leo, n. history of conservation in archaeology. 1987

8/7/2019 Leo, N. History of Conservation in Archaeology. 1987

1/30

JAIC 1987, Volume 26, Number 2, Article 3 (pp. 85 to 104)

AN OUTLINE HISTORY OF CONSERVATION IN

ARCHAEOLOGY AND ANTHROPOLOGY AS

PRESENTED THROUGH ITS PUBLICATIONS

Niccolo Leo Caldararo

ABSTRACTThe article provides a survey of the historical development of preservationpractice in archaeology and anthropology, with reference to both techniques and philosophy. Theprimary focus is placed on the evolution of a body of knowledge through the literature and therise of scientific methods and specialization. The article includes a substantial historical

bibliography.

1 EARLY DEVELOPMENTS IN ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND

ANTHROPOLOGICAL CONSERVATION

This paper will discuss briefly some of the historical origins of conservation in archaeology andanthropology; it will, however, focus mainly on archaeology. Although conservation treatmentsapplied by conservators and restorers in general to archaeological and anthropological artifactshave not developed separately from conservation efforts in anthropology and archaeology, theygenerally represent two different trends of thought and practice which have influenced each

other.

The earliest restorations were done in the classical workshops of craftsmen and artists of everygreat civilization. For example, Ku-Szu-Ksieh (Van Gulik, 1958) described methods of repair forpaper scrolls in fifth-century A.D. China. The transition from these origins to the modernprofessional concept of conservation is of particular interest to the field of archaeological andanthropological conservation. Nevertheless, the roots of scientific conservation were traced byGettens (1974) only to the Rome Conference of 1930, sponsored by the League of Nations.Santucci (1963), however, began his history with chemical experiments by Chaptal onrestorative methods for paper, parchment, and papyrus reported in 1787, and the 1809 report,also by Chaptal, on ancient pigments; Christoforno Marino's nineteenth-century work on the

restoration of faded writing on parchment (Gallo, 1951); and Piaggi and Davy's experiments withunrolling papyrus from Herculaneum (Bennett 1806; Davy, 1821).

The tragedies which befell antiquities found in Herculaneum, Pompeii, and Stabia at the hands ofrestorers certainly influenced the scholars and scientists of the period of their discovery(Winckelman, 1771).1 The desire to see objects in their original condition, unaltered byadditions, and to detect fakes led to scientific procedures. This desire, along with the need toestablish provenance of manufacture and to develop systematic criteria to resolve questions ofthe objects' materials and techniques led to the introduction of the chemical analysis of ancient

Pgina 1 de 30JAIC 1987, Volume 26, Number 2, Article 3 (pp. 85 to 104)

03/02/2011mhtml:file://H:\Restauracin enero 2011\Biblioteca\Biblioteca virtual\Arqueologa\Mater...


2/30

objects first published2 by M. H. Klaproth in 1798 (Goffer, 1980).

Analysis of excavated metals, chiefly bronzes, advanced rapidly between 1800 and 1875 withthe publication of twenty-five papers by 1850 and many more by 1875 (Caley, 1951). Onestudent of conservation history credits archaeological research with establishing the philosophy

of preserving original creations and ending the restorative destruction of the sixteenth tonineteenth centuries (Hulmer, 1955:72). Whether this philosophy can be credited with a similarchange in attitude toward archival materials, books, maps, etc., is unclear, nevertheless theimpetus toward the preservation of such materials also appeared at this time.

Scientific studies on the effects of gas lights on leather bindings were made by Faraday in 1843,by G. Davis in 1877, and by C. Woodward in 1888. The first attempts to apply practicalexperience and scientific knowledge in restoration were published by Bonnardot in 1846 and1858. The application of techniques from various disciplines and communication betweenscholars and scientists on preservation problems were pioneered by Cardinal Ehrle, keeper of theVatican Library and promoter of the International Conference of St. Gallo on preservation ofarchival materials in 1898 (Santucci, 1963:40).

The St. Gallo Conference was held at the same time that the first report of the Committee on theDeterioration of Paper appeared in London. It was followed by the Archivists' Conference inDresden in 1899, the International Congress of Libraries in Paris in 1900, and the establishmentof a scientific committee for the study of the decay of leather bookbindings by the LondonSociety for the Encouragement of Arts, Manufacture and Commerce in 1900. A similarcommittee was created in Germany in 1911, and the foundation of the restoration laboratory ofthe Rome Archivio Centrale dello Stato occurred the same year.

2 EARLY TWENTIETH-CENTURY ORGANIZATION OF THE FIELD

Especially important were discussions and cooperative efforts which resulted from the Cairo(1937), Athens (1931), and Madrid (1934) conferences of scientists and scholars andrepresentatives of the international museums sponsored by the International Museums Office ofthe League of Nations (IMO, 1949), which established the necessity for close inter-relationsbetween excavation and museum work. Much of this work is being investigated anew today withspecial focus on ancillary problems to ensure the proper care of artifacts, such as cataloguing,documentation and reporting (cf. King, et al. in Curator, 21/1, 1980), site or field conservation,and selection of criteria for collecting and storage (McGimsey and Davis, 1977; Grosso, 1978;Adamson, 1979; Lindsay Jr., 1979). Standards for proper treatment, including documentation, inthe field and the laboratory can increase the percentage of artifacts successfully retrieved and

susceptible to productive long-term study (Feilden, 1979:34; 1982). The need in practice forsuch proper care has been reiterated for several years by various authors (Ford, 1977; Marquardt,et al., 1977; Frere, et al., 1978; Davies, 1978; Christenson, 1980; Lindsay Jr., 1979; Bourque,Brooke, Kelly and Morris, 1980; Stanley-Price, 19843

Of course, the recovery of artifacts was of primary importance in the early phases of the historyof archaeology. What was called excavation often resulted in not only the loss of critical data onthe relationship between the object and stratigraphy but also the mass destruction of sites by awhole scale removal as well as the loss of large numbers ofobjects by theft, inadequate




3/30

supervision and poor recovery techniques. This was often due to a lack of understanding of therelationship between the object and its environment but more often due to the disorder inherentin much if not most archaeological work in the nineteenth century (Hole & Heizer, 1965;Wheeler, 1954). The development of conservation techniques in archaeology has seen as unevenan evolution as has the excavation report (Caldararo, 1984) and in many ways suffers the same

vagaries in application due to lack of priority and a lack of funding.

The Lindsay study (1979:12730) found that the care of collections was at best a secondaryconsideration in the process of archaeological collection. Storage and conservation were seldomaddressed in reports and when they were they reflected a considerable diversity of treatment. Thereport in general found a lack of commitment to care of collections and proper storage andespecially to the conservation of collections. This lack of concern, however, may be a result of alack of funding as well as access to information. In a survey of thirty-seven course offerings byanthropology departments in American colleges and universities, conservation or preservationwas mentioned in only fifteen course descriptions from ten institutions.4

3 INITIAL WORKS

The specifics of a history of archaeological and anthropological conservation remain vague andonly fitfully illuminated in the literature. Although some archaeologists have written notes on theconservation and restoration techniques which they applied in the field and laboratory, the greatmajority have not. Fewer still have included these notes in their reports. One of the few sourcesof such information is the Society for American Archaeology Notebook(SAA-N). This informalpublication issued from 1939 to late 1942 provided a forum for archaeologists to describe newtreatments in the field and museum lab and to ponder common problems. Museum Work,published by the American Association of Museums, Curator, and Museum News in America,and the Museums Journal in England, have provided a similar outlet for archaeologists and

anthropologists in museum settings. In 1933 the Fogg Museum began the publication of aperiodical of a scientific approach as applied to art and archaeology, Technical Studies in theField of the Fine Arts.

Of the publications pertaining to artifact conservation, it is remarkable to note the similarity inorganization and subjects covered they reveal on comparison. Some similarity is due to thenature of the objects studied. From Rathgen (1905) to Dowman (1970) knowledge of theenvironment, soil conditions, changes in conditions which an object would go through, and anawareness of the limitations of the available materials for treatment have been a consistentthread.

The first two works5 detailing the use of scientific techniques applied to the restoration andconservation of artifacts appeared in Germany just before the turn of the twentieth century. Theywere produced in response to the need to preserve objects of Egyptian origin in NorthernEuropean museums. The publication by Voss, appearing in 1888, was prepared at the request ofthe German government (Rathgen, 1905, ed.:v). Rathgen's work was published in German andthen translated into English in 1905 (Otto, 1979:47). It stands out from the general literature ofconservation in that it was more of a critical summary of the work of European conservators andscientists with whom he and Voss corresponded and whose work they knew through reports inpublications and of the experiences of collectors as well. Generally, Rathgen outlined the works




4/30

of others and criticized it in terms of his own and colleagues' work. Both books may be said tohave resulted from problems produced by the extensive collecting of artifacts in Egypt byLepsius and other German archaeologists in the nineteenth century. The work of Voss andRathgen has been carried on by German conservators publishing their results in the pages ofDerPrparator and Maltechnick-Restauro and other publications.

