Whilst there are still many out there who believe that, with a few
chemicals and a hammer, they can do their own conservation treatments
adequately (a few can) then they will not see the need for
qualified experienced conservators to be involved. I have even come
across museum professionals who thought that conservators only needed
A level (school) chemistry and to be good with their hands.
I'm quite happy for Peter to put his cannonballs in his toilet or
bath, or wherever he conserves them, but if it were a fragile sword
in it's scabbard or decorated glassware, I'd be less happy that he
could do it.
It is a perception problem. Have none of you divers/archaeologists
who have tried to do your own conservation not had bad experiences
and thought 'if only we had a professional'?
Whilst people still percieve that it could all be done in their
bath, or museums do not give any priority to the proper conservation
or storage of their collections then there will not be enough
conservators readily available. I speak in a city which has a fine
art conservator and a paper conservator in its' museum, and yet the
enthography collection alone is worth more in purely monetary terms
than their fine art, but no object conservator to be seen. It does
come down to money, eventually. If there isn't a conservator
anywhere near you why aren't you lobbying your local museum or
council to have a conservator? Not only would the collections last
longer, but the conservators are then available to at least give
advice to everybody else.
If people don't want to spend money on conservation, then don't bring
it up!
> Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2001 15:44:44 -0500
> Reply-to: Investigating the environment of marine archaeological sites <[log in to unmask]>
> From: "Seifert, Betty" <[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: Re: Wreck Amnesty Announced
> To: [log in to unmask]
> I agree. When I think how long it can take a recalcitrant iron object to
> give up the chlorides which will cause it to self destruct, and the effort
> to do it without harming the object, I have to laugh when told it is easy
> and can be done cheaply. I participated in a workshop in Richmond a couple
> of years ago on iron conservation, it was entitled, "No magic bullet" and
> this is too true of iron treatment.
>
> No two treatments are exactly the same for different objects of the same
> material. Variance in manufacture, burial environment (even a few inches
> away!) and material composition will all affect the outcome of a treatment.
> All batch treatments give uneven results. When undertaking any treatment,
> its helps to have as much experience as possible, the best advice you can
> get and mother luck on your side.
>
> Betty Seifert
> Deputy Chief
> Maryland Archaeological Conservation Laboratory
> (410) 586-8578
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Dennis Piechota [SMTP:[log in to unmask]]
> > Sent: Thursday, 25 January, 2001 9:26 PM
> > To: [log in to unmask]
> > Subject: Re: Wreck Amnesty Announced
> >
> > >The process for preservation of most of the items recovers by divers
> > >- Brass, glass, some iron - are easy to lean and do with a little
> > >knowledge and about $100 in equipment and chemicals...Some may even
> > >want to learn about wood, paper, and leather also.
> >
> > Thanks for the comic relief. It reminds me of the guy who said he
> > wanted to do his own conservation and asked a conservator what he'd
> > need. The conservator said, "First you'll want a good microscope."
> > The guy said, "Hum, what if I only find big stuff?"
> >
> > I think the main problem with the '$100 in equipment and chemicals'
> > approach is that, unlike cooking, conservation doesn't work well from
> > recipes. Treatments that work on one object will fail on an
> > apparently similar one. It's been my experience that the 'adventurer
> > in conservation' then often loses his patience and turns to the
> > faster, heavy handed methods that 'never fail' - like stripping
> > metals down to their shrivelled cores and coating them in hobby store
> > epoxies. In the end he may 'blame the victim' (the artifact) when his
> > trusty method doesn't work and so he doesn't even count those
> > artifacts as his failures.
> >
> > I'd like to be optimistic and say you can do it guys but in my
> > experience the 'a little knowledge and about $100 in equipment and
> > chemicals' approach does as much damage as good.
> >
> > Dennis Piechota
> > Conservator
> > Fiske Center for Archaeological Research
> > University of Massachusetts at Boston
> > 617-287-6829
>
**********************************************
Martin Read
Institute of Marine Studies
University of Plymouth
e-mail:[log in to unmask]
http://hydrography.ims.plym.ac.uk
'Only when the last tree has died
and the last river been poisoned
and the last fish been caught
will we realise we cannot eat money'
Cree quote
**********************************************
|