Collections label kit for small museums

This is the kit I made for a workshop at the Museums Alaska conference in Valdez, September 2011.  The kit is designed for small museums with wide-ranging collections with everything from natural history specimens to fine art, where limited staff must wear many hats.  I made 24 kits, since many things can be ordered in a case of 12, and each kit cost about $50.  The workshop was funded through a grant from the Alaska State Council on the Arts.  The kit includes a manual, which can be found at the posting Collections Labeling: Material by Material. Other adhesive choices can be found on the posting Collections Labeling: Alternate Adhesive Testing.

 CONTENTS:

Acetone in dropper bottle (I got the bottle and acetone from Fisher Scientific)

• Used for removing B-72.
• Reagent Grade.
• Hardware store acetone has petroleum distillates, other impurities.  Will work, but may make paper translucent and hard-to-read on dark materials. Could behave unpredictably with B-72.
• Acetone is main ingredient in nail polish remover.  Fumes may be irritating.
• Flammable.

Cotton swabs (Local grocery store)

• Simple Q-tips.
• Think twice about rubbing solvent on the surface of your artifact.

Funnel, mini (I bought these on the internet from Amazon.com)

• For transfer of adhesive into smaller brush bottle, like polish bottle.
• When B-72 dries on tools or jars, it can be soaked in water overnight, and then peeled off.

Needles, assorted (Local fabric store)

• Sharps are good for piercing Tyvek label, but could stab through fibers.
• Blunts or ball points are good for getting in between the weave gently.
• Cheaper needles often have poorer quality “eyes”.

Paraloid B-72 adhesive  (I ordered pre-mixed for labeling from Talas)

• Use to apply the paper label.
• Synthetic acrylic resin: 70% ethyl methacrylate 30% methyl acrylate copolymer.
• Works best no thicker than maple syrup most of the time.  Even thinner is often fine.
• If you want to mix B-72 yourself, Howard Wellman describes how on the SHA website.
• Soluble in acetone, but does not go into ethanol easily.  Ethanol sometimes added to slow drying time.
• If it bubbles, try adding more acetone to your jar of adhesive.
• If the top coat smears the writing, try loading brush well and applying in single thick stroke.
• If it still smears, could try artist acrylic gloss medium as a top coat, applied smaller than barrier coat.
• B-67 is similar to B-72 but in mineral spirits instead of acetone. This is sometimes used a top coat.
• Aquazol is sometimes used to coat or size the label paper first, making the ink less likely to smear.
• B-72 is thermoplastic, so if the lid sticks, running under hot water or using a hairdryer can help get it unstuck.

Pen, Zig Millenium  (I ordered online from MarkerSupply.com)

• Use this pen for writing on tags and Tyvek.
• “Permanent” boasted by many pens often just means waterproof, not lightfast or non-bleeding.
• Dye-based inks often smear.
• Carbon black ink is lightfast: India ink or rapidograph ink.
• Quill pens take practice, can be gloppy, sharp, and may scratch.
• Technical pens are fussy (clog, need cleaning fluid, delicate tip, may scratch).
• IdentiPen also recommended for writing on plastic bags.
• Helen Alten has a good article about testing pens for artifact labeling.

#2 Pencil  (Local office supply store)

• HB pencils are also OK.
• Wonderfully reversible on many surfaces, especially paper, if you don’t press too hard.

Photo Pencil  (I ordered from Hollinger Metal Edge)

• Use these for marking the back of photos printed on plastic.
• If you have a plastic photo, the right balance of sharp/dull regular #2 pencil may work if the plastic isn’t greasy from fingerprints or plasticizers.

Polish bottle with brush lid for B-72  (I ordered online from Amazon.com)

• Nail polish is no good…yellows, cracks, peels, ages poorly, crosslinks.  Remember, how long is it meant to last on your fingernails?
• Correction fluid or Wite Out is also not OK, it peels off too easily, ages poorly, proprietary mix varies widely.
• Nice to buy B-72 already made, but the wide lid container causes it to dry out too fast.
• Use mini-funnel to transfer from bigger container into polish bottle.  Also, if one jar dries out you have a back-up.
• When applying, think of a sandwich made by two layers of B-72 with label in the middle.

Small scissors  (I got these from Fisher Scientific, but McMaster Carr also has them at a good price.)

• Cut your labels into fringe for ease of handling multiple small numbers.
• Rounding the corners makes labels less likely to snag and pop off.
• Sewing scissors work well for this use, too.

Small paper tags  (I ordered these from Amazon.com)

• Don’t use colored string.  Sometimes it runs or bleeds.  Replace with white string.
• Avoid tags with wire, wire edges, or metal grommets around holes…risks of scratching and rust stains.
• If your budget permits, you might want to upgrade to artifact tags from archival supply companies.  However, these are about 13 cents each as opposed to 1 cent each for the Avery brand office-supply variety, which test slightly more alkaline (pH 7-8) than the expensive ones (pH 6-7).  Both come with white cotton string.

Thin labeling paper  (I ordered from Hollinger Metal Edge, sold as “Photo-tex”)

• Interleaving tissue is nice.
• As thin as will go through your printer or photocopier.  Might need to experiment with feed.
• Write the method that will work on your equipment on the cover of the folder you keep paper in.
• Some Japanese tissues may be too thin to print, or may get translucent with adhesive.
• Snipping your list of numbers into fringe helps keep track of tiny labels.
• Manipulation by curling over the fingernail to conform to curves or folding lengthwise for long items.

Thread, white cotton  (Local fabric store)

• Rule of thumb, tie material should be softer than the object, so abrasion will damage the tie and not the artifact.
• Cotton is non-abrasive.  Polyester is a little bit abrasive.
• Don’t use with beads that have glass disease, it may help wick moisture inside.
• “Glide” or other brands of Teflon dental floss OK. Plumber’s Teflon tape is OK.
• Regular dental floss not so good.  Usually made of nylon and ages poorly, becoming brittle and breaking.
• Plastic zip ties usually too rough, and are also usually nylon and degrade, get brittle, break.
• PVC plastic degrades and releases acids.

Tweezers  (I ordered them from McMaster Carr)

• Pointy ones are helpful for manipulating paper labels.

Tyvek, for labeling textiles  (Local office supply store)

• Tyvek is spun-bonded from olefin fibers, an inert plastic.
• Mailing envelopes and home wrap are usually Tyvek and it is OK to use the non-printed, bare areas.
• Needle punch “soft” Tyvek and smooth “hard” Tyvek both OK.
• Alternatives: twill tape, Reemay.  Twill tape sometimes hard to write on without ink bleeding.

White vinyl eraser   (Local art supply store)

• For removing pencil marks.
• Can be helpful for removing tape residues from price tags or stickers as well.

REFERENCES

Alten, Helen “Numbering Museum Collections: Labeling Ethnographic Objects.”  ICOM Ethnographic Conservation Newsletter Number 17, April 1988 pp.18-21.

http://www.collectioncare.org/cci/ccin.html

Braun, Thomas J. “An Alternative Technique for Applying Accession Numbers to Museum Artifacts.” Journal of the American Institute for Conservation Vol 46. Summer 2007. Pp 91-104.

http://www.mnhs.org/preserve/conservation/docs_pdfs/ApplyAccessionnos.pdf

Buck, Rebecca A. and Jean Allman Gilmore.  MRM5 Museum Registration Methods 5^th Edition.  AAM Press. American Association of Museums. Washington DC.  2010

 Davidson, Amy, Samantha Alderson and Marilyn Fox. “Assembling an Archival Marking Kit for Paleontological Specimens.” 2006 (and more too!)

http://collections.paleo.amnh.org/34/labeling

 Wellman, Howard “Mixing Resin Solutions.” Society for Historical Archaeology website 2006.

http://www.sha.org/research_resources/conservation_faqs/documents/MixResin.pdf

Here's a labeling challenge: a box of muskox fur!

The back cover of the manual includes these questions to help determine the best labeling technique:

1. Will applying this label cause damage such as new holes or dissolving the surface?

2. Will future removal of this label cause damage?

3. Will the labeling materials run, fade, abrade, corrode or age in a way that will damage the artifact?

4. Is the label readable?

5. Is it easy to find the label without having to handle the object a lot?

6. Is it easy to hide the label during exhibition or photography?  Is the label ugly?

7. What will happen if the label gets wet?

8. Is the label likely to come off with normal handling, running, or abrasion?

9. Is there a compelling and urgent reason to remove any existing labels that may be important to the history of the item? 

ANTLER, BONE, IVORY, TOOTH

• Beware, sometimes synthetic materials are made to look like this.  See “PLASTIC”
• Locate a smooth area that is not flaking, powdery or decorated.
• Choose a location that will not show during exhibit or photography.
• Apply base coat of B-72, paper label, top coat.
• Use paper tag, labeled bag/ box as redundancy and to reduce handling.

BALEEN, CLAW, HOOF, HORN

• Beware, sometimes synthetic materials are made to look like this.  See “PLASTIC”
• Locate a smooth area that is not flaking, powdery or decorated.
• Choose a location that will not show during exhibit or photography.
• Apply base coat of B-72, paper label, top coat.
• Use paper tag, labeled bag/ box as redundancy and to reduce handling.

Sometimes the tag is the redundant label on a basket, sometimes it is the only label.

BASKETRY

• Typically, the underside of a basket is labeled and the inside of the lid, if present.
• Choose a location that will not show during exhibit or photography.
• For baskets with very large elements, like cedar bark mats or bark containers, apply base coat of B-72, paper label, top coat.
• For baskets with a finer weave structure, do not use adhesive but instead a small hanging tag sewn in between the weave with a needle that may pass through easily.
• Use labeled bag/ box as redundancy and to reduce handling.

Redundant label on the folder means less handling for the item itself.

BOOKS and PAPER

• Inside cover and reverse of title page are the common places to mark a book. Writing on the top outer corner means the book doesn’t have to be opened all the way.
• Number is usually applied to the back upper right corner of a sheet of paper such as a document or a print/drawing/ watercolor.
• Choose a location that will not show during exhibit or photography.
• Avoid labeling in an area that already has information written there (price, owner’s name, signature, etc.)
• Apply number with a #2 or HB pencil, taking care not to press hard enough to make indentations. Write on a firm surface.
• Use a labeled bag/ folder/ box as redundancy and to reduce handling. Insert an acid-free paper bookmark with number in pencil at the top to fragile books.

CERAMIC

• Typically, the underside of a ceramic is labeled unless it is unusually large or heavy, and then a place is chosen low on the “back” side.
• Locate a smooth area that is not flaking, powdery, painted or decorated. The smooth, hard, shiny exterior of some pottery, called glaze, is made of glass and can be labeled.
• Beware painted surfaces and do not mark or adhere onto them.  Do not mark break edges of sherds.
• Choose a location that will not show during exhibit or photography. Do not obscure maker’s marks on base.
• Apply base coat of B-72, paper label, top coat.
• Use paper tag, labeled bag/ box as redundancy and to reduce handling.