In the United Kingdom, Alexander Scott published three reports in 1921, 1923, and 1926 ontreatments done in the British Museum. Lucas published a comprehensive text of hisconservation treatments in its original form in 1924, the result of his work on the artifacts fromthe Tomb of Tutankh-Amen and his earlier studies as the Director of the Egyptian ChemicalDepartment (Anon., 1924). At about the same time he set up a laboratory at the Museum ofAntiquities in Cairo. The impact of this European work on American archaeologists and museumworkers came with the publication of Douglas Leechman's [application of Lucas's and otherEuropean practitioners'] techniques and procedures to the conservation of North Americanartifacts (1931). Leechman explains in his introduction that, at the time, there were only threebooks on the subject of preservation of museum specimens that were of any use and that one ofthese was the out-of-date translation of Rathgen. He states that the three were principally

concerned with archaeological materials, particularly those from Egypt.

Much of Leechman's philosophy and methodological procedure6in conservation has stood thetest of time, with the exception of some vague introductory phrases in which he cautions againstchanging the appearance of an object except, in some cases, very much for the better, andpromotes cleaning to return a specimen to the condition in which its original owner or makerwould have kept it. Even if we had ethnographic information detailed enough to tell us in everycase how a typical owner might keep a particular artifact, by modern professional standardsreturning it to this state would be a questionable and subjective exercise. Artifacts are found (i.e.collected from living users or archaeologically) containing traces of food, showing wear, orpossessing examples of repairs done in aboriginal settings which provide information about the

people, their technology, diet and the attitudes they held toward the artifacts.

Conservators are often faced with the problem of determining what is an aboriginal repair andwhat is a repair executed by a collector or dealer. Fried (1981:22945) has discussed thisproblem in detail as it affects scholarship. We have also some to realize since Leechman's time,that cleaned and restored or conserved have further implications which can compromisethe objects conceptually (Wolf & Mibach, 1983).

This is especially a problem with museum objects7where articles of use, practical or spiritual,may be transformed into (isolated into) objects for aesthetic contemplation only. Witharchaeological materials, we have the added problem of the possible compromise of analysis,where the potential for trace element analysis and dating can be altered or destroyed even bysimple washing and handling (Brothwell, 1965; Geidel, 1982; Loy, 1983; Janaway, 1983). Anexcellent example of the dangers involved is the case in which Colin Fink cleaned an EgyptianOld Kingdom ewer and basin by electrolytic reduction and then decided after his examination ofthe objects that the Egyptians had had a chemical method of plating antimony on copper (1934).Forbes (1950:264) pointed out after a subsequent analysis that the antimony plating was due tothe electrolytic reduction of the copper objects by Fink.

In the 1930s the series of conferences sponsored by the International Office of Museums (IMO)




5/30

brought together archaeologists, scientists and scholars from all over the world. At theseconferences discussions of archaeological excavation, restoration and museology, and a desire tostandardize practice led to several publications. A journal, Mouseion, published by the IMOallowed results of work to be spread to colleagues who could not meet. Another IMO publicationwhich resulted from conference discussions was the Manual on the Technique of Archaeological

Excavations (1940). Among the members of the editorial committee which produced the Manualwas H. J. Plenderleith, then Professor of Chemistry, Royal Academy of Arts, and Keeper of theResearch Laboratory at the British Museum, London. The Manual was planned as a standardizedguide to excavation work anywhere in the world. It contained a chapter on field conservationwhich drew on the recently published works ofPlenderleith (1934), Rosenberg (1934), SanaUllah (1934)S and that earlier of Rhoussopoulos (191112), among others.

Plenderleith published a summary of his work(1956) which he intended as a handbook orworkshop guide much like the works which had preceded it (Rathgen, Lucas, etc.). The book,revised with the help of Werner in 1971, has been of immense importance in both the generalfield of conservation and in archaeology. Their work, like that of those who preceded them, wasdirected at introducing scientific methodology into a field which had previously been dominated

by craftsmen. Both Plenderleith's 1956 edition, and his 1971 edition produced with Werner, aremajor contributions to the field of conservation and touch on field conservation techniques. Botheditions are generally concerned with treatments of objects once they are in the museum. Somearchaeological conservators have criticised their lack of detail in certain areas, for exampleHodges (1975:37); with respect to ceramics.

4 SCIENTIFIC METHODOLOGY AND CONSERVATION IN

ARCHAEOLOGY AND ANTHROPOLOGY

The first American publication relating to archaeological and anthropological conservation was

Forrest E. Clements's article in American Antiquity in 1936 (excepting the brief instructions ofHolmes and Mason, 1902). It was basically a summary of Leechman's earlier work in the contextof Clements's own experience. It was not until Keel published his work in 1964 that Americanarchaeology had a comprehensive manual designed especially for American collections inmuseum and university storage conditions. Still, Keel, like Leechman, dealt mainly withmuseum artifacts. His work was inspired by Plenderleith's 1956 edition ofThe Conservation ofAntiquities and Works of Artto which he devotes almost the entirety of his introduction,summarizing the earlier publication.

With the introduction of scientific methodology, emerging technology of the day was quicklyapplied to pressing problems which threatened disastrous results if unchecked (e.g. see Howie,

1984). For example, Leechman advised the use of celluloid dissolved in acetone as a consolidantfor a wide variety of materials. He also sprayed gasoline on artifacts to fumigate them(Leechman, 1931:129, and passim). However, this new tendency toward general use of chemicaltreatments was questioned quite early by Gettens (1933:41-1), who suggested that Lucas's use ofcelluloid solution and paraffin was inappropriate for some objects.

In the last 20 years we have seen a vast array of synthetic products utilized for conservation andrestoration. A rather informal process of introduction developed8 as the discipline ofconservation matured. Rapid aging tests were occasionally applied prior to general introduction.




6/30

Yet as time has passed it has become evident that the aging of these treatments in real time andthe effects of varying conditions may produce unexpected results.9 In this vein we have therecent problems upon aging developed by soluble nylon (Sease, 1981) and the effect of light onplastics and thermoplastics in particular (Lightbody and Roberts, 1954; Pappas and Winslow,1981).

It is certain that, since the founding of the Institute of Archaeology by Sir Mortimer Wheeler in1937 at the University of London, scientific attitudes have greatly aided the archaeologist in siteretrieval of artifacts and in laboratory procedures for their preservation. This has become mostapparent in underwater and marine archaeology, where retrieval is increasingly dependent onsystems developed by conservators (Bourque, Brooke, Kelly and Morris, 1980). Recent literaturecontains examples of archaeologists who recognize the need for and utility of the expertise ofconservators (South, 1976), though Clark (1954) and Wheeler (1954) set early foundations.

Perhaps the bulk of innovations in technology along with new materials applied toarchaeological retrieval and laboratory work occurred without the intervention of conservatorsover the last 200 years. This process was generally haphazard and makeshift, with treatments

applied with whatever materials were handy and without prior experiment on long-term effects,which often resulted in disastrous losses (e.g. Wheeler, 1954: 168). It is obvious, however, fromthe published literature of conservation scientists, researchers of the British Museum and theInstitute of Archaeology, as well as that of archaeologists, that many innovations wereintroduced either by way of scientific experimentation and practice applied in museums orthrough collaboration of conservators, archaeologists, and consulted scientists (cf. Plenderleithand Werner, 1971 ed.; Organ, 1968; McCawley, 1977; Howie, 1984).

The archaeologist often requires microanalysis of materials for chemical content or traceelements, etc., and has historically gone to the research scientists of the museum conservationlaboratories (as well as to university scientists) for aid (e.g. Gettens, 1933). At this point the

scientist is engaged in archaeometry. Archaeologists have learned much about ancienttechnologies by the detailed analysis of artifacts and their components. This process of analysiswhen uncovering the materials used as well as the techniques of manufacture can involverestoration of the object (Woolley, 1934:70). (Previously, reconstruction had been done either byarchaeologists, departmental employees, graduate students, or by specialized museum craftsmencalled preparators, the Jimmy Valentines of science as Stucker (1977:201) describes theirpaleontological counterparts, who often executed the exhibition of objects.)

5 MODERN DEVELOPMENTS AND PRACTICE

With the application of new scientific techniques and procedures, new information can bediscovered about formerly restored artifacts (Scott, 1926: 3940; Greene, 1979). To this end theteaching of archaeological conservation at the Institute of Archaeology of London University hasbeen likened to that of a physician's education: the practitioner must make a diagnosis of anobject's condition and propose treatment (Gedye & Hodges, 1964: 847). However, given theabove context, both student and archaeologist will encounter some difficulty in acquiringinformation concerning past and present conservation treatments and procedures. Although theArt and Archaeology Technical Abstracts cross-reference published articles relating toconservation, the amount of information in print on archaeological and anthropological




7/30

conservation is comparatively small in relation to other fields of conservation or the body ofanthropological literature.

With the rapid increase in technological apparatus and complex analytical procedures inarchaeometry and conservation, specialist scientists have become more prevalent. As Werner

turned more toward ethnographic conservation, especially that of fragile organic objects, anotherscientist at the Research Laboratory, Robert M. Organ, began specializing in treatment andstorage of metals and wood.10 Organ published the practical but highly technical Design forScientific Conservation of Antiquities in 1968. Garry Thomson, scientific advisor to the NationalGallery, London, came to specialize in environmental concerns in museums, (such as airconditioning and the effects of air pollution on works of art). His 1978 publication, The MuseumEnvironment, is a concise description of environmental problems, their causes and prevention.W. A. Oddy, another British Museum Research Laboratory scientist, concentrated his studies onmetals and stone: corrosion and deterioration prevention and treatment (e.g. Oddy & Hughes,1970; Oddy, 1977).

