severson, k. et al. recovery unbacked mosaics from storage

8/7/2019 Severson, K. Et Al. Recovery Unbacked Mosaics From Storage

1/18

JAIC , Volume 39, Number 1, Article 1 (pp. to )

RECOVERY OF UNBACKED MOSAICS FROM ASTORAGE DEPOT FIRE AT THE SARDIS

EXCAVATIONS, TURKEY

KENT SEVERSON, STEPHEN KOOB, JULIE WOLFE, PERRY CHOE, STEPHANIEHORNBECK, SARAH MCGREGOR HOWARTH, & ANTHONY SIGEL

ABSTRACTABSTRACTOn the night of June 19, 1997, the on-site mosaic depot at Sardis,

Turkey, burned, entirely destroying the wooden roof. Two stacks of lifted mosaic sections,already faced with animal glue and cotton, were stored in the depot and were covered by theresulting debris of charcoal, ash, and exploded ceramic roof tiles. Each stack consisted of fourmosaic sections lying on top of each other, separated by plastic sheeting and layers of paper thatmelted and burned on the top and sides. Initial recovery of the damaged and buried mosaics wasundertaken by the team of conservators and conservation students already on-site for the regularexcavation season. Removal of large and small debris was carried out, and periodic assessmentswere made to decide final methods of cleaning and separation of the damaged layers.Secondaryrecovery was undertaken in the 1998 season. Two methods of recovery were tested: first bylining damaged layers with cotton cloth and acrylic emulsion, and second by securing portions ofa stack with polyurethane foam, flipping the stack, and removing layers from the reverse.Recovery will continue during the 1999 season.

TITRELa rcupration de mosaques sans revers la suite d'un incendie l'entrept au site desfouilles de Sardes, en Turquie. RSUMLa nuit du 19 juin 1997, l'entrept des mosaques surle site des fouilles archologiques de Sardes, en Turquie, a pris feu et le toit en bois futtotalement dtruit. Des sections de mosaques qui avaient t prleves et dj protges ensurface l'aide de coton et de colle animale, se trouvaient en deux piles dans l'entrept et furentrecouvertes par des dbris de charbon, de cendres et d'clats de tuiles en cramique provenant dutoit. Pour chaque pile, il y avait quatre sections de mosaque l'une par dessus l'autre, spared'une feuille de plastique et de couches de papier. Le plastique fondit et le papier brla, causantdes dgts entre chaque section et aussi le long des bords des sections. Les travaux dercupration d'urgence de ces mosaques endommages et ensevelies sous les dbris ont t

effectus par l'quipe de restaurateurs et d'tudiants qui se trouvaient dj sur le site pour lasaison rgulire de fouilles. Les dbris les plus grossiers furent d'abord limins et ensuite lesplus petits, tout cela avec des valuations priodiques afin de dcider comment les sections demosaques seraient nettoyes et spares l'une de l'autre. La deuxime phase de la rcuprationeut lieu durant la saison de fouilles de 1998. On mit l'essai deux mthodes: le doublage descouches endommages au moyen de tissu de coton et d'une mulsion acrylique; etl'immobilisation de certaines parties d'une pile l'aide de mousse en polyurthane, permettantainsi de retourner la pile et d'enlever les couches partir du revers. La rcupration se poursuivitaussi durant la saison de fouilles de 1999.

Pgina 1 de 18JAIC , Volume 39, Number 1, Article 1 (pp. to )

13/02/2011mhtml:file://H:\Arqueologa\Mosaico\JAIC , Volume 39, Number 1, Article 1 (pp_ to ).mht


