Month: June 2011

Washington Conservation Guild

Hi! I’m Ana Alba and I’ve been asked by Heather Brown to contribute to the ECPN blog about our local conservation group here in the DC area! The Washington Conservation Guild has been an important local resource for conservation in the DC area since 1967. I joined as soon as I moved into the area as an intern and now play a more active role in the organization as a Director and soon to be intern coordinator. Heather asked me some specific questions about the organization and I’m glad to tell you a little more about it.

1. When, why and how was the group founded?
WCG was founded in 1967 to promote the increase and exchange of conservation knowledge. There is a wealth of information on the how our group was founded in our September 2007 newsletter. There is a four-newsletter series on the history of the Guild, by decade, starting with that newsletter.

http://cool.conservation-us.org/wcg/docs/news0709.pdf

 2. What regions do you cover?
WCG is based in Washington, D.C., and draws its membership primarily from Washington, Maryland, and northern Virginia. Members represent a wide cross-section of the conservation community and allied professions. They work in government, state, and private museums, studios, and laboratories, and other cultural and academic institutions and organizations.

Membership
3. How many members does the group have?
We currently have 230 members.

4. Are there any restrictions on membership?
No. All interested people can join.

5. What is the cost of membership and what does that fee cover?WCG membership benefits include monthly receptions and meetings (October through May), a quarterly newsletter, a membership directory, website and email announcements of local activities and job openings, intern/fellow activities, volunteer opportunities, free admission to special lectures, and reduced registration on WCG-sponsored workshops and events. The membership year runs from July 1 through June 30.

6. Is there a discounted fee for students?
Yes. The student fee is 20.00. Additionally, WCG’s Sidney S. Williston Memorial Fund provides up to five interns/fellows with free membership in the Washington Conservation Guild. Intern supervisors must apply on behalf of the student and in return, elected interns must assist at the monthly meetings and prepare meeting summaries for the upcoming WCG newsletter. (The meeting summaries are also an easy way to add a publication to your CV, by the way.)

7. Are there opportunities for emerging conservators to become more involved?
Definitely! This year Kristin DeGhetaldi was the intern coordinator. I will be replacing her next year and will come up with lots of tour opportunities and visits to local institutions. Also, we try to do monthly happy hour meetings to give local interns a chance to make friends, connect and talk about their experiences. At one of our monthly meetings we host intern talks, where local interns and fellows have the opportunity to present their current research.

Interns and fellows can also volunteer time at WCG’s Angels Projects. Angels Projects are created to pair local collections that need assistance with local conservators. This past November the WCG Angels took over the National Park Seminary to re-house, document and archive paper records belonging to the group Save Our Seminary (SOS)! This non-profit organization is a dedicated group of volunteers, who bring public awareness to the National Park Seminary through tours, research, public lectures and more. It’s a great opportunity to get some hands on experience and meet people along the way.

Events
8. What kinds of events do you hold and how often?
The Washington Conservation Guild holds meetings from October through May each year, usually on the first Thursday of the month from approximately 5:00 to 7:30 p.m. Most meetings are held at metro-accessible cultural institutions in the D.C. area. Meetings usually consist of a social hour (with hors d’oeuvres and drinks) followed by an illustrated lecture or tour of interest to conservation professionals. Meetings are free of charge to members, $5 for non-members.

Outreach
9. Would any of your members be interested in joining the ECPN mentoring program?
Probably. Having met with and worked with many of the WCG members and knowing they’ve helped train many interns and fellows along the way, I’m sure that they would be open to this sort of one-on-one mentorship program. In any case, a friendly email can get you a long way. WCG members are generally very helpful and full of good advice.

10. What is the most special thing about your guild?

Few places in the world have this many museums in such close proximity to one another and this means… you guessed it… lots of conservators. Members aren’t only from institutions. WCG brings together conservators in private practice, conservation scientists, or other related specialists. The atmosphere that this provides fosters sharing ideas, collaboration, talking about projects, and networking.

Much of the information I provided in this overview was taken from the WCG website: http://cool.conservation-us.org/wcg/

Additional questions can be directed to me at a-alba@nga.gov

Thanks for this opportunity to share!


