39th Annual Meeting- Objects Morning Session, June 2, “A Definite Responsibility to Shoulder: The Preservation of Historical Objects at the Bahá’í World Centre,” by Victor Sobhani and Sonjel Vreeland.

Victor Sobhani presented a talk about the conservation work undertaken at the Bahá’í World Centre, located in Haifa, Israel. The Centre is a special and important pilgrimage site for members of the Bahá’í Faith as it contains the shrines of its two founders, Bahá’u’lláh and the Báb, as well as other related buildings and monuments. It is also a UNESCO World Heritage Site. Mr. Sobhani went into further details about the founders of the Bahá’í Faith and the type of collections at the Centre. Collections are kept on view or stored in the various buildings and includes decorative or fine arts, home furnishings, sacred texts, ceremonial objects, and relics. Mr. Sobhani noted that preservation of the collections was considered vital early on as Bahá’u’lláh wrote about caring for the Bahá’í texts and cultural materials in the nineteenth century.   

As an example of minimal intervention, Mr. Sobhani discussed a treatment performed on a pocket knife owned and used by the Báb. The knife was used to trim quills for writing and exhibited minor corrosion on the metal blades. As an additional note of interest, Mr. Sobhani indicated the knife was made in England by Rogers and Sons and pointed out the indirect contact between Western and Muslim society. In the end, the blades received minor cleaning as the object, while appearing mundane, is considered a sacred relic and the goal was to cause as little change as possible. Another treatment he discussed was an eighth century ceramic vessel from Peru. The vessel had a polychrome, painted bird design and a section of the handle was missing. In this treatment, the missing element of the handle was reconstructed. I have to admit I did not hear quite clearly how this type of object entered the collection at the Centre; perhaps it was brought by a pilgrim visiting the shrines or a gift from a visitor? Mr. Sobhani then talked about a stone (travertine) obelisk that was brought to Haifa from Italy in the 1950’s. The obelisk is thirty feet tall and has a glass mosaic component. The mosaic had become damaged and resulted in some of the glass tesserae missing. For this treatment, Mr. Sobhani and his colleagues decided to paint the voids where the tesserae were missing. He noted that the painting was difficult as the work had to be performed on scaffolding and the light changed throughout the day. The three diverse treatments illustrated the range of materials and diverse problems the conservators encounter at the Centre.

Mr. Sobhani discussed his work at the Centre with great reverence and dignity, which was quite fitting for the sacred nature of the place he works, and concluded the presentation with a remark about the immense gravity surrounding any conservation work performed on objects used or associated with the founders and their families. He likened this to the sandals worn by Jesus or the walking stick used by Moses so that audience members could grasp the great weight, as the title of the talk affirms, placed on the conservators to maintain the collections according to the Bahá’í Faith (in original condition as much as possible).

39th Annual Meeting – OSG Morning Session, June 3, “Variable Media, Variable Roles: The Shifting Skills Required in Contemporary Art Conservation,” by Gwynne Ryan

Gwynne Ryan, sculpture conservator at the Hirshhorn Museum & Sculpture Garden presented the paper “Variable Materials, Variable Roles: The Shifting Skills Required in Contemporary Art Conservation.” She said anecdotally that the title of her paper had changed even the same morning as her attempt to address current practices was constantly changing in line with the constantly changing practices of the Hirshhorn. Her paper is meant to inform on the way in which institutions can contend with the challenges that contemporary art presents to conservation. New skills and tools are required for the installation, acquisition, and treatment of contemporary art. In order to achieve this, the Hirshhorn has examined several publications on the topic (listed in presentation) in hopes that these will help provide guidance for the Hirshhorn. The museum’s small staff, approximately fifty people, four of whom are conservators, makes collaboration necessary especially given the paradigm shift of changing practices.

Throughout the presentation, Gwynne Ryan provided many specific examples of work at the Hirshhorn that have presented individual difficulties. Anish Kapoor’s At the Hub of Things

and Ann Hamilton’s Palimpsest http://hirshhorn.si.edu/visit/collection_object.asp?key=32&subkey=14949  were her first two examples. The use of unconventional material and the importance of the pieces’ abilities to develop lives of their own in exhibition challenge conservation efforts. To the best of their ability, the museum consults the artists and involves them in the associated decision making process. Ernesto Neto and Isac Julien (http://artpulsemagazine.com/the-cinema-effect/) were two more examples upon which Gwynne Ryan briefly extrapolated. She compared the museum’s efforts to those occurring in ethnographic collections (on which there were several presentations in the OSG) and the fact that there is more than just the material to preserve – there is something greater to the art. The concept of the original surface as well as the role that the art plays is essential. In hopes of preserving this, documentation emerges as one of the most important elements of contemporary art conservation.