A similar trend has developed among continental European conservation scientists. TheFrench11 had been filling the pages ofMouseion from its inception, as well as Studies inConservation(France-Lord, 1962; Weil, 1958) with detailed reports of their work, most notablyin the conservation and analysis of archaeological metals. Italian contributions ranged from siteprospecting (Lerici, 1961) to the treatment of wooden objects (Augusti, 1959) to Torraca'ssubstantial aid to the field in the application of solvents to problems in conservation (Torraca,1975). In Poland, Jedrzejewska (1962; 196364) and in Czechoslovakia, Pelikan (1964; 1966)reported on progress in the treatment of archaeological artifacts, especially metals.

Other European scientists in collaboration have published works on specific subjects. Anexample is the work by Mhlethaler, a Swiss Scientist, Bachman, (Swedish), and Noack(German), Conservation of Waterlogged Wood and Wet Leather, published in 1973. Mhlethaler

also produced a comprehensive text on conservation (1967), while Stambolov published a majorwork on the methods of preparation and restoration of skin objects (1969) from his Amsterdamlaboratory. Significant research and experimentation were undertaken in Scandinavia. In the areaof textile conservation, the first conservation studio conceived to operate under scholarlycontrol was organized by two Stockholm museum directors under the leadership of AgnesBranting in 1908. Here scientific research and analysis were applied to the conservation of alltypes of textiles, in cluding archaeological textiles (Geijer & Franzen, 1975:7). Excavation ofarchaeological shipwrecks such as the Wasa and a long list of other excavated wrecks byScandinavian conservators and archaeologists developed conservation techniques on a widerange of objects (Patoharju, 1975:183187;Rosenqvist, 1959). Finally, Christensen (1952;1956)made substantial advances in the conservation of water-logged wood in Denmark.

The subject of conservation in excavation was never the subject of a comprehensive work,although Plenderleith's chapter in the IMO Manual (1940) was an early yet brief attempt. Thismay, however, reflect the youth of the field of conservation, as there have been few generallyaccepted text books produced as opposed to those available in an older discipline such asarchaeology, no less technical or complex, which has a wide selection of up-to-date basic textsproduced regularly. Dowman's Conservation in Field Archaeology, published in 1970, was asOddy (1973:44) stated, the first (work) to describe in simple form, treatments which maysafely be carried out on archaeological finds in the field. Dowman's work is an excellent




8/30

compendium of field techniques, treatments both for rescue operations and field laboratories aswell as storage directions and therefore a partial exception to the above generalization, extendingcare into the museum or university laboratory. For Dowman, aside from being out of print andcontaining some poor science (Oddy, 1973:45), has provided a much needed focus on materials,conditions, soils and methods of treatment specifically for the archaeologist. Some of Dowman's

deficiencies are covered in a 1984 IC-CROM publication edited by Stanley-Price (1984), butalthough it includes many references, this publication fails to address other areas such as the roleof conservation in post-excavation analysis.

A number of archaeological textbooks contain chapters or short sections which describe in moreor less detail the authors' practices in the field and laboratory with regard to conservation (e.g.Wheeler, 1954; Brennen, 1973: 151 and 161; Robbins, 1965: 173;88). Most of these are simplyoutlines of practice or lists of suggested procedures, chemicals and apparatus. Both of Heizer'sGuides fall into this category (Heizer, 1958; Heizer and Graham, 1967). The best of these textsgive examples of procedures with lists of materials as well as some cautionary remarks andsuggested alternatives, developed in some detail, differing from the former group in the specificsprovided and the background sketched to help deter possible problems. Examples of these are

Hume 1968 and Joukowsky, 1980. With the exception of Joukowsky, none of these provides athorough reading list or bibliography upon conservation. None presents a conservation paradigmin a manner as complete as a workbook or a descriptive narrative as does Dowman, 1970.

A recent article by Katherine R. Singley (1981) falls between Joukowsky and Dowman indescriptive effectiveness of directives. It is an excellent outline of what should be done in thefield for the care of artifacts after excavation. Outline must be stressed, for this is a very briefwork; useful as this paper is it does not touch on ecofactual remains, which make up a large partof many collections and excavation materials.

Rescue publications of the Department of Archaeology of the University of Southhampton,

especially Leigh (1978), give clear directions for field work but are generally limited to packingand storage. There are also several articles by Australians on conservation. Ambrose (1968)produced a practical summary of field conditions in Australia and appropriate treatments, andMcCarthy (1970) edited a volume containing several works on a variety of problems.

Although there are professional guidelines in the field of conservation (AIC, 1980), there is nostandard view of treatment in every case. There is a wide variation in what is regarded as theproper treatment for any particular object or whether there should be any treatment at all (Beck,1982). Plenderleith admonished in 1940 (IMO, 1940:143), that the archaeologist must not leaveobjects in the hands of the conservator and give him carte blanche. The archaeologist must havea clear understanding of what can be done in the field, with those items left in situ as well asthose recovered, and what can be treated in the museum or university laboratory. In practice, thearchaeologist should have specific objectives which will dictate the type of conservation.However, in my experience these objectives are often short-sighted with respect to the survivalof the majority of objects, and the most often described treatments are cosmetic or are soconcerned with the immediate survival of the object for analysis that long-term treatments forsurvivability cannot be assured.

Communication between archaeologist and conservator must be an ongoing process to updatewhat works in the field and to clarify the long-term effects of all treatments including those that




9/30

may hinder research or analysis. Research and experimentation must be facilitated for thesuccessful recovery and preservation of artifacts.

The retrieval of fragile fragments or of impressions of objects and the detection of trace elementsor information concerning the former existence of structures or objects (Biek, 1963:6065) is the

meridian between the role of the conservator and that of the analytical scientist. Still, with all thetechnical skill of the scientists and the increasing specialization among conservators, it is thetraining of the excavators which is of utmost importance. It is with their ability and awarenessthat the successful recovery of an object begins.

For historical collections one may also mention Guldbeck (1972), published by the AmericanAssociation for State and Local History, Waterer's 1972 work on leather which touches onarchaeological and ethnographic materials, and Lewis's Manual for Museums (1976) whichcontains information derived from the work of the United States National Park Servicecentralized laboratories set up in the 1930s by Carl P. Russell. While most of the efforts of theselaboratories have been oriented toward storage and exhibition as it is reflected in the content ofthis volume, there has been a long tradition of preservation treatments established by Park

Service workers. Lewis's work follows on that by Ned J. Burns (1941); both were written forcurators, to provide guidance to practical solutions for collections. The impact of Burns's work,however, is problematic as even Keel (1963) hardly mentions Burns's work and then only thatconcerning the treatment of skin. Nevertheless, Burns's work was very detailed and his audience,being the Park Service personnel under whose care were many thousands of objects, probablygave his suggestions on treatments and care a very wide application. However, with reference tothis skin material, the work of Burns and that of Waterer mentioned above are of less value toarchaeologists and anthropologists than the comprehensive work ofReed (1972).

Rowe (1953), in his summary of technical aids in anthropology mentions Rathgen (1905),Rosenberg (1917), Plenderleith (1934) and Leechman (1931) as the comprehensive texts in

restoration. He mentions Lucas (1924) for chemical identification and analysis and Gettens(1950) and Fink (1933) for specific applications. The appearance of an article such as that byVelich (1965) in a journal of the professional caliber ofCuratorperhaps belies the actual effectof much of this work described above. While Velich's description of his treatments of skinartifacts of American Indians were not entirely unacceptable in the context of the time, they areextremely pedestrian in retrospect and must indicate a lack of familiarity with earlier publishedwork, most specifically in his restorative efforts with ballpoint pen.

6 SPECIFIC GEOGRAPHIC DEVELOPMENTS

To return to Canadian archaeology, passed over after the discussion of Leechman's earlycontribution, it has had a rapid and intense involvement with conservation. William Todd, ChiefConservator of the Royal Ontario Museum until his death in 1963, published several papers onthe conservation of materials, his subjects ranging from bone preservation (1941) to restorationof Chinese grave figurines (1952) to preservation research in Chinese bronzes. In 1966 theBritish Columbian Provincial Museum recruited its first conservator, who was the only one westof Toronto for the next four years (Ward, 1978:9). Care of collections prior to this date had beenexecuted by other staff specialists. In 1970 the first course in conservation was established at theUniversity of Victoria, entitled Conservation of Antiquities, as a course for curators. The




10/30

Canadian Conservation Institute (CCI) was originally conceived in 1972 at Ottawa and twocenters were established in 1974, the Pacific Regional Center and an Atlantic Regional Center,followed by a small facility in Quebec in 1977, with Erika Schaffer the principal scientistinvolved in the preservation research program for archaeological and anthropological materialsof the CCI. Her work as a conservation scientist both in identifying materials of composite

artifacts and designing treatment procedures has added considerably to the development of anorganized methodology (1971, 1974, 1976, 1981), as has the work of another Canadian scientist,Mary-Lou Florian (1976, 1977, 1978, 1981). The development in Canada of the application ofscientific techniques in archaeological conservation has been rapid especially in wet site andfrozen site problems (Hett, 1978). Mac-Donald presents a concise outline of the development ofwet site archaeology in Europe and North America in his 1977 article.