AIC’s 39th Annual Meeting – Joint Paintings/Research and Technical Studies Session, June 3, “Developing Cleaning Systems for Water Sensitive Paints by Adjusting pH and Conductivity” by Tiarna Doherty

As a fitting end to a conference full of great talks, Tiarna Doherty, from the J. Paul Getty Museum, wrapped up the final session of the joint PSG/RATS session at the annual meeting on Friday evening with an incredible talk about new developments in cleaning water-sensitive paintings. The project was a collaboration between herself and two others, Chris Stavroudis, conservator in private practice, and Jennifer Hickey, Graduate Intern at the Metropolitan Museum of Art, that aims to develop a methodological approach to cleaning water sensitive works by measuring the pH and conductivity levels of the surface of the artwork and cleaning solutions in use.

Doherty began her presentation by introducing us to the Modular Cleaning Program (MCP), a database system that has been developed to assist conservators in their approach to cleaning artworks. The MCP performs valuable computations which assist the conservator in creating cleaning solutions that take into consideration, pH, ionic strength, HLB, and the functions of surfactants, buffers, and chelating agents, within aqueous cleaning solutions. Using MCP workshops given by herself and Stavroudis as an example, Doherty highlighted how practical experience with the MCP has helped them to understand how paints interact with cleaning systems, and thus aided in their current research.

She continued by concisely explaining why they focused on pH and conductivity. First, recognizing that the pH of something as simple as water may vary widely, Doherty notes that even exposing de-ionized to air over a long period of time eventually causes the pH to lower. Likewise, carbonated water also has a low pH, but since an acrylic paint film swells at a pH of 7 and higher, the use of carbonated water has been shown to successfully clean some water sensitive acrylic artworks. Doherty finished her introduction on pH with a brief explanation of buffers and the use of acetic acid and ammonium hydroxide to adjust the pH of water for cleaning, noting that both of these components of the solution will evaporate over time without leaving a residue on the surface of the artwork.

Next, Doherty continued her talk by segueing into an introduction on conductivity. Conductivity, the ability of a solution to transfer (conduct) electric current, was recently explored as a means to evaluate the surface of an artwork during cleaning and to create/develop useful cleaning systems. In a simple manner, the conductivity of a painting’s surface can be measured by placing a small drop of water on the surface of the painting, and then transferring it to a conductivity meter after a short period of time. Doherty reported that recent research in the field has concluded that there is less swelling of a water sensitive paint surface when it is cleaned with a solution that has a of pH of 6 or lower and a conductivity of 6000 micro-Siemens.

The talk continued with two in-depth cleaning case studies on an oil painting and an acrylic painting, which were both painted in the 1960’s, and had proven to be sensitive to water. Using solutions with adjusted pH, various conductivity levels, and the addition of materials such as chelators, surfactants, and even an emulsion system containing a proprietary material called Velvasil®, Doherty’s team tested and successfully developed systems for cleaning each of the two artworks (which, to ensure accuracy of content, I will point you in the direction of the post-prints for the details of).

As Doherty concluded her talk, I couldn’t help but be a little excited about possible implications of this and future research on these topics. This talk not only raised many interesting considerations about the cleaning of paintings, but, it also revealed the practical application of a new a tool set for conservators who face the challenge of water-sensitive paintings.

Bravo Tiarna (and team), I look forward to hearing more as this project progresses.

39th Annual Meeting – Joint Paintings/Research and Technical Studies Session, June 3, “Potential Cleaning Applications of Poly(vinyl alcohol-co-acetate)/Borate gels on Painted Surfaces” by Lora Angelova & Kristin deGhetaldi

Where to begin? First let me start by saying, if you missed this presentation during the joint PSG/RATS session, then you should be sure to check out the paper in post-prints once available. The details and future potential of this research cannot likely be given its due justice in a short blog post, but I will do my best to give you the major highlights.

On the final day of the annual conference Lora Angelova and Kristin deGhetaldi presented their findings regarding recent research on Borate gels, a new aqueous co-solvent gel system for use on painted materials. This collaborative project between Angelova, a Ph.D candidate in the department of chemistry department at Georgetown University and deGhetaldi, the Andrew W. Mellon Painting Conservation Fellow at the National Gallery of Art, along with Senior Conservation Scientist Dr. Barbara Berrie and Professor of Chemistry Richard Weiss at the NGA and Georgetown, respectively, resulted in the development of a new aqueous based gel system with great potential for use by conservators in the cleaning of paintings and painted surfaces.