This theme recurred throughout the paper, as Gwynne Ryan called for a new position to be taught, trained, and fulfilled – that of the documentation and new-media conservator. Treatment reports for contemporary art must include a commentary on interaction with the piece and the environment it is meant to create. For this to occur, treatment reports must become more narrative in style and incorporate various media and sources. Reports must communicate the way in which installation should occur, but this is information which originally comes from outside of the museum itself. The conservator must be on site documenting the installation, or deinstallation, or the pieces, many of which consist of many parts or organic materials. Installation of contemporary art, especially reinstallation, requires standards and the existence of an almost choreographed approach. The primary example given for the difficulties of reinstallation and maintenance was Wolfgang Laib’s Pollen from Hazelnut (video shown at conference).

The process must be fully documentated in order to maintain the integrity of the piece, which must be cleaned and reinstalled every month while it is on exhibit, a process that the artist can not logistically be involved in leaving the task to the conservators.

Gwynne Ryan went on to discuss an installation project occurring in Spain in which the use of videography has produced surprising but interest results, as well as the case of Doug Aitken (http://hirshhorn.si.edu/exhibitions/view.asp?key=21&subkey=518), a future project requiring the organization of videography. One of the more extensive examples provided was that of Janine Antoni’s Lick & Lather, which occurs in a variety of ways but is a series of two busts, one soap and one chocolate, at the Smithsonian (http://hirshhorn.si.edu/visit/collection_object.asp?key=32&subkey=14823). Through this series, Gwynne Ryan discussed the boundaries of an artist’s voice as it relates to the role of conservators in light of the semi-rapid deterioration of the soap bust, requiring the recasting and preparation of a new piece. While this system is effective enough for the time being, Gwynne Ryan raised the question of what should be done in the future after the artist has passed. Preservation in the absence of the artist, the only one qualified to do the ritualistic bathing of the busts that is essential to the piece and its meaning, is a difficult task that has yet to have a solution. As Gwynne Ryan meets with the artist and discusses these questions, it has become more and more obvious that boundaries for the role of the conservator in contemporary art need to be established because they are quite blurry as it stands. The “double consciousness” and the role of conservator as “ethnographer” create a situation in which it must be asked if conservation is influencing the artistic process. Certain biases prevail simply through daily actions, memories, the way questions are posed, and our outside influences, which can have an impact on the supposedly impartial work of a conservator. Quoting another speaker, Salvador Muñoz-Viñas, Gwynne Ryan ended her presentation by saying “conservation is not a neutral activity.”

39th Annual Meeting – Objects Session, June 3, “The Care and Display of Homogen Infiltration für Kontzertflügel (Joseph Beuys, 1966) Between 1976 and 1992 at the Centre Georges Pompidou,” by Christel Pesme

Christel Pesme, a PhD student in the History of Art at the University of Paris presented a paper entitled “Museum Agency on the Integrity of Art” on the topic listed in the Annual Meeting program. She explained the change in title as a constant occurrence as she is still actively developing her thesis. Her work examines the impact of conservation and the execution of agency on the work Homogen Infiltration für Kontzertflügel by Joseph Beuys, 1966. Owned by the Centre Georges Pompidou, several phases of conservation were undertaken between 1976 and 1992 that had tremendous impact on both the work and the artist. The work as she discusses it consists of three independent, stand alone works: the piano, the original wax earplugs, and the original felt fabric, now hanging. In order to help the audience understand the implications of the work, Christel Pesme provided a brief background on the Centre Georges Pompidou, including its dates and mission statement, which involved the democratization of contemporary art. Her thesis and presentation pursue a rethinking of the role of the artist, ownership, and the role of cultural institutions.

Christel Pesme paper presents several phases of intent and interest in the Centre Georges Pompidou’s conservation and curatorial approaches. The initial exhibition of the work in 1976 was emblematic of the center and its goals as expressed through its mission statement. The first of four treatments occurred from December 1976 to January 1977. In collaboration between the conservators and the artist, the red crosses were removed and cleaned, and then sewn back on by the artist. The second treatment occurred in 1979 with the mechanical reinforcement of the felt in opposition to the artist’s preference and the meaning of the piece. The use of metals isolated and contained the work in a way that was unnatural. Despite the artist’s protests, the conservators at the centre said that the treatment was necessary if the piece were to travel to NY for an exhibit as the artist wanted, and so the treatment was done. After returning to the centre from NY, the piece had been damaged and a so a new room was built to house the piece in the optimal environment. The third treatment occurred between 1981 and 1984 – the records do not allow for a precise date. At this point the felt was reversed, “like a sleeve,” and the inside was shown without any involvement of the artist. The fourth treatment was more an “intervention” as described by Christel Pesme. From December 1984 to January 1985, the felt was removed from the piano and kept separate. A new envelope was made and put on. This intervention was demanded by the artist at a meeting established to discuss a new Beuys acquisition. He provided sketches for how the pieces were to be treated and then re-displayed.

