Long-Term Preservation of Dendroarchaeological Specimens and In Situ Preservation: Problems and Practical Solutions

Abstract

Dendrochronology offers a unique opportunity to address archaeological questions with minimal invasiveness. Often, archaeological tree-ring sampling, and occasionally analysis itself, can be performed while the larger structure or object remains in situ. In comparison to the costs and benefits of excavation (complete or partial) and a growing international call for in situ preservation, dendrochronology provides an effective compromise for the interpretation of wooden material culture.

The current number of archaeological tree-ring specimens worldwide probably exceeds 2,000,000. These specimens have been obtained from thousands of historic buildings, shipwrecks, and other sites and artefacts. These specimens are housed by a variety of public and private entities: museums, universities, governments, private corporations, and individuals. Despite their importance as vouchers for archaeological dates and great potential for future use and new applications, generally little attention has been paid to the long-term curation of tree-ring specimens. This paper identifies some pressing curation problems and suggests that the value and nature of dendroarchaeological research is compatible with international calls for in situ preservation. Some practical suggestions, provided here, could drastically improve the long-term curation of dendroarchaeological specimens, further demonstrating the methodology as a viable and valuable partner to in situ preservation.

Keywords:

• dendrochronology
• dendroarchaeology
• conservation
• preservation
• specimens
• archives

The presentation of this material was supported by the University of Arizona’s Appointed Professional Advisory Council professional development scholarship. This manuscript is derived in part from a more detailed article by the author (Creasman, 2011). The author wishes to acknowledge the following people for their contributions to this work or reflections on the status of dendrochronological collections: Rex Adams, Joan Bacharach, Chris Baisan, Bryant Bannister, Gretel Boswijk, Peter Brown, Jeff Dean, Noreen Doyle, Catherine Hawks, Malcolm Hughes, Esther Jansma, Steve Leavitt, Greg McDonald, Daniel Nievergelt, Jim Speer, Elaine Sutherland, Tom Swetnam, Jacques Tardif, Willy Tegel, and Valérie Trouet. Of course, errors and opinions are solely the responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect the thoughts or policies of any institution with which the author is affiliated.

Notes

* Chronology-building is necessary for most dendroarchaeological analysis. ‘Master chronologies’ are the backbone upon which archaeological dating and other interpretations are based. However, chronology-building is not necessarily reliant only on archaeological material. It often incorporates a substantial component of living-tree or other non-archaeological material.

2 It is important to note that in the United States archaeology is most often considered part of the humanities or a social or behavioural science and is less often included in discussions of the ‘hard sciences’. For example, Hodder has posed and addressed the question: ‘Is archaeology a soft science or an expensive humanity?’ (1984; 2005).

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Pearce Paul Creasman

Pearce Paul Creasman is Curator of Collections and Assistant Research Professor in the Laboratory of Tree-Ring Research at University of Arizona (USA), and is Director of the University’s Egyptian Expedition. His research interests include the use of ship timber to understand human/environment interactions, maritime archaeology, dendrochronology, and Egyptian archaeology.

Correspondence to: Pearce Paul Creasman, Laboratory of Tree-Ring Research, University of Arizona, 105 W Stadium Drive, Tucson AZ 85721, USA. Email: [email protected]