The presentation was first introduced by Kristin deGhetadi, who immediately hooked the audience with the highly successful results of a case study, which utilized the cleaning gels in question.

The case study involved the cleaning of a painting titled Multiple Views, a 1918 work by Stuart Davis in the collection of the National Gallery of Art. After a brief history of the work, including an antidotal account about how Davis painted the work during a three-day contest in an “atmosphere of drinking and conviviality”, deGhetaldi described in detail the before treatment condition of the work. The painting, which suffered from extensive previous restoration, was waxed lined and covered with an extremely yellowed and degraded dammar coating that analysis revealed contained not only wax, which likely migrated to the surface from the lining, but protein, polysaacharides, drying oil, and, even nicotine.

Needless to say, deGhetaldi realized that this particular coating would prove to be challenging to remove. She described her methodical approach to the treatment using the Modular Cleaning Program developed by Chris Stavroudis. After exhausting the options of traditional free solvents, various aqueous cleaning solutions, and solvent based gels, she turned to the use of an aqueous emulsion that contained Pemulen TR-2 with 5% Benzyl Alcohol. While the latter worked very well to remove the coating over much of the painting there were still areas where a particularly tenacious dark coating remained. For these local areas the Borate gels being developed by Lora Angelova were tested and used for treatment.

Working together, Angelova and deGhetaldi performed a variety of tests with the gels and adapted them to the particular problem of cleaning Multiple Views.

deGhetaldi finished her portion of the presentation describing this treatment with numerous beautiful before, during, and after treatment images and a full description of the practical use of the Borate gels, before handing the podium over to her co-presenter.

Lora Angelova began her half of the presentation by describing in detail the formation, characterization, and modulation properties of the borate gels (and the chemistry involved).

The gels are composed of a partially hydrolyzed poly-(vinyl alchohol-co-acetate) polymer that combines by cross-linking with a very small amount of borate ions. The formation of the gel is immediate and proved to be thermally stable with soft elastic properties found desirable for use in treatment. Additionally, due to the acetate groups present on the polymer, the gels allow for the use of large amounts of polar organic solvents to be incorporated into the system. Which was utilized in the case study discussed by deGhetaldi.

Angelova continued by describing several properties of the gels that may make them useful in conservation, including the fact that the gels are transparent, pliable, and as mentioned, have the ability to hold large amounts of commonly used solvents. She then went on to describe how the gels are easy to remove, leave no detectable residue, and have the ability to clean a precise area with little solvent penetration into the paint layers. Which of course grabbed the attention of the conservators in the audience.

Using the results of from a number cleaning tests and further analysis, Angelova further described testing of the prior mentioned traits. She used residue tests conducted by attaching a naturally fluorescing molecule to the polymer in the gel. This allowed for testing regarding the removability of the gel and demonstrated that no detectable residue of the gel was left behind after removal.

Finally, Angelova eloquently concluded her presentation with a brief discussion of future work and the testing that is necessary in order to fully understand and develop the use of Borate gels in conservation.

So, while these gels may not be quite ready for use in the wider world of conservation yet, as was made clear by both the author’s conclusions and some of the thought provoking questions posed by audience members, they are definitely showing great potential as a tool for conservators already and I know many, myself included, who look forward to hearing more about the results that this project produces.

AIC’s 39th Annual Meeting- Architecture/Research and Technical Studies Joint Session, June 3, Protecting Marble from Corrosion by Sonia Naidu and George W. Scherer