For Christel Pesme, the conservation history of the piece exemplifies the decision making process that surrounds the practicality of the care and display of items in cultural institutions. Both the conservators and the curators made ethical decisions according to their field and goals. The changes in style and approach to the four phases of treatments corresponds to contemporary shifts of the centre’s mission statement, and more specifically to a particular director who was involved in the museum from 1981 to 1991. The affect of agency on the piece included alteration of the conservation methods, museum display, and the work’s actual interpretation. Following the 1985 dismantling of the work, it lost its original intent and definition. From this case, extreme as she admits it is, she hopes that conservators will learn that it is important for them to mitigate curatorial involvement in art but also that the very large role played by the cultural institution and it corresponding mission statement is realized. Conservators are not just bound by their own code of ethics, but also by the expectations of the museum in which they work.


39th Annual Meeting – Workshop, May 31st, “Museum Mannequins” by Helen Alten

Helen Alten’s “Museum Mannequins” workshop covered a variety of methods for designing, building, and adapting mannequin supports.  Construction processes were broken down into additive, subtractive, and cast-and-molded techniques.  The majority of designs were for male and female torsos.  Padded hangars, T-mounts, and full-body mannequins with cast-from-life appendages were also discussed.  Design and presentation issues were covered, emphasizing the use of appropriate undergarments and appendages.  The benefits and problems associated with many prefabricated mannequins were discussed.  Questions and discussions were encouraged throughout the PowerPoint presentations and hands-on activities, which was helpful as workshop participants had varying levels of experience and each participant’s contribution enriched the workshop.

A 29-page handout was e-mailed prior to the one day workshop.  This was appreciated, as a lot of material was covered.  The handouts that were provided on site expanded on the initial handout with a workshop outline, a five page bibliography, a list of material suppliers, “cheat sheets” for measuring garment dimensions, a basic bodice pattern, and six articles on designing and constructing mannequins.  Helen also pointed us to useful resources such as Patterns of History historic garment patterns, Museum Mannequins: a Guide for Creating the Perfect Fit (2002) edited by M. Brunn and J. White, and A Practical Guide to Costume Mounting (2007) by L. Flecker.

Each participant was asked to bring a garment to measure for the practical workshop.  Hands on activities included measuring the garment, creating a pattern for a rigid-board mannequin, and creating a foam mannequin.  Two groups made mannequins out of Ethafoam®, a material commonly used for mannequins, and one group made a mannequin from Plastazote®, a softer type of polyethylene foam.  As a molding demonstration, two participants cast their hands in plaster using alginate molds.  The workshop went about 1 hour over time and most participants chose to stay.  Samples of buckram were provided for experimentation at home.  All supplies and tools were provided.

Helen encouraged participants to contact her with future questions.

39th Annual Meeting-OSG, June 1st, Panel Discussion on Ethical Issues in Archaeological Field Conservation

What are the ethical issues that archaeological conservators face in the field? This was the topic of a panel discussion held at the start of the OSG sessions focusing on archaeological conservation. It was organized by the Archaeological Discussion Group co-chairs Claudia Chemello and Susanne Grieve and the OSG program chair Sanchita Balachandran. Four archaeological conservators were invited to talk about some of the issues they face when working on site. The speakers, Angelyn Bass Rivera, Rae Beaubien, Eric Nordgren and Nancy Odegaard, all have different areas of specialization and were able to talk about a broad range of ethical issues that they have encountered in the work that they do.


The first speaker was Angelyn Bass Rivera, a conservator in private practice who specializes in wall paintings and built heritage. She presented 3 case studies and described the issues that she encountered working to preserve hominid track ways at Laetoli , murals at the Mayan site of San Bartolo and at Frijoles Canyon Cataes at Bandelier National Monument. All sites suffered from environmental degradation because they were outdoors, but there also seemed to be larger administrative issues affecting them. Issues such as the need for tourism to a site and its impact in the case of Laeotoli, or the issue of inadequate funding for conservation on archaeological excavations can also affect the preservation of these sites.


Rae Beaubien, archaeological conservator at the Smithsonian’s Museum Conservation Institute (MCI) talked about her experiences working in the field with archaeologists. At sites where there hadn’t been a history of conservation prior to her working there, she was able to come in and establish the protocol for processing finds. She could also forge the idea that archaeologists and conservators should work together from the start. Her work at MCI, where she was able to create an archaeological conservation internship program, allowed her to continue establishing these collaborations and emphasizing their importance in the field.


Rae then went on to discuss some of the items in AIC’s Codes of Ethics that stood out as important to those working in the field. The first was the issue of stewardship and the preservation of collection, where in the field, conservators are responsible for taking care of the entire collection. She then discussed the idea of operating within the expertise of the person charged with doing the work. She felt that in a museum or institution, it was possible to find a specialist or expert for different aspects of conservation or preservation. In the field, however, you are sometimes asked to work outside of your area. Because finding and paying for these specialists or experts is difficult, often the conservator will have to take on additional responsibilities and in those situations, you just do the best you can. Her final point was for those conservators working in the field to be aware of the laws and regulations of each country they work in in regards to antiquities, especially for unprovenanced material. She ended with the idea whether our work in a country brings unwanted attention to a site and once we leave, how do we protect the site.