It is possible to safely label leather and gut, but I consider it a more advanced skill set and generally recommend a paper tag.

FEATHER, FUR, GUTSKIN, LEATHER

• Feathers of significant size may be labeled on the quill with a small font paper label.
•  Most feather and skin artifacts have delicate surfaces and the removal of an adhesive label will leave a stain.
•  Many feather and skin artifacts are connected to composite objects with other parts that may be labeled instead.
• Some feather and skin items are sewn and a Tyvek label sewn through original stitch holes with white cotton thread may work, using the technique recommended for garments and textiles.
• Stitch each end of the label so minimal snips are needed for removal.
• No new holes shall be made. If no technique above will work, use a paper tag or label the enclosure.
• Taxidermy is typically labeled with a tag around the leg, and also the mount support if present.

I like the collections management solutions offered by labeling a coin holder used for glass beads.

GLASS

• Typically, the underside of a glass vessel is labeled.
• Large beads may be labeled with a tag on a string.
• Locate a smooth area that is not flaking, powdery or decorated. Do not mark glass that suffers from glass disease (weeping, crizzling, etc).
• Choose a location that will not show during exhibit or photography. Small font size on paper label helps.
• Apply base coat of B-72, paper label, top coat.
• Use paper tag, labeled bag/ box as redundancy and to reduce handling.

I think B-72 loves metal more than any other material.

METAL

• Typically, the underside of a metal item is labeled. If the metal item is very heavy, the “back” may be labeled instead.
• Locate a smooth area that is not flaking, powdery, rusty, decorated, or coated. Musical instruments are often coated, for example.
• Coins are usually not labeled directly. Edges may be labeled if large enough.
• Choose a location that will not show during exhibit or photography. Small font size on paper label helps for smaller objects.
• Apply base coat of B-72, paper label, top coat. Avoid artist acrylics and adhesives containing ammonia with copper or alloys with copper such as sterling silver.
• Use paper tag, labeled bag/ box as redundancy and to reduce handling.
•  Jewelry may be especially difficult to label, even with tiny font size. Redundant tags are helpful.

Did I mention I love redundant tags to minimize handling?

PAINTINGS

• The back upper right hand corner of a painting is a good place for the number.  Large paintings may be marked on diagonal corners.
• Artworks are sometimes removed from frames, so the back of the painting support is the best location for marking. Select a section of the wooden stretcher or strainer, plain wood if available.
• Avoid touching the back of the canvas corresponding to the painted area. Label the rigid edges or backing board if the support is not visible.
• Apply base coat of B-72, paper label, top coat.
• In addition, use a paper tag attached to the screw eye, D-ring or other hanging hardware. This allows a painting to be identified without excessive handling.
• Collector and exhibition labeling/ marking on paintings has a long and important tradition.  Avoid removing old labels from the backs of paintings.

PHOTOS

• Number is usually applied to the back upper right hand corner, in a non-image area along the edge.
• For paper, apply number with a #2 or HB pencil, taking care not to press hard enough to make indentations. Write on a firm surface.
• For photos made of plastic, use the blue photo pencil.
• Sometimes, the right amount of dullness on a graphite pencil will also work on plastic but care must be taken not to scratch the plastic.  If the plastic has oily fingerprints, plasticizers, or coatings, pencil will not work well.
• Use a labeled enclosure such as a bag or folder as redundancy and to reduce handling.

Acetone damaged all these plastics. Water-based labels often peel off too easily. I prefer tags for plastics.

PLASTIC

• Many kinds of plastic are vulnerable to the solvent acetone used in B-72 labeling adhesive, so this adhesive should not be used.  Some older plastics are sensitive to water-based adhesives.
• It can be difficult to identify specific plastics.  Rubber, vinyl, plastics, and synthetic materials should be marked with great caution as removal can cause damage.
• Adhered labels often pop off of flexible plastics.
• Many plastic items are connected to composite objects with other parts that may be labeled instead.
• For a completely plastic object, the most conservative recommendation is to only use a paper tag with a labeled bag/ box as redundancy.  Enclosures also reduce handling, and many plastics age poorly so the less handling the better.
• Some museums use water-based acrylic adhesive labels, or B-67 in petroleum distillates, but removal of these labels is not risk-free.

This Melvin Olanna marble sculpture (ASM 2000-6-2) is heavy! Don't put the label underneath, or you risk damaging the artwork or yourself looking for it.

STONE

• Typically, the underside of a stone item is labeled. If the stone item is very heavy, the “back” may be labeled instead.
• Locate a smooth area that is not flaking, powdery or decorated. Porous or rough surfaces are difficult to label. Avoid use edges of stone tools.
• Choose a location that will not show during exhibit or photography.
• Apply base coat of B-72, paper label, top coat.
• Use paper tag, labeled bag/ box as redundancy and to reduce handling.

Blank Tyvek tag showing loops at the ends that are easy to snip for removal.

These are labeled at the inner back of the collar, but a redundant tag on the hangar reduces handling.

For rolled textiles, redundant tags are really needed.

TEXTILES and GARMENTS

• For textiles robust enough and large enough to hold a label, a sewn technique with Tyvek and white cotton thread is recommended.
• Garments are typically labeled where a manufacturer’s label might be found, such as at the back of a neck or the waistband.  Labeling diagonal corners is helpful for large rolled textiles.
• Choose a location that can be hidden during exhibit or photography.
• Cut a piece of Tyvek, write the number by hand with a Zig Millenium fade-proof and waterproof pen in the center, leaving room for stitches at each end.
• Use seams and original stitch holes whenever possible. Second best is to pass the needle between the weave without piercing the yarns.
• Stitch the label with a loop through two holes at each end so minimal snips are needed for removal.  Sharp needles work well to pierce Tyvek, while ballpoint needles are less likely to damage the textile fibers.

Each rattle also has its number written in pencil on the pallet that holds it.Redundant paper tags in each dish reduce handling and facilitate locating an item.

WOOD

• Wood items are often painted, varnished or otherwise coated.  Avoid applying a label to those areas and seek out an inner, underside, or back surface that is bare wood.
• Locate a smooth area that is not rough, splintery, or decorated.
• Choose a location that will not show during exhibit or photography.
• Apply base coat of B-72, paper label, top coat.
• #2 or HB pencil may also be used on wood if the number can be applied without denting the wood and if it may be removed again with an eraser. Pencil, however, tends to be harder to read.
• Use paper tag, labeled bag/ box as redundancy and to reduce handling.

1. INTRODUCTION:

B-72 is the adhesive conservators recommend for museum labeling of archaeological artifacts.  Postings on labeling basics and suggestions for assembling a labeling kit are also posted on this weblog.  Properly done, the B-72 technique is legible, durable, reversible, and chemically stable.  However, the handling properties of the B-72 technique cause frustration, including unpredictable bubbling and the sensitivity of many inks to solvents in the adhesive.  There is great temptation to utilize other adhesives in pursuit of better handling properties, ease of application, and local availability.  As a follow-up to discussions at the 2010 Alaska Anthropological Association seminar on Collections Curation, several conservators independently tested several popular adhesive alternatives on bone, wood, metal, stone and unglazed ceramic to assess their performance.  Here are our observations, with some notes on our methodology if others want to test more adhesives.  Gallery of images at the end, you can click to enlarge.

2. SUMMARY:

Water-based adhesives had better handling properties for application.  These included ease of cleanup, single-step application, little odor or fumes, and the ability for the water component of the adhesive to penetrate the paper structure and cause it to drape and conform to uneven surfaces easily.  The thicker water-based acrylics and gels (those that were white and thick) also had the advantage of self-positioning easily.  The labels stayed where they were placed and did not move readily when brushed with a topcoat.  The thinner water-based adhesives tended to pool themselves up (from the water tension) when used on metal samples.  Among water-based adhesives, Golden Acrylic Gel had the best application properties of any adhesives tested.  However, many of these properties that are nice for the short-term convenience of the person applying the labels come at a long-term trade off for the best interests of the artifact.  Some corrode metal, some come off easily in moist conditions, and some are hard to remove without damage to the artifact.

Solvent-based adhesives tend to be more difficult to apply.  Disadvantages to the person applying the label include stickiness, more complicated cleanup, possibility of smearing inks or bubbling, disagreeable odor or fumes, poorer ability of the paper label to conform to uneven surfaces, and tendency to slip around when placed and brushed with a topcoat.  Application with adhesive of higher concentration gave a better result in conforming to uneven surfaces and corners staying down, but has sometimes been reported to be associated with bubbling.  Using a different topcoat with a B-72 barrier layer made the labeling process take longer, required more elaborate cleanup, and petroleum-distillate based topcoats were sticky, smelly, drippy and took a long time to dry.  However, the solvent-based adhesives tended to be better for survival of the label and removability without damaging the artifact.  To put it bluntly, the trade-off is: ease of application for the human comes at the cost of optimum preservation of the label and artifact.

3. RESULTS

PARALOID B-72 (ACRYLOID B-72)

B72 (marketed as Acryloid or Paraloid B-72) is a solvent-based acrylic resin.  It was tested in both reagent grade acetone and hardware store acetone.

PROS

• Good aging properties, does not yellow
• Pure formulation
• Good durability in flood or high RH
• Minimal staining after removal
• Readily reversible with solvent
• Hardware store acetone less likely to smear inks (likely due to impurities)
• Reasonably neutral pH around 5-7
• Paper label alone remains slightly flexible, adhesive film cracks a bit

CONS

• Not locally available
• Solvent fumes
• Flammable
• Can be sticky, stringy, require practice to apply
• Acetone can evaporate too quickly to fully manipulate label
• May bubble unpredictably, with no obvious fix that always works
• Hardware store acetone results in mottled look
• Harder to apply on bumpy surfaces than water-based adhesives
• Label does not always self-position well
• Corners of label sometimes lifted, risk for snagging
• Poorer adhesion to wood than other substrates
• Can cause some inks to smear
• Cleanup is not as easy as water-based adhesives

B-72 with Soluvar or Regalrez top coat

Because B-72 is such a desirable barrier layer, alternate topcoats were explored to solve the smearing problem.  Soluvar is made of acrylic resins B67 and F10 in petroleum distillates, used as a picture varnish.  Regalrez is similar, but made of low molecular weight resins in petroleum distillate.  While solving the smear issue, the alternate topcoats caused other frustrations.