This paper shares a testing program that incorporated the use of phosphate solutions to create a mineral coating (hydroxyapatite) on stone to impart strength and durability. The project goal was to consolidate the surface of weathered stones (primarily calcareous stones were tested) to prevent loss from dissolution. Naidu shared that the idea of this testing program came from natural patinas (phosphate and oxylate-based) that can be observed on stone surfaces. Calcium phosphate and hydroxyapatite (main inorganic component of teeth and bones) were analyzed.
Testing was conducted to react a phosphate source with calcite (carrara marble used), and diammonium hydrogen phosphate (DAP) was selected for further analysis through SEM/EDS and XRD. Variables of DAP concentrations (1m and 2m) and exposure times (12 hours and 24 hours) were analyzed. SEM images were used to evaluate film formation, and it was found that after 24 hours of 1M DAP concentration exposures that a dense film was created on the stone’s surface. Raising the concentration to 2M created a denser film, though spalling was evident. XRD confirmed the presence of apatite in the film.
Studies also found that during the process of converting minerals the porosity of the stone increased and further testing should consider adding calcium back into the stone. SEM analysis was used to evaluate the addition of calcium ions back into the samples, and the most coverage was seen with calcium chloride at a 1M concentration. Naidu also mentioned a study by Snethlage that reported success of converting minerals using ADP. This testing will continue and explore external ion additions and sequence transformation, control films, and comparison of effectiveness with calcium oxylate.
Naidu discussed the process of consolidation using silicate-based systems, pointing out that sometimes coupling agents such as tartaric acid are used to assist bonding. A comparison study was designed to evaluate Conservare OH100 and 1M DAP on artificially weathered limestone (heat was used to induce damage to samples). The consolidants were applied and the tensile strength (all samples) was tested at 2 days (DAP 25% increase) and 4 days (DAP 28% increase). The results indicated a greater improvement with DAP treated samples. This testing will continue and explore the effect of calcium ion additions, organic additives and extending samples to marble. Tracking the progress of this continued testing will be important, since there are relatively few stone consolidants on the market that meet current environmental and safety standards.

AIC’s 39th Annual Meeting – Objects Session, June 2, “The Impact of Access: Partnerships in Preservation” by Chuna McIntyre, Kelly McHugh, Ainslie Harrison, and Landis Smith

I found this to be a very inspirational and moving talk on many levels, in particular the exemplary collaborative nature of the projects described by Ainslie Harrison and Chuna McIntyre during the second day of the Objects Specialty Group session.  Ainslie introduced the subject of ethnographic collection access and the changing nature of access as academic methodologies have evolved within museums.  Over the past few decades, museums have become more inclusive through contacting native communities for repatriation, consultation, and advisory committees.  These partnerships can offer vast benefits and a dialogue that flows in both directions to preserve both the tangible and intangible aspects of museum collections.

The 2007 Anchorage Loan Project was the first collaboration between the Smithsonian and Chuna McIntyre, a Central Yup’ik Eskimo born and raised in the village of Eek in southwestern Alaska.  Chuna learned his ancient traditions from his grandmother, including dances, songs, and stories of his ancestors.  He currently shares his cultural heritage through travels, performances, and Yup’ik language instruction at Stanford University.  Ainslie detailed Chuna’s collaboration with the Smithsonian for the upcoming exhibition through several examples, including:

  1. A treatment on a pair of dance fans that had lost their plumage.  Chuna advised the conservators that a dance fan is designed to move through the space when you are dancing; without its feathers, it becomes a static object devoid of its original purpose.  Ainslie outlined the conservators’ concern that traces of the original quills remained inside the holes in the fan and they were hesitant to remove this original material.  Thus, a solution was found by designing a plexi backing for the attachment of new feathers.  In this way, the original material remained but the meaning and life of the object was restored for the visitor’s experience.
  2. A wooden Yup’ik diving seal mask had lost appendages (including its four-fingered spirit hand) during its lifetime in the Museum, but the pieces could not be located in storage.  Chuna expressed concern that the mask now told a different story, and he was able to carve new appendages that were pegged into the object.  The additions are based on photographs of the missing pieces, are reversible, and were documented by the conservators.  In addition, the existing feathers were static and old, and Chuna’s first instinct was to replace them.  Through his collaborations with conservators he acknowledged that for conservators, if something is intact, it needs to remain on the object.  Conservators were able to clean the existing feathers and stabilize other damages to bring the mask back to life.
  3. While at the Smithsonian, Chuna was able to access objects in the collection for his own study and cultural knowledge.  In one cited example, he was able to study a parka and make a glassine pattern to bring home to construct his own parka.

Chuna McIntyre then took the podium with a moving and inspirational combination of personal stories, anecdotes, and treatment examples.  He started with a Yup’ik quote, which he translated:  “A language is a spiritual mansion from which no one can evict us.”

He described his feelings during the 1970s when touring the Bronx museum, when he could never get to the other side of the glass to access his ancestor’s objects. “Objects have a way of telling their stories, but they are told front to back, top to bottom, and inside and out.”