Leaving the discussion of terrestrial sites, Eric Nordgren, conservator at Queen Anne’s Revenge Shipwreck Project, talked to us about some of the issues conservators of maritime artifacts face, both practical and ethical. In the case of practical, the size of some of the objects brought up from the sea and the size of tanks or equipment needed for their storage and treatment pose a problem. He stressed the importance of long term planning to provide funding and equipment/materials to undertake the conservation and long term preservation of these materials.


In regards to ethical issues, the largest one faced is where artifacts are recovered without following ethical guidelines and work is carried out by treasure hunters or salvage crews. The question is, what do we do about this? Eric’s suggestion is to work with these groups of people, in addition to other professionals involved in maritime archaeology such as boat captains, riggers, etc. to educate them about conservation and have them understand how they can do their work following ethical guidelines. His final point was if we should think about the larger question of whether we even need to excavate these underwater sites anymore and how well can they be documented without excavation.


The final panel speaker was Nancy Odegaard, conservator at the Arizona State Museum, who was asked to speak about her experiences working with human remains. The Arizona State Museum issues permits for excavations and the policy is that if remains are found, the excavation has 48 hours to get someone out there to identify the remains and determine whether they are human. When found, human remains are not excavated in the Southwest. They are not disturbed, unlike in other areas where the remains are exposed, removed and can be sampled/examined/analyzed/reconstructed. She also mentioned that this summer she will be reburying human remains and artifacts that are currently at the museum.


After each speaker presented, the floor was opened for discussion and questions. One of the issues that kept recurring both in the panel presentation and discussion was how to get archaeologists and conservators to work together, particularly in the US. Rae mentioned that in some countries permits and regulations for excavations are centralized so there is common governing body and regulation to guide archaeologists. There are countries that do require archaeologists to work with conservators and having centralized regulations makes enforcing this easier. This is not the case in the US. Rae suggested having conservators go to archaeological conferences to present their research and integrate themselves into archaeology. Training archaeology students about conservation also helps because you get them to understand early in their career about the importance of conservation and working with conservators. Also writing grants to fund conservation on sites from the same sources that archaeologists use and including this as part of the archaeologist’s funding process for their project also helps.


The issue was raised in the question portion about non-conservators treating materials, especially in the case of maritime archaeology. Eric Nordgren had touched upon that in his presentation and addressed this again in the discussion. He brought up the point that often because of the need to recover these types of items and the need for immediate treatment, archaeologists often do the work themselves. The work of non-conservators preserving maritime sites and the issues of working with them was also brought up in paper presented in the OSG session following the luncheon by Susanne Grieve. It seems that the issue of non-conservators treating archaeological materials and how we should deal with them is something that needs further discussion in the specialization of archaeological conservation.


The final point brought up in the discussion session was of conservators working on unprovenanced materials. Museums have protocols for dealing with these, but should conservators have protocols or guidelines on how to deal with these materials. There was not enough time to have a full discussion of this at the luncheon, but it is an important point that was brought up and one I’m sure will be discussed in more depth in the future.


This luncheon introduced us to some of the issues, both ethical and practical, that archaeological conservators face in the field. It also led to discussions about larger issues of funding and allocation of resources for conservation, how to better integrate with archaeologists, working with non-conservators and other professionals and the ethics of dealing with unprovenanced material. Though no clear answers could be given for how to deal with some of these items, it did provide some interesting discussions and reminded everyone about the complexities of conserving material in the field. I think we all left with many issues to think about that certainly should be further discussed in future annual meetings.

39th Annual Meeting- Objects Morning Session, June 2, “When You Don’t Cry Over Spilt Milk: Collections Access at the UBC Museum of Anthropology During the Renewal Project,” by Shabnam Honarbakhsh et al.

This talk, presented by Shabnam Honarbakhsh, continued with the theme of the two previous talks of museums increasing the accessibility of their collections and collaborating with indigenous or source communities.

Ms. Honarbakhsh began by describing the University of British Columbia Museum of Anthropology (UBCMOA) to the audience. The UBCMOA is located in Vancouver, B.C. and is composed of 37,000 objects from diverse cultures. Her talk centered on the museum’s “Renewal Project- A Partnership of Peoples,” a building renovation project that increased the size of gallery, storage, laboratory, and research spaces with the goal of making the collections more accessible and supporting community activities. At the same time, the “Collections Research Enhancement Project” was also implemented, wherein objects went through a several step process of being surveyed, digitized, mounted, packed, moved, and installed. Objects were tracked through the entire process using a bar code system and Ms. Honarbakhsh mentioned that the only time the collections were not accessible was during the packing/moving phase. She briefly discussed how the objects progressed through the various steps, noting that object mounts were designed with source community involvement, but the process is also explained quite well on the museum’s website at http://www.moa.ubc.ca/crep/index.html.  The Renewal Project and Collections Enhancement Project were immense undertakings but Ms. Honarbakhsh reiterated the importance of the collections remaining accessible as much as possible. In further reference to the collection’s accessibility, she directed the audience to MOACAT, online access of the collections at http://collection-online.moa.ubc.ca, and the Reciprocal Research Network (RRN), a collaborative tool providing online access to Northwest Coast items, at http://www.rrnpilot.org.

