Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dsjbd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T14:35:25.273Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Role of Case Hardening in the Preservation of the Cavates and Petroglyphs of Bandelier

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 March 2017

Douglas Porter ,
David Broxton ,
Angelyn Bass ,
Deborah A. Neher ,
Thomas R. Weicht ,
Patrick Longmire ,
Michael Spilde  and
Rebecca Domingue
Douglas Porter*
Affiliation:
School of Engineering, University of Vermont
David Broxton
Affiliation:
Computational Earth Science, Los Alamos National Laboratory
Angelyn Bass
Affiliation:
Department of Anthropology, University of New Mexico
Deborah A. Neher
Affiliation:
Department of Plant and Soil Science, University of Vermont
Thomas R. Weicht
Affiliation:
Department of Plant and Soil Science, University of Vermont
Patrick Longmire
Affiliation:
Department of Energy Oversight Bureau, New Mexico Environment Department
Michael Spilde
Affiliation:
Institute of Meteoritics, Earth and Planetary Sciences, University of New Mexico
Rebecca Domingue
Affiliation:
1200 Architectural Engineers
*
*(Email: [email protected])
Get access

Abstract

Bandelier National Monument (BNM) was created to protect an extraordinary inventory of archaeological resources carved in the Tshirege Member of the Bandelier Tuff. These include more than one thousand excavated chambers, called cavates, used for dwelling, storage, and textile production. The glass-rich tuffs at the base of the Tshirege Member are poorly consolidated and susceptible to erosion by wind, rain, and mechanical abrasion, with resultant loss of cultural material. However, rock surfaces develop protective weathering rinds that are resistant to erosion. Using optical microscopy, SEM-EDS, XRD, and electron microprobe analysis, we determined that this rind consists of clay and silt sediments colonized by lichens and other surface biota, accompanied by the precipitation of secondary minerals in the near-surface pore space. Scoping experiments focused on glass-organic acid interactions indicate that oxalic acid excreted by microbial crust constituents catalyzes biogeochemical reactions that lead to the preferential dissolution of Si, Al, and Fe components of the volcanic glass; these cations become available for precipitation of opal, and smectite and sepiolite clays. Enzyme assays that quantify biological activity at outcrop surfaces indicate that microbial populations initially thrive as they derive nutrients from the dissolution reactions of the glass, but activity starts to decline as precipitation of secondary minerals limits access to new sources of nutrients, so that alteration processes are self-limiting. As case hardening progresses, imbibition rates at the surface decrease, and the erosion resistance of the altered surfaces is substantially improved. This article presents summary results of research conducted over a period of five years to characterize the roles of lichens and other microflora in rind formation, and the resulting contributions to tuff stability. The interaction of lichens and other microflora with rock surfaces in archaeological sites and monuments is usually explored in terms of biodeterioration and consequent damage. However, this study shows that, under some circumstances, lichens and microflora provide a level of erosion protection to relatively porous and unconsolidated rock strata that outweighs their biodeteriorative effects.

Keywords

archaeologybiologicalscanning electron microscopy (SEM)
Type
Articles
Information
MRS Advances , Volume 2 , Issue 37-38: Materials Issues in Art and Archaeology XI , 2017 , pp. 1969 - 2005
Copyright
Copyright © Materials Research Society 2017 

