Archeological Textile Discovery in the Stacks: Storage Solutions

This is the final post of a four-part series.

When a collection of Egyptian mummy bandage fragments at the Cincinnati and Hamilton County Public Library was found in an area used to store uncatalogued flat materials, the lab was asked to play a role in providing better stewardship.  

Click the links below to jump to the following posts:

  • Research and Examination – Examining the material composition of the objects
  • History – Historical information provided about the Egyptian inscriptions
  • Treatment – How the materials were treated after learning about their content
  • Storage Solutions – Individual solutions for separated fragments as well as storage as a collection

Storage Solutions

Inspired by JAIC and AIC articles such as Storage Containerization: Archaeological Textile Collections by Dennis Piechota and Storage System for Archeological Textile Fragments by Lisa Anderson, Dominiue Cocuzza, Susan Heald and Melinda McPeek a custom matting system was created with the following goals in mind:

  • The textiles will remain in the enclosure for both storage and potential display
  • The matting system will support the fragments for handling and viewing
  • The fragments will not move or slide in the enclosure, yet be stored non-adhesively

Portfolio Matting System

Before constructing the final portfolio, models were created to test functionality. The first prototype was a helpful learning experience that lead to improvements in the final product.

First Portfolio Model

I used the basic construction outlined in Storage System for Archeological Textile Fragments with a few tweaks. Below is the original article’s construction I used as a jumping off point:

Fig 3. from Storage System for Archeological Textile Fragments by Lisa Anderson, Dominiue Cocuzza, Susan Heald and Melinda McPeek

In particular, I made one big change: rather than constructing the sink mat portfolio out of corrugated board, I used museum rag mat board. I also added a hinged window mat on top of the pillow. Below the window mat, notes or labels could be discretely added below so the object would be exhibit ready with no handling required.

A few other alterations included using 4-ply mat board for the inset board rather than 2-ply (I used the cut out from the window mat trimmed a bit smaller), and instead of using polyester webbing adhesive, I used Jade 403 PVA along areas where the construction materials did not come into contact with the textile.

Completed first prototype: a sink mat portfolio made out of museum rag board with an added window mat

The first model had many successful features; however, there were two main failures in its construction. These related to the cloth tie closures and Tyvek lining. Pros and cons in the construction were determined using a mock-up Egyptian textile fragment (made out of linen book cloth colored with acrylic paint and inscribed with Sharpie).

Pros:

  • The cover folds behind the backing board which is useful for saving space when on display.
  • The cotton/polyester pillow holds the textile in place non-adhesively with Velcro-like surface tension.
  • The cover’s inset board applies gentle compression that safely holds the textile in place when closed. The 4-ply board was the appropriate thickness for our thin textile.
  • Both the front and back of the fragment can be viewed without excess handling: If the portfolio is opened while laying face-down, the back of the fragment can be safely viewed while resting on the inside of the cover. Then the portfolio can be closed while still laying face down. Once closed, it can be flipped and reopened to the front. (See handling video below.)

Cons:

  • The cloth edge ties are cumbersome during handling. Ties showed potential to drape over and catch on textiles, becoming a potential for damage.
  • The soft Tyvek lining created such a strong static cling charge that the textile often became stuck to the cover lid when opened, posing a hazard of falling unexpectedly!
Nicole tests the portfolio finding the textile stuck to the inside of the cover upon opening due to static cling!

Improved Portfolio Model

Improvements to the second model included replacing the cloth ties with rare earth magnets and eliminating the soft Tyvek. A smooth, stiffer Tyvek was used instead. These changes proved highly successful and also felt more elegant!

It was a bit more time consuming to use rare earth magnets because the magnets were inlaid both to the cover and the hinged window. While creating the model, I learned to strategically use a stronger magnetic pull for the window so that when the portfolio was opened, the cover released preferentially. If you’d like to read step by step instructions about its construction, please check out my notes here.

Additional lesson learned: Be sure to double check how the magnets are oriented so they attract each other rather than repel!

Revealing rare earth magnets below the Tyvek lining and Tyvek tape to reorient them so they attract the opposing magnets rather than repel

Final Portfolio

This versatile portfolio facilitates storage, handling, and display as the cover can be folded behind the window and backing board.

Cloth Covered Clamshell with Trays and Chemise

Each fragment received a custom matted portfolio that then needed to be grouped appropriately and stored as a collection.

Overall, the collection of six fragments were stored together in a cloth covered clamshell, constructed by Conservation Specialist, Matt McCoy. We designed the enclosure as follows:

  • Each matted fragment sits on a custom support tray within the box because many portfolios varied in size and needed to be easily stacked.
  • To retain the context of the three fragments that belonged to a priest named Wennofer, these trays were grouped within the box inside a cloth-covered chemise.
  • Labels were added to the portfolios and trays for easy replacement into the custom trays.

This GIF shows the different layers within the enclosure system.

Curious on how these storage enclosures facilitate handling? Check out the video below for instructions on use.

