MORE THAN JUST BROKEN ARTIFACTS

Conservation Tips & Tricks | Selin Kahramanoglu

---

Imagine if the wings of Winged Victory were smashed into so many little pieces that it was impossible to recover. It is true that the statue’s head and arm are already missing, but the artwork is made famous by its wings. Currently housed at the Louvre, and dated to almost the 2nd century BCE, this statue demonstrates the essence of Hellenistic marble and artistry. The wings are the iconic part of the statue. They are at the very core of the statue’s significance. The wings are everything.

For conservators, this is a critical moment.

Do they make plaster replicas of the wings, and add it back to the statue so that it is whole again?

Or, do they leave it the way it is?

Statue of Winged Victory, also called Nike of Samothrace. Source.

When it comes to restoration, some of our conservation decisions will be questionable. People will agree with us, and people will certainly disagree too. Still, these tough decisions need to be made. Who is to stay which choice is right? In this post, we think about the general advantages and disadvantages to the restoration of artifacts, and how they are more than just broken objects. 

Source.

Advantages

There are a lot of reasons why we might choose to restore a damaged artifact. Especially if it is within the museum’s budget, expertise, and resources to do so, why wouldn’t we try to rescue it? The whole point of conservation is to try to keep the original state of the artifact as much as possible, so of course, conservators would try their best to accomplish that. 

To add, if an artifact is damaged while under the protection of the museum, the institution may wish to erase any evidence of the incident. A museum’s reputation is at risk when pursuing future acquisitions, if the museum has a history of not keeping good care of its artifacts. 

Generally, restoration helps…

• visitors envision the historical, original state of the artifact on display 
• forget that the artifact was ever damaged
• show that the museum has sufficient and up-to-date resources to assist conservation efforts
• demonstrate the knowledge and skill of the conservator 

Source.

Disadvantages

Here's where things get fuzzy. Choosing not to restore an artifact can be considered brave, forward-thinking, or more often, risky. If a museum decides to keep a damaged artifact on display, this might show visitors that the incident is now a part of the object's biography. Conservators might say that the damage has been done, and we need to acknowledge this history, not erase it.

Many people might disagree with this tactic, because the sight of the damage could overwhelm the entirety of the artifact. Perhaps, the broken outline is all you see, and any hope at restoring the whole artifact fades. Sometimes, visitors might be angered when seeing the damaged artifact on display, because it reminds us of the damage that had been unwillingly inflicted. However, should we try to subdue this anger? Couldn't this frustration add more significance to the artifact?

Briefly, the lack of restoration means...

• acknowledging the incident that caused the damage
• accepting that the original state of the artifact is now unattainable
• possibly insinuating that the museum does not have the conservation resources to restore it
• allowing visitors to think critically about not restoring every artifact

Source.

Whether we choose to save a damaged artifact, or not, the decision is difficult and with some consequences. The next time you visit a gallery with a damaged artifact on display, or an object that has had obvious repairs made, let's consider why a conservator might choose to present the object in that way. Maybe, there's more to the story?

See you next month for the next post!

Source.

TO SAVE OR NOT TO SAVE?

CONSERVATION TIPS & TRICKS

BY: SELIN KAHRAMANOGLU

Welcome to my final article for the summer! I'd like to indulge in a little ancient Greek symposium, and explore a hotly debated topic in conservation practices: How do you decide which artifacts deserve saving? *sips wine* Let’s discuss.

Source.

The reason why this question raises some eyebrows is because everyone’s has an opinion. Even professionals disagree on the circumstances surrounding object conservation. Unfortunately, the alternative is quite drastic: Without conscious care, objects will naturally disintegrate, and in most cases there’s no possible recovery. As a conservator, quite literally, the object’s life is in your hands. Will you save it, or let it go?

Let’s look at three common criteria that help conservators make this decision easier:

1) Quality of Condition 

Source.

Friend, if your artifact looks like it's beyond repair, then it’s probably too late. Based on how much time and resources is needed to recover the original state of the object, then the conservator will decide if it is worth the effort. It doesn’t matter how wonderful the object may be, if it’s already too damaged, then conservators are less likely to work with it.

• A shattered vase, a skull with missing teeth, a painting with discolouration, a book with an unraveling binding, etc. – These are all objects that can be saved. The tasks may be complex, but that just means that it will take more time. It is not impossible.

2) Necessary Tools

Source. 

Do you need the pigment of a plant that only grows in some inhabitable land? Then, my condolences, your object can't be saved. Not all conservators are fortunate enough to have every tool at their disposal. Even if the conservator is prepared to put in the extra effort, acquiring new tools takes funding, and not every institution is willing to pay a few thousand dollars to save a single ceramic plate. 

