severson, k. et al. recovery unbacked mosaics turkey. jaic 1999

7/31/2019 Severson, K. Et Al. Recovery Unbacked Mosaics Turkey. JAIC 1999

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/severson-k-et-al-recovery-unbacked-mosaics-turkey-jaic-1999 1/17

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

RECOVERY OF U BACKED MOSAICS FROM ASTORAGE DEPOT FIRE AT THE SARDIS

EXCAVATIO S, TURKEY

KE T SEVERSO , STEPHE KOOB, JULIE WOLFE, PERRY CHOE,STEPHA IE HOR BECK, SARAH MCGREGOR HOWARTH, & A THO Y

SIGEL

ABSTRACT—ABSTRACT—On the night of June 19, 1997, the on-site mosaic depot atSardis, Turkey, burned, entirely destroying the wooden roof. Two stacks of lifted mosaicsections, already faced with animal glue and cotton, were stored in the depot and werecovered by the resulting debris of charcoal, ash, and exploded ceramic roof tiles. Each stack consisted of four mosaic sections lying on top of each other, separated by plastic sheeting andlayers of paper that melted and burned on the top and sides. Initial recovery of the damagedand buried mosaics was undertaken by the team of conservators and conservation studentsalready on-site for the regular excavation season. Removal of large and small debris wascarried out, and periodic assessments were made to decide final methods of cleaning andseparation of the damaged layers.Secondary recovery was undertaken in the 1998 season.Two methods of recovery were tested: first by lining damaged layers with cotton cloth andacrylic emulsion, and second by securing portions of a stack with polyurethane foam,

flipping the stack, and removing layers from the reverse. Recovery will continue during the1999 season.

TITRE—La récupération de mosaïques sans revers à la suite d'un incendie à l'entrepôt au sitedes fouilles de Sardes, en Turquie. RÉSUMÉ—La nuit du 19 juin 1997, l'entrepôt desmosaïques sur le site des fouilles archéologiques de Sardes, en Turquie, a pris feu et le toit en bois fut totalement détruit. Des sections de mosaïques qui avaient été prélevées et déjà protégées en surface à l'aide de coton et de colle animale, se trouvaient en deux piles dansl'entrepôt et furent recouvertes par des débris de charbon, de cendres et d'éclats de tuiles encéramique provenant du toit. Pour chaque pile, il y avait quatre sections de mosaïque l'une par dessus l'autre, séparée d'une feuille de plastique et de couches de papier. Le plastique

fondit et le papier brÛla, causant des dégâts entre chaque section et aussi le long des bordsdes sections. Les travaux de récupération d'urgence de ces mosaïques endommagées etensevelies sous les débris ont été effectués par l'équipe de restaurateurs et d'étudiants qui setrouvaient déjà sur le site pour la saison régulière de fouilles. Les débris les plus grossiersfurent d'abord éliminés et ensuite les plus petits, tout cela avec des évaluations périodiquesafin de décider comment les sections de mosaïques seraient nettoyées et séparées l'une del'autre. La deuxième phase de la récupération eut lieu durant la saison de fouilles de 1998. Onmit à l'essai deux méthodes: le doublage des couches endommagées au moyen de tissu decoton et d'une émulsion acrylique; et l'immobilisation de certaines parties d'une pile à l'aidede mousse en polyuréthane, permettant ainsi de retourner la pile et d'enlever les couches à partir du revers. La récupération se poursuivit aussi durant la saison de fouilles de 1999.

TITULO—Recuperación de mosaicos sin soporte de un incendio en el depósito de lasexcavaciones de Sardis, Turquía. RESÚMEN—En la noche del 19 de julio de 1997, un

Página 1 de 17JAIC , Volume 39, Number 1, Article 1 (pp. to )

17/02/2012http://cool.conservation-us.org/jaic/articles/jaic39-01-001.html



incendio en el depósito de mosaicos del sitio de Sardis, Turquía, destruyó completamente eltecho de madera del edificio. Dos pilas de secciones de mosaicos guardados en el depósito, alos que ya se había cubierto con cola animal y algodón, quedaron cubiertos por restos decarbón, cenizas y fragmentos de los azulejos de cerámica del techo. Cada pila consistía decuatro secciones de mosaicos, una encima de la otra, separadas por hojas de plástico y papel

que se fundieron y se quemaron en la parte superior y en los costados. El equipo deconservadores y estudiantes de conservación que se encontraba en el sitio para la temporadaregular de excavación llevó a cabo la recuperación incial de los mosaicos dañados. Sequitaron los restos de escombros grandes y pequeños y se hicieron observaciones periódicas para determinar los métodos finales a emplear para la limpieza y separación de las capasdañadas.La segunda etapa de las tareas de recuperación se llevó a cabo durante la temporadade 1998. Se probaron dos métodos de recuperación: 1) forrar las capas dañadas con tela dealgodón y emulsión acrílica y 2) asegurar los componentes de las pilas con espuma de poliuretano, luego dar vuelta a las pilas y remover las capas del reverso. Las tareas derecuperación continuaron durante la temporada del año 1999.