2/18

TITULORecuperacin de mosaicos sin soporte de un incendio en el depsito de lasexcavaciones de Sardis, Turqua. RESMENEn la noche del 19 de julio de 1997, un incendioen el depsito de mosaicos del sitio de Sardis, Turqua, destruy completamente el techo demadera del edificio. Dos pilas de secciones de mosaicos guardados en el depsito, a los que ya sehaba cubierto con cola animal y algodn, quedaron cubiertos por restos de carbn, cenizas yfragmentos de los azulejos de cermica del techo. Cada pila consista de cuatro secciones demosaicos, una encima de la otra, separadas por hojas de plstico y papel que se fundieron y sequemaron en la parte superior y en los costados. El equipo de conservadores y estudiantes deconservacin que se encontraba en el sitio para la temporada regular de excavacin llev a cabola recuperacin incial de los mosaicos daados. Se quitaron los restos de escombros grandes ypequeos y se hicieron observaciones peridicas para determinar los mtodos finales a emplearpara la limpieza y separacin de las capas daadas.La segunda etapa de las tareas derecuperacin se llev a cabo durante la temporada de 1998. Se probaron dos mtodos derecuperacin: 1) forrar las capas daadas con tela de algodn y emulsin acrlica y 2) asegurarlos componentes de las pilas con espuma de poliuretano, luego dar vuelta a las pilas y removerlas capas del reverso. Las tareas de recuperacin continuaron durante la temporada del ao 1999.

1 1. INTRODUCTION

The principle that ancient mosaics are an integral part of the buildings in which they areoriginally installed and that every effort should be made to preserve them within that context haslong been widely accepted (Second International Congress 1964, Article 8), and increasingly insitu treatment is chosen as the most appropriate method for conservation of excavated mosaics(Getty Conservation Institute 1991; Nardi 1996). Nonetheless, there are times when it becomesnecessary to remove mosaics from the buildings in which they were made (Mora 1980). Suchcircumstances may include a threat of vandalism or theft from an unprotected site, danger fromnatural phenomena, or the need to lift the mosaic in order to explore strata underneath.

Sardis, an archaeological site in western Anatolia, has been occupied by numerous civilizationssince antiquity. Sardis is unique in the region for having been the capital of the Lydians, whoseperiod of greatest strength extended from the 9th to the mid-6th century b.c. To explore theLydian material, it is often necessary to go through deposits left by later occupants.

In 1989, under the auspices of the Harvard-Cornell Archaeological Exploration of Sardis(Crawford H. Greenewalt Jr., field director), a series of early 5th- and early 6th-century a.d.Roman floor mosaics was discovered in the sector known as MMS/N, between an ancient east-west road and the modern Izmir-Ankara highway (Greenewalt et al. 1993). These mosaics weretypical Roman paving mosaics made up of relatively large stone tesserae, approximately 12 cmsq., set in lime mortar. In subsequent seasons, more mosaics were unearthed in the same sectoras the excavation continued to the east (Greenewalt et al. 1995). The mosaics (fig. 1) had beenbuilt above a critical juncture in the Lydian defense wall, and it was deemed necessary to removethese later features to investigate the Lydian structures below. When exploration of the Lydianlevels was complete, the mosaics would be reinstalled in their original location as part of anoverall plan for presentation of the MMS/N sector to the public.

Mosaics in situ in sector MMS/N at Sardis, 1990. Archaeological Exploration of Sardis/Harvard

University




3/18

Beginning in 1990, portions of the mosaics were lifted by application of animal glue, cottoncloth, and paper facing (fig. 2). The mosaics were divided into sections, loosened from thebedding mortar by pounding, and lifted directly or by rolling (Salzman and Sherman 1990;Griffen and Salzman 1991; Griffen and Tokumaru 1992) (fig. 3). The traditional glue-facingmethod was chosen for its low cost and the ease with which needed materials could be obtained.In addition, removal of the facing after backing would require only warm water rather thanorganic solvents, which are expensive and difficult to use in the hot Turkish summer climate.The drawbacks of glue-based facings are, of course, their susceptibility to water damage and theeventual deterioration over time. These issues were of serious concern at the time of lifting;

however, it was hoped that sufficient resources would be devoted to backing and stabilizing themosaics so that the project would be completed in two or three years.

Fig. 1.

