Constructing a multidimensional evaluation method for stone carving conservation materials based on cultural heritage ethics and its application in Sichuan-Chongqing

Imagine you are an archaeologist or a historian, but instead of digging up ancient coins, you are trying to save giant stone statues and temples that have been standing for a thousand years. These aren't just rocks; they are the "memory banks" of human history, carved with stories, gods, and art that we can't recreate. The problem is that nature is constantly trying to erase them. In places like the Sichuan and Chongqing regions of China, the weather is a perfect storm for destruction: it's hot, incredibly humid, rains heavily, and the air is often acidic from pollution. This combination turns the stone into a sponge that swells, cracks, and crumbles, while tiny living things like moss and bacteria eat away at the surface.

To stop this, people have been trying to "heal" these stones for centuries using special materials. But here is the tricky part: you can't just slap a super-strong glue or a waterproof paint on a 1,000-year-old statue. If you use something too hard, it might crack the soft stone underneath when the temperature changes. If you use something that seals the stone completely, moisture gets trapped inside and causes it to rot from the inside out. The goal is to find a material that acts like a gentle, invisible bandage—one that protects the stone but lets it "breathe," doesn't change how it looks, and can be easily removed later if a better solution is found. This paper explores how we have tried to find that perfect bandage over the last century and how we can judge if a new material is truly "good" or just a dangerous shortcut.

---

The Stone Doctor's Report Card

This paper acts like a strict but fair teacher grading the "students" of stone conservation: the different materials scientists have used to save the rock carvings in Sichuan and Chongqing. The authors, a team of researchers from universities and the Dazu Rock Carvings Academy, realized that for a long time, people were only looking at one thing when picking a repair material: "Is it strong?" or "Does it repel water?" They were ignoring the "ethics" of the job.

Think of it like this: If you have a broken antique vase, you wouldn't fix it with industrial steel glue just because it holds the pieces together tightly. You'd use a special glue that is strong but can be undone later, and you wouldn't paint over the original pattern. The paper argues that saving stone carvings needs the same rules: Authenticity (don't fake the look), Minimal Intervention (don't do more than necessary), and Reversibility (make sure you can undo your work in the future).

To test this, the team built a new "report card" system. Instead of just one grade, they gave materials scores in three big categories:

1. Compatibility: Does the material get along with the stone? (Does it expand and shrink at the same rate? Does it let water vapor escape?)
2. Durability: Will it last long enough to do its job without falling apart?
3. Practicality: Is it easy to remove later, and is it affordable?

They then looked at the history of stone repair in the region, dividing it into three distinct eras, and graded the typical materials from each time period using their new system.

Era 1: The "Grandma's Kitchen" Materials (Traditional, until 1949)

In the beginning, people used what they had in their kitchens and gardens. They used lime wash (like a chalky paint), tung oil (a natural oil from nuts), Chinese lacquer, and a special hammered lime mortar made of lime, rice paste, and hemp.

• The Good: These materials were like old friends to the stone. They breathed well, didn't change the stone's color much, and could be washed off easily. The "hammered lime mortar" was a clever mix that balanced strength and flexibility.
• The Bad: They weren't very tough. In the harsh, wet, acidic rain of Sichuan, they often wore out, peeled off, or got eaten by mold.
• The Grade: The Lime Wash and Hammered Lime Mortar got a "Good" rating (around 3.5 out of 5). They were ethical and compatible, even if they didn't last forever. The Tung Oil and Lacquer got lower scores because they blocked the stone's breath and were hard to remove later.

Era 2: The "Super-Strong Glue" Era (Synthetic, 1949–2000)

After 1949, scientists started using man-made chemicals like epoxy resin, cement, acrylic resin, and silicone polymers. These were the "superheroes" of their time, promising to be stronger and more waterproof than anything nature could make.

• The Good: These materials were incredibly strong and water-repellent. They could hold cracked rocks together with massive force.
• The Bad: They were too aggressive. The epoxy resin was so hard and rigid that when the stone got hot or cold, the resin didn't move with it. This caused the stone to crack or peel off the resin (delamination). The acrylics turned yellow and crumbled in the sun. The silicones were great at breathing but were impossible to remove later, trapping the stone in a permanent hug.
• The Grade: Even the best of these, the Silicone Polymer, only got a "Moderate" rating (3.19). The paper points out that while they were strong, they failed the "ethics" test. They sacrificed the ability to be removed or the stone's natural look for the sake of strength. The authors argue that this era proved that "stronger" doesn't always mean "better" for ancient art.

Era 3: The "Smart Team" Era (Multifunctional, 2001–Present)

In the 21st century, scientists realized they needed to stop trying to find one "magic bullet" and start building teams of materials that work together. This era features C-S-H grouting materials (a smart cement), microbial mineralization (using bacteria to grow new stone), nano-coatings (super-thin waterproof layers), and modified traditional mortars.

• The Good: These materials are designed to be "smart."
  • The C-S-H grout is strong but flexible, matching the stone's expansion perfectly.
  • The Microbial materials use local bacteria to grow calcium carbonate, essentially "healing" the stone with its own minerals, adding no foreign chemicals.
  • The Nano-coatings are super-waterproof but still let water vapor escape, solving the "breathing" problem.
  • The Modified Mortar takes the old rice-and-lime recipe and adds modern science to make it stronger and less likely to crack.
• The Grade: All four of these new materials got a "Good" rating, with scores ranging from 3.32 to 3.86. The Modified Traditional Hammered Lime Mortar was the star, scoring 3.86, because it perfectly balanced being strong, easy to remove, and cheap.

The Big Takeaway

The paper concludes that we have learned a hard but important lesson: You cannot just force a modern, super-strong material onto an ancient, delicate stone. If you do, the material might end up destroying the very thing it's trying to save.

The future of saving these stones isn't about finding the strongest glue. It's about finding materials that are smart, eco-friendly, and precise. The authors suggest that the best path forward involves materials that can "think" (like self-healing coatings that fix cracks only when they happen) and methods that respect the stone's history (like using bacteria to grow new stone instead of gluing it).

Ultimately, the paper suggests that the best conservation material is one that acts like a gentle guardian: it protects the stone from the rain and the acid, lets the stone breathe, doesn't change its face, and is willing to step aside if a better solution is found in the future. It's not about winning a battle against nature; it's about learning to dance with it.