1 1. I TRODUCTIO

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 contexthas long been widely accepted (Second International Congress 1964, Article 8), andincreasinglyin situ treatment is chosen as the most appropriate method for conservation of excavated mosaics (Getty Conservation Institute 1991; Nardi 1996). Nonetheless, there aretimes when it becomes necessary to remove mosaics from the buildings in which they weremade (Mora 1980). Such circumstances may include a threat of vandalism or theft from anunprotected site, danger from natural 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 numerouscivilizations since antiquity. Sardis is unique in the region for having been the capital of theLydians, whose period of greatest strength extended from the 9th to the mid-6th century b.c.To explore the Lydian 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). Thesemosaics were typical Roman paving mosaics made up of relatively large stone tesserae,approximately 1–2 cm sq., set in lime mortar. In subsequent seasons, more mosaics wereunearthed in the same sector as the excavation continued to the east (Greenewalt et al. 1995).The mosaics (fig. 1) had been built above a critical juncture in the Lydian defense wall, and itwas deemed necessary to remove these later features to investigate the Lydian structures below. When exploration of the Lydian levels was complete, the mosaics would bereinstalled in their original location as part of an overall plan for presentation of the MMS/Nsector to the public.

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

University





The first mosaics were lifted in 1990 from a level slightly above most of the remainingmosaics. These were generally fragmentary, and every effort was made to utilize the lossesand broken edges in dividing up the largest sections. The largest section of the mosaic waslifted in 1991. The floor was cut during lifting into regular sections along lines in the designof the mosaic to facilitate handling, yielding roughly rectangular sections 1–2 m sq. Severaladditional small sections were lifted in the 1992 season. As part of the routine excavation process, the mosaics had been thoroughly photographed and drawn by the Sardis expeditionstaff. The precise location of each cut and the original location of each section were indicatedon photocopies of these drawings as the sections were lifted. The total area of mosaic liftedin all three seasons may be conservatively estimated to be around 55 to 60 sq. m.

The fragmentary mosaics lifted in 1990 were unrolled and stored face down in nearby shedson makeshift shelving. Owing to space limitations, some unrolled sections were stacked inlayers, separated by plastic sheeting. The large sections of mosaic lifted in 1991 and 1992were stored on wooden platforms in the space formerly known as the “rest area” of thereconstructed Bath/Gymnasium complex. These mosaics were also unrolled, positioned facedown, and 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 beenlifted last from the center of the mosaic paving. This section was positioned on top of the

Fig. 2.Kent Severson and Ellen Salzman lifting mosaicsection by rolling, after facing. © Archaeological

Exploration of Sardis/Harvard University

Fig. 3.





main stack, in the center of the depot for storage. The stacks were covered with plasticsheeting, and a low plastic tent was erected over the entire group for additional protectionfrom potential roof leaks (fig. 4).

At the end of the Bath/Gymnasium reconstruction project in 1973, this area had been roofedwith wooden trusses and ceramic tiles. The walls of this space are of massive marble andmortared brick and rubble masonry. At the time of storage, the roof was in excellentcondition, with no visible sagging or leaks, and it was thought this space made an excellent place to store the mosaics until they could be backed. In 1991, the space was fitted withwooden security doors at either end. At last inspection, in 1996, the mosaics were in goodcondition with no evidence of deterioration of the adhesive or the textile reinforcing used inthe facing.

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

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

Fig. 4.





the Bath complex carried to an old construction shed. As local firemen and the guard on dutystruggled to contain the fire, sparks carried by the light winds continued to spread the fireacross the dry grass and overgrowth. By 9:30, the fire had reached the area near the mosaicstorage depot and ignited the wooden beams supporting the roof. The dry, well-seasonedtimbers burned quickly, generating enough heat to shatter nearly all of the roof tiles and spall

large flakes off the massive marble blocks that formed the depot walls. Before midnight, theroof collapsed, sending a heavy load of burning beams and tile fragments crashing down onthe stacked mosaics.