Mosaics divided into sections, before facing andlifting. Archaeological Exploration of

Sardis/Harvard University




4/18

The first mosaics were lifted in 1990 from a level slightly above most of the remaining mosaics.These were generally fragmentary, and every effort was made to utilize the losses and brokenedges in dividing up the largest sections. The largest section of the mosaic was lifted in 1991.The floor was cut during lifting into regular sections along lines in the design of the mosaic tofacilitate handling, yielding roughly rectangular sections 12 m sq. Several additional smallsections were lifted in the 1992 season. As part of the routine excavation process, the mosaicshad been thoroughly photographed and drawn by the Sardis expedition staff. The precise

location of each cut and the original location of each section were indicated on photocopies ofthese drawings as the sections were lifted. The total area of mosaic lifted in all three seasons maybe conservatively estimated to be around 55 to 60 sq. m.

The fragmentary mosaics lifted in 1990 were unrolled and stored face down in nearby sheds onmakeshift shelving. Owing to space limitations, some unrolled sections were stacked in layers,separated by plastic sheeting. The large sections of mosaic lifted in 1991 and 1992 were storedon wooden platforms in the space formerly known as the rest area of the reconstructedBath/Gymnasium complex. These mosaics were also unrolled, positioned face down, and

Fig. 2.

Kent Severson and Ellen Salzman lifting mosaicsection by rolling, after facing. Archaeological

Exploration of Sardis/Harvard University

Fig. 3.




5/18

interleaved with plastic sheeting, in stacks of four to five panels per stack. A large, well-preserved inscription (executed in smaller tesserae than the rest of the mosaic) had been liftedlast from the center of the mosaic paving. This section was positioned on top of the main stack,in the center of the depot for storage. The stacks were covered with plastic sheeting, and a lowplastic tent was erected over the entire group for additional protection from potential roof leaks

(fig. 4).

At the end of the Bath/Gymnasium reconstruction project in 1973, this area had been roofed withwooden trusses and ceramic tiles. The walls of this space are of massive marble and mortaredbrick and rubble masonry. At the time of storage, the roof was in excellent condition, with novisible sagging or leaks, and it was thought this space made an excellent place to store themosaics until they could be backed. In 1991, the space was fitted with wooden security doors ateither end. At last inspection, in 1996, the mosaics were in good condition with no evidence ofdeterioration of the adhesive or the textile reinforcing used in the facing.

Stacked mosaics covered with plastic in storagedepot, 1996. Courtesy of Stephen Koob

Fig. 4.




6/18

2 2. THE FIRE

On the evening of June 19, 1997, at approximately 8:00 p.m., a brush fire in the west end of theBath complex carried to an old construction shed. As local firemen and the guard on duty

struggled to contain the fire, sparks carried by the light winds continued to spread the fire acrossthe dry grass and overgrowth. By 9:30, the fire had reached the area near the mosaic storagedepot and ignited the wooden beams supporting the roof. The dry, well-seasoned timbers burnedquickly, generating enough heat to shatter nearly all of the roof tiles and spall large flakes off themassive marble blocks that formed the depot walls. Before midnight, the roof collapsed, sendinga heavy load of burning beams and tile fragments crashing down on the stacked mosaics.

Local firefighters doused the depot with water from the Sart Belidiyesi (Sardis Fire Department)tanker truck. Unfortunately, the sole tanker could not be quickly refilled, and the fire was notimmediately extinguished (fig. 5). Early the next day, the remaining charred beams, many stillsmoldering, were pulled from the depot by local workers. The fire was still burning in manyareas and was finally extinguished by additional dousing with water.

3 3. INITIAL RECOVERY

Removal of the large smoldering beams required a certain amount of walking on the debris andon surfaces where mosaics were known to have been stored underneath. Other materials storedin the depot included rush mats and synthetic resin roofing panels from the new roof underconstruction over a nearby excavation. Although these combustible materials were removedfrom around the mosaics while still smoking, they did not appear to contribute significantly tothe impact of the fire on the mosaics.