To illustrate the UBCMOA’s work with indigenous or source communities, Ms. Honarbakhsh discussed a consultation with a community of Northwest Coast basket makers and the ritual bathing of a metal sculpture of Vishnu for a Hindu ceremony. The collaborations and subsequent access to the objects were viewed essential in building relationships with the respective communities and as a way for the source communities to remain connected with their culture. In both cases, Ms. Honarbakhsh brought up the topics of acceptable risk and allowable damage while also noting the importance of the communities being able to handle the objects and perform ceremonies considered vital to the object’s well-being. Learning about the UBCMOA’s continuous efforts of making their collections more accessible and collaborating with various communities was quite inspiring.

39th Annual Meeting – OSG Morning Session, June 2, “The January 12, 2010 Earthquake in Haiti: Building a Conservation Foundation from the Ground Up” by Stephanie Hornbeck

Stephanie Hornbeck, Chief Conservator for the Smithsonian Institution Haiti Cultural Recovery Project (CRP), presented a paper on the conservation recovery efforts in Haiti in response to the January 12, 2010 earthquake. There was much information in the paper, requiring that the presentation keep a fast pace throughout. The slideshow itself primarily consisted of photographs of the work areas, conservation projects, and the many people who have been involved in the CRP. Stephanie Hornbeck prefaced the presentation by saying that many of the aspects of the Smithsonian Haitian response apply to any issue in conservation so that the impact of the project and resulting paper could extend beyond emergency response situations.

The cultural devastation response was dependant on several other factors, including the immediate human recovery response, the pillaging of art and objects, and salvage efforts. The severity of destruction and the restrictions on any recovery efforts based on logistics mandated that priorities be established, a task dependent on the Haitian officials. From this, it was determined that three sites in Port-au-Prince should receive immediate attention: the National Palace (see image below), the Holy Trinity Cathedral (Brief Look at the Holy Trinity Cathedral), and the Musée Nader (see also: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703837004575013022647688144.html). These three sites exemplify the cultural heritage of Haiti, both in their construction and in the works therein contained. Here, Stephanie Hornbeck briefly elaborated on the city in an art historical context, touching on the pre-colonial traditions, the effects of European contact, and the establishment of Port-au-Prince as the ‘Centre d’Art.’ It is this history and culture that the CRP was so interested in recovering and preserving to the best of their abilities. The original team of professionals involved in the efforts has since expanded, but some of the key names include Richard Kurin (Under Secretary for History, Art, and Culture), Corine Wegener, and Olsen Jean Julien (project manager and minister of culture). The AIC joined the partnership, facilitating the sending of several volunteers throughout the course of the project, running May 2010 to November 2011.

According to the Institut de Sauvegarde du Patrimoine National (ISPAN), over 50,000 works of art were damaged as a result of the earthquake. All of the conservation efforts must be undertaken in Haiti, a consequence of the colonial history of the country. The weight of this falls fully on the CRP; however, they must operate out of the central storage area and the availability of materials is severely limited. Equally challenging is that no one in Haiti was previously qualified in conservation. Thus, a large portion of the CRP has been training individuals in the practice so that educated efforts may continue following the project’s close. In 2010 the chief conservator was chosen, Stephanie Hornbeck having been selected. She established the project’s plan, which was to follow a course similar to: stocking, assessing, methods, oversight, stabilization, training, and treating works of art of a high cultural value. By first identifying colleagues and then training, the project would then be best equipped to respond.

At this point in the presentation, several examples of the damage were provided as well as a discussion of the ensuing challenges. These were as follows:

  1. The issue of education. Specifically, Stephanie Hornbeck said that many of the Haitians involved were expecting complete restoration and that the concepts of stabilization, prioritization, and the intensity of the time commitment were difficult to communicate.
  2. The absence of records and/or photos, as well as complete inventories.
  3. The environment, including the lack of screens, the instability of electricity, and the tropical climate.
  4. Antiquated restoration materials and methods.
  5. The necessity of importing 100% of the material supply.
  6. Recovery efforts could not begin until five months following the earthquake.

Attempting to respond to these challenges as best as they could, the CRP developed a local infrastructure consisting of both CRP staff as well as local associates. In order to achieve this, an ICCROM course was held during August and September of 2010. Professionals with an academic background in art or chemistry were selected for participation, resulting in twenty-four Haitian managers studying painting, object, and paper conservation. The next course will provide an introduction to collection databases. From here it is hoped that the individuals may continue on to received graduate training in conservation and maintain the execution of the practice in Haiti.

