Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-xbtfd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-02T19:02:23.370Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Identification of Chemical and Physical Change During acid Cleaning of Ceramics

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 February 2011

Jessica S. Johnson ,
Harold M. Erickson  and
Harry Iceland
Jessica S. Johnson
Affiliation:
Texas Memorial Museum, Materials Conservation Lab, University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX 78705
Harold M. Erickson
Affiliation:
Conservation Laboratory, Harry Ransom Humanities Research Center, University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX 78705
Harry Iceland
Affiliation:
Department of Anthropology, University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX 78705
Get access

Abstract

This report describes the results of two experiments characterizing chemical and physical change in ceramic constituents occurring from acid solutions commonly used to remove deposits from the surface of archaeological ceramics. The first examines the chemical effects of hydrochloric acid, in an attempt to identify the yellow color, commonly known as “acid burn,” often seen in museum collections on black-on-white sherds found in the Southwestern U.S. The compound is identified as Fe2O3H2O. The second study compares the physical effects of different acids on a group of Maya sherds. All acids tested in this study were found to cause physical damage.

Type
Research Article
Information
MRS Online Proceedings Library (OPL) , Volume 352: Symposium – Materials Issues in Art and Archaeology IV , 1995 , 831
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 Schiffer, M.J., Formation Processes of the Archaeological Record, (University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque, 1987).Google Scholar
2 Goudie, A., in Pitty, A.F., Geography and Soil Properties (Methuen & Co. Ltd, London, 1978) p.223.Google Scholar
3 Rathgen, F., The Preservation ofAntiquities, translated by Auden, G.A. and Auden, H.A. (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1905); M. Joukowsky, Field Archaeology: Tools and Techniques of Field Work for Archaeologists (Prentice-Hall, Inc. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, 1980); C. Sease A Conservation Manual for the Field Archaeologist, 2nd ed. (Institute of Archaeology, UCLA, 1992).Google Scholar
4 Wheeler, G.S. and Wypyski, M.T., Studies in Conservation 38, 55–62, (1993).Google Scholar
5 Paterakis, A.B. in Recent Advances in the Conservation and Analysis ofArtifacts, compiled by Black, J. (Summer Schools Press, University of London Institute of Archaeology, 1987) pp. 67–72.Google Scholar
6 Odegaard, N. and Jacobs, M., Archaeological Conservation Newsletter, 1 (1), 5–7, (1988).Google Scholar
7 Leskard, M.K., M.A. Thesis, Art Conservation Programme, Queen's University, Kingston, Ontario (1982).Google Scholar
8 Lindsey, L., (private communication).Google Scholar
9 Creel, D., Status Report on Excavations at the Old Town Site (LA 1113), Luna County, New Mexico, Summer 1993, 1993 (unpublished).Google Scholar
10 Shepard, A.O., Ceramics for the Archaeologist (1954) p. 16.Google Scholar
11 Hawley, F.M., American Anthropologist 31, 731–749 (1929).Google Scholar
12 Shepard, A.O. in Excavations at San Jose, British Honduras, Thompson, J. E. (Carnegie Institution of Washington, Washington, DC, 1939) Appendix.Google Scholar
13 Sease, C., op. cit. (1992); Joukowsky, op.cit. (1980).Google Scholar
14 Lovis, W.A., American Antiquity,5 (2), 382–387, (1990).Google Scholar
15 Paterakis, A.B., op. cit. (1987).Google Scholar