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

3 3. I ITIAL RECOVERY

Removal of the large smoldering beams required a certain amount of walking on the debrisand on surfaces where mosaics were known to have been stored underneath. Other materialsstored in the depot included rush mats and synthetic resin roofing panels from the new roof under construction over a nearby excavation. Although these combustible materials wereremoved from around the mosaics while still smoking, they did not appear to contributesignificantly to the impact of the fire on the mosaics.

Workers began to clear the room by shoveling the debris and shattered tiles intowheelbarrows (fig. 6), starting at the ends of the room and working toward the center wherethe mosaics were stacked. In spite of efforts to minimize foot traffic on top of the mosaics,occasional steps on the burned platforms were unavoidable during the initial clearingoperations. It was feared that water used in putting out the fire had softened the adhesiveused in facing, so as soon as possible, all foot traffic was directed away from the stacks toavoid further disruption of the tesserae. As paths around the mosaics were opened,conservation staff and volunteer archaeologists began to pick pieces of roof tiles off thesurface of the mosaics by hand (fig. 7). Picking continued until the first layers of charredtesserae began to appear.

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

Fig. 5.





Removal of large debris. Courtesy of SarahMcGregor Howarth

Fig. 6.Hand-picking of smaller debris off the stacked

mosaics. From left to right: Stephen Koob, SarahMcGregor Howarth, and Perry Choe. ©

Archaeological Exploration of Sardis/HarvardUniversity





With the perimeter of the platforms and the bulk of the debris cleared, a preliminaryassessment of the condition of the mosaics was made. The heat of the fire and combustion of facing materials left the facing and interleaving materials in the uppermost layers of thestacks completely destroyed. The blackened tesserae of the top layers were mixed with thelayers beneath and with tesserae-sized fragments of roof tiles and charcoal. It was clear fromthe beginning that any effort to brush the surface of the stacks to remove debris would disturbwhat little order remained in the loose tesserae. Sadly, the small tesserae used in theinscription, stored at the top of the main stack, appeared to be randomly mixed with thelarger 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 and plastic 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 mosaicscould be recovered.

Fig. 7.

Stacked mosaics after initial cleaning. Courtesy of Sarah McGregor Howarth





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 thetesserae further. In the end, a vacuum cleaner fitted with a screen over the nozzle was used tolift the charcoal fragments and smaller roof tile fragments from the damaged surfaces (fig. 9).After several weeks of vacuuming, the mosaics were left to completely dry out (fig. 10). Atabout the same time, a new steel roof was constructed over the depot.

Fig. 8.

Cleaning fine debris from the tesserae using avacuum cleaner. © Archaeological Exploration of

Sardis/Harvard University





Fig. 9.Cleaned mosaics left to completely dry out.

Courtesy of Sarah McGregor Howarth





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 methodsfor lining a layer for lifting and separating the mosaic sections. Pressure-sensitive tapes, suchas duct tape, 3M Scotch 471, and 3M Scotch 850 polyester tape, were tried without success.Lining techniques were tested using cheesecloth and various adhesives that included ParaloidB-72 in acetone and Primal AC-33. Both resins successfully adhered the tesserae to thecheesecloth, but the Primal acrylic emulsion was selected for use because it did not requirethe use of expensive and toxic solvents and it provided longer working time. The adhesivewas also readily available for purchase in Turkey.

The top surfaces of the tesserae to be lined were first cleaned using low vacuum pressure anda soft 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 ontothe cheesecloth. When the lining was dry, the layer was carefully lifted by wedging bothhands underneath the lined tesserae and manually detaching any stones that were stillclinging to the old facing cloth (fig. 11).

Using this lining technique, the top layer was removed from the badly damaged south end of the longest stack of mosaics where the fire had penetrated beneath the platform. The secondlayer was in better condition, with less disorder and charring. As the lining procedurecontinued and the stack was methodically peeled apart, the condition of the mosaicsimproved. It was surprising to find in the middle of the stack some of the original kraft paper intact and the original permanent marker labeling still legible.

A second test method for recovering the charred mosaics involved removing an entire sectionfrom a stack by sandwiching the layers between boards and then flipping the entire package.The first trial was also attempted on the badly damaged south end of the largest stack. A thinsheet of steel was slid between the bottom of the mosaic stack and the supporting plywood palette, and the section was separated from the stack using a utility knife to cut the survivingcotton, paper, and plastic.

The truncated section was then transferred to a wooden plywood board and framed with

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


Fig. 11.





polypropylene foam adhered to the plywood. The top of the mosaic was protected with polyethylene 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 was placed on top, forcing the foam to fill the voids and crevices on the surface of the mosaicsection, locking it in place. After the mosaic section was secured between the plywood

boards and foam using C-clamps, it was flipped and disassembled. Lifting the plywoodcover, the face of the tesserae from the mosaic section originally stored on the bottom of thewood palette was exposed as 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 inthe depot. Excluding unsalvageable material still in place, it is estimated that 10 moresections of recoverable mosaics remain in the stacks. A combination of these two techniquesfor recovering the mosaic sections will continue to be used during the 1999 season (Wolfe1998).