While conservation in Australia dates well into the last century with the establishment of ageneral lab in New South Wales (Lloyd, 1981), conservation work there has benefited fromconservators with a broad range of skills and interests from fine arts to archaeology. Oneexample is Boustead, who treated a wide range of ethnographic objects (Boustead, 1960; 1966).Australian archaeologists have written several articles on both field practice and museum work

(e.g. Macintosh, 1968; McCarthy, 1970). Their publications in general reflect a closerelationship with European (especially British) conservation efforts as well as localexperimentation. Boustead, like many Australian conservators, learned his trade as an apprenticeand later augmented his skills by tours of study in Europe, mainly England. Many Australiancultural institutions provided training for other surrounding nations through funds provided bythe Commonwealth; these ranged from India to Pacific Island nations.

The tradition of the independent efforts of museum preparators in setting up conservationfacilities is seen in the creation of the first conservation lab in New Zealand in 1953 (Thompson,1985). The Pacific Regional Center, at its Honolulu facility in Hawaii, has trained local residentsand treated regional collections from the Pacific Islands, as well as sent conservators out on

location (Lee, 1978). The Pacific Regional Center resulted from a study undertaken by Werner in1973 and sponsored by the Bishop Museum to determine the needs of Pacific Region museuminstitutions which led to the establishment of the Pacific Center in 1974 (UNESCO, 1980).

The Soviets and East Europeans developed parallel technology in the application of materialsand have conducted extensive research and experimentation with synthetics (Nogid & Rozdnyak,1965; Tomashevich, 1969). Grabar published a restoration manual in 1960 which presents amixture of synthetic (new) and old traditional methods with some criticism of the poor agingresults of some particular traditional methods (Kovostovetz and Thomson, 1963). The same canbe said of the Japanese (Higuchi and Aoki, 1976; Aoki, 1985).

Concerning the Japanese, Yamasaki (1957:83) places the first technical conservation work in1919 with the government-formed committee on the wall paintings of the Horyuji temple atNara. An attempt to stabilize the peeling paint was undertaken using natural resins (copal), butthe trial in a small area failed to produce satisfactory results and was discontinued. In 1933Professor S. Taki of Tokyo University organized a small study group of art historians, physicists,chemists, biologists and architects. Discussions of methods of repair and conservation of artobjects and studies of scientific and new methods of repair compared to traditional methods wereundertaken. In 1947 the group was organized into the Association of Scientific Research inAntiques with Professor Y. Shibata as president. A journal was established by this group,




11/30

Scientific Papers on Japanese Antiques and Art Crafts, the first issue appearing in 1951,although today the primary Japanese publication for conservation is Science for Conservation.

In addition to these efforts, the Institute of Art Research in Tokyo, founded in 1930, wasreorganized in 1952 as the Tokyo National Research Institute of Cultural Properties, with a

Department of Conservation added to it (Yamasaki, 1957:83). This Department of Conservationwas housed in the Tokyo National Museum and was concerned mainly with the conservation ofpaintings and sculptures in temples and museums. This Department of Conservation was laterchanged to the Department of Conservation Science and a Department of RestorationTechniques was added (Ito, 1979:xi).

In 1902 the Archaeological Survey of India proposed a chemical branch, which was establishedin 1917 when a laboratory was set up in the Indian Museum in Calcutta. Later the laboratory wastransferred to Dehre Dun and work organized on methods established at the British MuseumLaboratory (Swarnakamal, 1975:25). A laboratory was set up at the National Museum, NewDelhi, in 1958 as a central major research facility (Gairola, 1960; Agrawal, 1963). T. R. Gairola,Chemist, National Museum of India, New Delhi, published a Handbook of ChemicalConservation in 1960 which offered recommendations for treatments of all types of objectsfound in Indian museums; the handbook is organized by physical composition (organic, metalsand siliceous). Basically it is a manual for museum workers, written for the post-graduatestudents of the Department of Museology of the University of Baroda, although it does containexamples of treatments of archaeological materials. Gairola draws heavily from the Europeanand American literature and his own extensive experience.

Shortly after the establishment of a central conservation laboratory at the Baroda Museum for theState of Gujarat, Swarnakamal published a book, Protection and Conservation of MuseumCollections (1975), which is entirely concerned with treatments in museums. Individualtreatments of archaeological materials were from time to time published in several Indian

journals including Journal of Indian Museums, and Ancient India. Other Indian conservationlaboratories were established at Lucknow, and at the National Museum, New Delhi. In 1977, O.P. Agrawal, who studied under Gairola as well as at the Instituto Centrale del Restauro in Rome,published a book on the Care and Preservation of Museum Objects, one of a series of books onconservation in Indian museums and in Southeast Asia; it includes a bibliography onconservation in India. Agrawal is the Director of the National Research Laboratory forConservation of Cultural Property, Lucknow, and has edited a journal, Conservation of CulturalProperty in India, from 1967 to the present. He produced several studies on the conservationneeds of Asian nations as well as edited several books, including Conservation in the Tropics(1973), Documentation in Museums (1974) and The Small Museum (1975). His survey ofconservation needs and techniques of Southeast Asian cultural properties, originally published inMuseum in 1975 as Conservation in South and Southeast Asia, was expanded and republished byButterworths in 1984.

In Africa, archaeological and anthropological conservation has been derived in most part fromEuropean efforts, particularly British and French. A manual for conservation of collections ofMiddle African museums was produced by Kennedy in 1959 and contains the usualorganization, beginning with the effects of climate on objects, the agents of deterioration(insects, microorganisms, etc.) and then an overview of restoration techniques. A substantialnumber of local institutions have developed techniques for the extraction and cleaning of fossil




12/30

materials, derived from traditional methods in paleontology, especially in Kenya and SouthAfrica. For the purposes of this paper, conservation efforts in paleoanthropology will beconsidered a separate literature and will not be covered.

Through the agency of international organizations several conservation scientists were able to

travel widely sharing skills and initiating programs. One of these was Paul Coremans (1968:135139; Tahk, 1984:1625), whose energies and interests carried him from his base in Brussels atthe Institut Royal du Patrimoine Artistique to sites in Indonesia, Burma, Thailand, Iran, Iraq,Peru, Mexico, and the United States of America.

F. Mairinger12 of the Insitut fr Farbenlehre und Farbenchemie, Academie der BildendenKnste, Vienna, recently visited China for the purpose of investigating analytical practice inconservation. He found their level of expertise based on pre-World War II technology, althoughthey apparently are being influenced by Japanese experience and new Western methods.13

UNESCO, through its Museums and Monuments series, published a volume prepared by theInternational Centre for the study of the Preservation and Restoration of Cultural Property

(Rome), now ICCROM, The Conservation of Cultural Property (1968). This was of specialinterest as it was written with reference to problems related to tropical conditions and situationswith few technical resources. Articles were prepared by such workers as Daifuku from Bangkokand Andrade from Brazil. Other shorter documents have resulted from special seminars orconferences supported by UNESCO and ICOM. Among these are the reports written by Werneron the Conservation of Ethnographical Collections (1968) and Conservation of CulturalMaterials in Humid Climates (Regional Seminar) published by the Australian NationalConference for UNESCO in 1980.

In Argentina Tellchea (1981) produced a comprehensive text, Enciclopedia de la Conservacion yRestauracion, particularly designed for cultural materials found in South America and written for

a wide audience, from craftsmen to conservators, as well as diverse environmental settings.

7 CONCLUSIONS

The development of conservation practice in archaeology and anthropology proceeded on asomewhat haphazard basis with European publications influencing American writers in a slowand uneven manner. The actual effect of these publications is questionable as treatments arescarcely mentioned in archaeological reports. In general, as Howie's results (1984) indicate forthe field of paleontology and as seems consistent from the bibliographic material in this paper,methods and materials are easily introduced but resist rejection. Publication of new data on

materials, rejection/repudiation of inferior techniques, and the introduction of new methods areslow to reach the majority of practitioners.

What this survey has shown is that there is a great need for conservators to offer courses inuniversity anthropology departments and to offer reviews of general anthropology andarchaeology texts, site reports and survey materials in order to expose archaeologists andanthropologists and their students to new trends in conservation. These reviews must be offeredto journals in the field of anthropology and archaeology as well as appearing as presentations innational and regional conferences. A related problem is the lack of general texts in conservation




13/30

and especially archaeological conservation.

Specialization in analytical and recovery techniques will most likely continue to benefit studentsof archaeometry rather than those minoring in conservation in university departments ofanthropology. The largest number of university positions call for individuals who can still teach

in several general survey and subject areas while pursuing specialized research, but we can hopethat the trend of double masters (so frequently seen in England) of anthropologists with diplomasin conservation will increase.

The trend toward specialization in conservation is becoming an increasing reality in thegraduation of conservation students from the various programs (NIC, 1984). This trend and theincreasing number of retiring general practitioners in conservation will deny to the field thepublication of generalized texts so prevalent in other fields and especially needed here tointroduce archaeologists and their students to the field. The composition of such texts differsfundamentally from collections of articles written by different specialists, in that the experiencedoverview is drawn from years of study and experiment seasoned with examples of trial and error

so necessary to learning. Such texts are the foundation of any discipline and, as the yearly swarmof introductory texts in every field proves, a necessary means of updating and focusing any bodyof organized knowledge.

The specter of so many experienced and older practitioners leaving the field by retirementwithout publishing summaries of their experience or outlines of their work in textbook formbrings to the mind the plea of the 1923 Committee on Restoration and Preservation of Painting,Drawing and Prints (Museums J., 1923:118): it does seem necessary to issue a reminder thatthe absence of any official record of the measure of success or failure is an effectual barrier tothe progress of knowledge upon the subject in question. The publication of volume I of HermanKhn's Conservation and Restoration of Works of Art and Antiquities by Butterworths (1986) isan exception which hopefully will become a trend.

