Tag: AIC’s 39th Annual Meeting

39th Annual Meeting – Book and Paper Session, June 3rd “A Comprehensive In-Situ Approach for the Analysis of Illuminated Manuscripts and Drawings: Exploring the Synergy Between Imaging Spectroscopy, FORS, XRF, and High-Resolution Multispectral Infrared Reflectography”

Paula Ricciardi, John K. Delaney, Lisha D. Glinsman, Mathieu Thoury, and Michelle Facini of the National Gallery of Art used several analytical methods to study the media used in the Praying Prophet, a manuscript cutting illuminated by Lorenzo Monaco c. 1410/1413.

Up front, let me say that analytical techniques such as image spectroscopy, XRF and FORS analysis are way outside my balliwack, so please feel free to comment on my post to correct any missing or mis-stated information. My feelings will certainly not be hurt!

So, the crew at NGA used a Si-CCD camera with color-corrected lenses and their specialized set up allowed them to reduce the light levels needed to capture their imagery, thus making the analysis safer and easing their conservator’s mind. They captured several images in the 400-950nm (visible through near-infrared range). They compiled the images into an image cube for analysis, calibrating it to black and white standards that allowed them to gather both reflectance and luminescence information. This allowed them to differentiate between a wider range of visually similar pigments.

Image spectroscopy alone cannot identify a pigment, however, so they also did XRF (which identifies elements such as copper, arsenic and lead in paints) and FORS analysis (which identifies different light absorption bands). One particular example she gave of the the need for both XRF and FORS analysis was the presence of copper in a green area of the miniature. Since copper was a common material used to make green pigment, the XRF identification of copper in that area was not surprising – but FORS analysis showed absorption bands that indicated the presence of azurite. So contrary to expectation, the green was not copper based, but azurite + a yellow pigment!

Even more intriguingly, when analyzing the vermilion robes of the prophet, they found absorption bands that did not match any of the pigments in their database. Curious, they collaborated with a conservator to mock up samples of vermilion pigment in a variety of different binders (egg glair, gum arabic, egg yolk). They found that the mystery absorption bands matched egg yolk. (This is exciting, as they are the first to map any sort of binder using FORS analysis).

Egg yolk was a slightly surprising find, as egg yolk is not well known to be a binder used in illuminated manuscripts. The team was able to find a passage from an early 15th century instruction manual on illuminating manuscripts that indicated egg yolk should only be used as a binder only when painting bodies (and specifically not in writing or when painting flowers). But the team knew that Lorenzo Monaco was also a panel painter (a media better known for egg tempura), so they wanted to dig deeper. Was he using egg yolk because of his panel painting experience? Was he the only one to use egg yolk in illuminated manuscripts? Their analysis found egg yolk was consistently used in the robes of figures throughout the miniature and in other illuminations by Monaco. Most of these robes were vermilion, but even the green robes showed the egg yolk absorption bands. Areas outside figures (such as decorated initials, foliage, etc) did not show evidence of egg yolk, although the robes of figures hidden away in decorative foliage did – suggesting that the difference in use was not just a matter of master painter vs. workshop painter.

When the team turned their attentions to other illuminated manuscripts of the era, they were unable to find egg yolk present, even when the artists’ responsible were also known panel painters. Obviously, more research needs to be done to further explore this area, but one of the most telling points of the talk (for me, anyway) came during the question/answer section. One conservator noted that while the talk did not make her rethink her treatment decisions based on concerns about the items themselves, it did make her think about how her consolidant decisions might muddy the waters for future investigators. This is a very good point, and one I will certainly be mulling over as I consider my own treatment decisions. Although, to be honest, the thought of inspiring some as-of-yet unborn scientist to curse my name is just a bit tempting.

39th Annual Meeting, ASG Morning Session, June 2nd, Student Papers, “Rediscovering an American Master: The analysis and proposed treatment of the decorative plaster ceiling of Robert Winthrop Chanler’s Gertrude Vanderbilt Whitney Studio, New York” Lauren Vollono Drapala, University of Pennsylvania

Lauren’s presentation introduced me to a true treasure hiding out in my downtown New York City neighborhood at 8 West 8th Street on Washington Square. In what was once the original location of the Whitney Museum lays the intimate studio retreat of patroness to the arts, Gertrude Vanderbilt.  Lauren’s focus on this room was to conduct historic research, assessment, analysis and documentation of the decorative ceiling created by artist Robert Winthrop Chanler.  What first appears as textured white plaster ceiling is actually a highly detailed bas relief plaster composition that still has some indications of paint. [PHOTO].   Like Angela’s Curmi’s talk before, Lauren knew there was an original decorative finish below the surface based on similar works by the artist, documentation, and cross-sectional analysis, but was having problems with accessibility to the paint after the ceiling had been overpainted white, most likely due to unaddressed failings of the plaster and paint over time.  Lauren’s goal was to eventually discover a means to safely remove the overpaint  and conserve the original paint below. I was rooting for her!

