View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE

provided by Ghent University Academic Bibliography

Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research B 226 (2004) 3–9 www.elsevier.com/locate/nimb

COST Actions G1 and G8: EU programs on the use of radiation in art and archaeometry

Annemie Adriaens a,*, Guy Demortier b a Department of Analytical Chemistry, Ghent University, Krijgslaan 281-S12, B-9000 Ghent, b Facultes Universitaires Notre-Dame de la Paix, LARN, 61 rue de Bruxelles, B-5000 Namur, Belgium

Received 21 October 2003; received in revised form 6 May 2004

Abstract

This paper gives an overview of the research activities within the European COST Actions G1 and G8. Both actions aim at achieving a better preservation and conservation of our cultural heritage by increasing the knowledge in art and archaeological objects through chemical and physical analyses. 2004 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

PACS: 81; 82.80.)d Keywords: Cultural heritage; COST Actions; Analytical techniques; Non-destructive analysis; IBA

1. Introduction access, ignorance or simple negligence. As a result it urgently needs to be properly protected and pre- Europe has a particularly rich and diversified served for the benefit of both current and future cultural heritage, including buildings, monuments generations. Frequently, the conservation measures and objects of all sizes, comprised of a great required are underdeveloped, not well understood variety of materials. It defines our cultural fore- or widely known. As the complexity of the problem ground, directly influencing the environment in becomes both more evident and greater through the which we live. Moreover it provides the motivation application of modern scientific techniques, the for cultural tourism, and is the basis for a rich proposed solutions and the means of investigating diversity of learning. them become also increasingly sophisticated. Un- Much of this heritage is seriously endangered less conservation measures are urgently researched, through a variety of factors and influences, such as disseminated and applied to the preservation of this pollution, ageing, natural disasters, essential tourist ‘‘fragile and non-renewable resource’’, it is clear that ‘‘...there will be nothing left to provide access to or to educate people about’’ [1]. * Corresponding author. Tel.: +32-9-264-4826; fax: +32-9- Whilst there is general agreement that action is 264-4960. required to halt or mitigate decline, few people E-mail address: [email protected] (A. Adriaens). know that high level research and technology play

0168-583X/$ - see front matter 2004 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.nimb.2004.05.018 4 A. Adriaens, G. Demortier / Nucl. Instr. and Meth. in Phys. Res. B 226 (2004) 3–9 an essential role in protecting Europe’s cultural (PIXE). In cultural heritage studies PIXE analyses heritage. The application of analytical techniques are usually performed in a non-vacuum geometry – initially developed in and for the field of mate- with or without a helium atmosphere around the rials science – to art or archaeological objects gives specimen under investigation, depending on the the historian and the archaeologist quantitative X-ray signal to be detected. Non-vacuum geo- information which helps them understand the way metry is ideal for the study of fragile materials of life in the cultures they are studying or the (such as manuscripts), large objects (statues, technical and intellectual know-how of the artists paintings) and for a rapid choice of regions to be or craftsmen of the period under consideration. In analysed (inclusions in potteries and metals, details museums, this knowledge is also necessary for the on paint layers, solders on gold artefacts). As a conservation and restoration of objects, or to as- result an external beam facility is installed in sess the authenticity of artefacts and paintings nearly all laboratories using IBA techniques for proposed for acquisition. Moreover degradation archaeological purposes. Most of this infrastruc- phenomena must be studied to understand their ture is located at research institutes. The Louvre cause, their kinetics and to find out ways of pre- Museum (), however, had the AGLAE labo- venting or slowing them down. ratory (Accelerator Grand Louvre pour l’Analyse The intergovernmental framework for Euro- Elementaire) installed at the end of the 1980s and pean cooperation in the field of scientific and forms an exception in this respect. Its main goal is technical research (COST) supports, amongst to provide, within the museum, analytical means other initiatives, actions that coordinate the use of and expertise to a large group of historians and analytical techniques in cultural heritage research archaeologists. The research teams of Florence, [2]. COST is an EU initiative that allows the Namur, Orleans, and Oxford have been coordination of nationally funded research at a involved in the field for a longer time. Contacts pan-European level and its activities are based on also exist with experts outside Europe such as at so-called actions which are networks on a specific Delaware (USA), Lower-Hutt (New Zealand), topic covering basic and pre-competitive research. Faure (South Africa) and Lucas Heights (Austra- Today COST has almost 200 actions running, lia) [3]. Apart from PIXE other IBA methods are involving 34 member countries and participating being used in the field as well. The Paris group, in institutions from nine non-member countries. In collaboration with the Debrecen staff, for instance what follows an overview will be given on the have developed an external beam of deuterons to activities of two COST Actions G1 and G8. perform simultaneously PIXE analysis of medium and heavy elements and particle induced gamma ray emission (PIGE) studies of light elements. The 2. COST Action G1 Florence and Paris groups frequently use Ruther- ford backscattering spectroscopy (RBS) in a non- Action G1 ‘‘Application of Ion Beam Analysis vacuum geometry, while the teams of Oxford and to Art or Archaeological Objects’’ – launched in Namur perform their microprobe studies by using 1995 – was the first COST Action specifically de- PIXE and RBS signals simultaneously [3–5]. voted to cultural heritage research. The action ran for 5 years and involved the participation of 12 2.1. Objectives and benefits of COST Action G1 member countries. Table 1 lists the participating research laboratories (20 in total) together with COST Action G1 has pursued three main their infrastructure. Seven of those laboratories objectives: did not have their own IBA infrastructure at the time, but were invited to join other teams in order (a) The development of non-destructive analysis to solve specific problems. methods for the study of art and archaeologi- The most popular ion beam analysis (IBA) cal objects using particle irradiation. One of technique is particle induced X-ray emission the major difficulties researchers encounter is Table 1 List of participating laboratories in COST Action G1 Participating laboratories IBA facilities for archaeological Complementary techniques purposes Accelerator Micro- Activa- NAA XRF ICP-MS SEM Auger SIMS probe tion by