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


Fig. 12.

Condition of the stack of mosaics after the 1998season. On the left top side of the stack lies a

salvaged mosaic section that has been lined withcheesecloth and Primal AC-33 and flipped over.

Courtesy of Julie Wolfe





5 5. CO CLUSIO S

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 fromtheir bedding, 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 demonstrateshow vulnerable mosaics are when they are separated from their rigid substrates and heldtogether by temporary facings. Storage conditions for faced mosaics should be given as muchconsideration as plans for more permanent disposition and should include factors that willensure stability of the facing reinforcement and adhesive. Ironically, the room in theBath/Gymnasium complex was a good choice for a temporary storage depot: the heavymasonry walls provided good physical protection and were certainly fire-resistant, and thetile-and-timber roof was very well constructed and watertight. Applying this lesson moregenerally, the fire should remind all those working on archaeological sites of the dangers of leaving projects partially completed for long periods of time.

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 a

Fig. 13.





plan 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 thesenior archaeologists at the site, Andrew Ramage, ran to the site with an old carbon dioxidefire 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

were severely burned by the icy handle of the device.

REFERE CES

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

Greenewalt, C. H., C.Ratté, and M.Rautman. 1993. The Sardis campaigns of 1988 and 1989.Annual of the American Schools of Oriental Research51:1–43.

Greenewalt, C. H., C.Ratté, and M.Rautman. 1995. The Sardis campaigns of 1990 and 1991.Annual of the American Schools of Oriental Research52:1–28.

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-CornellArchaeological Exploration 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.In Archaeological conservation and its consequences , ed. A.Roy and P.Smith. Copenhagen:IIC Annual Congress. 127–32.

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

SOURCES OF MATERIALS

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

Karaça Sokak 18

Dolapdere, Beyoglu

Istanbul

(212) 238-4511

AUTHOR I FORMATIO

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.(formerly Dennis and Craine, Associates) in Cambridge, Massachusetts. Since 1989, he has participated as consultant and supervisor of NYU conservation students at severalarchaeological sites, including the Harvard-Cornell Sardis Expedition, the New York University project at Samothrace, Greece, and the New York University expedition toAphrodisias, Turkey. Since 1996, he has been living part-time in Turkey, teachingarchaeological conservation in the Department of Art History and Archaeology at BilkentUniversity, Ankara, and continuing archaeological fieldwork. He is currently senior fieldconservator for the Aphrodisias expedition 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 IndianaUniversity, and a B.Sc. (1980) in archaeological conservation and materials science from theInstitute of Archaeology, University of London. From 1980 to 85, he was conservator of theAgora Excavations with the American School of Classical Studies in Athens, Greece. From1986 to 98, he worked as conservator, specializing in ceramics and glass, at the Freer Galleryof Art and Arthur M. Sackler Gallery, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. In 1998, hetook up the position of conservator at the Corning Museum of Glass. Address: The Corning





Museum of Glass, 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

Art Conservation Center and is a recipient of a 1998 IMLS grant at the Solomon R.Guggenheim Museum. 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. inthe history of art and a certificate in the conservation of works of art from the Institute of Fine Arts of New York University in 1999. She has interned at the Metropolitan Museum of Art, and the Baltimore Museum of Art, and worked as assistant to the director at CathedralStoneworks. She is currently interning at the National Museums and Galleries onMerseyside, England. Address: The Conservation Centre, National Museums and Gallerieson Merseyside, Whitechapel, Liverpool, England L1 6HZ

STEPHANIE E. HORNBECK received a B.A. cum laude in art history from WellesleyCollege in 1990 and an M.A. in art history and a diploma in conservation from the Instituteof Fine Arts, New York University in 1999. She specializes in the conservation of archaeological and ethnographic objects. She is assistant conservator at the National Museumof African Art, Smithsonian Institution. Address: National Museum of African Art,Smithsonian Institution, 950 Independence 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

for Objects Conservation at the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York. Address: 424East 85th St., #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 StrausCenter for Conservation, Harvard University Art Museums, where he has worked since hisadvanced-level internship in 1992. From 1995 to 1998, he served as conservator for special projects at the Archaeological Exploration of Sardis, in western Turkey, co-sponsored by the

Harvard 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 turkey. jaic 1999

Documents