Developing the local infrastructure comprised only part of the ‘identifying colleagues’ task. The AIC volunteer conservators were another essential component, as well as the three contract conservators hired by the project. Over the course of the project to date, over thirty-two people have volunteered their time at an estimated value of $115,000. Aside from practicing conservators and assistants, another category of colleague needed was in supply acquisition. Approximately $45,000 worth of supplies were purchased and hand carried by various participants to Haiti. As none of the supplies could be purchased in Haiti, this was an essential step. The supply list itself has continued to develop throughout the course of the CRP as various conservators and participants help to refine it.

Following ‘training,’ the task of adequately responding became the primary focus. It was immediately obvious that security was a big issue. As just one example, many of the stained glass elements had already been stolen from the National Cathedral. Thus, the team made a red-list of high priority items in September 2010. Though nine months since the original earthquake, time was of the essence as items continued to be stolen. The red-list communicated the objects that were at the greatest risk in terms of security and each was processed by priority according to the individual circumstances. In terms of the manner in which work has been approached, it is a three-part process. First, condition assessments must be completed so as to provide the data necessary for future work. Next, interventions occur in order to improve the current housing and storage environments in order to stabilize the works in question. Finally, the treatments occur, though the emphasis continues to be placed on stabilization above all else. One of the most common treatments being performed is the removal/treatment of mold and dirt accretions. Items of the highest cultural value have received the highest level of conservation treatment; however, the process is highly time consuming and limits the amount of work that can be done in other areas.

At this point, Stephanie Hornbeck provided specifics as to the processing and treatments that have occurred at the sites of the Holy Trinity Cathedral and the Centre d’Art. At Holy Trinity, there was a large mural cycle originally consisting of fourteen murals, though now only three remain. With two conservators and four assistants, the remaining murals were consolidated and successfully effaced and stored. They are now waiting for the cathedral to be rebuilt, at which point the murals will be reinstalled. At the Centre d’Art, individual works were recovered within the first month following the earthquake; however, the manner of recovery was not ideal. No inventory could be completed during the process based on time constraints and the lack of an inventory from which to base their identifications. Also, storage was difficult in the time of great turmoil so two large, metal containers had to be used to hold everything that could be recovered, which ended up being approximately 5,000 pieces. Once the metal containers were filled, they were guarded twenty-four hours a day; however, they also had to remain on the street from January until August, reaching approximately 80% rh. At this point, the works are being processed methodologically and being stored in more suitable means while they await any treatment.

From these experiences and others, two case studies are currently planned. One would focus on looking at an on-site recovery effort where bulldozers and shovels were used to help look for art, resulting in the recovery of approximately one hundred and fifty pieces. The second case study will examine the storage of the works in the metal container. These pieces underwent triage from the 3rd – 6th of September, where it was discovered that mold was the primary side effect of the storage, requiring that the processors where personal protective equipment.

To date, the CRP has stabilized over 5,000 works of art while the process has cost approximately $1.5 million. The team has greatly grown; however, they still need materials, funding, and assistance in training qualified associates. It is also becoming pressing that Haiti determine if they can build a local core with which to continue the preservation efforts. The CRP is currently a finalist for a global ambassador’s grant, which would provide the much needed funding if it is selected. Following the presentation, one question was asked regarding the possibility of training in the use of alternative, local materials and methods of conservation. Stephanie Hornbeck responded by saying that it really was not possible to use any local material of any sort as nothing as of close enough quality but that they are currently working on obtaining a local supplier of conservation-grade material.

 

See Also: http://newsdesk.si.edu/releases/smithsonian-develops-haitian-cultural-recovery-project

39th Annual Meeting – Objects Session, June 1st, “Archaeologists and Avocational Conservators: Compromising Principles or Increasing Awareness?” by Susanne Grieve

This year, a portion of the OSG sessions focused on archaeological conservation and the ethics and issues surrounding the conservation of these materials.  The paper presented by Susanne Grieve focused on avocational conservators and how much information do we give to non-conservators who are practicing conservation, something that was touched upon in the panel discussion organized by the Archaeological Discussion Group of the OSG on ethical issues in archaeological field conversation held earlier that day.

Avocational conservators were described as members of the general public who undertake conservation treatments as a hobby or out of interest for preserving something.  They have no formal training in conservation.  In her presentation, Susanne talked about working with a group of avocational conservators in Namibia who help preserve maritime sites and artifacts in the country.  The group is made up of members of the the Windhoek Underwater Club’s (WUC) Maritime Archaeology Division who come from varied background with no formal training in archaeology or conservation.

Susanne brought up some interesting questions and issues as she talked about her experiences working with the WUC.  Conservators have worked for 39 years to make conservation a profession.  We have formalized training, a code of ethics and protocols and standards that form the basis of the profession.  Her questions in regards to the conservation profession and avocational conservators is: Do we work with these groups? How much training do we give them? And do we compromise our profession by working with or training these people?