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

Bass, Angelyn, in Living the Ancient Southwest, edited by Noble, David Grant (School for Advanced Research, Santa Fe, 2014), p. 36–43.Google Scholar
Cooks, J. and Fourie, Y., S. Am. Geog. 17(1), 24–33 (1990).Google Scholar
Stretch, R.C. and Viles, H.A., Geomorph. 47(1), 87–94 (2002).Google Scholar
Souza-Egipsy, V. et al., Eath Surf. Proc. and Landforms 29(13), 1651–1661 (2004).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gordon, S.J. and Dorn, R.I., Geomorph. 67(1), 97–113 (2005).Google Scholar
Caneva, G., Nugari, M.P., and Salvadori, O., in Plant Biology for Cultural Heritage: Biodeterioration and Conservation (Getty Conservation Institute, Los Angeles, 2008), p. 309–346.Google Scholar
Scheerer, S., Ortega-Morales, O., and Gaylarde, C., Adv. in Appl. Microbiology 66, 97–139 (2009).Google Scholar
Nash, W.P., Am. Mineral. 77, 453–456 (1992).Google Scholar
Agee, C. B., Earth and Planet. Sci. Letters 265, 641–654 (2008).Google Scholar
Parkhurst, D.L. and Appelo, A.J., User’s Guide to PHREEQC (Version 2): A computer program for speciation, batch-reaction, one-dimensional transport, and inverse geochemical calculations (1999).Google Scholar
Castle, S.C., Morrison, C. D. and Barger, N. N., Soil Biology and Biochemistry 43, 853–856 (2011).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ritchie, R. J., R. J. Photosynthesis Research 89, 27–41 (2006).Google Scholar
Saiya-Cork, K.R., Sinsabaugh, R.L., and Zak, D.R., Soil Biology and Biochemistry 34, 1309–15 (2002).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moorhead, D.L., Rinkes, Z.L., Sinsabaugh, R.L., and Weintraub, M.N., Frontiers in Microbiology 4, 1–12 (2013).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Drdáck, M., ern, M., Slíková, Z. and Zíma, P., in Cultural Heritage Preservation Proceedings of the European Workshop, edited by Krüger, M., (Fraunhofer IRB Verlag, Stuttgart), p. 126–130 (2011).Google Scholar
Drdáck, M., Hasníková, H., and Zíma, P., in Deterioration and Conservation of Stone Proceedings of the 12th International Congress (Columbia University, New York, NY, 2012).Google Scholar
Drdáck, M., Hasníková, H., and Valach, J., “Complex comparative tests on historic stone,” Progress in Cultural Heritage Preservation – EUROMED 2012 (2012).Google Scholar
Smith, R.L. and Bailey, R.A., Bul. of Volc. 29, 83–104 (1966).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, R.L., Bailey, R.A., and Ross, C.S., Geologic Map of the Jemez Mountains, New Mexico, US Geological Survey Misc. Geol. Inv. Map I-527 (1970).Google Scholar
Izett, G.A. and Obradovich, J.D., J. Geophy. Res. 99, 2925–2934 (1994).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spell, T.L., McDougall, I., and Doulgeris, A.P., Geol. Soc. Amer. Bull 108, 1549–1566 (1996).Google Scholar
Geol. Soc. Amer. Bull 71, 795–842 (1960).Google Scholar
U.S. Geol. Surv. (1960).Google Scholar
Crowe, B.M., Blume, H.P., and Beyer, L., Catena 39, 121–146 (1978).Google Scholar
Broxton, D.E. and Reneau, S.L., “Stratigraphic Nomenclature of the Bandelier Tuff for the Environmental Restoration Project at Los Alamos National Laboratory, Los Alamos,” (1995) (unpublished).Google Scholar
Broxton, D.E., Heiken, G.H., Chipera, S.J., and Byers, F.M. Jr., “Stratigraphy, petrography, and mineralogy of Bandelier tuff and Cerro Toledo deposits,” in Earth Science Investigations for Environmental Restoration—Los Alamos National Laboratory Technical Area 21, edited by Broxton, D.E. and Eller, P.G., LA-12934-MS. Los Alamos National Laboratory, Los Alamos, NM (1995).Google Scholar
Hay, R.L., California Univ. Pubs. Geol. Sci., 42(5), 199–262 (1963).Google Scholar
Rogers, and Gallagher, , Unsaturated Hydraulic Characteristics of the Bandelier Tuff (Los Alamos, 1995).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reneau, S.L., Geomorphology 32, 171–193 (2000).Google Scholar
Danin, A. and Ganor, E., Earth Surf Proc. and Landforms 16, 153–162 (1991).Google Scholar
Davey, M.C. and Clarke, K.J., J. Phyc 28, 199–202 (1992).Google Scholar