charged 3–9 (2004) 226 B Res. Phys. in Meth. and Instr. Nucl. / Demortier G. Adriaens, A. particles Austria , Akademie der Bildenden Kunste€ X X Kunsthistorische Museum Belgium Liege University X Namur, LARN, Facultes Universitaires XX X XX N-D de la Paix University of Antwerp XXX X Finland University of X Helsinki, Helsingin Teknillinen Opppilaitos X X Helsinki, Finnish National Gallery Turku, Abo Akademi University X France Paris, Laboratoire de Recherche des XX X X Musees de France, LRMF Orleans, Centre Ernest Babelon, CNRS X X X X Germany , Forschungszentrum Rossendorf X X X X , Hahn-Meitner Institut X X

Greece Athens, NCSR hhDemokritosii X Hungary Debrecen, ATOMKI X X X X , KFKI, Res. Inst. for Particle XX and Nuclear Physics Arcetri-Firenze, Universita degli Studi di X Firenze Venezia, Universita degli Studi di Venezia Romania , Institute of Atomic Physics X X X X

Slovenia , Institut Josef Stefan X , Universidad Autonoma de XX Madrid Madrid, CSIC, Dept. Prehistoria Sevilla, Universidad de Sevilla X UK Oxford, SPM, University of Oxford X X 5 6 A. Adriaens, G. Demortier / Nucl. Instr. and Meth. in Phys. Res. B 226 (2004) 3–9

to convince curators of museums that very paintings in order to identify successive layers energetic beams may be applied in a way not on test materials by IBA methods and the to induce damage in precious materials. The team of Vienna using XRF [6]. large cross section for PIXE and RBS and (b) The comparison of these novel techniques with the large efficiency of solid state detectors for conventional investigation methods of objects X-ray and particle detection allow us to use of art already used in laboratories of muse- very low intensity beams: 0.1 nA for a few ums. IBA methods are indeed very quantita- minutes is generally sufficient to obtain con- tive and reference samples for other methods centrations with a satisfactory statistical accu- can be certified this way [7]. racy. During a workshop held in Namur in (c) Set-up of an interdisciplinary forum of February 1997, various irradiation facilities researchers involved in archaeology and ar- were tested in order to check the damage in chaeometry to initiate curators and historians test specimens. The incident beam was kept to these novel technologies. at a level of one order of magnitude higher than the one generally accepted for analysis. 2.2. Scientific programme of COST Action G1 Various kinds of archaeological material were irradiated to check the potential surface alter- A total of six working groups were established, ation. Results showed that no trace of damage allowing close collaboration on specific topics that was visible except for paper documents. The were either material oriented (paint layers, silicate team of Florence has a good experience in this materials, metals and organic materials), or in- field and could give information regarding that volved the study of radiation damage (Table 2). particular problem. The teams of Dresden, The action coordinated its scientific activities Paris, Florence, Liege and Helsinki have also among the participating groups by organising an performed non destructive examinations of exchange of samples and procedures. Also short-