PROS:

• Good aging in general
• Pure formulation
• Good durability in flood or high RH
• Minimal staining
• Readily reversible with solvent
• Does not make ink smear the way acetone-based B-72 can.
• Does not bubble
• Reasonably neutral pH around 5-7
• Paper label alone remains slightly flexible, adhesive film cracks a bit

CONS:

• Not locally available
• Soluvar sometimes leaves drips on surface of artifact after applied
• Lingering paint-thinner type odor
• Flammable
• Top coat makes paper translucent or mottled, hard to read on dark surfaces
• 2 step application: B-72, dry, then topcoat
• Soluvar / Regalrez stay sticky for more than 24 hours
• Soluvar yellowed a bit during artificial aging
• Corners of label tend to stick up, risk snagging
• Stickiness of topcoat annoying
• Cleanup is not as easy as water-based adhesives

At the Cleveland Art Museum, conservator Sam Springer reports that printed labels are first given a coating of Aquazol to prevent the ink from smearing.

At the Alutiiq Museum in Kodiak, Alaska, registrar Marnie Leist reports they use B-72 as a barrier layer and art store acrylic as the topcoat.

ART STORE ACRYLICS

Water-based acrylic media including Daniel Smith Acrylic, Golden Fluid Matte Medium, Golden Gel, Golden Self-Leveling Gel, Liquitex Gloss Medium, Liquitex Matte Medium were tested as examples of art store acrylics.  Golden Gel is used by several museums in Alaska.

PROS

• Easy application and cleanup
• Locally available
• Does not bead up as much as Acrysol WS-24 or Aquazol
• Tacky, so label stays put when topcoat added
• Good on bumpy surfaces
• Does not smear inks
• Does not bubble
• Paper label alone remains flexible

CONS

• High pH (alkaline) Measured from 8 – 10 in our tests
• Most contain ammonia
• All can corrode metals, especially copper and Cu alloys (tuned adhesive green)
• Proprietary (impure formulations, can change anytime)
• Yellows with age
• Removal by swelling with solvents, then rubbing off
• Removal can cause surface loss, since it doesn’t dissolve but swells
• In flood/ high RH tended to become gummy and white, sometimes peeled off

RHOPLEX

Because water-based adhesives are more user-friendly than the solvent-based adhesives, conservation-grade water-based acrylic adhesive Rhoplex (also marketed as Primal) 33 or its replacement B-60-A was tested as an alternative to B-72 and art store acrylics.  Rhoplex is often used as a stone and plaster consolidant. Note that WS-24 is a different product.

PROS

• Easy application and cleanup
• Good on bumpy surfaces
• Good aging
• Pure formulation
• Good durability in flood or high RH
• Does not smear inks
• Does not bubble
• Paper label alone remains flexible

CONS

• Not locally available
• Cannot ship in freezing weather (product will be ruined)
• High pH (very alkaline) Measured around 9-12 in our tests
• Can corrode metal, adhesive turned yellow-green on aging.
• Can yellow with age, saw some pink tinting around ink
• Difficult to remove

ACRYSOL WS-24

Because water-based adhesives are more user-friendly than the solvent-based adhesives, conservation-grade water-based acrylic adhesive Acrysol WS-24 was tested as an alternative to B-72 and art store acrylics.  It is sometimes used as a consolidant for waterlogged archaeological bone.  Note that it is also sometimes sold as Rhoplex  or Primal WS-24.

PROS

• Easy application and cleanup
• Good on bumpy surfaces
• Good aging
• Pure formulation
• Does not smear inks
• Does not bubble
• Reasonably neutral pH around 6-7

CONS

• Not locally available
• Can corrode metal (turned green-brown in aging test)
• Can be watery when applied and label slips around
• Yellows with age (more than other adhesive we artifically aged)
• Weaker bond with age
• Difficult to remove from porous surfaces
• Paper label alone is brittle, cracks and shatters easily when flexed

AQUAZOL

Because water-based adhesives are more user-friendly than the solvent-based adhesives, conservation-grade Aquazol (a non-acrylic water based plastic) was tested as an alternative to B-72 and art store acrylics.  It is soluble in either water or alcohol.  It is commonly used as a paintings consolidant.

PROS

• Easy cleanup
• Good on bumpy surfaces
• Good aging
• Pure formulation
• Does not smear inks
• Does not bubble
• Reasonably neutral pH around 5-7
• Paper label alone remains flexible

CONS

• Not locally available
• Falls off readily in flood test
• Messy and sticky to handle
• Gets sticky or falls off in high RH (80%)
• Corroded metal in some tests (adhesive turned green)
• Can be watery when applied and label slips around

AYAF

AYAF is marketed pre-mixed as “PVA Marking Varnish” by MuseuM Services Corporation.  AYAF is a solvent-based polyvinyl acetate (PVA) resin equivalent to the European products Mowilith 50 and Vinylite A.  It is most often used as a consolidant for various materials.

PROS

• Pure formulation
• Reasonable aging properties (not as ideal as B-72)
• Does not smear inks
• Does not bubble
• Easer to apply than B-72, but with many of its benefits
• pH 5.5 still in the OK range
• Paper label alone slightly flexible, does not crack

CONS

• Not locally available
• Not as easy to apply and cleanup as water-based adhesives
• Harder to apply on bumpy surfaces
• Solvent fumes
• Peels off easily in flood test

NAIL POLISH

Fingernail polish is still occasionally seen in obsolete museum practices.  It was tested here with expectation for poor performance to gauge other adhesives against a “known negative.”  I tested Sally Hansen “Hard as Nails”

PROS

• Locally available
• Easy application and cleanup
• Does not bubble

CONS

• Proprietary (impure formulations, can change anytime)
• Yellows with age
• Acidic pH of 2-3
• Strong odor
• Smears ink
• Corners of label tend to stick up, risk snagging
• Paper label cracks, tears when flexed

4. METHODOLOGY

ELLEN CARRLEE (Conservator, Alaska State Museum)

Substrates:

1. Metal: Penny coins dating after the year 2000, fresh from normal use without pre-cleaning.
2. Stone: Dark gray slate from a museum diorama.
3. Ceramic: Plain terracotta flowerpot, had been in outdoor use one summer.
4. Bone: Mammal, mainly beach finds.
5. Tooth: Mammal, from the museum educational collection.
6. Wood: Plain popsicle sticks from craft store.

Adhesives:

B-72 in reagent grade acetone

B-72 in hardware store acetone

B-72 in reagent grade acetone with Soluvar topcoat

B-72 in reagent grade acetone with Regalrez topcoat

“PVA Marking Varnish” (AYAF in alcohol)

Aquazol 500 in ethanol

Daniel Smith Acrylic Medium (at least 10 years old, in the lab supplies)

Rhoplex B-60-A

Acrysol WS-24

Golden Self Leveling Gel

Golden Gel

Sally Hansen “Hard As Nails” nail polish

Abuse:

The tests involved submersion in a vat of water over a weekend (to simulate a flood incident), sealing in a bag at 80%RH for 24 hours, aggressively shake samples of each substrate together in a ziplock bag, aggressive abrasion with a dry toothbrush, and heating in an oven.  pH tested by adding a drop pHydrion pencil in solution to the wet adhesive Insta-check pencil “lead” dissolved in boiled, distilled water (see Odegaard, Carroll, Zimmt 2000).  Strip of pure copper painted with adhesives as a separate test for copper corrosion.  Tested paper label dipped in adhesive alone for durability.

Removal:

Removal techniques tested were dry scalpel removal (also called “mechanical” removal), water on a cotton swab, and acetone on a cotton swab.

ANNA WEISS (conservation graduate student, Queen’s University)

Substrates:

1. Metal: pennies
2. Stone: dark, fine grained stones from Lake Ontario beach
3. Ceramic: terra cotta flowerpot (new)
4. Bone: study samples from local archaeology group
5. Wood: blocks of pine lumber

Adhesives:

B-72 in reagent grade acetone

B-72 in hardware store acetone

B-72 in hardware store acetone with Soluvar topcoat

Aquazol 500 in water

Rhoplex 33 (aka Primal)

Aquazol WS-24

Liquitex Acrylic Gloss Medium and Varnish

Liquitex Matte Medium

Abuse:

The tests involved submersion in a vat of water for two hours (to simulate a flood incident), sealing in a bag at 80%RH for 72 hours, aggressively shake samples of each substrate together in a ziplock bag, aggressive abrasion with a dry toothbrush, accelerated aging in over for 4 days to simulate 12 years, pH testing with pH strips using dried label mashed in water.

Removal:

Solvent removal with cotton swab, poultice or solvent gel, mechanical removal with scalpel, bamboo stick or dental tool.

SAMANTHA SPRINGER (Assistant Conservator of Objects, Cleveland Museum of Art)

Substrates:

1. Metal: brass sheet
2. Stone: smooth fine grained stones from museum campus
3. Ceramic: terra cotta flowerpot (new)
4. Glass: pyrex glassware
5. Wood: pine 2 x 4 scrap wood

Adhesives:

B-72 in reagent grade acetone using Aquazol-coated label

Golden Polymer Medium Gloss

Aquazol 500 in water with B-72 topcoat

Rhoplex WS-24 Acrylic Dispersion (sprayed, reactivated with isopropanol)

B-67 in reagent grade Naptha (petroleum distillate)

B-67 in reagent grade Naptha using Aquazol-coated label

B-67 in acetone using Aquazol-coated label.

For some tests, the “Aquazol-coated label” was first spray-coated with two coats of 12% Aquazol 200 in reagent grade ethanol and allowed to dry.  This is to prevent smearing of the ink.

Abuse:

The tests involved submersion in a vat of water for two hours (to simulate a flood incident), sealing in a bag at 80%RH for 72 hours, aggressively shake samples of each substrate together in a ziplock bag, aggressive abrasion with a dry toothbrush, accelerated aging in over for 4 days to simulate 12 years

Removal:

Solvent removal with cotton swab, poultice or solvent gel, mechanical removal with scalpel, bamboo stick or dental tool.

5. THANK YOU!

Big thanks to our Alaskan museum colleagues and to the folks who discussed this with us on the American Institute for Conservation Objects Specialty listserve.  Apologies if I miss your name, but here’s my best shot: Helen Alten, Barbara Applebaum, Victoria Book, Scott Carrlee, Chris del Re, Dave Harvey, Katie Holbrow, Rick Kerschner, Steve Koob, Marnie Leist, Susan Lansing Maish, Katie Myers, Teresa Myers, Steven Pickman, Dennis Piechota, Monty Rogers, Linda Roundhill, Patrick Saltonstall, Monica Shah, Tony Sigel, Julie Unruh, and Jim Whitney.

Questions? Ideas? Feedback?  Ellen.Carrlee@alaska.gov

Scott Carrlee and Ellen Carrlee test an arctic tern specimen for arsenic at the Alaska State Museum

The Alaska State Museum has decided to pursue funding to purchase a portable XRF machine.  I’m typically skeptical of technology and reluctant to commit to learning elaborate and expensive techniques I would rarely use.   But in this case, I think YES we should get one.  Here’s a timeline of the decision-making process and what’s made me come around. 