NOTES

1. Brommelle (1956) describes a similar reaction to the early attempts at cleaning paintings inthe National Gallery in England that led to the Select Committee Reports of 1850 and 1853.

2. Klaproth's paper was actually read publicly in 1795 but not published until two years later.Most authors, however, give Klaproth credit for the first publication even though a chemistnamed Pearson published a paper in 1796 and read in the same year (Caley, 1951:64; 1949:242).

3. Osgood's (1979) observations of storage conditions and conservation practice in American andCanadian museums present considerable evidence supporting this view. His recommendationsfor conservation treatments are out of date at best and are, at worst, examples of the need forscientific, standardized conservation practice.

4. N. L. Caldararo, unpublished report, A Survey of University and College Course Offeringsfor Descriptions Containing References to the Conservation or Restoration of Artifacts orSpecimens, 1980.




14/30

5. Although the Bonnardot books among others (Brommelle, 1956; Ruhemann, 1968) wereearlier, the presentations of Rathgen and Voss were the first systematic applications of scientifictechniques (trans. note, Eng. ed. Rathgen, 1905). Rathgen's 1905 publication was most oftenquoted and referenced, though this two-volume Handbcher published between 1915 and 1924is referenced by both Rowe (1953) and Heizer & Graham (1967).

6. Although certain segments of his paper have earned criticism for the fragmented treatmentpresented (Plenderleith, 1932: 508), many items were only described in outline.

7. This concept was argued by Pettenkofer (1870) with regard to paintings and was extended byDoerner (1934) to other art objects.

8. The National Conservation Advisory Council submitted a report, Proposal for a NationalInstitute for the Conservation of Cultural Property (1982), which outlined a formal process andaddressed the problems of the present situation; see pp. 2627. Howie's recent research (1984)has shown the rapid application of new synthetic products and the slow rejection of materialsfound to be inappropriate for treatment. Another aspect of this is the reapplication of oldtechniques once rejected and reintroduced at a later date, such as in bleaching in paperconservation. A table such as Howie's could be constructed for bleaching showing the use of thehypochlorites; the use of hydrogen peroxide (Scott, 1926), its rejection (Hey, 1977) andreintroduction (Walsh, 1986); or the use of sugar in the stabilization of wood, its fall from favorand reintroduction (Parrent, 1985). Werner outlines the introduction of some synthetic materialsin a 1968 report and later in a 1981 article.

9. Greathouse and Wessel's Deterioration of Materials (1954) provides data on the complexitiesof the process of deterioration of natural and synthetic materials, as well as descriptions of thedisastrous results of material failing, when testing could not foresee the effects of varyingclimates and environments in combination with long-term oxidation, radiation and other factors.

10. Organ (personal communication, 1985) objects to this generalization which basically reflectspublished reports of work. As Organ points out, the demands of one's professional duties oftenforced practitioners to treat a wide variety of objects, yet a particular worker's publications mayonly reflect the most interesting challenges, a special interest, or only those specific treatmentswhich he or she felt proposed the most significant contributions to the field. In the case ofarchaeology Organ's comments are even more appropriate: as the range of objects in mostarchaeological collections has demanded generalization in the practice of those who werecharged with their care, as well as the composite nature of most archaeological andanthropological objects; this has been especially true of work on archaeological excavations.Thesituation has been changing, but specialization has had a much greater effect in other areas of thefield of conservation, especially in paper and paintings. One particular example of the situationOrgan mentions is that of George Stout, whose publications were generally in the area ofConservation of Fine Arts, mainly paintings, but whose influence and other unpublishedcontributions were considerable in other areas of conservation (Plenderleith, 1987). Also, hispublished works were often of such breadth that they could be applied to numerous problemsand lines of inquiry in conservation as well as archaeology (e.g. the text on painting materials hepublished with Gettens in 1942).

11. E.g., B. C. Champion, Identification et conservation des objets prhistoriqes, Mouseion 16,




15/30

(1931): pp. 3547.

12. K.C. Chang (personal communication, 1982).

13. This view is consistent with that reported by T. Chase (1974), K.C. Chang (1977), and

personal communication (1983); Colin Pearson in Museum, 32: 4: 1980, pp. 215218; and CarolSnow (1985) and Haiwen (1985).

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Adamson, Helen. Storage of Archaeological Material: the Problems. The MuseumArchaeologist3. (Society of Museum Archaeologists, April 1979).

Agrawal, O.P. The Conservation Laboratory of the National Museum, New Delhi. Studies in

Conservation8, #5 (1963): pp. 99105.

Agrawal, O.P., et al. Museum Techniques. Shahdara-Delhi, 1964.

Agrawal, O.P. Conservation in South and South-East Asia. Museum27, #3 (1975): 155213.

Aitken, Martin. Thermoluminescence and the Archaeologist. AntiquityLI (1977): pp. 1119.

Ambrose, Walter. Conservation in the Field. Kalori35 (Museum Association of Australia,1968): pp. 3445.

American Institute for Conservation. Code of Ethics and Standards of Practice. AnnualDirectory (Washington, D.C., 1980 et seg.).

Anonymous Review of A. Lucas, Antiques: their Restoration and Preservation. MuseumsJournal24 (1924): pp. 124125.

Aoki, Shigeo. Conservation of a Copper Statuette. Science for Conservation24 (Tokyo, 1985):pp. 7378.

Augusti, Selim. Traitement de conservation de quelques objets de fouille en bois. Studies inConservation4, #4 (1959): p. 146151.

Baer, N. S. Chemical Aspects of the Conservation of Archaeological Materials. AmericanChemical Society171 (1978) pp. 2532.

Baer, N. S. & Majewski, L. J. The History of Teaching in Conservation on the United States.ICOM Committee for Conservation (4th Triennial Meeting, Venice, 1975): pp. 110.

Beck, Curt W. Authentication and Conservation of Amber: Conflict of Interests. Preprints, IICConference, Science and Technology in the Service of Conservation (Washington, D.C., 1982).




16/30

Bennett, H. G. An Account of the Ancient Rolls of Papyrus, Discovered at Herculaneum, andthe Method Employed to Unroll them. Archaeologia15 (1806): pp. 114117.

Biek, Leo. Archaeology and the Microscope. New York: Praeger, 1963.

Bonnardot, A.Essai sur l'Art de Restaurer les Estampes et les Livres. 1846. Reprint. New York:Burt Franklin, 1967.

Bourque, Bruce J., Brooke, Stephen W., Kelly, R., and Morris, K. Conservation Archaeology:Moving toward Closer Cooperation. American Antiquity45, #4 (1980): pp. 794799.

Boustead, W. The Conservation Department of the New South Wales Art Gallery, Australia.Studies in Conservation (1960): pp. 121131.

Boustead, W. Conservation of Australian Aboriginal Bark Paintings. Studies in Conservation2(1966): pp. 197204.

Brennen, Louis A.Beginner's Guide to Archaeology. New York: Dell, 1973.

Brommelle, Norman. Material for a History of Conservation: the 18501853 Reports on theNational Gallery. Studies in Conservation2, #4 (October, 1956): 176187.

Brothwell, Don A.Digging up Bones. London: British Museum, 1965.

Burns, Ned J.Field Manual for Museums. Washington, D.C.: National Park Service, 1941.

Butler, William. The No-Collection Strategy in Archaeology. American Antiquity44, #4(October, 1979): pp. 795799.

Byers, Douglas S. The Restoration and Preservation of some Objects from Etowah. AmericanAntiquity28, #2 (1962): pp. 206216.

Caldararo, Niccolo Leo. Ethnographic Conservation: A Major Concern for Anthropologists.Practicing Anthropology3, #2 (1980): pp. 3940.

Caldararo, Niccolo Leo. A Note on the Archaeological Report. North AmericanArchaeologist6, #1 (19845): pp. 6380.

Caley, Earle R. Klaproth as a Pioneer in the Chemical Investigation of Antiquities. J. Chem.

Education26 (May, 1949): pp. 242248.

Caley, Earle R. Early History and Literature of Archaeological Chemistry. Journal ofChemical Education (February, 1951): pp. 6466.

Chang, K.C. Public Archaeology in China. Paleo-Anthropology in the Peoples Republic ofChina. Edited by W. W.Howells & Patricia JonesTuchitari. CSCPRC Report #4 (NationalAcademy of Sciences, 1977): pp. 130139.




17/30

Chaptal, J.Report to the Academy of Sciences of Paris, 1787.

Chaptal, J. Notice sur quelques couleurs trouvees a Pompeia. Ann. Chim. 22 (1809): p. 70.

Chase, W. T. Conservation in the Peoples Republic of China. Bulletin, AIC 14, #2 (1974):

pp.132141.

Christensen, B.B.Om Konservering of Mosefudne Traegenstande. Copenhagen: NationalMuseum, 1952.

Christenen, B.B. Konservering af Moestrae Med Hjaelp af Tertiar Butylalkohol. Aarboger forNordisk Oldkyndighed og. Copenhagen: National Museum of Copenhagen, Historie, 1956.

Christenson, Andrew L. Cultural Resource Management: The Role of Museums in CulturalResource Management American Antiquity44 (1980): pp. 161163.

Clark, J. G. D.Excavations at Star Carr: An Early Mesolithic Site at Seamer near Scarborough,Yorkshire. Cambridge: University Press, 1954.

