Hueco Tanks Pictographsxrf.guru/WorkshopVI/RockArtDownload/files/Rock art PMA...Hueco Tanks...
Transcript of Hueco Tanks Pictographsxrf.guru/WorkshopVI/RockArtDownload/files/Rock art PMA...Hueco Tanks...
Hueco Tanks Pictographs: Technical Analysis in Advance of Possible Laser Cleaning
Andrew Lins, Beth Price, Ken Sutherland, Heather Brown - Philadelphia Museum of Art Tom Tague - Bruker Optics Andrzej Dajnowski - CSOS
HUECO TANKS
OUTLINE Hueco Tanks Site Background Prevalence of Graffiti Challenges for In Situ Analysis
without sampling Analytical Results Next Steps
MAJOR U.S. ROCK CLIMBING SITE
Hueco Tanks Site
HUECO TANKS !
A LACCOLITHIC IGNEOUS INTRUSION OF PORPHYRITIC SYENITE COOLED UNDER A LIMESTONE CAP
C. 35 MILLION YEARS AGO
Hueco Tanks HistoryFirst Layers : Archaic
150 – 1400/1450 AD : Jornada Mogollon
Post 1660: Apache and others
First Graffiti: 1849
Hueco Tanks PictographsTotal close to 5,000; largest site for masks in US (more than 200)
Many Pictographs are from Jornada Mogollon Period, ca 100 -140/1450 AD
‘Closed’ Mask types Dancer variants
Rupestrian CyberscanImage from 5/2011
ENHANCEMENT OF PICTOGRAPH IMAGES
1. Laboratory Analyses of graffiti
Graffiti – microsamples - MFTIR, Py-GCMS, SEM-EDS
2. In Situ Analyses of Pigments/media
Pictographs – no sampling – XRF, Raman, DRIFT
Site E01F – “HC” graffiti
Site E01F “HC”
SAMPLING GRAFFITI August 2010
prior determination of underlying and poorly visible material
Site E01F “HC” – Media
PyGCMS:: Oxidized diterpenes (DHA and 7-oxo DHA); probably Pinaceae Dimethyl and dibutyl phthlates, P, S, Az FA’s (drying oil)
Pyrogram for sample E01F !!!!!!!!!
Site E01F “HC” – Media
MFTIR: Blue-back graffiti paint (top) CN reference spectrum (second) Natural resin phase (third) Natural resin reference spectrum (bottom)
Site E01F “HC” – Pigments
Fe FeCa
CaAlSi S Fe
O
CCa
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11keVFull Scale 1439 cts Cursor: -0.075 (1 cts)
Spectrum 1
Site N19C “Castro”
Site N19C “Castro” – Fillers/Pigments
BaCa BaCaAl
BaNa
SiBa
Ca
Ba
CO
Ba
S
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10keVFull Scale 1563 cts Cursor: -0.059 (10 cts)
PMAS3869
ZnFe ZnFe Ti
Ti
FeZn K
MgNa
P Ca
KTi
Al
Ca
OCa
SSiKC
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11keVFull Scale 2920 cts Cursor: -0.203 (0 cts)
Spectrum 1
Site N19C, CASTRO: FTIR, filler - gypsum
Site N19C “Castro” – Media
MFTIR: Grey graffiti paint from site (top) Alkyd paint reference (bottom)
PyGCMS: Me-benzoate PE (≥ 1960) Ortho phthlate P, S, Az FAMES
In Situ Analysis of Pictographs• No sampling allowed
In Situ Analysis Challenges
Bruker Instrumentation for on site NDT
XRF Tracer 15 KV, 23 µA: 40KV, 11.2 µA
Alpha DRIFT Res 4cm-1 DTGS detector 375 – 4000 cm-1
Sentinel 80mW @ sample 90 - 2175 cm-1
Res 3.0 cm-1
XRF Set-up
RAMAN CAMERA USES LASER for SAMPLE LOCATION AND WHITE LIGHT FOR IMAGING
Raman set-up
Low ambient light requirement
Measurements after dusk
DRIFT Set-up
Spacing/Gap is 1/2” between pictograph and
instrument
PictographSite E10C “Starry Eyed Man”
Native American, Jonada Mogollon Culture 450-1400 AD
Starry Eye Man Site
Pictograph
~9 feet above cave floor
Site E10C, Starry Eye Man: Pigments – XRF - Green
STONE
PIGMENT
Site E10C Pigments – XRF - Red
STONE
PIGMENT
Site E10C Pigments – Raman : Hematite + Gypsum
First successful in situ NDT Raman analysis for rock art In the US
HC pigment/stone
!PICTOGRAPH EOIF : DANCING FIGURE
Enhanced image
WHITE PIGMENT AND ROCK SUBSTRATE E01C
Raman Shift (Wavenumbers)
Red – White pigment Brown - Rock
1399
.83
1374
.16
1286
.27
1257
.52
1221
.70
1007
.39
1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500
-400
000
-200
000
020
0000
4000
0060
0000
8000
0010
0000
0Ra
man
Inte
nsit
y
Gypsum
Oxalate
Carbonate bands from white pigment
E01F, Dancing Figure; pigment vs stone
XRF Data
pigment
stone
EO1C RAMAN OF YELLOW PIGMENT FROM DANCING FIGURE
548.
98
385.
57
296.
89
243.
79
100 200 300 400 500 600
1400
015
000
1600
017
000
1800
019
000
2000
0Ra
man
Inte
nsit
y
Raman Shift (Wavenumbers)
Goethite
NEXT STEPSCREATE SURROGATE SAMPLES OF ‘GRAFFITI’ OVER
‘PICTOGRAPHS’ !
EVALUATE DIFFERENT FLUENCES AND ABSORPTION TO OPTIMIZE CONDITIONS FOR LASER CLEANING
! EXAMINE CLEANED SURROGATE SAMPLES BY SEM-EDS FOR BEAM DAMAGE OR OTHER
SURFACE ALTERATION PRIOR TO FIELD TESTS
Acknowledgements!Texas Parks & Wildlife
Tim Roberts, Wanda Olszewski, Michael Strutt
Bruker
Tom Tague and Bruce Kaiser
PMA
Timothy Rub, Terra Huber, Chris Wasson, with Katherine Lins
Show enhanced image E01F
Transportation Challenges
Site E10C Pigments – XRF Stone
E01F Dancing Figure: XRF Results
Provide Support to Outside Insitutions:Hueco Tanks, Texas Parks & Wildlife Dept
Yellow paint from site (top) Cellulose nitrate (middle-top) Subtraction result (middle-bottom) Alkyd paint reference (bottom)
OUTLINE
Hueco Tanks Site Background Prevalence of Graffiti Challenges for In Situ Analysis without sampling Analytical Results Next Steps
Hueco Tanks Pictographs: Technical Analysis of Graffiti, in Advance of Possible Laser Cleaning
Andrew Lins, Beth Price, Ken Sutherland, Heather Brown, Tom Tague, Andrzej Dajnowski
Hueco Tanks Pictographs: Technical Analysis of Graffiti,
in Advance of Possible Laser Cleaning
• Andrew Lins, Beth Price, Ken Sutherland, Heather Brown, Tom Tague, Andrzej Dajnowski