Comparative chemical investigations of alum treated archaeological wood from various museum collections

From the mid-1800s to the late 1960s, conservation by alum salts (KAl(SO4)2·12H2O—potassium aluminium sulphate), using various recipes, was a common method to prevent shrinkage and to strengthen waterlogged archaeological wooden objects. This method was mainly used in Scandinavia. The alum method appears to have also been applied to highly degraded archaeological waterlogged wood in other countries, for example in the U.S and Germany. Today, many of the archaeological wooden objects treated with alum show extreme deterioration and very low pH, which are attributed to the effects of the alum-treatment. This study investigated the extent of the current levels of chemical degradation in wooden objects conserved with alum salts at different points in time (1880s, 1930s and 1905–13) in order to understand their current condition and whether extent of degradation was in any way related to time of treatment, in an attempt to understand the rate of degradation. It was also an opportunity to compare the chemical state of preservation of alum-treated wood from different collections, as only the Oseberg collection has been intensively studied in this way up until now. Samples from historical wooden objects from the following collections were investigated and compared: the Dejbjerg collection (National Museum of Denmark in Copenhagen); the Oseberg collection (Museum of Cultural History, Oslo, Norway); the Glimmingehus collection (Swedish History Museum, Sweden). Analyses of lignocellulosic polymers and of inorganic compounds were undertaken to evaluate the chemical preservation of the wooden objects. The investigations were performed using a multi-analytical approach which consisted of: pH measurements, analytical pyrolysis (Py-GC/MS), X-ray diffraction (XRD) and scanning electron microscopy with energy-dispersive X-ray spectroscopy (SEM–EDS). It was possible to link the extent of degradation with time, on a general level but we found a great variability in the state of preservation of the wood also within the same collection. It is clear, however that alum-treated wood is more degraded than archaeological wood not treated with alum.