In regards to the situation in Namibia, there is only 1 conservator responsible for all the cultural material there.  This means that there is not enough staff and resources to get everything done.  The avocational conservators do the work they do because it is very important to them that this part of Nambian culture and history be preserved and they have an interest and passion in doing so.  And I’m sure they feel that because of the limited resources there, they can help fill that need.

Susanne’s work with the WUC involved working with them on the excavation of a mining camp site and the conservation of material found there.  The club felt the site was important for them to preserve because the government was not interested in preserving it.  The camp site was from a German mining operation and places like these are not preserved because it is a part of Namibia’s past people want to forget.  Susanne worked on site with them and taught them about excavation and lifting techniques. They then took artifacts back to the lab where she taught them some basic methods for preserving books and ledgers collected from the site.  She also looked at some previously treated artifacts that had been conserved using outdated methods and  shared information on other approaches.  Before leaving she left some conservation materials with the group.

Susanne’s paper touched upon issues that many conservators deal with when having to work with non-conservators in resource poor institutions.  These kinds of questions often come up in working with archaeologists as well.  In the case of the conservation of maritime sites and artifacts in Namibia, it seems that the WUC are the only group at the moment who can preserve this material.  The infrastructure and resources don’t seem to exist to allow for conservation professionals to do this kind of work.  There is too much to preserve and not enough trained people to do it.  So does that mean that we, as conservators, don’t do anything because working with avocational conservators would compromise our profession?  It doesn’t seem like these questions could be easily answered, but this talk does bring up important questions that as a profession should be discussed because many of us have to deal with issues such as these.

Susanne summed up her talk with what I think is a good approach to these questions and something as an archaeological conservator, I agree with.  She felt that the answer to the questions she posed should be considered on a case by case basis.  If the person you may be working with is interested in selling artifacts, then you shouldn’t share your knowledge.  However if the purpose is to educate people, especially in countries with no resources or professionals, then perhaps we should share our knowledge and skills.  In regards to working with archaeologists, it is important for them to see archaeological conservation as a profession.  They need to value the knowledge and skills we can contribute.  Susanne’s suggestion is to continue to work with archaeologists so that this type of thinking starts to change.  And I couldn’t agree more with this idea.

39th Annual Meeting – Objects Morning Session, June 2, “Establishing a Code of Ethics in Korea: Challenges and Dilemmas” by Dr. Sujeong Lee

Dr. Sujeong Lee with the National Research Institute of Cultural Heritage in Korea spoke regarding the current efforts being made towards establishing a Code of Ethics for the Korean government and conservators. She comes from a background of studying the history and theory of conservation with a particular interest in value assessment. She presented her paper as answering two primary questions: 1. Why does a Code of Ethics need to be established in Korea/Asia? and 2. What is the process for establishing a Code? From the start, she established that she was at the conference as a representative of the Korean government and that she was meant to present the country in a positive light but that she was here to ask for help and advice and not to mask the difficulties her country is facing in their quest to establish ethics.

In answering the ‘why,’ Dr. Lee provided a history of the past one hundred years of conservation in Korea, a field which has evolved largely in response to the damages of occupations and war. The Japanese occupied Korea up until WWII and from 1950-1953 the country experienced the Korean War, referenced as the “three year war” by Dr. Lee. In the wake of these events, Korea has spent the last sixty years attempting to repair the many buildings and objects that were damaged, a process that she contends resulted in the loss of many of the fundamental ideas of conservation. It is now her goal to help the country regain an understanding of why conservation should be undertaken, the methodology for doing so, and the best materials to use. In order to underscore the loss of real ethics in Korea, Dr. Lee explained the legality of being a qualified conservator in Korea and the certification process that each undergoes. During the testing and interviews, each individual is assessed based on their ethical qualifications; however, there are no standards for doing so and even after becoming a certified conservator, Dr. Lee finds that many individuals are unequipped to address the many decisions they must make as a conservator. She feels that developing a Code of Ethics would help in the training of conservators as well as give individuals a standardized and approved manner for approaching conservation. Significantly, there is has also been a recent growth in public awareness and participation in the stewardship of high-profile objects and buildings in Korea. In support of this trend, Dr. Lee presented the case of the 2008 arson of the Namdaemun gate, a 14th c. treasure located in the center of Seoul. Following the tragic destruction, the public responded by laying flowers in front of the building and generated enough emotional investment that the conservation efforts were reported on a continuous basis.

The recent increase in the number of conservators registered in Korea is another determining factor contributing to the present need for a Code. There are currently approximately two thousand conservators registered, though Dr. Lee is concerned that many of them are unfamiliar with the principles, techniques, and practices of conservation, something she feels that a code will assist in remedying. Perhaps the most compelling reason she presented for why Korea must establish a Code is that it will be the first Asian country to do so, and thus hopefully not the last.