As someone who is constantly thinking of ways we can use digital technology to enhance a visitor’s experience, I was particularly fascinated with Chuna’s view on technology.  He said: “The Yup’iks are not squeamish about using new things.  We find them exciting and they help us augment our culture and our place in this universe.  We’re all aborigines to this planet.”

He then described his involvement with the history of Central Yup’ik mask restoration.  If an object needs its proper fur and feathers and the object itself is not accessible, then new technology will allow Chuna to virtually restore the object.  He cited virtual and physical restoration examples from the Fenimore Art Museum in Cooperstown, NY and the Arctic Studies center at the Smithsonian. ”It is a privilege to work with these objects.  These are our world treasures and museums house them.  It is a privilege to go to museums and view these objects.”

Chuna described his experiences visiting sites in Egypt, such as the pyramids and Tutankhamen’s tomb, and relayed his excitement at seeing the pharaoh by saying “I sang to him in Yup’ik, I couldn’t help myself!” He mentioned his impressions of Ankor Wat, Petra, and Macchu Pichu, and that great expanses of the sites were actively restored and maintained.  His ancestor’s masks are no different – they are monuments to his culture – and should be restored for us and for our future generations.

The talk concluded with a traditional Yup’ik song of thanks that Chuna learned from his grandmother:

He translated the lyrics: Thank you for my labrets /  Thank you for ‘I can see into the distance’  /  Thank you for all my necklaces.  The song teaches that as we mature and acquire “accoutrements of responsibility” we are to be thankful for them.  I was thankful for the inspirational messages and collaborative projects, and I left the lecture hall with a new outlook on restoring ethnographic collections.  And goosebumps.

 

AIC’s 39th Annual Meeting – Objects Morning Session, June 3, “Tangible vs. Intangible Collections: The Journey of Two Objects,” by Vinod Daniel and Dion Peita

The first three talks in the Friday morning OSG session all dealt with the issue of finding a balance between preservation and access.  In his talk titled “Tangible vs. Intangible Collections: The Journey of Two Objects”, Vinod Daniel, head of Cultural Heritage and Science Initiatives at the Australian Museum, demonstrated the ways in which he and his colleagues are working to bridge the gap between collections and communities.  While the Austrian Museum holds a wide variety of cultural material, half of the objects in the collection (some 60,000 objects) come from the Pacific region; almost three quarters of this material is from the indigenous cultures of Papua New Guinea.  Vinod and his co-author Dion Peita, Collections Coordinator for Cultural Collections and Community Engagement at the Australian Museum, engage in regular exchanges with people from the Pacific Islands and, more recently, with Pacific Island peoples living in the greater Sidney area.  These exchanges allow these groups to access their material culture in a very tangible way.  Objects from the collection are used for ceremonies and performances, which necessitates a dialogue between the caretakers of the object and the users.  For example, a bowl from the collection was used in a Kava Ceremony—part of an Intangible Heritage Forum held at the Museum in 2009—to mix water and plant materials.  The bowl was cleaned after the ceremony, and although no physical change was observed, its appearance was somewhat altered.  On hearing this anecdote I found myself wondering where this arguably acceptable change to the object would fall in the conventional ethical framework of our profession.  Yes, the bowl was altered through its use, but the intangible benefits of the activation of the bowl and the documentation of its ceremonial context, were evident.

Much of Vinod’s talk centered around an exciting cultural renewal project that is reconnecting people from the Vanuatu Islands, particularly the Island of Erromango, with their material culture.  After European contact in the mid 19th c., a dramatic decrease in the population and the discouraging of traditional practices led to an almost complete loss of the Island’s material culture.  Fortuitously, some of this material ended up in the Australian Museum, brought there by a Christian missionary.  Today, a collaboration between the Vanuatu Cultural Center and the Australian Museum is allowing the people of Erromango once again to access their cultural heritage.  Through the Visiting Elders Program, members of the Erromango community were able to study and handle objects from the Museum’s collection, many of which were no longer produced on their Island.   Sophie Nemban, a woman from Erromango working for the Vanuatu Cultural Center, was provided with funding to study the Museum’s collection of 532 objects from Erromango.  Ms. Nemban was able to examine and touch the objects, some of which she then recreated back home.  Her work aims to revive traditional female crafts on Erromango, and the acquisition of some of this new material by the Australian Museum speaks to the success for her efforts.  Vinod then showed the following video, available on the Museum’s website, in which Chief Jerry Taki talks about the singing arrows from Erromango: Singing Arrows. When asked if he wanted these objects to be repatriated, Jerry Taki said no, he believes that the objects are “at peace” where they are.  In an interview he referred to the Museum’s collection areas as a “sacred dancing ground”.