Bruker handheld XRF analyzer

June 24, 2011  Handheld XRF Workshop at the Pratt Museum in Homer.  Dr. Holly Cusack-McVeigh (curator) had been talking with paper conservator Seth Irwin about her concerns loaning out potentially pesticide-contaminated natural history specimens.  Seth knew that some archaeologists in Fairbanks (Jeff Rasic and Josh Reuther) had been using a Bruker XRF for obsidian studies and geological questions. They helped Holly connect with the Bruker scientific rep, Bruce Kaiser.  Bruce was already coming to Alaska to do a training for the Fairbanks archaeologists, and Holly sweet-talked Bruce into an extra training in Homer, with promises of scenic beauty and fish dinner.  The Fairbanks archaeologists attended the Homer training too, and so did Scott Carrlee (Alaska State Museum outreach curator, trained as a conservator) who happened to be doing a survey in Seldovia at that time.  After the training, Bruce Kaiser offered to send the XRF to Alaska on loan.  Smart move, Dr. Kaiser.

July 29, 2011 The XRF arrived at the ASM on loan, where Crista Pack was still doing her summer internship.  As a conservation grad student from the U Delaware/ Winterthur program, Crista had already had some XRF training with Bruce Kaiser.  She was doing a project for the ASM, “What’s That White Stuff?” and helped us kick the tires and take it for a test drive.

Alaska State Museum collection II-A-77 Siberian Yupik pipe from St. Lawrence Island

August 9, 2011  One artifact in particular, a leather tobacco pouch attached to a pipe, brought home to me the utility of the XRF.  I wanted to know if the white crytals on the leather were from lead corrosion that was prevalent on  many of the pipe bowls in the drawer, or perhaps a fatty bloom from a long-ago leather dressing, or maybe arsenic to prevent insect infestation.  What would the XRF say?  It told us we did not have arsenic or lead, but we did have a significant amount of potassium, which made me think about potash in the tobacco mixture the bag would have carried.   This kind of info is really helpful for treatment decisions and handling protocols as well as artifact interpretation, and the XRF was so much faster than the other techniques I know of…without sampling!  I could test for lead with plumtesmo papers, and test for arsenic using potassium hydroxide/ hydrochloric acid/ zinc with mercury bromide test papers…but just those two tests would have taken me more than an hour, and I still would not have known about the potassium.  And really, I probably would not have occasion to spend so much time determining “what’s that white stuff” for this artifact.  But if it is quick like this, there are so many more questions I am able to pursue.

September 2-3, 2011  In addition to analysis like pesticide testing (the arctic tern had arsenic), pigment examination (a mysterious atl atl had mercury in the red pigment, suggesting cinnabar which would be appropriate for an authentic old throwing board), material identification (a woody-looking fiber contained sulfur, suggesting baleen instead of a plant), looking at potential exhibit and storage materials (vulcanized rubber gaskets), and “what’s that white stuff”, we managed to pull off some educational programming. We went on the radio and in the newspaper to promote a “science gun” public program, inviting the public to bring a small metal artifact to the museum for testing.  I cobbled together a cheat sheet of various metal alloys and the mineral content of certain gemstones, and we looked at over 100 artifacts from people in the community, right there in our exhibition gallery.  The conversations were really dynamic and engaging, and we were using the XRF in conjunction with a couple of other techniques, like UV light to see fluorescence of certain gemstones.

Scott describing a silver alloy during the public program.

September 6, 2011 Just before we packed the machine up to send to Monica Shah at the Anchorage Museum, a group of high school students came to the conservation lab for some science-meets-art demos.  We chatted about the periodic table, elements, valence electrons, and the like…then used the XRF on various student bling and discussed the results. 

No, we didn't actually use this event notice. It was a joke from Paul and Jackie in our exhibits department...

September 26, 2011 Several of us attended another training on the way home from the Museums Alaska conference. For Monica Shah (head of collections and conservation at the Anchorage Museum), Scott Carrlee, and Holly Cusack-McVeigh, it was their second training. It was my first, and I was thrilled to get some of my questions answered after taking the XRF for a spin back in Juneau with Scott and Crista.  Monica had the loaner XRF at this time, and it was heading to Holly next.  We encouraged Holly to try the public program angle we had done in Juneau, and gave her my “cheat sheets”.  Upon my return from the training, I wrote the following for the Alaska State Museum Bulletin:

“Ellen Carrlee and Scott Carrlee attended a day of XRF training September 26, 2011 at the Anchorage Museum at the invitation of Head of Collections/ Conservator Monica Shah.  They were joined Holly Cusack-McVeigh and Bill Walker from the Pratt Museum in Homer.  The training was led by Dr. Bruce Kaiser, a name well-known in museums and universities for connecting institutions with handheld X-ray fluorescence  technology provided by the company Bruker AXS.  One of these “science guns” has been traveling between the Alaska State Museum, the Anchorage Museum and the Pratt Museum, on loan from Bruker.  The device shoots photons (or low-energy X-rays) at a sample, analyzing them non-destructively by measuring the movement of electrons.  After a few seconds, a graph of peaks appears on the computer screen and the software helps identify which elements are present in the sample.  Knowledge of physics and an understanding of how the machine works greatly enhance the interpretation of the data.   Museums worldwide have been using XRF extensively in recent years to explore questions of alloy compositions of metal artifacts , pesticide contamination on ethnographic and natural history collections, pigment identification , and other questions that can investigated with elemental analysis. We’ll keep you posted as we discover the potential benefits offered for Alaskan collections.”

Some of the white powder that was making Holly nervous

October 21, 2011  The Pratt Museum in Homer hosted a free evening public program called “Trinkets or Treasures?”  Holly says it was huge success and great fun for staff and visitors alike.  During the time she had the machine, Holly focused on arsenic testing of taxidermy.  Now she is turning her attention toward possible organic pesticides, but the pile of work has been narrowed down from the first round of XRF testing.  She no longer feels bad about turning a school down for a loan of puffins now that she knows for certain they have arsenic on them.  She tells me that as user-friendly as the instrument is, she knows there is even more information to be pulled from the data that she isn’t trained enough to extract yet.  I have that same feeling…we are getting amazing info, but it is the tip of the iceberg.  I also agree with Holly in her observation that the XRF is so helpful for collections research not just in answering questions we already have (Is this really silver? Is there arsenic here?) but also in sparking new questions we never would have thought of before. Holly sent the loaner XRF over to State Archaeologist Dave McMahan.  He and Dr. Charles Holmes have been using it to examine glass trade beads and glazes on ceramics.  I believe the touring XRF is now back with Bruker.

November 18, 2011  Scott and I are working on a grant proposal to buy the XRF.  Not only could we use it for public outreach and researching our own collection, but Scott could take it out on site visits to museums and cultural centers statewide and loan it out to institutions with staff who have had XRF training.  Holly suggests we might be able to have an XRF training workshop at the next Museums Alaska conference to increase the number of museums in Alaska who could get the XRF on loan from the Alaska State Museum.  As I write this, Scott Carrlee is soliciting letters of support for the grant.  I’ll keep you posted if we get it!

Rot at base from extended exposure to moisture

Evidence of moisture retention at base from contact with the ground

Carpenter ant damage to totem pole that had rot from contact with moist ground.

Close-up of damage from carpenter ants. These creatures don't attack sound wood, only wood that has areas of rot.

The strongback helps the pole resist lateral loads, such as winds, but is not expected to support the totem pole’s weight.  This is typically done with wooden spacers between the pole and a concrete pad, or by a special metal shelf welded onto the strongback near the base.  Totem poles are typically attached to the strongback through bolts that extend to the face of the pole.

Sometimes bolt heads are left exposed on the front of the carving.

Sometimes the hardware is recessed below the surface of the wood.

most often, the bolts are recessed and the holes are covered over with wooden plugs

Details on materials specifications and hardware are not provided here, as these choices are guided by the particulars of each totem pole and its desired location.  Considerations of weight, height, wind load, weather, limitations of access and so on require a custom solution for each pole. Installation of a totem pole usually involves a team of skilled individuals, as faulty installation can result in injury, damage to the pole, or damage to property.  The following cases are provided as examples and a springboard for discussion of ideas among your team.

THE FOUR STORY POLE: STEEL STRONG BACK

Western Red Cedar, approx 35 feet tall, 83” circumference at the base. 3,400 lbs as weighed by crane in 2008.

Carved by John Wallace in 1940, this pole is now located at the corner of 4^th and Main at the Juneau-Douglas City Museum (collection number 84.19.001).  It was mounted at this location following a move from a nearby park in 1994 and re-mounted again following treatment in 2008, both times using a steel strongback with bolts extending to the front and bolt holes covered with wooden plugs.

Four Story Totem Pole, Juneau-Douglas City Museum.

The strongback

Base of strongback extends into concrete underground.

 

A shelf on the strongback holds the totem pole clear of the ground

THE WOOSHKEETAAN POLE: STEEL STRONGBACK

Western Red Cedar, approx 40 feet tall.  Documentation suggests the pole weighs around 2,500 lbs.

Carved by Nathan Jackson (assisted by Steve Brown) in 1980, this pole is located at Centennial Hall in downtown Juneau and is part of the Juneau-Douglas City Museum collection (81.01.032).  The mounting currently in place was installed in 1983 on mounts installed by Triplette Construction Company.  The companion totem pole, the Auk Tribe Pole (81.01.033) was moved inside the atrium of the Juneau-Douglas High School in 2003 due to flaws in the original wood, resulting instability, and excessive weathering.

Wooshkeetaan Pole at Centennial Hall in Juneau

Strongback behind Wooshkeetaan pole

 

Base of the strongback attached to concrete pad.

 

A piece of pressure-treated lumber acts as a spacer between the pole and the concrete pad.

 

 

Rubber spacers were used in the gap between the steel mount and the curved geometry at the back of the pole.

 

RAVEN AND EAGLE POLES: STEEL STRONGBACKS

Western Red Cedar, approx 26 feet tall

Carved by Tommy Jimmie Sr., Edward Kunz Sr., Edward Kunz Jr., and William Smith in 1977, these poles are located on Willoughby Avenue and appear to be the property of the Tlingit-Haida Regional Authority.  The mounting in place looks to be original.

Raven and Eagle Poles on Willoughby Avenue in Juneau.

Large steel pipe support. Wooden blocks allow pole to rest on top of steel pipe

 

The bolt solution here involves U-shaped lengths of steel all-thread, bolted from the front.

Daylight is easily seen under the pole, kept out of contact with the wet ground

The location of bolt holes in the pupils of the eyes suggests the mount solution was designed from the start. The poles are missing a few of the wooden plugs that cover the bolt holes.