Table 2 Overview of working groups in COST Action G1 Paint layers Silicate materials Metals Coordinator: Coordinator: Coordinator: C. Neelmeijer, Dresden M. Schreiner, Vienna J. Barrandon, Orleans Paintings: Potteries: Bronzes and Brass: Budapest, Debrecen, Dresden Antwerp, Athens, Bucharest, Antwerp, Bucharest Firenze, Helsinki, Le Louvre, Ljubljana, Debrecen, Helsinki, Madrid, Namur, Helsinki, Ljubljana, Madrid, Namur, Namur, Orleans Sevilla, Vienna Orleans, Sevilla

Manuscripts: Glass: Silver: Dresden, Firenze, Le Louvre Bucharest, Debrecen, Dresden, Helsinki, Ljubljana, Madrid, Helsinki, Madrid, Orleans, Oxford Le Louvre, Namur, Orleans, Vienna Namur, Orleans, Oxford Flints: Gold: Ljubljana, Le Louvre Le Louvre, Madrid, Namur, Orleans, Oxford, Sevilla Stones: Antwerp, Le Louvre Organic materials Conservation in Musea Radiation damage Coordinator: Coordinator: Coordinator: G. Grime, Oxford J.-Cl. Dran, Paris G. Demortier, Namur Budapest, Debrecen, Antwerp, Le Louvre Dresden, Le Louvre, Namur Le Louvre, Orleans, Oxford A. Adriaens, G. Demortier / Nucl. Instr. and Meth. in Phys. Res. B 226 (2004) 3–9 7