In addition to facilitating access within the Museum, Vinod and his colleagues believe that it’s also important to bring the collection to the Vanuatu Islands.  Most of young people on the Islands have never seen these objects or any like them, and the Australian Museum has put together a “suitcase” of sorts containing a digital version of the collection that can be brought to schools.  The Museum is also working to facilitate web access, particularly for diasporaic Pacific Island communities in the West, through projects like the Virtual Museum of the Pacific.

Vinod ended his talk by discussing the broader concerns raised by increased access: the physical handling of objects (“do people have to wear white gloves all the time?” and “is change to objects acceptable?”); security issues; and the inability of conservators and collections people to have complete control over what happens to the objects.  He believes the secrets to the successful balance between preservation and access include establishing relationships, investing time, showing genuine interest, repeated visits and, of course, a dedicated budget.  As someone who deals mainly with archaeological materials, I spend most of my time thinking about the tangible nature of objects…but Vinod’s talk was a very effective reminder that the stewardship of cultural heritage must also include the preservation of its intangible properties.

AIC’s 39th Annual Meeting- Joint Objects and Archaeological Discussion Group Session, June 2, “Get Your Fieldwork for Nothin’ and Your Sherds for Free: Compensation for Archaeological Field Conservators,” Suzanne Davis and Claudia Chemello

Just what does an ‘80s rock band have to do with conservation?  Quite a bit, according to Claudia Chemello and Suzanne Davis, Conservators at the Kelsey Museum of Archaeology, who gave a talk titled: “Get Your Fieldwork for Nothin’ and Your Sherds for Free: Compensation for Archaeological Field Conservation.”  The title refers to the Dire Straits song “Money for Nothing”, which proved an excellent inverse parallel for the Qualtrics survey Claudia and Suzanne conducted, the findings of which they presented in this talk.  For context, you might want to go ahead and watch the music video for this song before reading the rest of this blog entry: Money for Nothin’

Claudia and Suzanne started this project with three hypotheses:

  1. Most conservators working on archaeological sites are not paid
  2. For those who are paid, there is no standard
  3. Most conservators are unhappy with the current state of compensation.

Happily, their first hypothesis turned out to be false: 82% of the conservators surveyed are paid something.  Of the respondents who did not get paid, the highest percentage (33%) said that the project was not able to pay a conservator, but, interestingly, did pay other professional staff; this slide is appropriately accompanied by a photograph from 1920 of a young volunteer on site in Syria who says: “Get your money for nothin’ and your chicks for free?”.  69% of the conservators who were paid also volunteered on other projects, and they did so for several reasons: they wanted to help a project with a small budget, they wanted to gain experience, or simply because they enjoy it.  I think its safe to say that many of us in the audience, myself included, have done some amount of unpaid conservation work—in the field or out of the field—for one or more of those reasons.

Although only 50 of the 116 responders used for analysis provided salary data, the information given by these 50 professionals proved that the authors’ second hypothesis is correct: there does not appear to be a standard salary for field conservators.  Indeed, the salaries provided varied rather dramatically, ranging from $58 per week to $8,000 per week!  The mean salary was $946 a week, the median $563, and the mode $1,000.   The difference between the very low minimum salary and very high maximum salary is partially based on the experience of the conservator: the person making the highest salary was very experienced and provided a number of services other than conservation treatment.

Claudia and Suzanne reported a number of other interesting statistics: 44% of the responders have only 0-5 years of experience (perhaps this explains the relatively low median salary?); 72% of those paid were paid by archaeological projects and 68% of these conservators were compensated based on the project’s budget (“are we letting projects determine what we’re paid?”); and a rather surprising 22% of respondents did not provide their projects with a written report (yikes!).  The survey yielded many other interesting results, too many for a single blog post, and I look forward to re-visiting them in the Postprints.