• Let’s say that you have a generous sponsor, who buys all the tools you’ve been dreaming about. Do you know how to use them? Even with all the latest technologies, conservators must have the expertise needed to use these tools, which can take years to learn and special training.

3) Cultural Heritage Value

Source.

Here’s where things get tricky. When discussing conservation, this is the topic that causes the most disagreements among professionals. Conservators need to decide whether or not the object is a cherished part of history to determine if it should be saved. There's lots of questions that need answering, and decisions can be swayed by personal views. 

• Is the artifact the only one of its kind? Who has the right to decide if it's historically valuable? What criteria are they using? How was the object acquired by the museum? Is it useful in the future? – There’s a lot of uncertainty that accompanies questions of value because it is based on individual perspectives and interpretation.

Thankfully, conservation is not always so complex. Conservators often debate with each other to gain new insights, and challenge one another for alternative approaches. Professionals practice open communication and partnership when deciding to conserve an object. Many times, conservators agree about how to best protect an artifact. 

Source.

Remember: If an object is considered unqualified for conservation treatment, it is not lost forever. Some artifacts are meant to deteriorate as part of their meaningfulness to the culture. These days, objects can be reproduced, or preserved through digital means (i.e. 3D scanning, virtual archaeology). Conservators just try to do the best that they can for each object, and roll with the punches!

The next time you think about conservation at the museum or archaeological site (check out my first and second articles), consider the above criteria and don’t be afraid to ask the tougher questions! Discussions have the potential to spark new ideas. *sips more wine* 

Source.

What do you think? Comment below! 

Further Reading:
https://www.nedcc.org/preservation101/session-9/9selection-for-preservation.
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/steve-berry/why-preserving-history-matters_b_1446631.html.
 

GET YOUR TOOTHRBUSH, WE'RE GOING ON A DIG.

CONSERVATION TIPS & TRICKS

BY: SELIN KAHRAMANOGLU

Source.

Grab your gear, because we're heading back to the dig site! This article discusses my favourite part of archaeological conservation: Cleaning artifacts!

The best way to protect a newly excavated object is to stabilize it on site, before shipping it off to the museum. This means we need to get out our toothbrushes, and make that hunk of dirty pottery squeaky clean!

Step 1: Don't Touch It (Yet).

Source.

Before removing an object from the ground, make sure that you've cleaned around it as best as you can without dislodging it.

• Level the trench. Use brushes and dust pans to clean the area around the artifact, so that the ground is smooth. When the surrounding are is flat, then it is easier to see how the object is resting inside the ground, which helps you decide how to remove it safely!
• Careful where you step! Avoid getting really close to the artifact, or using water and heavier tools (like trowels) around the object. These will disrupt the integrity of the dirt layers under the artifact, which can cause your object to move unexpectedly, and puts it at risk for breaking!

Tip: When you remove an artifact from the dirt, all the elements that supported it and allowed it to survive all these years, will also be removed. This is why conservationists focus on preserving an object's original state for as long as possible.

Step 2: GENTLY Scrub Away Dirt

Source.

Do you need to buy fancy tools and clean the objects vigorously? Absolutely not!

• Get tools that are easy to carry. Archaeologists rely on sponges, soft toothbrushes, paintbrushes, and toothpicks, because they're efficient and light-weight. I once cleaned an ancient Roman's teeth with thread instead of floss, and it worked really well!
• No need to scrub very hard. Hold the object firmly in your hand, or place it on a clean, soft surface (like a table covered in cardboard). Then, use circular motions and water (when possible) to remove stubborn dirt as best as you can. Deeper cleaning will happen at the lab.

Tip: No matter what your tools are, they should have only ever been used to clean excavated objects (i.e. Please, don't get toothpaste from a personal toothbrush on a two-thousand-year-old shard of Greek pottery).

Step 3: Summon Your Inner Paparazzi.

Source.

Most archaeologists still do an artist's sketch of the artifacts when they uncover it. These days, a regular digital camera is sufficient to capture the artifact at every stage of its life, from trench to museum display.

• Create more evidence. Photos help track the changes you've made during the conservation treatment, and the effects of your methods. Take photos of the object from all sides, and use a ruler to scale its size.
• Work that camera! Don't hold back, and take lots of photos. Think of the conservator like a friend that couldn't go on vacation with you; conservators can't always be at the site during the moment of discovery, so archaeologists use photos as a reliable way to retell the story in detail.

Tip: If the object wasn't cleaned properly in the previous stage, then this will show up in the photograph. Proper cleaning allows the archaeologist to clearly see if the artifact has any weak points that may cause the object to break in storage or in transport.

Source.

That's it for this article, and thank you for reading! My final summer article will be posted this July.

Here are some additional resources:

https://sha.org/conservation-facts/faq/processing-materials/

https://www.canada.ca/en/conservation-institute/services/archaeological-conservation-services/conservation-scientific-services-archaeology.html