Table 3 the 12 countries involved in COST Action G1 Collaboration topics within COST Action G1 (Table 1) nine others have applied: Bulgaria, Research topic References Czech Republic, Denmark, Israel, Malta, Nether- Development of inter-laboratory [10] lands, Poland, Slovakia and Switzerland. standards for the analysis of paper Characterization of paint layers [6,11] 3.1. Objective and benefits of COST Action G8 Provenance of obsidian artefacts [12] Chemical characterization of Iberic [13,14] and Celtiberic bronzes The main objective of COST Action G8 is to Technology of gold jewellery [15–17] improve the preservation and conservation of our Corrosion of glass objects [18] cultural heritage by increasing knowledge of mu- seum objects through non-destructive analysis and term scientific missions (STSM) were performed. testing. The use of additional non-destructive Such missions gave specialists of different labora- techniques (such as micro Raman, LIBS spec- tories the opportunity to work together in one of troscopy, video-thermography, photothermal the laboratories for a short period on artefacts of deflection spectroscopy and Chemiluminescence) archaeological interest. On a regular basis work- and the expansion to a multidisciplinary commu- shops were organised in one of the laboratories, nity allows us to obtain further complementary during which analytical research was performed information. on artefacts of archaeological interest provided by There is an increasing need for non-destructive the participating laboratories. Priority was given investigations, as sampling is in most cases re- to the study of artefacts recommended by stricted in view of the value or the uniqueness of archaeologists and historians who defined the the object. Even in cases that allow sampling, non- archaeological pertinence of the analytical work. destructive testing offers the possibility of obtain- During the entire duration of the COST Action ing more information about one specific sample as G1, 12 workshops and seminars were organised on complementary techniques may be applied. In the general use of ion beam techniques for the study of analytical sciences many non-destructive tech- archaeological artefacts (simulation of depth pro- niques are available, such as ion beam analysis, filing analysis of pigments, problems of conserva- autoradiography and optical spectroscopy, all of tion in museums and on damage that could be which can, in principle, be used in this field. made to fragile materials when using ion beam Museums, however, do not always have access to irradiation), including lectures on IBA techniques these techniques, while many of the necessary re- for archaeologists. Many curators are now con- search instruments and analytical facilities are lo- vinced that the IBA techniques may give quanti- cated in specialised research institutes, as they tative results in a non-destructive way. require very specific expertise. Some techniques The output of the COST Action G1 included ca may still need to be introduced and established in 30 joint publications and two monographs [8,9]. the field of cultural heritage. Table 3 lists some of the collaborations. The action aims at creating a Europe-wide environment, in which people directly concerned with the maintenance of our cultural heritage (i.e. 3. COST Action G8 art historians, archaeologists, conservators and curators) and analytical scientists (i.e. physicists, The success of COST Action G1 was motivat- chemists, material scientists, geologists, etc.) can ing and a new action followed in 2001 – COST exchange knowledge. A 50/50% balance is aimed Action G8 ‘‘Non-destructive Analysis and Testing at between the activities of both groups, which of Museum Objects’’ [19]. The end date of this should result in greater interest. The expected action at the time of writing is August 2005. The benefits are twofold. First, the capability of action started off with five countries. In the mean answering questions related to museum objects, time 21 countries have become member. Next to which cannot be readily solved now, will be 8 A. Adriaens, G. Demortier / Nucl. Instr. and Meth. in Phys. Res. B 226 (2004) 3–9 enhanced. This includes the exchange of knowl- • Technology and authenticity, involving the edge of available non-destructive techniques and identification of the materials and their produc- the requirements for performing investigations on tion techniques. Within this working group two valuable or unique objects. In addition, museums distinct but related topics are studied: (1) the and similar institutes will have easy access to uni- investigation and verification of ancient recipes versities and research facilities that provide such starting from the Mesopotamian and Egyptian techniques. texts up to the 19th century books of technol- ogy descriptions about how craftsmen prepared 3.2. The scientific programme of COST Action G8 and made their products are available and (2) the authentication of art and archaeological ob- Similar as in Action G1, COST Action G8 has jects, i.e. the identification of fakes. three main scientific activities. The first one in- • Origin and provenance, including the character- cludes organising short-term scientific missions ization and location of the natural sources of between participating institutions. The goal of the raw materials used to make (museum) ob- these STSM (5 days–1 month) involves the train- jects. The main goal is to contribute to estab- ing of scientists of both professional groups in the lishing patterns of raw material procurement, other’s field as well as the transfer of practical trade or exchange. experience among European countries. Priority • Degradation processes, corrosion, weathering. here is especially given to young researchers. Sec- This working group deals with the problem of ondly, regular meetings in the form of workshops alteration of museum objects and the way are organised, often in collaboration with muse- non-destructive techniques can be used to mea- ums and conservation institutes, to exchange ob- sure this damage or monitor it with time. tained knowledge in a broader group, to discuss • Preservation and conservation. The working new themes, and to build interest and create pos- group is concerned with the treatment of works sibilities for new collaborations [20]. The goals of of art in order to slow down deterioration, the both activities are summarized in detail in Table 4. identification of the nature and extent of dam- Apart from to the yearly workshops and STSM age, the assessment of the causes of deteriora- between participating groups, separate working tion. Work in this field also implies the groups have been created. The working groups control of the environment in which the object allow a close collaboration and an extended and is located, such as monitoring of the tempera- efficient exchange of knowledge within a specific ture, relative humidity and lighting, ensuring topic, and therefore a more efficient way of pub- proper storage, support and security. lishing the obtained results. The following themes • Development of analysis procedures involving are addressed [19]: three main goals: (1) the use and improvement

Table 4 Scientific goals of short-term scientific missions and workshops in COST Action G8 Short term scientific missions Workshops Train scientists of both professional groups in the other’s field as well as transfer Exchange (obtained) knowledge in a practical experience between the European countries broader group Address specific problems concerning museum objects as well as collect and compare Prove the non-destructive properties data of the techniques Compare the use of standing facilities and portable equipment Build interest and give the possibility of new collaborations Exploit the advantages and limitations of the different techniques also in comparison Assist in choosing the method(s) best to techniques commonly used today in the field of cultural heritage suited for a specific problem Art historians, archaeologists and conservators obtain easier access to analytical research instruments A. Adriaens, G. Demortier / Nucl. Instr. and Meth. in Phys. Res. B 226 (2004) 3–9 9

