Archaeological Textiles
Textiles are comprised of animal or plant fibers that have been shaped or woven into fabric.[1] The fibers that might be expected in a given archaeological context depends on climate, geographical location, time period, cultural traditions, and trade, among other factors. Some common fibers found in archaeological contexts are bast fibers such as nettle[2] or linen, cotton, hair fibers (wool) from a variety of animals, and silk.[3] Proteinaceous fibers such as animal hair or silk (both of which are keratin) are more prone to survival in acidic environments.[4] Cellulosic fibers such as bast fibers (nettle, linen) or cotton are more prone to survival in alkaline environments.[5]
Just as archaeological ceramics can be diagnostic for culture and time period, textile weaves are culturally and temporally diagnostic.[6] Archaeological textile recording protocol utilizes a series of standard measurements;[7] these measurements quantify the textile's construction, and can reveal more intangible qualities such as drape and hand. Even a few yarns of a poorly-preserved textile can deliver enough data to fully characterize the original textile and place it within a cultural context, and for this reason, full documentation is critical.
The appropriate treatment of a textile depends on the condition when excavated[8][9] and on the informational value of the textile and its associated accretions, creases, stains, and other characteristics that indicate use or deposition. Because textiles are typically fragile from various deterioration processes (including original use, hydrolysis, staining, and oxidation), it is imperative that the textile is handled with great care and remains well supported throughout all conservation treatment.
It is vital to understand that many stains and some accretions are valuable evidence for textile use or deposition, and for archaeological materials in particular, that information may be critical to correct interpretation of the textile's identification and function. For that reason, the decision to clean an archaeological textile should not be taken lightly, as the potential destruction of data may be significant. For example, “battlefield mud on a military uniform may provide documentary evidence about how the textile was used, and should be retained.” [10] However, textiles may accumulate accretions or stains in burial that are unrelated to use, they may trap uninformative sediment,[10] and they may acquire dust from the storage environment. If left in place, dust and sediment can be a source of further deterioration[11]: “gritty particles (especially crystalline materials) have sharp edges that abrade and cut fibres when the textile is moved or manipulated.” [10] Sediment and dust particles can also trap acidic or oxidizing airborne compounds that, combined with moisture, can instigate destructive chemical reactions.[10]
The informational value of any stains or accretions must be carefully considered before any cleaning is undertaken, and the condition of the textiles must also be considered prior to cleaning. If a textile is in good, sturdy condition careful cleaning using standard techniques may be possible. Dirt and sediment that has accumulated due to the storage of the artifact usually has no significance and can be removed. Dry mechanical cleaning of archaeological textiles can be effective for removing non-associated surface particles. The removal of stains normally requires aqueous cleaning[10] or solvent cleaning.
The mechanical cleaning of a textile can involve tools such as scalpels, dental picks, brushes, sponges, ultrasonic tools, and low suction vacuum cleaners. Before the cleaning begins, it is important to place the textile on a clean flat surface or rigid support based on the needs of the textile.[12] Light suction with a vacuum cleaner can be one of the easiest ways to mechanically clean a textile. The entire surface of the textile should be covered with a nylon monofilament screening to protect the textile and prevent loose fibers from being drawn into the nozzle of the cleaner.[13] The screening should be firm and rigid allowing the nozzle of the cleaner to move over the entire surface of the textile until it has been thoroughly cleaned. The use of nylon monofilament screening makes mechanical cleaning safe for the textile and efficient and easy for the operator.[13]
When textiles are too fragile for vacuum cleaning, tool such as brushes, sponges or tweezers may be useful.[11] Tweezers can be used to carefully remove particles by picking them off: when done carefully this method is less forceful than vacuum cleaning.[10] When using brushes and sponges follow the direction of the warp or weft pattern if one is present. Gently roll brushes or sponges over the soiled textile surface instead of dragging; this will prevent further deterioration of the textile.[13] Work slowly and methodically to clean the entire surface of the textile, repeating the process on the reverse side.
If the textile is particularly fragile with unstable fibers the object may require non-standard cleaning methodologies that should be devised in consultation with a textile conservator.[10]
Correct storage of archaeological textiles facilitates preservation and study.[14][9][15]
References cited[edit | edit source]
- ↑ Barber, E.J.W. 1991. Prehistoric Textiles. Princeton, N.J: Princeton University Press.
- ↑ Bergfjord, C., U. Mannering, K.M. Frei, M. Gleba, A.B. Scharff, I. Skals, J. Heinemeier, M.-L. Nosch, and B. Holst. 2012. “Nettle as a Distinct Bronze Age Textile Plant.” Scientific Reports 2 (1). DOI: 10.1038/srep00664
- ↑ Hamilton, Donny. 2011. "Textile Conservation". In: Conservation Research Laboratory of the Nautical Archaeology Program. Texas A&M University. Accessed March 30, 2013.
- ↑ Sibley, L.R., and K.A. Jakes. 1984. “Survival of Protein Fibres in Archaeological Contexts.” Science and Archaeology 26:17–27.
- ↑ Jakes, K.A., and L.R. Sibley. 1983. “Survival of Cellulosic Fibers in Archaeological Context.” Science and Archaeology 25:31–8.
- ↑ Gleba, M. 2017. “Tracing Textile Cultures of Italy and Greece in the Early First Millennium BC.” Antiquity 91 (359):1205–22. doi:10.15184/aqy.2017.144.
- ↑ Walton, P., and G. Eastwood. 1983. A Brief Guide to the Cataloguing of Archaeological Textiles. P. Walton.
- ↑ Gillis, C., and M.-L.B. Nosch, eds. 2007. First Aid for the Excavation of Archaeological Textiles. Vol. 2. Ancient Textiles Series. Oxford: Oxbow Books.
- ↑ 9.0 9.1 Love, N. 2012. “The Analysis and Conservation of the Hasanlu Period IVB Textiles.” In Peoples and Crafts in Period IVB at Hasanlu, Iran, edited by Maude de Schauensee Maude de Schauensee, 43–56. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. doi:10.9783/9781934536384.43.
- ↑ 10.0 10.1 10.2 10.3 10.4 10.5 10.6 Canadian Conservation Institute. 2019. CCI Notes 13/16 "Mechanical Surface Cleaning of Textiles" https://www.canada.ca/en/conservation-institute/services/conservation-preservation-publications/canadian-conservation-institute-notes/mechanical-surface-cleaning-textiles.html
- ↑ 11.0 11.1 Cronyn, J. M. 1990. The Elements of Archaeological Conservation. Routledge.
- ↑ Peacock, E. 2005. "Investigation of Conservation Methods for a Textile Recovered from the American Civil War Submarine H.L. Hunley (1864)". In: Proceedings of the 9th Wet Organic Archaeological Materials Conference. Copenhagen.497-512.
- ↑ 13.0 13.1 13.2 Finch, Karen, and Greta Putnam. 1977. Caring for Textiles. London: Barrie & Jenkins
- ↑ Margariti, C., G. Moraitou, and S. Thomassen-Kraus. 2007. “Preserving Ancient Threads: Preventive Conservation Strategy for Greek Excavated Textiles.” In Facing Impermanence: Exploring Preventive Conservation for Textiles: Preprints: North American Textile Conservation Conference 2007, Washington, DC, November 6-9, 2007. North America: North American Textile Conservation Conference.
- ↑ Vuori, J., M. Segal, and C. Newton. 1989. “Development of Archaeological Textile Mounts at the Canadian Conservation Institute.” Journal of the International Institute for Conservation 14:3-11.