Verecchia, E. et al., J. of Arid Env. 29, 427–437 (1995).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Broxton, D., Porter, D., Bass, A., and Dominque, R., in Proc. 9th Int. Masonry Conf. (Guimaraes, Portugal, 2014).Google Scholar
Nash, T.H. III, Lichen Biology, 2nd edition (Cambridge University Press, New York, NY, 2008).Google Scholar
Goldberg, I. Rokem, J.S. and Pines, O., J. Org. Chem. Tech. and Biotech. 81(10), 1601–1611 (2006).Google Scholar
Dutton, M.V. and Evans, C.S., Can. J. Microbio. 42(9), 881–895 (1996).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chen, J., Blume, H.P., and Beyer, L., Catena 39, 121–146 (2000).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gadd, M.G., Mycologist 18(2), 60–70 (2004).Google Scholar
Guggiari, M. et al., Int. Biodet. and Biodeg. 65(6), 803–809 (2011).Google Scholar
Jacobs, H. et al., FEMS Microbio. Ecol. 40(1), 65–71 (2002).Google Scholar
Jacobs, H. et al., Mycol. Res. 108(4), 453–462 (2004).Google Scholar
Gibson, B.R. and Mitchell, D.T., Mycol. Res. 108(8) 947–954 (2004).Google Scholar
Martin, G. et al., Env. Microbio. 14(11), 2960–2970 (2012).Google Scholar
Pinna, D., Front. in Microbio. 5 (2014).Google Scholar
Belnap, J., Rosentreter, R., Leonard, S., Kaltenecker, J.H., Williams, J., and Eldridge, D., Technical Reference 1730-2; BLM/ID/ST-01/001+1730 (2001).Google Scholar
Schulten, J.A., Am. J. of Bot. 72(11), 1657–1661 (1985).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Belnap, J. and Gardner, J.S., Env. Mon. and Assessment 37, 39–57 (1993).Google Scholar
Tisdale, J.M. and Oades, J.M., J. Soil Sci. 33, 141–163 (1982).Google Scholar
Belnap, J., Env. Mon. and Assessment 37, 39–57 (1995); [63] Gr. Basin Nat. 53(1), 40–47 (1993).Google Scholar
Blackburn, W.H., Wat. Res. Research 11(6), 929–937 (1975).Google Scholar
Belnap, J. and Gilette, D. A., Land Degr. and Dev. 8, 355–362 (1997);[53] J. Arid Env. 133-142 (1998).3.0.CO;2-H>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leys, J.F. and Eldridge, D.J., Earth Surf. Proc. and Landforms, 23, 963–974 (1998).Google Scholar
Eldridge, D.J. and Greene, R.S.B., Aus. J. Soil Res. 32(3), 389–415 (1994).Google Scholar
Belnap, J. and Lange, O.L. 2001, Biological Soil and Crusts: Structure, Function, and Management (Springer, New York, 2001).Google Scholar
Faust, W.F., Univ. Az. Dept. of Watershed Mgmt., 60 (1970).Google Scholar
Lewin, R.A., Centros de Investigacion de Baja California and Scripps Institution of Oceanography 3, 31–35 (1977).Google Scholar
Tiedemann, A.R.W. et al., Soil Bio. and Biochemistry 12, 471–475 (1980).Google Scholar
Ashley, J. and Rushforth, S.R., Recl. and Reveg. Res. 3, 49–63 (1984).Google Scholar
St. Clair, L.L. et al., Recl. and Reveg. Res. 4, 261–269 (1986).Google Scholar
Buttars, S.S. et al., Arid Soil Res. and Rehab. 12: 165–178 (1998).Google Scholar
Jones, D. and Wilson, M.J., Int. Biodet. 21, 99–104 (1985).Google Scholar
Adamo, P., Marchetiello, A., and Violante, P., Lichenologist 25(3), 285–297 (1993).Google Scholar
St. Clair, L. and Seaward, M., in Biodeterioration of Stone Surfaces: Lichens and Biofilms as Weathering Agents of Rocks and Cultural Heritage, edited by St. Clair, L. and Seaward, M., (Dordrecht, Kluwer, 2004).Google Scholar
Purvis, O.W., Gilbert, O.L., and James, P.W., Lichenologist 17, 111–116 (1985).Google Scholar
Purvis, O.W., Sci. Prog. 79, 283–309 (1996).Google Scholar
Wilson, M.J., Jones, D., and McHardy, W.J., Lichenologist 13, 167–176 (1981).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Seaward, M.R.D., Diacobini, C., Giuliani, M.R., and Roccardi, A., Int. Biodet. 25, 49–55 (1989).Google Scholar
Wierzchos, J. and C. Ascaso Clays and Clay Min. 44, 652–657 (1996).Google Scholar
Jackson, T.A. and Keller, W.D., Am. J. Sci 269, 446–466 (1970).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kuntz, K. L. and Larson, D. W.. Microtopographic control of vascular plant, bryophyte and lichen communities on cliff faces in Plant Ecology 185.2, 239–253 (2006).Google Scholar