Workers began to clear the room by shoveling the debris and shattered tiles into wheelbarrows(fig. 6), starting at the ends of the room and working toward the center where the mosaics werestacked. In spite of efforts to minimize foot traffic on top of the mosaics, occasional steps on the

The morning after the fire: still smoldering.Courtesy of Sarah McGregor Howarth

Fig. 5.




7/18

burned platforms were unavoidable during the initial clearing operations. It was feared that waterused in putting out the fire had softened the adhesive used in facing, so as soon as possible, allfoot traffic was directed away from the stacks to avoid further disruption of the tesserae. Aspaths around the mosaics were opened, conservation staff and volunteer archaeologists began topick pieces of roof tiles off the surface of the mosaics by hand ( fig. 7). Picking continued until

the first layers of charred tesserae began to appear.Removal of large debris. Courtesy of SarahMcGregor Howarth

Fig. 6.

Hand-picking of smaller debris off the stackedmosaics. From left to right: Stephen Koob, Sarah

McGregor Howarth, and Perry Choe. Archaeological Exploration of Sardis/Harvard

University




8/18

With the perimeter of the platforms and the bulk of the debris cleared, a preliminary assessmentof the condition of the mosaics was made. The heat of the fire and combustion of facingmaterials left the facing and interleaving materials in the uppermost layers of the stackscompletely destroyed. The blackened tesserae of the top layers were mixed with the layersbeneath and with tesserae-sized fragments of roof tiles and charcoal. It was clear from thebeginning that any effort to brush the surface of the stacks to remove debris would disturb whatlittle order remained in the loose tesserae. Sadly, the small tesserae used in the inscription, storedat the top of the main stack, appeared to be randomly mixed with the larger tesserae beneath.

Fire had penetrated beneath the platform at the south end of the depot, resulting in partialcollapse at the end of the stack and at the west side nearby. In this area the mosaics wereslumped into a resultant void in a jumble of mixed tesserae. Around the edges, the facing andplastic interleaving were completely charred, and tesserae were slumping toward the outside of

the stacks. The disorderly slumping of tesserae suggested that some of these areas wereirretrievably lost. Nonetheless, some order to the tesserae seemed to survive in many areas ( fig.8). A little probing around the edges of the stacks showed that beneath the first one or two layers,the cloth facing seemed to be intact, giving hope that at least some of the mosaics could berecovered.

Fig. 7.

Stacked mosaics after initial cleaning. Courtesy ofSarah McGregor Howarth




9/18

Various methods were tested for removing finer debris from between the tesserae, includingforced air from squeeze bulbs and an agricultural sprayer, but these only disturbed the tesseraefurther. In the end, a vacuum cleaner fitted with a screen over the nozzle was used to lift thecharcoal fragments and smaller roof tile fragments from the damaged surfaces (fig. 9). Afterseveral weeks of vacuuming, the mosaics were left to completely dry out (fig. 10). At about thesame time, a new steel roof was constructed over the depot.

Fig. 8.

Cleaning fine debris from the tesserae using a

vacuum cleaner. Archaeological Exploration ofSardis/Harvard University




10/18

Fig. 9.

Cleaned mosaics left to completely dry out.Courtesy of Sarah McGregor Howarth




11/18

4 4. FURTHER TRIALS IN RECOVERY

At the beginning of the 1998 season, further examination of the mosaic stacks was carried out byconservators, and, based on this examination, it was agreed that the top layers were irreversiblydamaged and could not be salvaged. Lifting random tesserae from the top of the stack revealedthat the stones were charred on the front and backside. Tests using organic solvents, dilutemineral acids, and even abrasive cleaning were not successful in regaining the original white andblue coloration in the stones (Wolfe 1998). The top layers of the mosaic were sacrificed duringthe first stage of recovery and used to test methods for recovering undamaged sections. Thejumbled tesserae around the perimeter were also removed to expose the cross section of thestacks and so determine the overall condition. These simple actions transformed the stacks frompiles of rubble to stacks of four or five layers of mosaics separated with partially meltedpolyethylene sheet, deteriorated kraft paper, and the original cotton facings. Lifting the upperlayers proved that, indeed, some of the tesserae remained in order and were not charred by the

Fig. 10.