The second question, the ‘how,’ is unsurprisingly a more complicated topic and one that has yet to be fully realized in practice. The committee charged with developing the Code has examined many of the other codes currently in use, including that of the AIC. At the start of the process, Korea held an international conference in order to understand the many issues they were grappling with. Dr. Lee reported that the conference was widely attended, which was both surprising and encouraging for their efforts. They have hosted a series of conferences; the first discussed the benefits of developing a Code, the second focused on listening, and the upcoming seminar will attempt to separate the junior and senior associates so as to achieve a more comprehensive and honest analysis of the field and the ethical concerns. Dr. Lee is optimistic about the future of the code but admits that there is still much to be done. She concluded her presentation by once again requesting that anyone with advice contact her as she and the others behind the development project are very eager for input.

See also: http://www.conservation-us.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=page.viewPage&PageID=858&E:\ColdFusion9\verity\Data\dummy.txt

39th Annual Meeting-Objects Session, June 1st, “An Archaeological Journey: The Excavation, Deterioration, and Treatment of a Painted Glass Miniature from Nimrud” by Ariel O’Connor

In the first session of talks of the Objects Specialty Group, which  focused on archeological materials, Ariel O’Connor gave a presentation on an incredible treatment she did on a painted glass miniature from the site of Nimrud. I found the  treatment incredible for several reasons.  First she worked on one of the earliest examples of painted glass,  and archaeological glass is one of my favorite materials to work on.  The miniature was from Nimrud, and having worked at the Oriental Institute Museum I had become familiar with the amazing finds from the site.  But the main reason it was so incredible was because of the amount of work it must have taken to reconstruct the miniature that was in such a fragile and fragmentary state.  Some of the pieces Ariel reattached were only the size of the tip of a fine brush!

Ariel worked on the miniatures in 2009 during her internship at the Metropolitan Museum of Art.  The plaques had been excavated in the 40’s from the site of Nimrud (located in Iraq near Mosul) by the archaeologist Max Mallowan, husband of the author Agatha Christie (who also participated on the excavation cleaning some of the ivories found).  Nimrud was once the capital of the Assyrian Empire and had palaces, temples and an acropolis.  Most of the finds from the site date to the 9-7th c. BCE.

The Met’s miniature was found in a room at Fort Shalmaneser along with several other painted glass miniatures (total of 9).  The room also contained other luxury goods such as ivory plaques and inlays.  The miniatures, which some have suggested could be inlays for ivory, are thought to date to the 9-8 c. BCE.  The plaques are the earliest examples of painted glass in the Near East (and possibly the oldest examples known anywhere).  After the excavations were completed, the finds were split between the Met, the British Museum, the Iraq Museum and the Corning Museum of Glass.  All the plaques were examined by Robert Brill who conducted a technical study of them.

The miniature from the Met is comprised of two fragments which make up the top half of a winged sphinx with a lotus flower. The miniature is rectangular in shape, resembling a plaque, and concave. The piece seemed to be in somewhat good condition when first brought to the museum but by 2002, it seemed to have deteriorated severely and was in about 85 pieces.  Ariel set about to conduct a technical study of the pigments used to paint the decoration and undertook an extensive treatment of the miniature in order to stabilize and reconstruct it.

FTIR and Raman analysis was done in order to identify the materials used to paint the design.  Iron oxide red and Egyptian blue were found.  The black material was analyzed using FTIR but could not be identified.  This is because the plaque had been consolidated in the field with PVA which was affecting the analysis.  In Brill’s earlier study of the plaques, he hypothesized that the black material was bitumen, which was commonly used in the Near East.  Solubility tests of the black showed it was not affected by solvents.

Treatment of the piece proved challenging not only because of the fragile and fragmentary nature of the miniature, but because of the presence of the PVA consolidant.  Ariel had to find a treatment to consolidate lifting areas of the miniature and to reconstruct the fragments, but which would not affect the previously applied PVA.  She decided to use methylcellulose to join the fragments, which would then be supported by Japanese tissue as a single fiber laid across the join.  She used an enlarged image of the miniature that was taken in 1959 to aid in reconstruction. For areas which had separated between the top and bottom surfaces of the miniature, she created an internal support made up of several layers of Japanese tissue.

The final step of the treatment was to fill areas of loss to provide further support to the fragile plaque.  Using Mylar, she cut out small templates of missing areas and then cut Japanese tissue to shape using the template.  The tissue was then placed in the areas of loss.  The edges were also filled, either using one long piece of tissue or smaller pieces only over missing areas, depending on how severe the deterioration was.  The tissue fills were not toned, but left as is.  After treatment she compared the conserved piece to the 1959 photo and noted there were no losses, just cracks.  That was an impressive feat given the number of fragments and how small they were!

Due to deterioration during burial, there had been loss to the original pigments and to the surface.  To better understand what the miniature would have looked like, Ariel made a reconstruction, pictured below. I found the talk really interesting and the treatment results very impressive.  After all that work to reconstruct the numerous small fragments, the plaque is now stable and the decoration is intelligible once again.