Clements, Forrest E. Notes on Archaeological Methods: Excavation of Fragile Objects.American Antiquity1, #3 (1936): pp. 193207.

Conklin, Barbara. New Storage at the American Museum of Natural History: BalancingContinuity and Change. Curator23, #1 (1980): pp. 6370.

Coremans, Paul. Problems of Conservation15. Paris: ICOM; Rome: ICCROM, 1969.

Craft, Meg and Jones, Sian. Written Documentation, AIC (9th Annual Meeting). Philadelphia:May 29, 1981. The Curation of Archaeological Collections. Curator23, #1 (Symposium Issue,1980).

Davies, D. Gareth. Museums and Archaeologya Lost Cause? Museums Journal (1978): pp.123125.

Davis, G. E.Chemical News36 (1877).

Davy, Sir H. Some Observations and Experiments on the Papyri Found in the Ruins ofHerculaneum Phil. Translation of the Royal Society of London3 (1821): 191208.

Davy, J. Observations on the Changes which have Taken Place in some Ancient Alloys ofCopper Phil. Translation (1826): pp. 55, 116.

Directorate of Ancient Monuments and Historic Buildings, Department of the Environment. TheScientific Treatment of Material from Rescue Excavations: report by a working party of theCommittee for Rescue Archaeology of the Ancient Monuments Board for England (1978).

Doerner, Max. The Materials of the Artist and their use in Painting with Notes on the Techniques




18/30

of the Old Masters. 1921. Reprint in trans. New York: Harcourt, Brace and Co.

Dowman, Elizabeth. Conservation in Field Archaeology. Methuen & Co., 1970.

Faraday, Michael. On the Ventilation of Lamp Burners. London: Royal Institution Lecture,

April 7, 1843.

Fielden, Bernard. An Introduction to the Conservation of Cultural Property. ICCROM, Rome.Paris: UNESCO.

Fielden, Bernard. personal communication, 1982.

Fink, Colin Garfield. Incrustations on Porous Pottery: A New Method of Cleaning without Lossof Pigment. Technical Studies in the Field of the Fine Arts2, #2 (October, 1933): pp. 5861.

Fink, Colin Garfield. Chemistry and Art. Industrial and Engineering Chemistry26, #2

(February, 1934): pp. 234238.

Florian, Mary-Lou E. Fungicide Treatment of Eskimo Skin and Fur Artifacts. Journal IIC-CG2, #1 (Autumn, 1976): pp. 1017.

Florian, Mary-Lou E. and Dudley, David. The inherent Fungicidal Features of SomeConservation Processes. AIC Preprints (Dearborn, 1976): p. 4147.

Florian, Mary-Lou E. Waterlogged Artifacts: The Nature of the Materials. CCI Journal2(1977): 1115.

Florian, Mary-Lou E. Plant Material used in Some Ethnological Artifacts, Structure,Fabrication and Deterioration Related to Conservation Treatment. AIC Preprints (Boston,1977): pp.5155.

Florian, Mary-Lou E., Seccombe-Hett, C. E., and McCawley, J. C. The Physical, Chemical andMorphological Condition of Marine Archaeological Wood Should Dictate the ConservationProcess. Papers from the First Southern Hemisphere Conference on Maritime Archaeology (1978): pp. 128144.

Florian, Mary-Lou E. Analyses of Different States of Deterioration of Terrestrial WaterloggedWoodConservation Implication of the Analyses: A Review. ICOM Com. for Conservation(6th Triennial Meeting, Ottawa, 1981).

Forbes, Robert James. Metallurgy in AntiquityA Notebook for Archaeologists andTechnologists. London: E. J. Brill, 1950.

Ford, Richard I.Systematic Research Collections in Anthropology: An Irreplaceable NationalResource. Harvard University: Peabody Museum, 1977.

Ford, Richard I. A Three-Part System for Storage of Archaeological Collections. Curator23,




19/30

#1 (March, 1980): pp. 5562.

FranceLanord, A. Le Polissage electrolytique et les repliques transparantes. Studies inConservation7, #4 (1962): pp. 121134.

Frere, S., et al., a Working Party of the Committee for Rescue Archaeology of AncientMonuments Board for England. The Scientific Treatment of Material from Rescue Excavations.London: Department of the Environment, 1978.

Fried, Stanley E. Research Pitfalls as a Result of the Restoration of Museum Specimens. TheResearch Potential of Anthropological Museum Collections, Annals of the New York Academyof Sciences (1981): pp.229245.

Gairola, T. R.Handbook of Chemical Conservation of Museum Objects. University of Baroda:Dept. of Museology, 1960.

Gairola, T. R. Setting up the Department of Preservation in the National Museum of India, NewDelhi. Curator3, #3 (1960): pp. 271278.

Gallo, F.Patologia e Terapia del Libro. Rome: Raggio, 1951.

Garlake, Margaret. Kitchen Conservation: Cleaning Corroded Iron. South AfricanArchaeological Bulletin22 (1967): p. 155.

Garlake, Margaret. Cleaning Corroded Copper. South African Archaeological Bulletin24(1969): pp. 30.

Garlake, Margaret. Recovery and Treatment of Fragile Artifacts from an Excavation. SouthAfrican Archaeological Bulletin24, (1969): pp. 6162.

Gedye, I., and Hodges, H. W. The Teaching of Archaeological Conservation. Bulletin of theInstitute of Archaeology, London University4 (1964): pp. 8387.

Geidel, R. A. Trace Element Studies for Mississippian Skeletal Remains: Findings fromNeutron Activation Analysis. Masca Journal2, #1 (June, 1982) 1316.

Geijer, A., and Franzen, A. M. Textile Conservation in Sweden: Problems and Practice.Conservation in Archaeology and the Applied Arts, IIC (London: Stockholm Congress, 1975):pp.714.

Gettens, R. J. Review of A. Lucas, Antiques: Their Restoration and Preservation (2nd ed.,revised, 1932). Technical Studies in the Field of Fine Arts2, #1 (July, 1933): pp.4041.

Gettens, Rutherford J. and Stout, George L.Painting Materials. Van Nostrand Co., 1942; DoverEdition, 1966.

Gettens, Rutherford J. The Corrosion Products of an Ancient Chinese Bronze. J. Chem.Ed.28,




20/30

#2 (1951): pp. 6771. (From a 1950 Conference).

Gettens, Rutherford J. Teaching and Research in Art Conservation. Science133 (1961): pp.12121216.

Gettens, Rutherford J. IICAn International Association of Conservation. Museum News47,#10 (1969): pp. 1114.

Gettens, Rutherford J.Thoughts Apropos of a History of Conservation. Unpublishedmanuscript presented at Cooperstown,N. Y. AIC meeting, 1974.

Goffer, Zui. Archaeological Chemistry: A Source Book on the Application of Chemistry toArchaeology. New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1980.

Graber, I. A.Problems of Restoration and Conservation of Objects of Arta Methodical Guide.Moscow, U.S.S.R.: Academy of Arts, 1960; p. 190.

Greathouse, Glenn A. and Wessel, Carl J.Deterioration of Materials. New York: Reinhold,1954.

Greene, Virginia. Conservation of a Lyre from Ur. Preprints of 7th Annual Meeting (AIC,1979): pp. 3743.

Grinsell, Leslie, Rahtz, P., and Warhurst, A.The Preparation of Archaeological Reports. NewYork: St. Martins Press, 1966.

Grosso, Gerald H. After Excavation, then What? Occasional Papers in Method and Theory inCalifornia Archaeology2 (Society for California Archaeology, 1978): pp. 5358.

Guldbeck, Per E.The Care of Historical Collections. Nashville: American Association for Stateand Local History, 1972.

Haiwen, Wang. The Care of Bronze Ware. Palace Museum Journal2 (1985): pp. 7478.

Heizer, Robert F.A Guide to Field Methods in Archaeology. Palo Alto: National Press, 1967.

Heizer, Robert F., and Graham, John A.A Guide to Field Methods in Archaeology, Palo AltoNational Press, 1967.

HettCharles. Archaeological Sites of the Canadian North: Their Preservation. Journal of theCanadian Conservation Institute3 (1978): pp. 1319.

Hey, Margaret. Paper Bleaching: its Simple Chemistry and Working Procedures. PaperConservator2 (1977): pp. 1023.

Higuchi, Seiji, and Aoki, Shigeo. Conservation Treatment of Important Parts of Historic Sitesby the Separation from the Mother Grounds. Science for Conservation15 (1976): pp. 88101.




21/30

Hitchcock, Ann. Discussion Paper. Curator23, #1 (March, 1977): pp. 7179.

Hodges, H. W. M. Problems and Ethics of the Restoration of Pottery. Conservation inArchaeology and the Applied Arts (London: IIC, Stockholm Congress, 1975): pp. 3738.

Hodges, H. W. M., and Hodkinson, I. S. Training in Conservation: An Analysis. ICOMCommittee for Conservation (Venice: 4th Triennial Meeting, 1975): pp. 16.

Hole, Frank, and Heizer, Robert F.An Introduction to Prehistoric Archaeology. New York: Holt,Reinhart & Winston, 1965.

Holmes, William Henry, and Mason, Otis Tufton. Instructions to Collectors of Historical andAnthropological Specimens. U. S. National Museum Bulletin39, part Q (1902).

Howard, Marjorie M. Field Treatment of Archaeological Specimens from Nimrud in Ivory.Annual Report, University of London Institute of Archaeology11 (1953): pp. 7174.