12/18

fire. The separating layer of plastic appeared to have melted slightly and fused to the backside ofthe tesserae but could be mechanically removed by tearing. The animal glue used to face themosaics had remelted, flowed, and redeposited, making the sandwich of mosaic sections acomplex intermixture of facing materials and stones that varied in condition from layer to layer.

Using tesserae that had fallen or were removed from the stack, conservators tested methods forlining a layer for lifting and separating the mosaic sections. Pressure-sensitive tapes, such as ducttape, 3M Scotch 471, and 3M Scotch 850 polyester tape, were tried without success. Liningtechniques were tested using cheesecloth and various adhesives that included Paraloid B-72 inacetone and Primal AC-33. Both resins successfully adhered the tesserae to the cheesecloth, butthe Primal acrylic emulsion was selected for use because it did not require the use of expensiveand toxic solvents and it provided longer working time. The adhesive was also readily availablefor purchase in Turkey.

The top surfaces of the tesserae to be lined were first cleaned using low vacuum pressure and asoft brush to remove surface dirt and particulate matter. Cheesecloth moistened in a 10%

solution of Primal AC-33 and water was draped over an area 1 m sq. and pounded into thecrevices using a dry brush. After pounding, a 40% solution of the adhesive was brushed onto thecheesecloth. When the lining was dry, the layer was carefully lifted by wedging both handsunderneath the lined tesserae and manually detaching any stones that were still clinging to theold facing cloth (fig. 11).

Using this lining technique, the top layer was removed from the badly damaged south end of thelongest stack of mosaics where the fire had penetrated beneath the platform. The second layerwas in better condition, with less disorder and charring. As the lining procedure continued andthe stack was methodically peeled apart, the condition of the mosaics improved. It was surprisingto find in the middle of the stack some of the original kraft paper intact and the originalpermanent marker labeling still legible.

A second test method for recovering the charred mosaics involved removing an entire section

Lifting a lined mosaic from the top of the stack,1998. Archaeological Exploration of


Fig. 11.




13/18

from a stack by sandwiching the layers between boards and then flipping the entire package. Thefirst trial was also attempted on the badly damaged south end of the largest stack. A thin sheet ofsteel was slid between the bottom of the mosaic stack and the supporting plywood palette, andthe section was separated from the stack using a utility knife to cut the surviving cotton, paper,and plastic.

The truncated section was then transferred to a wooden plywood board and framed withpolypropylene foam adhered to the plywood. The top of the mosaic was protected withpolyethylene sheet and an expanding polyurethane foam (of the type used for buildingconstruction) laid in the space between the mosaic and the frame. A piece of plywood wasplaced on top, forcing the foam to fill the voids and crevices on the surface of the mosaic section,locking it in place. After the mosaic section was secured between the plywood boards and foamusing C-clamps, it was flipped and disassembled. Lifting the plywood cover, the face of thetesserae from the mosaic section originally stored on the bottom of the wood palette was exposedas a flat layer, ready for immediate facing (fig. 12).

In the course of the 1998 season, approximately 2.5 3 m of mosaic were declaredunsalvageable and removed (fig. 13). A total of 7 m sq. was recovered and stored in racks in thedepot. Excluding unsalvageable material still in place, it is estimated that 10 more sections ofrecoverable mosaics remain in the stacks. A combination of these two techniques for recoveringthe mosaic sections will continue to be used during the 1999 season (Wolfe 1998).

Julie Wolfe cleaning a mosaic from a flipped stack,1998. Archaeological Exploration of


Fig. 12.

Condition of the stack of mosaics after the 1998

season. On the left top side of the stack lies asalvaged mosaic section that has been lined withcheesecloth and Primal AC-33 and flipped over.