of truly non-destructive techniques (they do not , The Caxton & Holmesdale Press Ltd., require a sample to be removed from the ob- Kent, 2003. ject), (2) the maximization of information and [2] http://cost.cordis.lu/src/whatiscost.cfm. [3] P. Mando, Nucl. Instr. and Meth. B 85 (1994) 81. minimization of consumed volume where a [4] R.A. Jarjis, Nucl. Instr. and Meth. B 118 (1996) 62. sample must be removed and (3) the develop- [5] G. Demortier, J.L. Ruvalcaba, Nucl. Instr. and Meth. B ment of portable/mobile equipment so monitor- 118 (1996) 352. ing can be done on site. [6] C. Neelmeijer, I. Brissaud, T. Calligaro, G. Demortier, A. € € • Biological and Material Culture of Qumran at Hautojarvi, M. Mader, L. Martinot, et al., X-ray Spec- trom. 29 (2000) 101. the Dead Sea. This working group deals with [7] C. Neelmeijer, J. Huller, M. Mader, B. Borchers, R. Jarjis, three aspects of the study of material remains Nucl. Instr. and Meth. B 136–138 (1998) 902. at Qumran, i.e. the biological and the material [8] M.A. Respaldiza, J. Gomez-Camacho (Eds.), Applications cultural ones and the conservation of this cul- of Ion Beam Analysis Techniques to Arts and Archaeom- tural heritage. etry, Secretariado de Publicaciones de la Universidad de Sevilla, Sevilla, 1997. [9] G. Demortier, A. Adriaens (Eds.), Ion Beam Study of Art 4. Concluding remarks and Archaeological Objects, EUR 19218, Office for Official Publications of th European Commision, Luxembourg, 2000. For all these research activities it is important [10] R.A. Jarjis, in: Y. Ibish (Ed.), Conservation and Preserva- to emphasize that the multidisciplinary community tion of Islamic Manuscripts, Al-Furqan Publication, Lon- of action is essential. In the current economic cli- don, 2000. mate it is extremely difficult for museums to de- [11] C. Neelmeijer, W. Wagner, M.P. Schramm, Nucl. Instr. velop new analytical methods or techniques. The and Meth. B 118 (1996) 338. [12] I. Borbely-Kiss, T. Gessztelyi, Z. Elekes, I. Rajta, E. need for collaboration with experts in state-of-the- Kotaly, A.Z. Kiss, Investigation of classical ring-stones art analytical instrumentation is therefore very and their imitations, in: Proc. Fifth Int. Conf. Non- high and can tap-in to sources of knowledge and destructive Testing (Art’96), 24–26 September 1996, Buda- sophistication of equipment, which would other- pest, Hungary, 131. wise be impossible in the small conservation and [13] A. Climent-Font, G. Demortier, C. Palaccio, I. Montero, J.L. Ruvalcaba, D. Diaz, Nucl. Instr. and Meth. B 134 science groups in museums. (1998) 229. [14] L. Martinot, G. Demortier, J. Guillaume, A. Chevalier, P. Acknowledgements Colman, Dinanderies Medievales, Feuillets de la Cath- edrale de Liege, No. 27, 1996. [15] J.-L. Ruvalcaba-Sil, G. Demortier, Nucl. Instr. and Meth. We thank the financial support of the European B 130 (1997) 297. Communities for the financial support for the [16] M.A. Ontalba-Salamanca, G. Demortier, F. Fernandez- various short-term scientific missions with COST Gomez, P. Coquay, J.L. Ruvalcaba-Sil, M.A. Respaldiza, Actions G1 and G8 mainly attributed to young Nucl. Instr. and Meth. B 136–138 (1998) 851. [17] G. Demortier, F. Fernandez-Gomez, M.A. Ontalba-Sal- scientists and for allowing analytical experts to amanca, P. Coquay, Nucl. Instr. and Meth. B 158 (1999) meet on a regular basis to discuss the progress of 275. their common research. [18] M. Mader, D. Grambole, F. Merrmann, C. Neelmeijer, M. Schreiner, G. Woisetschlager, Nucl. Instr. and Meth. B 136–138 (1998) 863. References [19] http://srs.dl.ac.uk/arch/cost-g8. [20] J. Townsend, K. Eremin, A. Adriaens (Eds.), Conserva- [1] First report of the All-Party Parliamentary Archaeology tion Science 2002, Archetype Publications, , Group (APPAG). The Current State of Archaeology in the 2003.