THE GOVERNOR’S TOTEM POLE: STREETLIGHT POLE STRONGBACK

Yellow Cedar (considered unusual) 31 ½ feet tall, 21 ½” wide at base, 71” wingspan at top. 

Carved by and Charles Tagook and William N. Brown in 1939-40, the totem pole stands outside the Governor’s Mansion on Calhoun Avenue in Juneau.  The pole is part of the property, but the Alaska State Museum assists in its care.  It was mounted using a galvanized steel street light pole and brackets in 1997 during a treatment led by conservator Ron Sheetz.  The re-mounting mechanism was designed by George McCurry, Southeast Region Maintenance Manager for the Department of Transportation.  The mounting system involves brackets attached to the back of the totem pole that bolt together with brackets on the street light pole.  The pole was taken down briefly in spring 2011 to protect it from house renovation work and re-installed successfully the following autumn.

Totem Pole at Governor's Residence in Juneau (and me with Ron Sheetz!)

Commercial galvanized street light pole as strongback

 

Bolt on the streetlight pole

 

 

Bracket used to join totem pole to lightpost strongback

 

 

Here you can see the shelf that takes the weight off the brackets and bolts

 

Another view of the base when the pole was taken down for house renovations

 

 

Side view of the little shelf welded onto the strongback

 

 

Front view of the little shelf holding the pole off the ground

 

Pole base clears ground well and the foliage is kept trimmed back

 

Pole on cribbing ready to be reinstalled

 

 

Padded to protect the pole from the strap before lifting

 

Using a sturdy board to prevent the pole from rolling during lifting

 

 

Guiding the base of the pole to prevent spinning and swinging during installation

 

 

Be sure to have a plan for getting the hook off again...

THE HARNESSING THE ATOM POLE: ALUMINUM STRONGBACK

Western Red Cedar. 14 feet tall, 23” diameter, 19” deep

Carved by Amos Wallace in 1967, this pole was installed around 1976 at the public library on Calhoun Avenue in Juneau. That site is now the Juneau-Douglas City Museum, and pole is part of its collection (84.18.001).  It was mounted directly in the ground in the 1976 and remounted in 2004 using an aluminum strongback designed by Banghart and Associates.   While steel can be smaller in cross-section for a given project than aluminum, the latter is easier to manipulate using standard woodworking tools and offers more options on site for a good fit. The bolts are stainless steel.

Harnessing the Atom, Juneau-Douglas City Museum

Aluminum mount on back

 

Aluminum mount, base area

 

Base raised off the ground to prevent rot

SITKA NATIONAL HISTORIC PARK: WOODEN SUPPORT POLES

The totem poles in the park have a varied history.  Some were collected by Governor Brady around 1901-1903.  Many are replica carvings, particularly from the Civilian Conservation Corps work of the 1930’s but some reproduction poles from the 1970’s as well. The park is part of the National Parks Service, and in the 1980’s there was concern about the deteriorating condition of the poles.  Ron Sheetz, the furniture conservator who was in town to finish the work on the Russian Bishop’s House (also NPS) was called over to take a look.  Considerable preservation work was done to many poles in 1991 by Al Levitan, Ron Sheetz and others in conjunction with a totem pole preservation conference.  The most common method is a supplementary wooden post made from a yellow cedar log attached in the concavity behind the original pole.  This post holds the original up above ground level, and is itself buried in the ground.  This method was apparently used in earlier preservation efforts and can be seen as a mounting technique on many poles throughout Southeast Alaska.  Sometimes a cedar box was built around the support.

Supplementary post of wood used to support main totem pole

Back view of a totem pole at Sitka National Historical Park

 

THE FRIENDSHIP POLE: INDOOR BRACKET

Approximately 21 feet tall and thought to weigh around 800 lbs (underestimated?)

The Friendship Pole was carved around 1959 at the Alaska Indian Arts Center in Haines as a commission by the Department of Corrections.  Museum records indicate the carver was Leo Jacobs.  It was installed in the atrium of the Dimond Courthouse building in 1976.  It is now part of the Alaska State Museum collection (II-B-1679). Following new Homeland Security measures, the pole was moved out of the way of security screening equipment in 2002.  It has a custom bracket system to attach it to the structural elements of the atrium, designed by Banghart and Associates.

Friendship Pole at the Dimond Courthouse, Juneau

Custom mounting bracket to structural window mullions

 

Side view of the bracket

THE OLD WITCH POLE: INDOOR STRAPPING

Western Red Cedar. Approx. 38 feet tall, base 4 feet in diameter.  Thought to be 2,500 lbs. though estimates vary widely in the written reports. 

Carved in Sukkwan in the 1880’s by a Haida carver whose name is not the museum records.  Installed indoors in the atrium of the State Office Building in downtown Juneau in 1977.  It is part of the Alaska State Museum collection II-B-1632.  The pole has a hollowed out back and compromised structure, which was reinforced with wood from the inside when mounted indoors, and the main support for the pole is given by large steel straps around the exterior of the pole that are bolted to the wall.  Straps like this would not be an ideal solution outdoors, as you would get very different weathering, deterioration, and biological growth in the locations of the straps.

Old Witch Pole, State Office Building, JuneauMetal strap around bottom of pole

Straps around upper areas of the pole

 

Peek between pole and wall to see attachment points

NOTE: How much does a totem pole weigh, anyway?  I’ve noticed the math doesn’t quite seem consistent from pole to pole in the documentation.  I am suspicious of dimensional estimates and weights of the poles that I read in the files unless more elaboration is provided, particularly info from the designer of the mount.  The best resource I have to date is the description of the weight of the YaxTe Hit pole described in How To Take Down A Totem Pole.

Cool checklist of supplies to take in the field, find it on the ADG website!

This was a good conference for those of us involved in archaeological conservation.  The Objects Specialty Group and Archaeological Discussion Group gave a two-hour group luncheon, sponsored by Kremer Pigmente, with a panel discussion: “Ethical Issues in Archaeological Field Conservation.”  Whose idea was this??  Brilliant!  Nancy Odegaard, Rae Beaubien, , and Eric Nordgren each got up and gave their take on several questions that each had been given beforehand.  Angelyn Bass Rivera discussed site management for the Laetoli Hominid Trackway in Northern Tanzania, Maya wall paintings in San Bartolo Guatemala, and the Frijoles Canyon Cavates in Bandolier National Monument, New Mexico.  Tourism to see these sites is a powerful factor that conservation is trying to balance with methods like masonry support of tunnels in Guatemala that double as barriers to close access but still allow photographs, or solar powered environmental monitors.  Rae Beaubien talked about interfacing with archaeologists…how they can be empowered to do certain activities like block lifting, but it is helpful to have an understanding beforehand about the parameters of “fragile.”  She also discussed how we might better position ourselves as part of the research team in grants they write, and how we can help them meet the stewardship goals in the AIA code.  There was also discussion about being vigilant about not enhancing the market value of the material that is being excavated.  Rae has been asked by the Department of Homeland Security to help “authenticate” things that may be trafficked illicitly, but of course the term “authenticate” is tricky ethically for those of us in the museum world.  Resources museum have in conservation expertise, however, is helpful for law enforcement.  There are problems these days with illicit archaeological material coming into the US through Canada, and problems are compounded by the fact the US has not signed some of the conventions that would require objects to be sent back to source countries.   Eric Nordgren highlighted some of the issues faced in conservation of maritime material.  Cast iron, for example, is notorious for being permanently weakened by the corrosion process known as “graphitization” and may require considerable care and support after treatment.  Sometimes it cannot support its own weight anymore.  Treatment of maritime artifacts is often part of a shipwreck recovery, and the project can be really big…20 years is not uncommon…and it is crucial that someone is devoted to seeing it through to the end.  There is a lot of well-intentioned public interest in the field, and this needs to be leveraged ethically to help preserve the resources.  It is not ethical to recover material that cannot be cared for, including post treatment storage and display.  I asked later about the divide between conservators trained in AIC ethics and those trained in the Texas A&M and Eastern Carolina University programs.  Erik (and others I spoke to at the conference) felt that the culture is changing with the new generation, and the old divide is gradually disappearing.  Nancy Odegaard discussed some of the delicate aspects of human remains.  She was never seeking to do this kind of work, but has been pulled into it by circumstance.  Early in her education, conservators used to be asked to do reconstruction for measurements and other such intervention.  Now conservators are contacted more often for issues involving condition, documentation, expertise about preventing contamination, or preservation of associated material.  Did you know that Hollinger Metal Edge  now sells a partitioned archival human remains box?  Catalog number HBR-1 sells for $27.50 each. 

In another case, the Kennewick Man, she was asked to monitor any change in condition with study of the remains.  With 300-400 pieces, the solution was to design a custom box with individual cavities for the pieces and to monitor the debris and soiling between study sessions.  Part of the discussions in the Q&A was about interfacing with State Historic Preservation Officers (SHPOs).  On a state-by-state basis, there has been some success in building those connections.  Virginia and Maryland, for example, and things are really going in a good direction here in Alaska thanks to Judy Bittner and Dave McMahan.  Apparently on the national level, the agency that coordinates SHPOs has not been terribly responsive to overtures from the AIC.  Looks like for the time being, going state-by-state will get the most momentum. 

Thanks, Kremer Pigmente, for sponsoring the OSG/ADG Joint Luncheon!

After lunch, Donna Strahan gave a talk, “Beyond the Field Lab: Emergency Conservation in the Granicus River Valley of Northwestern Turkey.”  Donna works in the conservation lab at the Bronze Age site of Troy (a German excavation) and they are often called upon to help with emergency treatment of looted tombs in the wider geographic area.  In order to still cover the bases at Troy, they’ve begun rotating teams of conservators to help with these incidents as they arise.  In one case, a drippy stain on the exterior of an alabaster vessel turned out to be swipe marks from ribbons dipped in murex purple pigment from mollusks as part of a funerary ceremony.  Details of a sarcophagus, including a chiseled off damnatio memoriae distinct from the looter’s tool marks (from Wikipedia: Damnatio memoriae is the Latin phrase literally meaning “condemnation of memory” in the sense of a judgment that a person must not be remembered. It was a form of dishonor that could be passed by the Roman senate upon traitors or others who brought discredit to the Roman State.  The result is to erase someone from history.”)  There seems to be thread running through some of these archaeological talks that conservators are valued as much for their interpretive and research skills as their bench skills.

Next was “Recovering Painted Organic Objects from Ancient Mesoamerica: Strategic Considerations in the Field and Lab.” by Rae Beaubien.  She’s dealt with many deposits that are confused through collapse, decay, and seismic disturbance.  Examining the fragments as well as ethnohistoric information and the persistence of traditional techniques in contemporary art gives an idea of the materials used and their properties.  For example, sometimes an organic substrate is painted on both sides (a bowl, perhaps) or there can be impressions of the lost organic material remaining in the stucco ground.  “Articulated lifting” is one technique that joins groups of fragments before lifting.  Selective use of methylcellulose/ Japanese tissue versus B-72 allows flexibility in the reversing of one adhesive and not the other in the lab.  Mylar sheets can help separate layers in the deposit as well as prevent seeping of adhesive where it is not desired.  Block lifting can buy time and keep fragments in the original position, but decisions need to made as to which adhesives are used how, and whether it should be dealt with top-down or bottom-up.