 

After creating high res photodocumentation of the ceiling, including an overall raking light image to accent the relief, Lauren mapped the condition and motif of the ceiling to aid with her investigation.  Lauren also visited other sites with similar work by the artist at Peebles Island and Vizcaya Museum to note pigments and decorative effects he employed at a similar time.  Lauren’s paint analysis [PHOTO]revealed that the newer layers of paint were bound more strongly to the original paint than the original paint was bound to its plaster substrate; the removal of the overpaint was not looking favorable.  Lauren was even given a detached portion of the ceiling to test  overpaint removal gels on, unfortunately with little success.

 

Following what looked to be a disappointing end to all of her hard work, Lauren took it a step further.  She made mock up panels of the ceiling based on her research and analysis to get a better idea of the surface then combined that information from her analysis to propose what it “May have once looked like”.  Here is the initial result of her efforts [PHOTO].  I’m still rooting for this project.  In the meantime if you are interested in learning more, read Lauren’s thesis: http://repository.upenn.edu/hp_theses/151/

39th Annual Meeting, ASG Morning Session, June 2nd, Student Papers, “Non-Destructive Investigation of Concealed Gilding in Architecture” by Angela Curmi, Columbia University

As an objects conservator, I tend to overlook the decorative walls of a historic house, focusing instead on the surrounding 3D aspects.  Angela’s talk really made me stop and think about the walls, as not only a significant work in themselves, but also as a record for changes in style and taste.  However the problem becomes, how do you look at certain aspects of previous wall decoration without removing the layers of historic paint?  Furthermore, how do you look at the overall motif of an entire room, without removing paint from the entire room?  Angela’s thesis from her studies at Columbia University focused on non-destructive methods of detecting gilding under layers of paint.

 

For her research, Angela created mock-ups of gilding motifs using gold, silver, and aluminum leaf under 3-5 layers of various paints (enough to provide visual coverage) and relied on infrared reflectography, infrared thermography, and eddy currents to see if gilding could be detected non-destructively.  The pigments of the paints can interfere with the ability to image so Angela chose historic lead white paint,  calcimite paint, and modern ‘Latex Paint’ along with burnt sienna, chromium oxide, yellow ochre, and Prussian blue [PHOTO ] on prepared wood panels [PHOTO].  For equipment Angela used a modified Kinamax nightvision webcam, modified Nikon Coolpix IR Camera, and Indigo Systems INGaAs NIR camera to test the Infrared Reflectography, as well asFLIR ThermaCAM P640 and FLIR Inframetrics InfraCAM to test the Infrared Themography [PHOTO].

 

Several years ago I had to attend a conference on IR imaging in an attempt to find the most practical model for my lab, so I empathized with the literature and technical data that Angela must have had to sieve through in order to find an appropriate model for her imaging.  Her results were much like I experienced, there is no ‘best’ suited for a conservator’s needs.  As Angela stated there were drawbacks to all systems, either in their range of wavelengths, ease of software use, or the quality of the image produced.   She did not find success with Thermography, mostly because of the inefficiency of heating a large space evenly to get the image.  Reflectography was more promising with the best results achieved with the Indigo INGaAs NIR camera, though its use is not necessarily practical based on cost.  The most practical model appeared to be the Kinamax model, an affordable, easily used modified web camera, the result of collaborative research from Elizabeth Nunan and Greg Smith at Buffalo State College.  For more information and purchasing of your own model go to Elizabeth’s website:  http://www.aandnartconservation.com/infraredsensitivewebcam.html

.

39th Annual Meeting, ASG Morning Session, June 2nd, Student Papers “A Technical Study and Conservation Proposal for the Glass Mosaic Decoration of Villa Caparra in Guaynabo, Puerto Rico” by Yaritza Hernandez Nieves, University of Pennsylvania

I had never heard of the Villa Caparra before Yaritza’s talk.  Yet, after her presentation I was left with the urge to take a summer vacation to Puerto Rico to see this beautiful example of cement embedded glass mosaics; both for their personal design elements, and their intriguing conservation issues.  Yaritza presented her thesis from the University of Pennsylvania in which she ambitiously investigated the materials, fabrication, installation, and conservation issues associated with this 20th century architect’s designed home and studio.  What was once a showcase home, had become the victim of urban encroachment and overall neglect.  With a new interest by Puerto Rico in making this location a historic museum, Yaritza’s research and documentation will certainly ensure conservation intervention will be a success.

 

All of the mosaics were comprised of glass tesserae laid in a reinforced concrete substrate, which at the 1927 construction was a considered a modern material and new technique.   Yaritza surveyed the mosaics, classifying 3 types of flat glass used, their mosaic techniques, the location within the building’s structure, and the conditions of the glass in these areas.  As an objects conservator the amount of information from this survey seemed overwhelming at first, but Yaritza quantified her data with mapping software then combined XRF/SEM analysis to determine what the conservation problems [PHOTO] were, and her recommended for treatment.

