3.9 Article

Micro-focus X-ray CT scanning of two rare wooden objects from the wreck of the London, and its application in heritage science and conservation

Journal

Publisher

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.jasrep.2021.103158

Keywords

Micro CT scanning; Archaeological conservation; Archaeological artefacts; Waterlogged wood; Wood identification

Categories

Funding

  1. Historic England [Pr6901]
  2. Cotswold Archaeology [Pr6901]
  3. EPSRC [EP-H01506X]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Through mu-CT scanning, the study successfully identified the wood types of two wooden objects to the genus level. The conservation treatment used did not obscure the microscopic anatomical features of the objects, recommending that mu-CT scanning should be conducted after conservation when the objects are stable.
Two wooden objects, a tuning peg from a stringed musical instrument and a stopper from a smoking pipe, were recovered from the 1665 CE wreck of the London and selected for wood identification. So far, they are the only recoveries of these object types from this wreck. To preserve their integrity and completeness, destructive sampling was not desirable. Instead, micro-focus computed tomography (mu-CT) scanning was carried out. The objects were scanned both pre-conservation (waterlogged/saturated) and post-conservation (PEG impregnated; freeze-dried). Although the aim was to non-destructively explore the internal structure of the objects for wood identifications, information was also gained on their manufacturing characteristics and internal condition. 1 mu m voxel resolution - sufficient for positive identifications of these wood types to genus level (as is standard for wood identifications) - was achieved. This study has established that the conservation treatment used here does not obscure the microscopic anatomical features of these wood types and therefore recommends that mu-CT scanning is best undertaken after conservation, when the objects are stable.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

3.9
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available