I was very eager to hear Emily Williams’ talk, “Deep Storage, Reburial as a Conservation Tool.”  There was some discussion of this at the 2010 WOAM conference regarding underwater material, and it seems that work in Marstrand, Sweden might be part of the vanguard, actually.  This reminded me of the curation crisis discussed at the 2011 Alaska Anthropological Association meeting…36 CFR 79 establishes standards for archaeological repositories, but there is not enough space for everything that gets excavated.  At Colonial Williamsburg, there are 60 million artifacts, and another million or so is excavated each year.  Only half the historic area has been excavated so far.  Emily’s  section was recently given some 50 pallets of excavated architectural material that plugged up 45% of their new storage growth space.  They opted for reburial of non-diagnostic pieces in the cellar of a current excavation on the Colonial Williamsburg property.  They divided the crates by site (used the old pine boxes but would have preferred to use HDPE crates), divided the material into brick/ stone less than 4”/ stone greater than 4”, bagged the material and labeled it with Tyvek tags and both Sharpie and pencil, filled around the crates with engineering sand and then backfilled the cellar.  The needs of this poorly documented architectural collection was out of balance with the needs of the collections as a whole.  I liked the quote about their approach, “holisitic rather than particularistic.”  In order to do this kind of reburial, access to undeveloped and protected land is necessary.

Suzanne Davis and Claudia Chemello gave some great data on the business end of things in “Get Your Fieldwork for Nothing and Your Sherds for Free: Compensation for Archaeological Field Conservation.”  The results of a survey!  66% of this data involves folks doing fieldwork outside the US, mostly the ancient Mediterranean and near East.  Salary data was optional in order to get more responses, and there were 116 usable responses that were analyzed from conservators who had done fieldwork in the past 10 years.  Less than half gave salary info.  Among the more interesting tidbits: 78% had a graduate degree, but 44% had been working in conservation for 5 years or less.  68% were on site for 1-2 months at a time.  All respondents had done terrestrial sites, only 13% had experience with underwater sites.  Most of the work done involved artifact processing, documentation, training, and consultation.  Almost a quarter, however, wrote no final report.  82% who gave salary data were paid a salary separate from travel and lodging.  That salary amount, however, varied a lot…from $58 per week to $8000 per week!  On average the typical figure was about $1000 per week.  69% reported they worked at reduced rates or volunteered.   Satisfaction rate was only about 41%.  Data does not reveal how many field conservators there are out there, and at this point AIC does not collect that information, either.  It is interesting that since the majority of conservators who do fieldwork have been in the profession less than 5 years, they cannot be listed on AIC’s Find-A-Conservator service.

Susanne Grieve, a pivotal person in the world between conservators and archaeologists, presented “Archaeologists and Avocational Conservators: Compromising Principles or Increasing Awareness?”  For me, this talk was HOTLY anticipated.  I’ve been treading these delicate waters in Alaska myself.  As I write this, there are bits of wood and historic sailcloth in PEG in collaborative treatments between non-conservators and the Alaska State Museum.  Suzanne described an avocational underwater club in Namibia along the Skeleton Coast who are passionate about preserving the heritage from the diamond mining era at very remote sites.  They were using outdated techniques and commercial products.  Suzanne provided guidance on the ethics of conservation and attempted to channel the huge pride they have in preserving their heritage into constructive activities, but described her concerns in trying to prevent harm from coming to the artifacts without encouraging aggressive interventive treatments in a place where access to conservation literature and supplies is scarce.

Noon on Thursday was the Archaeological Discussion Group business session, well attended by at least 25 people.  The group, founded at the 1998 Arlington Virginia AIC meeting, is trying to refine its mission statement and goals.  Someone told me Jeff Maish also led an AIC archaeological discussion group of some kind back in the late 1980’s?  That was before my time in the profession.  Wonder what happed that time around?  A lot of the focus right now is on outreach.  The Archaeological Discussion Group  now has a page on the AIC website.   Have you seen the FAQ they wrote about conservation for the SHA website?  It’s really good!  There is a Facebook page, too, but it’s a little bit sleepy.  There has been sporadic intense work on a “position paper” about unprovenanced material.  Vanessa Muros told us about Day of Archaeology July 29, an opportunity for anyone involved in archaeology to post to a weblog .  On another front, the ADG is working on having “booth swaps” between archaeological organizations and AIC.  Kent Severson worked hard to get an AIA booth swap.  More insights on the care of newly excavated material: archaeologists at Old World sites have limited time to do research on artifacts before they go into storage in national repositories and are harder to access.  This influences the decision to have conservators on site in order to process and assemble artifacts for study in a limited timeframe.  Also, many countries will not issue a permit without a conservator on board.  In the US, a conservator is more likely to be on board if they can contribute to the research goals and any planned publications.  Another angle is the repository contracts, which stipulate how artifacts have to be delivered in order to be accepted.  Check out the silica gel conditioning gadget Rachael Perkins Arenstein brought to the meeting! SmallCorp.com has a cool little unit for conditioning silica gel. Rachael Perkins Arenstein did a demo at the Archaeological Discussion Group.  The one she shows in the following photos can condition about 3kg of silica gel to a specific RH in about 36 hours.  There is also a bigger trunk-sized version.  I guess the bucket-sized unit costs a few hundred dollars, but as Rachael said, “that may well be the price of sanity.”

I had long heard of this museum, devoted to a 19^th century medical teaching collection of models, skeletons, fluid specimens and the like.  The abundant advertisements in Philly bill it as “Disturbingly Informative.”  I am fascinated by anatomy, bones, art, the history of science…always been attracted to the unusual. As an undergrad I considered medical illustration as a career.  But this place struck me all wrong.  On a collections care level, things were dusty and most of the LED HOBO dataloggers seemed to have dead batteries.  Exhibit design had a vaguely Vincent Price feel to it, with a wide mishmash of label styles, some including gothic font.  Dark wood, polished brass and red/black color schemes predominate.  I listened to some of the descriptions of forensic skeletal examination that could be dialed up on a cell phone, and thought those were quite good.  But the professionalism of the recordings was at odds with the overall tone of the museum.  It has a Coney Island freakshow feel to it, pandering to the titillating and weird, in a word: tawdry.  In general, I don’t mind tawdry.  Kitsch.  Camp.  Quirky.  I’ve got several tattoos, including my wedding ring.  One of my favorite bands is called “My Life With The Thrill Kill Kult.”  If it were just the gruesome medical instruments and the detailed wax models of tissue diseases, this approach would not bother me.  But it seems at least half of the collection is comprised of human remains.  Skeletons, skulls, desiccated flayed children, babies in jars, preserved body parts, etc.  Most of these people suffered considerably during their lives.  Few consented directly to having their remains exhibited.  Some labels describe prices paid for human remains.  There is an extensive skull collection, and I saw one label describing a bone as removed from a grave in Hawaii.  There is a lack of dignity in the interpretation of these remains.  Culturally, intellectually, and personally I found the interpretation disappointing.  My museum career as a conservator of ethnographic and archaeological objects involves a heightened awareness of the sensitivity of human remains, particularly issues surrounding the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act.  I am aware that many cultures, ethnic groups, and religions would consider any display of their human remains offensive.  Most likely, some of those individuals are represented among the human remains on exhibit.  Intellectually, I was disappointed that the exhibitions seemed directed at my visceral response to the collections and not my intellectual curiosity.  Historical context, anatomy, and advances in medicine and forensics were not given the center stage that could legitimize the existence of such a museum.  This museum is part of the College of Physicians, founded in 1787 as the oldest professional medical organization in the United States.  It has a better story to tell than the one the current exhibition style is delivering.  On a personal level, it was a little mortifying to think of my child in a jar, or how my grandmother would have felt having her breast on exhibit.  For myself, I would be fine with having my own remains on exhibition.  I would not even mind being in the Mütter Museum.  I don’t have a sense that my own body is sacred.  But out of respect for the inherent dignity of those deceased human beings in the Mütter Museum collection whose remains are on display, I wish the museum’s interpretive mission were more aligned with the mission of the College of Physicians:

The College of Physicians of Philadelphia advances the cause of health, and upholds the ideals and heritage of medicine.

The specific mission of the Mutter Museum is to collect, preserve and interpret medical collections in order to engender curiosity and knowledge about the body and health; to increase understanding of medicine in its cultural context.

A search of the internet revealed a major factor behind the interpretive tone of the museum: Gretchen Worden.  She joined the staff in 1975 with a BA in physical anthropology, spending her entire career there.  She became the director in 1988, and took visitation of a quiet 5000 per year to an impressive 60,000.  She was much beloved in many quarters, and passed away in 2004.

From karaoke night the eve before at "Yakitori Boy." I have photos and video of conservators doing karaoke. You know who you are...

The theme of the meeting this year was Ethos, Logos, Pathos: Ethical Principles and Critical Thinking in Conservation.  Barbara Applebaum kicked off the talks with “Conservation in the Twenty-First Century: Will a Twentieth Century Code of Ethics Suffice?”  I agreed with her that yes, it will.  I think the Code of Ethics and Guidelines for Practice are among the best things ever to come out of AIC.  Lori Trusheim’s paper in the Objects Session a few days later illustrated that…she used those core AIC documents extensively in navigating treatment decisions in private practice.  I myself relied on those documents heavily when I was (briefly) in private practice, and I refer to them several times a year when educating the public and my constituents.  AIC’s written code is the most explicit of all the conservation organizations (did you know that back in the day IIC refused to ratify the original document?) and ours is the only one with commentaries.  I think of the commentaries as rather like the “rationale” section of a treatment report.  Barbara also suggested that after a decade or so of AIC being focused on internal affairs like certification, we ought to shift our view toward the outside world.  We ought to celebrate the 50 years of training programs and accomplishments.  We ought to be more people-centric, too.   Interestingly, when she said we should push for courses about examination in art history training programs and complained that art history has a problem of being taught from photographs alone there was spontaneous and vocal support from the crowd…

The AIC continues a happy trend of including non-conservators as general session speakers in philosophy professors James Janowski’s “Restoring the Spirit and the Spirit of Restoration: Dresden’s Frauenkirche as Model for Bamiyan’s Buddhas.”  Huge stone statues of Buddha, including on 50m high, were destroyed by the Taliban in 2001.  The UN declared it a World Heritage Site in 2003.  There are now just empty niches where the 6^th century sculptures stood.  The fragments of the interior sandstone are mostly available for reconstruction, but the outer layers of clay that made the surface and clothing were largely pulverized.  However, images and information about the statues exist, making reconstruction to an astounding 1.6cm accuracy possible.  Each sculpture would cost at least $30 million to reconstruct, but Professor Janowski compared that to the cost of a Formula One racing car, and apparently there is international support for rebuilding as well as an overwhelming majority of Afghans who want to see restoration.  There is a dilemma about the power of the site as it is with the empty niches, and also the question of whether or not there is enough stability in the region to prevent destruction from happening again.  The iconic Dresden Protestant church the Frauenkirche was used as an analogy.  Destroyed in WWII, it was a ruin and memorial to some 30,000 who died.  After the Berlin Wall came down, there was momentum to have it restored.  In 1993 they began to sort the pieces, in 2003 it was rebuilt (45% of the original stones were exactly placed) and in 2005 the church was reconsecrated. 