Howie, Francis M. P. Materials Used for Conserving Fossil Specimens since 1930: A Review.Adhesives and Consolidants (Preprints of the Paris Congress, IIC, 1984): pp. 9297.

Huelsbeck, David R., and Wessen, Gary. Thoughts on the Collection, Conservation, andCuration of Faunal Remains. NARN16, #2 (1982): pp. 221230.

Hulmer, E.The Role of Conservation on Connoisseurship. Ann Arbor, Mich.: UniversityMicrofilms, 1955.

Hume, Ivor Noel. Historical Archaeology. New York: Knopf, 1968.

Hurt, Wesley. On the Preservation of Specimens and Museum Objects. Museum MethodsLectures Delivered by Dr. Wesley Hurt at the University of California, Berkeley, 2125(Treganza Anthropology Museum, Spring, 1961).

International Museums Office. Manual on the Technique of Archaeological Excavations. Paris,1940.

International Centre for the Study of the Preservation and Restoration of Cultural Property. TheConservation of Cultural Property. Rome: UNESCO, Museums and Monuments Series, 1968.

Irwin, Howard S., Payne, Willeard W., Bates, David M., and Humphrey, Philip S., eds.America's

Systematic-Collections. Lawrence, KS: University of Kansas, 1973.

Ito, Nobuo. Address. International Symposium on the Conservation and Restoration ofCultural Property: Cultural Property and Analytical Chemistry (Tokyo National Institute ofCultural Properties, November 1978): pp. xixiii.

Janaway, Robert. Textile Fibre Characteristics Preserved by metal Corrosion: The Potential ofS. E. M. Studies. The Conservator7 (1983): pp. 4852.




22/30


23/30

Khn, Hermann. Conservation and Restoration of Works of Art and Antiquities, 1. London:Butterworths, 1986.

Laudermilk, J. D. The Preservation of Textile Remains. American Antiquity4 (1937): pp. 277281.

Lee, Mary Wood. Personal communication, 1978.

Lee, Welton L., Bell, Bruce M., and Sutton, John F.Guidelines for Acquisition and Managementof Biological Specimens. Lawrence, KA: Association of Systematic Collections, Museum ofNatural History, University of Kansas, 1982.

Leechman, Douglas. Technical Methods in the Preservation of Anthropological MuseumSpecimens. Annual Report, 1929 (National Museums of Canada, Bulletin67, 1931): pp. 127158.

Leigh, David. First Aid for Finds 1. University of Southhampton: Rescue and the Department ofArchaeology, 1978.

Leigh, David. The Selection, Conservation and Storage of Archaeological Finds. MuseumsJournal2 (September, 1982): pp. 115116.

Lerici, Carlo Maurilio. Methods used in the Archaeological Prospecting of Etruscan Tombs.Studies in Conservation6, #1 (1961): pp. 18.

Lewis, Ralph H.Manual for Museums. Washington, D. C.: National Park Service, 1976.

Lightbody, Albert, Roberts, Merritt E., and Wessel, Carl. Plastics and Rubber. Deterioration ofMaterials. Greathouse, Glenn A., and Wessel, Carl, eds.New York: Reinhold, 1954.

Lindsay, A.J., Jr.The Curation and Management of Archaeological Collections: A Pilot Study.Washington, D. C.: American Anthropological Association, 1979.

Lindsay, A,J., Jr., and Williams Dean, Glenna. Artifacts, Documents, and Date: A New Frontierfor American Archaeology. Curator23 (1980): pp. 1229.

Lloyd, Allan. One Hundred Years of Art Restoration/Conservation at the Art Gallery of NewSouth Wales. ICCM Bulletin7, #2/3 (SeptemberDecember, 1981): pp. 315.

Loy, Thomas H. Prehistoric Blood Residues: Detection on Tool Surfaces and Identification ofSpecies of Origin. Science220 (June 17, 1983): pp. 12691271.

Loy, Thomas H. Archaeological Collections and the Trash Bin Syndrome. NARN16 (Fall,1982): pp. 201205.

Lucas, A.Antiques: Their Restoration and Preservation. London: Edward Arnold, 1924; 2nd ed.,1932.




24/30

MacDonald, George F. The Problems and Promise of Wet Site Archaeology. Journal of theCanadian Conservation Institute2, (1977): pp. 310.

Macintosh, N.W.G. The Recovery and Treatment of Bone. Australian Archaeology: A Guideto Field Techniques. Canberra: Institute of Aboriginal Studies, 1968.

Marquardt, William H., ed.Regional Centers in Archaeology: Prospects and Problems14.Columbia, Missouri: The Missouri Archaeological Society, 1977.

Mauger, Jeffery E. Archaeological Preservation and the Future of Archaeology. NARN16, #2(Fall, 1982): pp. 188192.

McCarthy, F.D.Aboriginal Antiquities in Australia: Their Nature and Preservation. AustralianAboriginal Studies, 22; Prehistory and Material Cultural Series, 3. Canberra, 1970.

McCawley, J.C. Waterlogged Artifacts: The Challenge to Conservation. CCI Journal2 (1977):

pp. 1621.

McGrimsey, Charles R.III, and Davis, Hester A.The Management of Archaeological Resources:The Arlie House Report. Washington, D.C.: Society for American Archaeology, SpecialPublication, 1977.

Meurgues, Genevieve. Errors of Treatment: Synthetic Resins can be Dangerous. Museum34,#1 (1982): pp. 6061.

Morgan, R.A., Hillan, J., Coles, J.M. and McGrail, S. Reconciling Tree-Ring Sampling withConservation. Antiquity55, #214 (July, 1981).

Morris, Kenneth, and Seifer, Betty I.. Conservation of Leather and Textiles from the Defense.JAIC18, #1 (Autumn, 1978): pp. 4345.

Mhlethaler, Bruno. Conservation of Waterlogged Wood and Wet Leather. Paris: InternationalCentre for the Study of Preservation and Restoration of Cultural Property 11, 1973.

Mhlethaler, Bruno. Kleines Handbuch der Konservierungstechnik(A Concise Handbook ofConservation Technique). Bern and Stuttgart: Verlag Paul Haupt, 1967.

National Institute for the Conservation of Cultural Property. The History and Future Directionsof Conservation Training in North America. Washington, D.C., 1984.

Neustupny, Jiri. Museum and Research. Office of Regional and Museum Work of the NationalMuseum in Prague, 1968.

Nogid, I., and Rozdnyak, A. Conservation of Waterlogged Wood. Soviet Archaeology3(Moscow, 1965): pp. 277279.

Novick, Andrea Lee. The Management of Archaeological Collections. Curator23, #1 (1980):




25/30

pp. 3042.

Oddy, W.A., Hughes, M.J. The Stabilization of Active Bronze and Iron Antiquities by the Useof Sodium Sesqui-Carbonate. Studies in Conservation15, #3 (1970): pp. 183189.

Oddy, W.A., Review of Elizabeth Dowman, Conservation in Field Archaeology. Studies inConservation18, #1 (February, 1973): pp. 4445.

Oddy, W.A. The Corrosion of Metals on Display. Conservation in Archaeology and theApplied Arts (London: IIC Stockholm Congress, 1975): pp.235237.

Oddy, W.A. The Conservation of Pyritic Stone Antiquities. Studies in Conservation22, #2(1977): pp. 6872.

Organ, R.M. Reclamation of Silver from the Wholly Mineralized Ur Lyre. The Application ofScience to Examination of Works of Art(Museum of Fine Arts, Boston, 1967): pp. 126144.

Organ, R.M.Design for Scientific Conservation of Antiquities. Washington, D.C.: SmithsonianInstitution Press, 1968.

Organ, R.M. Information Required in a Published Report of Analysis in Order that the ReportShall Possess Value as Evidence for Museum Purposes. ICOM Conservation Committee, #29,September, 1969: p. 8930.

Organ, R.M. Problems of the Museum Laboratory. Proc. Second ISCRSP, Cultural Propertyand Analytical Chemistry (Tokyo, 1979): pp. 2427.

Osgood, Cornelius. Anthropology in Museums of Canada and the U.S.7. Milwaukee Press, 1979:pp. 8083.

Otto, Helmut. Das Chemische Laboratorium der Kniglichen Museum in Berlin. BerlinerBeitrage Zur Archometrie4 (1979).

Packard, Elizabeth C.G. Conservation Goes Public: George Stout and the Art TechnicalSections (AAM). AIC Preprints (1979): pp. 8693.

Packard, Elizabeth C.G. George Stout and the Art Technical Sections of the AAM AnnualMeetings in the 1930s and 1940s, Part II. AIC Preprints (1980): pp. 7283.

Parrent, James M. The Conservation of Waterlogged Wood Using Sucrose. Studies inConservation30 (1985): pp. 6372.

Pappas, Peter S., and Winslow, F.H.Photodegradation and Photostabilization of Coatings151.Washington, D.C.: American Chemical Society Symposium Series, 1981.

Patoharju, Ora. Conservation of Cannon Recovered from the Brackish Sea. Conservation inArchaeology and the Applied Arts. London: IIC Stockholm, 1975.




26/30

Pelikan, J.B. The Use of Polyphosphate Complexes in the Conservation of Iron and SteelObjects. Studies in Conservation9 (1964): pp. 5966.

Pelikan, J.B. Conservation of Iron with Tannin. Studies in Conservation11, #3 (1966): pp.109115.