 

The main damage was from the Portland cement substrate, whose caustic components were solubilizing the silica components of the glass.  This problem was only exacerbated by compression cracking and losses of the tesserae, which provided addition inlets and outlet s for water infiltration and evaporation. The movement of water resulted in the movement of the caustic cement components and ultimately the deterioration of the vitreous  glass.  Yaritza concluded by giving a few initial recommendations of conservation treatment [PHOTO] as well as avenues for additional research. This was a really a well researched paper that presented a wealth of research in a very limited talk time.  Well done Yaritza!  See you all in Puerto Rico soon!

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.


AIC’s 39th Annual Meeting – ASG Session, June 3, “Conserving a Space for Commemoration: Trinity Cathedral Burial Ground Renewal” by Teresa Duff, Post-Graduate Fellow, University of Pennsylvania’s Graduate Program in Historic Preservation

Teresa Duff presented the conclusion of a twenty-year, three-phased conservation project by the University of Pennsylvania Graduate Program in Historic Preservation at the Trinity Burial Ground in Pittsburgh, PA.  The first phase, begun in 1990, entailed a condition survey and pilot testing program for the conservation of grave markers in the cemetery.  In 2000, students from the University of Pennsylvania performed the second phase of testing, and in 2007-2008, Duff and her colleagues began Phase 3, which was in conjunction with a landscape renewal by Andropogon.

Duff explained that the site was a Native American burial ground that was adopted by white settlers in 1779.  In 1822 the first church was erected on the site, and the current Trinity Cathedral was constructed in 1872.  The grounds contain 155 stones along with burial-marker fragments.  Duff and her colleagues mapped the site and numbered each plot, and created color-coded layers for conditions, treatments and the history of markers.  They built a site-specific treatment platform for the on-site conservation of markers, and completed the conservation treatments begun in 2000.  Treatments included cleaning and removal of biological growth, epoxy repairs for blind delamination and cracks, pinning with fiberglass pins, carbon fiber strap reinforcement on the back of some markers, excavation and resetting of partially buried or at-risk markers, and the burial of markers who had lost their material integrity.  Fragments were displayed on the exterior walls of the church.

The author provided detailed information about treatments and products, but I would have liked to have learned more about the history of the site, the types of stones and carving represented in the burial ground, and the rationale behind some of the treatments.  There were many questions following the talk about the landscape renewal by Andropogon, particularly the native grass they selected which does not need to be mowed.  It was a well-organized presentation with good visuals and detailed information.

 

39th Annual Meeting – General Session, June 1, “Conservation in the Twenty-First Century: Will a Twentieth Century Code of Ethics Suffice?” By Barbara Applebaum

Barbara Applebaum has always been known as a thinker who asks intriguing questions.  She is the author of the book “Conservation Treatment Methodology” published in 2007.  She serves up some of the same complex questions in the opening presentation of the 39th annual AIC meeting.  Applebaum demands that we think about the hard questions.  In this presentation, she examines the AIC code of ethics and guiding documents that define our profession both internally and to the outside world.

The AIC documents are made up of three levels of guidance.  The AIC Code of Ethics is aspirational in nature.  The guidelines for practice offer us the specifications of expected practice. The commentaries of the guidelines serve as section by section discussions on the minimum and optimum best practices. It is easiest to make changes to the commentaries.  For the most part they define things that we all learned growing up.  They guard against things like lying, cheating, and stealing.  Applebaum suggests that conservation professionals should read through the documents on a regular schedule.

Applebaum feels that the AIC guiding documents are as valid today as when they were first drafted.  She likens them to the “ten commandments,” and feels that they regulate the conservation practice accordingly.  Then she moves on to some of the most interesting questions of the presentation.  Does the detail focused nature of work with cultural heritage attract the personality that nitpicks and over analyzes the tasks at hand?  Are we a people searching for imperfections in the AIC Code?  Have we spent a decade looking inward at the issue of certification to the detriment of the profession?

We must fight the tide of negativity and take our place the outside world, Applebaum reminds us.  We must realistically evaluate all that is going on around us and understand the needs of the museum, private collectors and the public.  While the AIC guiding documents were drafted at a time when the profession was mostly institutionally focused, we increasingly work in private practice.  Our colleagues are diverse, working on heritage from ethnographic objects, architecture, archives and libraries among others in addition to works of art.

We must recognize that our work sometimes moves from the care of cultural property belonging to the whole human race to the intimate objects and personal property that never rises to the level of cultural heritage.  These items are things like a child’s drawing, a clay ashtray, etc. The usefulness of the AIC code of ethics on personal items is small.  Still, thorough professional training is required to practice conservation in an ethical manner on all objects.

Applebaum reminds us that we must educate others on the good we can do for people, with an emphasis on the added value we provide.  In our work, we must remember the conservation is as much about the people we help as it is about the chemistry and material of the object.

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.