Courtesy of Julie Wolfe




14/18

5 5. CONCLUSIONS

Once the damaged mosaics are lifted and separated, this project will be back where it was in1992, although on a somewhat reduced scale. When the mosaics were first removed from theirbedding, there was a general plan to develop a rigid backing system that would permitreinstallation in the excavated area within three or four years. Development of such a backingsystem was in progress when the disaster occurred, but owing to a variety of other pressureswithin the expedition, the project had been delayed. This event dramatically demonstrates how

vulnerable mosaics are when they are separated from their rigid substrates and held together bytemporary facings. Storage conditions for faced mosaics should be given as much considerationas plans for more permanent disposition and should include factors that will ensure stability ofthe facing reinforcement and adhesive. Ironically, the room in the Bath/Gymnasium complexwas a good choice for a temporary storage depot: the heavy masonry walls provided goodphysical protection and were certainly fire-resistant, and the tile-and-timber roof was very wellconstructed and watertight. Applying this lesson more generally, the fire should remind all thoseworking on archaeological sites of the dangers of leaving projects partially completed for longperiods of time.

Fig. 13.




15/18

Finally, this fire demonstrates the need for some kind of firefighting plan in all storagesituations, particularly in isolated areas like the small village of modern Sardis. Along with aplan for fighting fires and routine maintenance of firefighting equipment, there needs to be acertain amount of training in the use of that equipment. In the Sardis depot fire, one of the seniorarchaeologists at the site, Andrew Ramage, ran to the site with an old carbon dioxide fire

extinguisher from the excavation house. Through his heroic efforts, an important marbleinscription located outside the door of the depot was saved; but, in the process, his hands wereseverely burned by the icy handle of the device.

REFERENCES

Getty Conservation Institute. 1991. The conservation of the Orpheus mosaic at Paphos, Cyprus .Malibu, Calif.: Getty Conservation Institute.

Greenewalt, C. H., C.Ratt, and M.Rautman. 1993. The Sardis campaigns of 1988 and 1989.Annual of the American Schools of Oriental Research51:143.

Greenewalt, C. H., C.Ratt, and M.Rautman. 1995. The Sardis campaigns of 1990 and 1991.Annual of the American Schools of Oriental Research52:128.

Griffen, P., and E.Salzman. 1991. Conservation final report. Harvard-Cornell ArchaeologicalExploration of Sardis, Cambridge, Mass.

Griffen, P., and I.Tokumaru. 1992. Conservation final report. Harvard-Cornell ArchaeologicalExploration of Sardis, Cambridge, Mass.

Mora, P.1980. Mosaics no. 2: Safeguard. Rome: ICCROM.

Nardi, R.1996. Zippori, Israel: The conservation of the mosaics of the Building of the Nile. InArchaeological conservation and its consequences, ed. A.Roy and P.Smith. Copenhagen: IICAnnual Congress. 12732.

Salzman, E., and J.Sherman. 1990. Conservation final report. Harvard-Cornell ArchaeologicalExploration of Sardis, Cambridge, Mass.

Second International Congress of the Architects and Technicians of Historical Monuments.1964. International Charter for the Conservation and Restoration of Monuments (Charter of

Venice). Venice: International Council on Monuments and Sites, 1966.

Wolfe, J.1998. Recovery of mosaics damaged in the 1997 fire. Harvard-Cornell ArchaeologicalExploration of Sardis, Cambridge, Mass.

SOURCES OF MATERIALS




16/18

Adhesive resins: Paraloid B-72 and Primal AC-33

Rohm and Haas

Philadelphia, Pa.

Distributed by Conservator's Emporium

100 Standing Rock Circle

Reno, Nev. 89511

Pressure sensitive tapes: duct tape, Scotch 471, and Scotch 850 polyester tape

3M Corporation

Box 33053

St. Paul, Minn. 55133-3053

Distributed by hardware or fine arts supply stores.

Primal AC-33

Art and Restoration

Karaa Sokak 18

Dolapdere, Beyoglu

Istanbul

(212) 238-4511

AUTHOR INFORMATION

KENT SEVERSON graduated from the New York University (NYU) Institute of Fine ArtsConservation Training Program in 1985. He spent two seasons at Sardis while attending NYU.