Peterson, Curtis. The Nature of Data from Underwater Archaeological Sites. UnderwaterArchaeologyThe National Park Service (DanielLenihan, ed., Division of Archaeology S.W.Region, National Park Service, July, 1974): pp. 6265.

Pettenkofer, Maxvon. Uber lfarbe und Konservierung der GeraldeGallerien durch dasRegeneration-Verfahren. Braunschweig, Friedr. Vieweg, 1870.

Plenderleith, H.J. Review of Technical Methodsby D. Leechman. Museums J.31 (1932): p.507.

Plenderleith, H.J.Preservation of Antiquities. London, 1934.

Plenderleith, H.J.The Conservation of Prints, Drawings and Manuscripts. London: TheMuseums Association, Oxford University Press, 1937.

Plenderleith, H.J. The Conservation of Archaeological Groups and of the Objects Discovered.Manual on the Technique of Archaeological Excavations (IMO, Paris, 1940).

Plenderleith, H.J.The Conservation of Antiquities and Works of Art. London: Oxford UniversityPress, 1956.

Plenderleith, H.J., and Torraca, G. The Conservation of Metals in the Tropics. TheConservation of Cultural Property. Rome: UNESCO ICSPRCP, 1968.

Plenderleith, H.J., and Werner, A.E.A.The Conservation of Antiquities and Works of Art, 2nd.ed.London: Oxford University Press, 1971.

Plenderleith, H.J.Personal communication, 1987.

Rathgen, Friedrich. The Preservation of Antiquities. Cambridge: The University Press, 1924.

Rathgen, Friedrich. Die Konservierung von Altertumsfunden, mit BercksichtigungEthnographischer und Kunstgewerblicher Sammlungsgegenstnde, Handbcher der Kniglichen

Museen zu Berlin VI. Berlin and Leipzig: 19151924.

Reed, R.Ancient Skins, Parchments and LeathersLondon: Seminar Press, 1972.

Rhoussopoulos, D.A. On the Cleaning and Preservation of Antiquities. Museums Journal(November, 1911): pp. 131144.

Riederer, Josef. The Rathgen Research Laboratory at Berlin. Studies in Conservation21, #2




27/30

(1976): pp. 6773.

Robbins, Maurice. The Amateur Archaeologist's Handbook. New York: Thomas Y. Crowell,1965.

Rose, Carolyn. Notes on Archaeological Conservation. AIC Bulletin, 14, #2 (1974): pp. 128130.

Rose, Carolyn. An Introduction to Museum Conservation. American Indian Art Magazine3, #1(November 1, 1977).

Rosenberg, Gustave Adolf Theodor. Antiquities en fer et en bronze, leur transformation dans laterre contenant de l'acide carbonique et des chlorures et leur conservation. Ouvrage Publi parla Fondation Carlsberg. Gyldendalske Boghandels Sortiment, Kobenhavn, 1917.

Rosenberg, Gustave Adolf Theodor. The Preservation of Antiquities of Organic Material.

Museums J.33 (March, 1934): pp. 432436.

Rosenqvist, Anna M. The Stabilizing of Wood Found in the Viking Ship of Oseberg, part 1.Studies in Conservation4, #1 (1959): pp. 1322.

Rosenqvist, Anna M. The Stabilizing of Wood Found in the Viking Ship of Oseberg, part 2.Studies in Conservation4, #2 (1959): pp. 6272.

Rowe, J.H. Technical Aids In Anthropology: An Historical Survey. Kroeber, A.L.,ed.Anthropology Today. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1953.

Ruggles, M. The History of Conservation in Canada: Developments to the early 1970s.Journal of the IIC-CG5, #1/2 (Spring, 1980): pp. 312.

Ruhemann, Helmut. The Cleaning of Paintings. New York: Praeger, 1968.

Sanna Ullah, Mohammad. La Conservation des objets en cuivre dteriors par une ambiancesaline. Mouseion2526 (1934).

Santucci, S. Application of Chemical Methods to the Treatment of Works of Art. RecentAdvances in Conservation. London: Butterworths, 1963.

Saunders, C. Archaeology and MuseumsAnother View. The Museum Anthropologist(London, Society for Museum Anthropologists, 1979): pp. 1019.

Schaffer, E. Consolidation of Softwood Artifacts. Studies in Conservation16 (1971): pp. 110113.

Schaffer, E. Properties and Preservation of Ethnological Semi-tanned Leather. Studies inConservation19 (1974): pp. 6675.




28/30

Schaffer, E. The Preservation and Restoration of Canadian Ethnographic Basketry. Studies inConservation21 (1976): pp. 129133.

Schaffer, E. Fiber Identification in Ethnographical Textile Artifacts. Studies in Conservation26(1981): pp. 119129.

Schenk, Robert. Museology, the Laboratory Sciences. Handbook. San Francisco: Departmentof Anthropology, San Francisco University, 1967.

Schur, Susan E. Laboratory Profile: The Conservation Services Laboratory of the DetroitInstitute of Arts. Technology and Conservation8, #3 (Fall, 1983): pp. 2640.

Schur, Susan E. Laboratory Profile: The Anthropology Conservation Laboratory, SmithsonianInstitution. Technology and Conservation6, #4 (Winter): pp. 2635.

Scott, Alexander. The Cleaning and Restoration of Museum Exhibits (report upon

investigation conducted at the British Museum, Department of Scientific and IndustrialResearch). Bulletin5 (London: His Majesty's Stationery Office, 1921): pp. 113.

Scott, Alexander. The Cleaning and Restoration of Museum Exhibits. 2nd Report. BritishMuseum, Dept. of Scientific and Industrial Research. (London: H.M. Stationery Office, 1923):pp. iii11.

Scott, Alexander. The Cleaning and Restoration of Museum Exhibits. 3rd Report. BritishMuseum, Dept. of Scientific and Industrial Research. (London: H.M. Stationery Office, 1926):pp. iii70.

Sease, Catherine. The Case Against Using Soluble Nylon in Conservation Work. Studies inConservation26, #3 (1981): pp. 102110.

Singley, Katherine R. Caring for Artifacts after ExcavationSome Advice for Archaeologists.Historical Archaeology15, #1 (1981): pp. 3648.

Snow, Carol E. Conservation of Cultural Relics in the People's Republic of China. AICPreprints (Washington, 1985): pp. 101112.

South, Stanley. The Role of the Archaeologist in the Conservation Process. Preservation andConservation: Principles and Practices. Timmons, S., ed.National Trust for HistoricPreservation: The Preservation Press, 1976.

Stambolov, T.Manufacture, Deterioration and Preservation of Leather: A Literature Survey ofTheoretical Aspects and Ancient Techniques. Amsterdam: ICOM, 1969.

Stanley-Price, N., ed.Conservation on Archaeological Excavations, with Particular Referencesto the Mediterranean Area. Rome: ICCROM, 1984.

Stansfield, G. The Storage of Museum Collections. Museum Association Information Sheet10




29/30

(revised, Museum Association, 1977): pp. 15.

Stoner, Joyce Hill. An Oral History Archive: Conservation. Museum News (July/August,1977): pp. 912.

Stucker, Gilbert F. Review of A.E. Rixon, Fossil Animal Remains: Their Preparation andConservation. Studies in Conservation22, #4 (1977): pp. 200201.

Swarnakamal. Protection and Conservation of Museum Collection(s). Baroda: Museum andPicture Gallery, 1975.

Tahk, F. Christopher. A Brief History of the Art Conservation Department of the StateUniversity of New York College at Buffalo. The History and Future Direction of ConservationTraining in North America (National Institute for the Conservation of Cultural Property,December, 1984): pp. 1625.

Tellechea, Domingo I.Enciclopedia de la Conservation y Restauracion. Argentina: EditorialTechno-transfer S.R.L., 1981.

Thompson, Jack. Conservation in New Zealand. WAAC Newsletter7, #3 (1985): pp. 1314.

Thomson, Garry. The Museum Environment. London: Butterworths, 1978.

Tomashevich, G.N. The Conservation of Waterlogged Wood. Problems of Conservation inMuseums8 (ICOM, Allen & Unwin, 1969): pp. 165186.

Todd, William. A Vacuum Process for the Preservation of Bone and Similar Materials.Technical Studies in the Field of the Fine Arts9, #3 (January, 1941): pp. 160164.

Todd, William. Iron Armatures and Supports in Chinese Grave Figurines. Royal OntarioMuseum of Archaeology Bulletin18 (March, 1952): pp. 1718.

Torraca, G.Solubility and Solvents. Rome: ICCROM, 1975.

UNESCO. Conservation of Cultural Materials in Humid Climates. Canberra: Regional Seminar,Australian National Committee for UNESCO, 1980.

VanGalik. Chinese Pictorial Art as Viewed by the Connoisseur. Rome: Inst. Itale per il MedioEd. Est. Orh., 1958.

Velich, Ralph. The Repair and Cleaning of an Old Painted Buffalo Robe. Curator8, #4 (1965):pp. 319324.

Voss, A. The Excavation and Preservation of Antiquities. MerkbuchBerlin: 2nd ed., 1894.

Walsh, Judith C. Special Conservation Problems for Collectorsthe Cleaning of Drawings.Drawing8, #1 (May/June, 1986): pp. 47.




30/30

Copyright 1987 American Institute of Historic and Artistic Works

Ward, Phillip. The State of Preservation of the Native Heritage on the Northwest Coas