In the end, it turns out that only 41% of the respondents are satisfied with their current state of compensation—proving the authors’ third hypothesis to be more or less correct.  Claudia and Suzanne hope that the data obtained in this survey will be used for the following purposes: in salary discussions with dig directors and employers; to educate dig directors about the number and value of the services provided for their projects; to encourage conservators not writing reports to do so; and to advocate for an appropriate conservation budget from the beginning of the grant-writing process.  The authors told the audience to feel empowered to challenge the statement: “everyone on my project works for free”.   This fascinating (and entertaining) talk certainly emphasized the importance of communication and outreach, essential topics that have been highlighted by many of the speakers in this meeting.

AIC’s 39th Annual Meeting- Joint Objects and Archaeological Discussion Group Session, June 2, “Beyond the Field Lab: Emergency Conservation in the Granicus River Valley of Northwestern Turkey,” by Donna Strahan

The afternoon OSG/ADG session began with a fascinating talk by Donna Strahan, Conservator in the Sherman Fairchild Center for Objects Conservation at the Metropolitan Museum of Art, that very successfully demonstrated the importance of cooperation and flexibility in the preservation of cultural property. Donna began by introducing the site of Troy, where she has spent many seasons as a field conservator.  Troy is excavated by a number of international institutions, but a single conservation lab treats the finds unearthed from all of the excavations. The large site provides ample opportunities for education, functioning as both an archaeological field school and a place for conservation training for an international group of students.  Each season there are between one and six conservators and up to four languages spoken in the lab.  Although language barriers can pose some difficulty, the varied training and experience of the conservators facilitates the exchange of ideas and re-evaluation of conservation practice.

In addition to treating finds from the site—an impressive 500-700 per year—the Troy lab is also called upon to do emergency treatment at neighboring sites in the Granicus River Valley.  Donna emphasized that emergency conservation is about triage and compromise.  The needs of the objects must be prioritized, but the decision of what gets treated outside of Troy is often tied to local politics. The help of the Troy team is often sought in response to or in anticipation of looting, an example of which is the Dedetepe Tumulus, dating to the 5th c. BCE.   In the course of their work, the Troy conservators discovered, among other things, the fingerprints of ancient robbers on the marble sarcophagus, painted marble beds, and a shattered alabaster vessel with resides of Tyrian purple; the latter may provide direct evidence of a funeral ceremony that involved dipping ribbons into purple dye and tying them around a vessel.  Donna then went on to describe several other Granicus River Valley projects:

  • The Polyxena Sarcophagus, with associated remains of a funeral cart
  • The Parion necropolis, where they found a physician’s burial that included a medicine box with arsenic and lead-containing pills (“a Roman Dr. Kevorkian,” Donna suggested)
  • The beautifully painted Çan Sarcophagus with interesting examples of damnatio memoriae, which looters broke into with a backhoe(!).
  • The sites and artifacts receiving emergency care from the Troy team are not always associated with ancient cultures—at the site of the WWI Battle of Gallipoli, a leather shoe was found with the remains of a foot still inside.  Although Donna suggested reburial, the Gallipoli Museum wanted the “object” on view as a reminder of the horrors of war.  Although Donna, and probably many of us in the audience, would consider reburial to be a more ethical decision, she reminded us how important it is to be sensitive to the customs and desires of the country you’re working in.

These case studies were wonderful illustrations of both the difficulties and benefits of emergency conservation.  Emergency excavations, Donna said, are rarely scientifically excavated, there is rarely time to plan, and you’re often working with unfamiliar people and objects.  However, without this important work, the wealth of information contained in these sites and artifacts might be lost entirely.  The finds from Granicus River Valley projects are regularly published in the Studia Troica, giving these objects (which generally languish in storage or worse) a place in the archaeological record.  At the end of her talk, Donna showed a recent picture of Dedeteppe Tumulus, completely destroyed by looters—a powerful reminder of just how essential emergency conservation can be.

In the question period, Tony Sigel, Conservator of Objects and Sculpture at the Harvard Art Museums, said that his rule of thumb is to generally make any modern damage to an object as invisible as possible.  He asked Donna if she considered inpainting the damage done by the looters with the backhoe.  Donna replied that she would not choose to inpaint for two reasons: she did not want observers to think that the conservators were “repainting” the sarcophagus, and she thought it was important to demonstrate just how much damage looting does.