Between 1985 and 1996, he was a conservator with the private firm of Daedalus Inc. (formerlyDennis and Craine, Associates) in Cambridge, Massachusetts. Since 1989, he has participated asconsultant and supervisor of NYU conservation students at several archaeological sites,including the Harvard-Cornell Sardis Expedition, the New York University project atSamothrace, Greece, and the New York University expedition to Aphrodisias, Turkey. Since1996, he has been living part-time in Turkey, teaching archaeological conservation in theDepartment of Art History and Archaeology at Bilkent University, Ankara, and continuingarchaeological fieldwork. He is currently senior field conservator for the Aphrodisias expedition




17/18

and is working in private practice in Boston, Massachusetts. Address: 35 Queensberry St., #9,Boston, Mass. 02215

STEPHEN P. KOOB received an M.A. (1976) in classical archaeology from Indiana University,and a B.Sc. (1980) in archaeological conservation and materials science from the Institute of

Archaeology, University of London. From 1980 to 85, he was conservator of the AgoraExcavations with the American School of Classical Studies in Athens, Greece. From 1986 to 98,he worked as conservator, specializing in ceramics and glass, at the Freer Gallery of Art andArthur M. Sackler Gallery, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. In 1998, he took up theposition of conservator at the Corning Museum of Glass. Address: The Corning Museum ofGlass, One Corning Glass Center, Corning, N.Y. 14830.

JULIE WOLFE holds an M.A. in art conservation from the State University of New York atBuffalo. She has a certificate of advanced training from the Harvard University Art Museumsspecializing in objects conservation. She was an assistant conservator at the Williamstown ArtConservation Center and is a recipient of a 1998 IMLS grant at the Solomon R. GuggenheimMuseum. Address: SRGM, 620 W. 47th St., 6th floor, New York, N.Y. 10036

PERRY CHOE received a B.A. from Cornell University in 1989 and completed her M.A. in thehistory of art and a certificate in the conservation of works of art from the Institute of Fine Artsof New York University in 1999. She has interned at the Metropolitan Museum of Art, and theBaltimore Museum of Art, and worked as assistant to the director at Cathedral Stoneworks. Sheis currently interning at the National Museums and Galleries on Merseyside, England. Address:The Conservation Centre, National Museums and Galleries on Merseyside, Whitechapel,Liverpool, England L1 6HZ

STEPHANIE E. HORNBECK received a B.A. cum laude in art history from Wellesley Collegein 1990 and an M.A. in art history and a diploma in conservation from the Institute of Fine Arts,

New York University in 1999. She specializes in the conservation of archaeological andethnographic objects. She is assistant conservator at the National Museum of African Art,Smithsonian Institution. Address: National Museum of African Art, Smithsonian Institution, 950Independence Ave., S.W., Washington, D.C. 20560-0708

SARAH MCGREGOR HOWARTH received a B.A. from Boston University in 1989. She iscompleting her M.A. in the history of art and a certificate in the conservation of works of artfrom the Institute of Fine Arts of New York University. Since 1998, she has worked as aconservator on the Greek and Roman reinstallation project in the Sherman Fairchild Center forObjects Conservation at the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York. Address: 424 East 85thSt., #18, New York, N.Y. 10028

ANTHONY SIGEL received a B.F.A. in painting and sculpture from the School of the ArtInstitute of Chicago in 1983. He spent nine years as a preparator and mountmaker at the ArtInstitute's department of European Decorative Art, Sculpture, and Classical Art, where hereceived his initial conservation training and experience through an informal museumapprenticeship. He is currently associate conservator of objects and sculpture at the Straus Centerfor Conservation, Harvard University Art Museums, where he has worked since his advanced-level internship in 1992. From 1995 to 1998, he served as conservator for special projects at theArchaeological Exploration of Sardis, in western Turkey, co-sponsored by the Harvard




18/18

University Art Museums and Cornell University. Address: Straus Center for Conservation,Harvard University Art Museums, 32 Quincy St., Cambridge, Mass. 02138

Section Index


severson, k. et al. recovery unbacked mosaics from storage

Documents