Textile conservator Deborah Bede’s talk, “Legacies from the Past: Previous Repairs”  included some fascinating historical repairs on flags, including the “Fowler-Ritchie Method” where Mrs. Fowler and her daughter Mrs. Ritchie would place a linen backing behind a textile such as a flag, then a silk net over the top and stitch them together with rows of buttonhole stitches over the entire flag, in essence creating a secondary net.  The examples Deborah showed looked quite acceptable.  There were also less successful historical treatments, such as Thomas Welter’s method of adhering the textile between layers of brown silk crepeline with ethyl acetate, stitching on a machine with nylon monofilament, washing out the adhesive, and then ironing.  Hmmm…not so good.  Contamination from the treatment would also make dye analysis tricky.  Here are some of the aspects Deborah considers before making treatment decisions on textiles: original maker’s repairs, repairs during the item’s useful life, historic repairs, desired interpretive state, cost, potential damage in removing old repairs, the aesthetic look, retreatability, potential for future analysis, time, and priority in the collection as a whole.

Gabrielle Beentjes of the National Archives of the Netherlands gave a presentation, “Digitizing Archives: Does it Keep or Destroy the Originals?”  We all know that digitizing archival collections can aid greatly with access and help preserve the original with less handling.  In this way digitization is a preservation activity.  Often, archival materials may be unbound to meet the needs of digitization technology.  However, there may be some situations that ought to give us pause.  Gabrielle has a flow chart for decision-making, as the value of the appearance of archival documents is not well researched.  Original binding, original stitching, and the original archival order and information about ways that people archived in the past may be destroyed by digitization requirements.  She used the archives of the Dutch East India Company as an example.  Another caution: will the digital records be accessible in 50 years?

At any conference, there are talks you miss and wish you could’ve attended.  Here are the top ones I’d like to track down later on the AIC blog :

“The Off-Grid Museum” by Dr Poul Klenz Larsen from the National Museum of Denmark and Tim Padfield, who has written great stuff  http://www.conservationphysics.org/ on museum climates.

“Evaluation of Cleaners for Removal of Crude Oil from Historic Structures”  by Payal Vora at the University of Texas at Austin.

“The January 12, 2010 Earthquake in Haiti: Building a Conservation Foundation from the Ground Up.” By Stephanie Hornbeck, Chief Conservator of the Smithsonian Institution Haiti Cultural Recovery Project.

“Comparative Study of Commercially Available Rust Converters” by Jason Church, Anna Muto and Mary F. Striegel of the National Center for Preservation Technology and Training.

“A Comparison of the Use of Sodium Metabisulfate and Sodium Dithionite for Removing Rust Stains from Paper” by Seth Irwin, who did this research during his many months traveling around Alaska doing paper conservation and preservation training.

Majestic-looking shot of the Philadelphia Museum of Art

Vinod Daniel kicked off the non-archaeological OSG sessions with “Tangible vs Intangible Collections: The Journey of Two Objects”, co-authored by Dion Peita.  The Australian Museum dates back to 1827, containing some 60,000 Pacific collections among its 110,000 artifacts, one million archaeological objects and 13 million Natural History items.  He described artifacts that are allowed to be used in ceremonies and the kinds of programs that connect cultures to their heritage.  They have a Visiting Elders program, where access is open to touching and feeling the artifacts as well.  Artifacts were described as, “Handprints of the ancestors that continue to live, just as ancestors continue to live through their descendants.”  The museum is keen to connect with Diaspora kids whose ancestors are from the Pacific Islands, as these kids suffer cultural disconnection and are disproportionately in trouble more than other social groups.  Could increased access to artifacts in the storage areas help with that?  They are aiming for virtual access online for all that material, and have images and video on a monitor in a suitcase that is sent around to schools.  Vinod Daniel was candid about the investments required to really connect to these crucial constituencies.  The top of the list was developing people-to-people relationships with repeated in person visits, which requires time, genuine interest, and institutional frameworks in place such as memorandums of understanding with administrators and politicians as well as budget commitments.  On the collections care end of things, museum folks need to be willing to give a very high degree of access, including physical handling, use in ceremonies, and being willing to let go of complete control over the individual artifact.

Alaska’s own Chuna McIntyre presented a paper, “The Impact of Access: Partnerships in Preservation” describing his work with co-authors Kelly McHugh, Ainslie Harrison and Landis Smith to do right by Yup’ik artifacts included in the Arctic Studies Center exhibition in Anchorage.  Chuna is Central Yup’ik from the village of Eyk and teaches language at Stanford.  Ainslie introduced the project, which involves the Smithsonian’s Arctic Studies Center, and how consultations with experts like Chuna aimed to preserve knowledge, restore artifacts, and develop partnerships in decision-making.  Chuna described an experience in high school, looking at museum artifacts:  “I was always on this side of the glass.  I could never get beyond the glass to get to our objects…”  Being able to see them from the back, from all sides, gives the object a chance to tell its full story.  He did some restorations for a Yup’ik mask exhibition years ago, and used computer graphics to virtually do restoration as well.  He called it helping the mask “get back its proper attire.”  In treating a dance fan in the Thaw Collection in Cooperstown, he described the old repairs as static… “Dance fans are designed to move in space with you when you are dancing.  They come back to life when you give them back proper plumage and attire.”  In visiting ancient sites like Angkor Watt and Machu Picchu, he noticed how those monuments were actively restored, and described the Yup’ik artifacts as “our monuments to our worldview as Yup’iks….we are all in this together, this endeavor of bringing back what we feel is important for us and for future generations.”  He described some of the treatment solutions that had been implemented as collaborative decisions.  In a separate conversation with Kelly McHugh, she intimated to me how as a conservator she’d found it confusing which elements of a mask or fan were important to restore, and which ones might be less necessary.  Chuna and Kelly had discussed this, and the analogy of a car had come up…you can still drive a car with chipped paint, but if there’s no carburetor you’re not going anywhere.  I loved this description!  I have no idea what a carburetor looks like or even what it does in a car.  Likewise, I don’t understand the parts of a Yup’ik mask…I don’t know what makes it “go.”  Chuna wrapped up with a thank you song in Yup’ik that he learned from his grandmother…the meaning of which he described, “when we grow and we acquire accoutrements of responsibility we are to be thoughtful for all of these.”      

“When You Don’t Cry Over Spilt Milk: Collections Access at the UBC Museum of Anthropology During the Renewal Project” was presented by Shabnam Honorbakhsh and co- authored by Heidi Swierenga and Maurau Toutloff.    The University of British Columbia’s Museum of Anthropology in Vancouver has some 38,000 objects, most of which were placed on visible storage in the 1970’s with the intent of 100% visual access.  In the spring of 2004, there was a renewal project, and the museum did considerable behind-the-scenes work as well as continued to consider collection access as an ever-evolving philosophy.  The hands-on work included survey, barcode assignment, digitization, testing for pesticides, mount making, packing, moving and finally installation.  It sounded like consultation with Native researchers was suggesting that 4 views was the average number of images needed to really see an artifact.  The collection can be searched online at MOACAT  Also check out how their collections section on their website starts off with some cool downloadable reference documents.  I’m definitely right-clicking on some of those!  There is also an exciting joint collaborative project to facilitate collaborative study of Northwest Coast artifacts called the Reciprocal Research Network.  Chilkat weaver William White (Tsimshian) was quoted: “One of the things that is very important to me is accessibility for my people to come into the museum and be treated with respect and honor.”  There was also an example of a bronze statue of Vishnu in the collection who was resanctified for worship by the Vancouver Hindu community.  The video of the ritual renewal involved water, honey, oil, milk, fruit and other substances being applied to the statue.  Afterwards, it was cleaned, dried, and treated in a desiccation chamber.  Marian Kaminitz of the National Museum of the American Indian mentioned after the talk that museums have a societal opportunity to enhance advancement of indigenous societies from a colonialist time to a regeneration time.  It seemed to me like there was a more intense focus on the human, social, and interpersonal aspects of our profession and responsibilities at this meeting.

OK, no crying over spilled milk. Can I cry over the scarcity of scrapple in Alaska? I HEART scrapple!

I jumped out after the break to catch some wooden artifacts talks, including Susanne Grieve’s “Preserving Wooden Materials in Isolated Environments: Considerations and Challenges.”  Did you know Suzanne is certified to dive down to 165 feet?  I do so enjoy the little intros to our colleagues before the presentations!  Suzanne used her experience in both Antarctica (Shackleton’s hut) and the coastal desert of Namib-Nauklift Park in Namibia to describe damage to exposed wood.  Indigenous wildlife cause damage, especially through droppings and nesting, and there is an added challenge in some of those animals being protected species (like penguins).  Smaller-scale biological damage comes in the form of bacteria, mold and fungi.  She showed a great image of the secondary cell wall being separated from the primary cell wall of the wood by colonies of biological growth in between.  Then there are the abiotic  factors.  (Let’s use this term more in conservation!  I love it!  From Wikipedia: “…abiotic influences may be classified as light or more generally radiation, temperature, water, the chemical surrounding composed of the terrestrial atmospheric gases as well as soil.  The macroscopic climate often influences each of the above. Not to mention pressure and even sound waves if working with marine, or deep underground, biome.”)  Salt from the sea, especially chlorides, is a major factor.  It causes a phenomenon known as “defibration” where the wood fibers visibly pull apart.  Precipitation would usually dilute them, but in places like the desert coast, they build up.  Snow can also be full of salt ions.  Abrasion is also called by windblown particles like salt crystals, sand, and ice crystals.  Softer earlywood cells in the grain pattern are preferentially worn away, leaving the higher surface of the latewood cells.  Suzanne described her work with the Windhoek Underwater Club on the Skeleton Coast of Namibia, a self-funded group of avocational historians doing preservation work on remote sites from the German colonial period.  They have been applying linseed oil to certain artifacts abandoned at an old diamond mining site, which has caused darkening of the wood and acceleration of corrosion to metal elements.  The maintenance applications of linseed oil began rather recently, so the impact has not yet been observed.  Linseed oil application elsewhere has had mixed results and is not among the treatments conservators normally select.  But under circumstances such as these (remote, environmentally harsh, in-situ, limited access to conservation-grade materials, little funding) wood preservation is especially challenging.

