for archaeological as well as ethnographic ceramics with deterioration due to salts.

Type
Research Article
Information
MRS Online Proceedings Library (OPL) , Volume 352: Symposium – Materials Issues in Art and Archaeology IV , 1995 , 839
Copyright
Copyright © Materials Research Society 1995

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

1. Arnold, A., in The Conservation of Stone II, edited by R.Rossi-Manaresi (Preprints International Symposium Bologna, 1981) pp.13–23.Google Scholar
2. Piqué, F., Dei, L. and Ferroni, E., Studies In Conservation 37 (4), 217–227 (1992).Google Scholar
3. Rosch, H. and Schwarz, H.J., Studies In Conservation 38 (4), 224–230 (1993).Google Scholar
4. Stambolov, T., Lithoclastia 1, 3–8 (1976).Google Scholar
5. Zehnder, K. in Conservation of Stone and Other Materials, edited by Thiel, M.J. (E & FN Spon London, 1993) pp.107–114.Google Scholar
6. Hodges, H.W.M. in In Situ Archaeological Conservation, edited by Hodges, H.W.M. (Proceedings, Mexico, INAH and GCI 1986) pp.144–149.Google Scholar
7. Paterakis, A.B. in Recent Advances In The Conservation and Analysis of Artifacts, edited by Black, J. (University of London, Institute of Arch. Summer School Press 1987) pp.67-73.Google Scholar
8. Paterakis, A.B. in Materials Issues in Art and Archaeology III, edited by Vandiver, P.B., Druzik, J.R., Wheeler, G.S. and Freestone, I.C. (Mater. Res. Soc. Proc. 267, 1992) pp.1071–76.Google Scholar
9. Paterakis, A.B. in ICOM 10th Triennial Meeting, 3, Washington DC, 1993, pp.704–708.Google Scholar
10. Douglas, J.E., J. Anthropological Research 48 (1), 1–24 (1992).Google Scholar
11. The analyses were carried out by Teena Hayden in the Soil, Water and Plant Analysis Laboratory at the Soil and Water Science Department, University of Arizona, Tucson.Google Scholar
12. The analyses were carried out with Lynn Brostoff in the Sherman Fairchild Center for Objects Conservation at the Metropolitan Museum of Art (M.M.A.).Google Scholar
13. The analyses were carried out by Professor Alexander Shedrinsky, M. at the Conservation Center, Institute of Fine Arts, New York University, New York.Google Scholar
14. The analyses were carried out with Brostoff, Lynn, in the Sherman Fairchild Center for Objects Conservation, M.M.A.Google Scholar
15. The double polished thin sections were prepared by Leonard Cannone of the Geology Department, Queens College, Flushing, New York.Google Scholar
16. The characterisation of the twelve thin sections was carried out by Professor Patrick Brock of the Geology Department, Queens College, Flushing, New York.Google Scholar
17. The analyses were carried out with Mark Wypyski, T. of the Sherman Fairchild Center for Objects Conservation, M.M.A.Google Scholar
18. The analyses were carried out with Fatma Yigit, Mellon Fellow in the Sherman Fairchild Center for Objects Conservation, M.M.A.Google Scholar
19. Quezada, J. (private communication).Google Scholar
20. The two soil samples were collected by Dr. Ben Brown, Site Archaeologist at Paquimé, in August 1992.Google Scholar
21. The IC and ICP analyses were carried out by Teena Hayden in the Soil, Water & Plant Analysis Laboratory at the Soil and Water Science Department, University of Arizona, Tucson.Google Scholar
22. Rye, O.S., Arch. and Phys. Anthrop. in Oceania, Vol. XI, (2), 106–137 (1976)Google Scholar
23. Phillips, D.A., J. World Prehistory 3 (4), 373–401 (1989).Google Scholar
24. Lekson, S.H., , Kiva 50 (1), 55–60 (1984)Google Scholar
25. Douglas, J.E., ibid.Google Scholar