Archaeological conservation

Cronyn, J. M. (1990), The Elements of Archaeological Conservation, Routledege, London. 

M. Corfield, Preventive conservation for archaeological sites, Archaeological Conservation and its Consequences. Preprints of the Contributions to the Copenhagen Congress, in A. Roy and P. Smith, (eds), 26-30 August 1996, London IIC, 1996, 3237. 

Clearly, the intended use of a collection item is extremely important to determining the acceptabiHty of a treatment. The degree to which a treatment affects appearance is obviously of the greatest importance for an art object. On the other hand, in natural history collections the collections serve as research resources above all. The effect a preservation or conservation treatment has on these research appHcations is the main consideration. Collections of art, archaeology, history, science, technology, books, archival materials, etc, all have their own values in terms of balance between preservation needs and collections use, and these values are, moreover, constantly subject to reevaluation and change. 

A. Porteous, Kefuse DerivedFuels AppHed Science Pubhshers, London, 1981 H. Alter, Kesource Rec. Conserv. 5(1), 1 (1980) W. Rathje and C. Murphy, Rubbish The Archaeology of Garbage Harpers Collins, New York, 1992. 

This volume is the fifth in the Advances in Archaeological and Museum Science series by the Society for Archaeological Sciences (SAS). The piupose of this series is to provide siunmaries of advances in various topics in archaeometry, archaeological science, environmental archaeology, preservation technology, and museum conservation. 

Child, A.M. (1995). Microbial taphonomy of archaeological bone. Studies in Conservation, Vol.40, pp.19-30. 

Norton, N. A. Conservation of metals, in Pearson, C. (eds.), Conservation of Marine Archaeological Objects, Butterworth, London, pp. 207-252. 

O Connor, T. P., K. Starling, K. Watkinson, and D. Watkinson (eds.) (1987), Archaeological Bone, Antler and Ivory, UK Institute for Conservation, London. 

Wales, S., J. Evans, and A. R. Leeds (1992), The value of using chemical analytical techniques on coprolites, in White, R. and H. Page (eds.), Organic Residues in Archaeology Their Identification and Analaysis, UK Institute of Conservation, London, pp. 33-38. 

J. S. Mills, R. White, Natural resins of art and archaeology their sources, chemistry and identification, Stud. Conserv., 22, 12 31 (1977). 

The main problem with organic analyses from archaeological remains is their state of conservation. The question to be answered is whether any organic materials can be preserved over centuries or millennia. Many authors have proven that in certain conditions, preservation is possible [Evershed etalA992, Regert et al. 2003]. The question is of course very relevant in the case of dinosaur remains. In the case of preservation of organic materials, ToF-SIMS is well suited for such a study, because samples are very small and... 

The development of scientific procedures that are able to use very minute samples (a few micrograms), together with the increased availability of advanced analytical instrumentation, have led to great interest in the chemical study of materials used in cultural heritage. This has given rise to a sharp increase in research studies at the interface between art, archaeology, chemistry and the material sciences. As a result, successful multidisciplinary collaborations have flourished among researchers in museums, conservation institutions, universities and scientific laboratories. 

Pollard, A.M. (1995). Groundwater modeling in archaeology - the need and the potential. In Science and Site, ed. Beavis J. and Barker K., Bournemouth University School of Conservation Sciences Occasional Paper 1, pp. 93-98. 

White, R. (1992). A brief introduction to the chemistry of natural products in archaeology. In Organic Residues in Archaeology Their Analysis and Identification, ed. White, R. and Page, H., UK Institute for Conservation Archaeology Section, London, pp. 5-10. 

---