Christina Bisulca presented “Consolidation of Alum-Treated Wood with Alkoxykilanes” co-authored by Nancy Odegaard, Susan Braovac, and Hartmut Kutzke.  I think I learned more from this talk than any other at the conference.  I had heard about the alum-treated Oseberg Burial Ship materials at the Viking Museum in Oslo during the WOAM conference in 2010 .  They were excavated and treated a century ago (!) with a hot saturated solution of alum.  The ship itself was heartwood oak and not treated with alum, but ornately carved sleds and other artifacts got the treatment and are incredibly fragile today after additional treatments with pins, putties, linseed oil, resins etc.  Sulfuric acid is generated in the alum treatment bath, so the pH of the wood is now around 1 and mostly just lignin remains.  Washing and impregnating with PEG works, but is risky to do with these really delicate objects.  TEOS (tetraethoxysilane) was investigated for this problem because it is low viscosity, non aqueous, chemically inert, acid stable, and polymerizes in situ (two-step hydrolysis condensation that releases ethanol).  It’s been used as a lumber treatment since the 1980’s, often functionalized to give it certain qualities.  Remmer’s product is a one part system with an internal catalyst.  Brand names Funcosil 300 and Funcosil 510.  TEOS does not go into pore spaces, only on the cell wall…evenly distributed and not gap filling over about 15 microns.  So the wood remains porous and there is the possibility of future application of other consolidants.  If I understand correctly, this is a big advantage of TEOS over silicone oil, which does not permit a retreatment with anything besides more silicone oil?  TEOS treatment forms a silica network, and multiple applications deposit more silica.  At about 7X, the surface gets rather darkened, perhaps from solvent effects bringing soiling to the surface?  Neat TEOS has less of the darkening issue.  You could consolidate the wood with TEOS as a kind of pre-consolidant and then wash in water to reduce the alum in the wood.  Even after 7 applications, you can still pull out alum.  The challenges to the TEOS method seem to be that the wood has to be really really dry, because water content can cause the TEOS to polymerize on the surface.  Also, silica is rather brittle.  The conservation world has been slow to embrace TEOS outside of architectural applications, but I do think there may be certain circumstances where it may be a good solution to tricky problems.        

Jeweler and metalsmith Joan Pracher presented “Beautiful Brass, A Fresh Look at Historic Furniture Hardware.”  Do you remember when conservator Paul Messier started collecting up examples of old photo printing out papers?  That collection ended up being a treasure trove and Paul’s work on it greatly expanded understanding of things like dating paper and the importance of the “baryta layer” and gave him lots of great samples to study.  Having a reference collection is just really cool!  So it is with the collection of brass furniture hardware that Joan has been collecting since about 2004.  She also has a collection of the metalworking tools used to make such hardware, and she understands where all the tool marks come from. Drops, plates, bales, casters…such an amazing collection.  Knowing the tool marks, typical shapes, and maker’s marks contributes significantly toward attribution and dating.  Not to mention these little utilitarian furniture parts are like little artworks in themselves, and display considerable craftsmanship.  Maybe you should start a little reference collection of some esoteric little aspect of something that captivates you?  What if we all had little specialized reference collections??

I jumped back to the Objects Specialty Group in the afternoon, catching Christel Pesme’s talk on “The Care and Display of Homogen Infiltration für Kontzertflügel (Joseph Beuys, 1966) Between 1976 and 1992 at the Centre Georges Pompidou.”  This reminded me that contemporary art and indigenous art share this important aspect of consultation to determine artist intent and cultural purpose that ought to be documented in the files to guide the conservation treatments for years to come.  In this case, the artwork was a performance piece and the artifacts involved a piano wrapped in felt with red crosses loosely attached and additional pieces like wax earplugs.  The treatment history included a range of consultations and lack thereof with the artist during his life.  The treatments were also influenced by the ideological/ political issues inherent in the museum’s mission. 

Lori Trusheim presented, “Balancing Ethics and Restoration in the Conservation Treatment of an 18^th Century Sewing Box with Tortoiseshell Veneer.”  This treatment had a lot of backing-and-forthing between the kind of less-interventive stabilization objects conservators are most comfortable with and the needs of the owner with a sentimental artifact in a home setting.  The aspects of tortoiseshell manufacture were also riveting.  Understanding material and technology is key to a treatment like this, and Lori really did her homework.  For example, forming of tortoiseshell was often done by rendering the shell pliable in boiling salted water and applying direct heat in press molds.  Heat breaks the disulphide bonds in the keratin structure, but cooling allows them to reform and makes the material rigid again.  White ground between the tortoiseshell and wooden box was water soluble.  Mother-of-pearl inlays were mechanically fit into precut voids, taking advantage of the thermoplastic quality of the heated tortoiseshell.  Missing elements led to investigation of replacement materials to mimic tortoiseshell, which is part of the 1970 Endangered Species Act.  Epoxy, bulked acrylic, wax?  Furniture conservator Donald Williams is working with “tordon shell” which is a crosslinked imitation collagen, and Lori began to think of the box as a miniature piece of furniture.  With the less-interventive method, the owner lived with it for a while but wanted more.  The final solution hasn’t been hammered out yet, but the factors Lori is pondering for a more aggressive treatment  include: opacity or loss of translucency, heating during removal, possible presence of salts, original shell health of the tortoise, brittleness, and darkening.  Lori is taking some inspiration from a Korean Proverb: “A turtle travels only when it sticks its neck out…”

Tony Sigel, one of my all-time favorite conservation personalities…ooh, here is an opportunity to introduce a new phrase!  “Professional Crush.”  This term was mentioned to me in reference to J.P. Brown of the Field Museum…and I declare both Tony and J.P. as “Professional Crush-worthy.”  Tony is on some of the listserves I subscribe to, and anytime his name appears I read the post, no matter how far off Alaskan interests the subject might appear.  OK enough gushing….Tony presented “Deconstructing Gian Lorenzo Bernini’s Modello for the Fountain of the Moor. Really.”  Tony’s hands-on skills and creativity are killer, and it is always a treat to hear him take us step-by-step through his decision-making, discoveries, and solutions.  Tony is a Bernini sculpture expert, and was working on a terracotta model (for a fountain sculpture) for an exhibition he’s co-curating.  There are some 50 or so known Bernini terracotta models.  This one had soiling, alteration, repairs, even soluble nylon!  He had a great slide listing his main treatment concepts: progressive cleaning in graduated steps to avoid a piebald look, providing protection in the form of masking certain areas and providing bracing where needed during treatment, re-use of dowels/ fills/joins when appropriate, restoration of restorations where he was correcting previous work, mimicry of original tools and processes to give an authentic look, limiting the number of treatment materials to the fewest number of the most stable/ reversible/well-studied/best understood materials to reduce future interactions (according to the “Book of Koob.”)   He showed a little video of laser cleaning where you could really hear the moth-wing like flapping sound of the laser at work during the cleaning phase.  He had a technique for holding a can of DustOff upside down to get the frozen propellant to come out and stiffen a plasticine fill so he could remove it without distortion.  Mesh nylon screening was used to mimic the look of brushmarks in wet clay when the Plasticine proved too stiff.  Is there any doubt that Tony Sigel is the MacGyver of the conservation world?  Really!

My awesome co-author. Hi Hon!

Lauren Horelick and I wrapped up the OSG talks on Friday with the presentation of “The Alaska Fur ID Project: A Virtual Resource for Material Identification”  Its reviewed on the AIC blog (thanks, Ainslie!) http://www.conservators-converse.org/ but you can just go dive in at http://alaskafurid.wordpress.com

I had ducked out of the OSG session earlier to hear Kathryn Jakes discuss the “Uses of the Fiber Reference Image Library.”  FRIL as it is known is quite complementary to the reference material Lauren and I are trying to present in the Alaska Fur ID Project.  FRIL is run out of Ohio State University.  The concept began back in 2003 intending to have some 20 international participants but evolved over time with funding issues and other factors.  NCPTT was the biggest supporter.  The site has mainly plant and synthetic fibers used in textiles, and seems strongly tied to costume and fashion collections.  They are connecting this to another project, Fashion2Fiber which will include fabric structures.  There is a distinct focus as well on how to do outreach and engagement with the website.  Some of the aspects highlighted during the talk included photomicrographs of brightfield and darkfield, sign of elongation, Herzog tests, images of historic cottons, and images of degradation features such as oxalic acid crystals in bast fibers.  Images are watermarked but image can be viewed and downloaded without the watermark if permission is given.  There have been requests to add in a section on feather ID, info on stitching threads, and information about materials that may have been used by restorers or conservators.

From the Philadephia Museum of Art gift shop...

February 16, 2011

This was a lecture for the general public, part of our brown bag lunch lecture series this winter.  Approximately 40 people attended, and about 8 people stuck around and asked me questions for another hour and a half.  Here are some of the images from the lecture and the general points I tried to make.  Hover with your cursor for more info.  Click on the image to enlarge.  You might be able to click again and enlarge even more.  Hit the back button to return to the article.

The discussion also included some of the criteria we look for when choosing appropriate treatment materials.  These include:

Future Analysis: some materials interfere with microanalysis.  We are also concerned with potential kinds of analysis available in the future.  Analysis includes examination by scholars.  For example, a sail historian told me he needs a fragment of ancient waterlogged sail to remain slightly flexible so he can peek inside the seam and see important clues in the construction and stitching.

Future Treatment: There may be better treatment options in the future, or the treatments we use now might not last as long as we would like.  For these reasons, reversibility of the treatment is desired, or at least the potential for re-treatment with something else.

Appropriate Appearance: For study and display, it is important that an artifact look the way curators and other experts say it should.

Age Well: In the museum, we want to preserve these artifacts for hundreds, even thousands of years.  The materials we use on artifacts ought to last a long time and not harm the artifact years down the road.

Chemically Compatible: Conservators need to understnad chemistry to know if a proposed treatment material is chemically comaptible with the artifact

Non-Toxic: Conservators don’t want to compromise their health by using toxic materials to treat artifacts.  We also don’t want to create poisonous collections.  And of course toxic materials need to go somewhere when we are done with them, and we don’t want to pollute the environment.

I concluded the lecture with a brief discussion of the agents of deterioration (light, temperature, humidity, pollutants, handling, pests, and disaster) because no conservation lecture is really complete without touching on them, and the concept of “Agents of Deterioration” is a good one to help the public better care for treasures in their personal collections.  Hmmm, that would be a good blog posting, actually….