If you missed the earlier installments, you can jump to the previous posts below:

  • Research and Examination – Examining the material composition of the objects
  • History – Historical information provided about the Egyptian inscriptions
  • Treatment – How the materials were treated after learning about their content
  • Storage Solutions – Individual solutions for separated fragments as well as storage as a collection

Acknowledgements

  • Katherine Davis, Lecturer in Egyptology in the Department of Middle East Studies at the University of Michigan
  • Suzanne Davis, the Associate Curator and Head of Conservation at the Kelsey Museum of Archaeology at the University of Michigan
  • Dr. Ann-Katril Gill at the University of Leipzig
  • Marieka Kaye, Harry A. and Margaret D. Towsley Foundation, Head, Conservation & Book Repair, University of Michigan Library
  • Obie Linn, Textile Conservator at the Cincinnati Art Museum
  • Ann Wuertemberger, Catalog Librarian at the Cincinnati and Hamilton County Public Library
  • Meredith Montague, Textile Conservator at the Museum of Fine Arts Boston

Ashleigh Ferguson Schieszer – Special Collections Conservator and Co-Lab Manager [CHPL]

Archeological Textile Discovery in the Stacks: The Treatment

This is the third post of a four-part series.

When a collection of Egyptian mummy bandage fragments at the Cincinnati and Hamilton County Public Library was found in an area used to store uncatalogued flat materials, the lab was asked to play a role in providing better stewardship.  

Click the links below to jump to the following posts:

  • Research and Examination – Examining the material composition of the objects
  • History – Historical information provided about the Egyptian inscriptions
  • Treatment – How the materials were treated after learning about their content
  • Storage Solutions – Individual solutions for separated fragments as well as storage as a collection

Conservation Treatment Consultations

Being a primarily book, paper, and photograph conservator, working on textiles comes up only intermittently as minor stabilization or housing.  When these projects do arise, I tend to consult immediately with a textile conservator. This project was no different. Generously, Obie from the Cincinnati Art Museum kindly visited the lab to look at the fragments with me in person.

Initial Treatment Idea

Before consulting with Obie, my initial plan was to cut the overall board and separate the individual fragments.  Once separated, I thought I might hinge the fragments to a backboard inside a sink matting system.  I had briefly corresponded with a textile conservator at the MFA Boston who is familiar with ancient textiles and she confirmed this would be a sufficient option. 

Testing

However, with Obie present, together we tested the solubility of the adhesives and likelihood of removing the fragments from the acidic board for better storage. Surprisingly, we determined removal was possible with the smallest amount of moisture!

Being familiar with backing removals and conserving degraded cloth covers (and now encouraged after having Obie’s support) I next went beyond spot testing and decided to perform a test treatment on one of the fragments to remove the backing board… with the caveat that I would stop at any point if I felt uncomfortable.  Should I ever feel out of my element at any step, or have concerns that removing the textiles from the backing would not keep them intact, I knew I could always pivot to my initial solution of storing the mounted parts in mats.

Treatment

My new plan was now to first reduce the acidic backing board layer by layer.  Once the backing was removed, I would assess if it was appropriate to remove the brown paper lining.  (While my test treatment was performed on only one of the smaller fragments, images below are pulled from the actual treatment for better illustration).

Low and behold on my first fragment, treatment proceeded without a hitch.

The board was removed slowly, layer by layer. The fragment was kept planar to prevent mechanical damage to the textile.

Before I knew it, it felt as though I was performing a regular backing removal on a photograph or document and soon found myself down to the final brown paper layer. 

After removing multiple layers of board, the brown paper lining was revealed. Some areas of the brown paper were no longer adhered to the textile and readily released during mechanical removal while other areas remained more firmly attached.

At this point, with the backing and lining parts removed as much as possible, I decided to test a corner of the paper backing with light moisture. To my surprise, the paper backing adhesive quickly reactivated, the lining lifted with little effort, and the humidification strengthened the fibers of the linen fragment. All of this eased fears the fragments might fracture during final treatment steps. Proceeding with treatment felt obtainable.

The final step was releasing the brown paper lining with moisture from a water pen and lifting the lining with spatulas.

With this new turn of events, I realized, if I ventured so far as to remove both the mounted board AND the paper backing, I’d need a new storage solution.

I halted treatment and went back to the drawing board to research storage enclosures (click here to jump to my post on storage solutions). Once I felt confident in selecting a method of storage for the loose textiles, I resumed treatment to remove the brown lining paper and proceeded with treatment on the rest of the fragments.

This is a time-lapse video showing how the brown paper lining was removed in stages. Localized humidification was applied from the back while mechanically separating the paper from the textile with spatulas.

Before Treatment

Collection is mounted to an acidic board with two of the fragments oriented upside down.

Normal Illumination, Before Treatment

After Treatment

Fragments are stored individually in storage solutions that double as long-term housing. The enclosures facilitate handling as well as display. Being stored individually, the fragments are able to be grouped as necessary by their context.

  • Recto, Normal Illumination
  • Verso, Normal Illumination
  • Recto, Normal Illumination
  • Verso, Normal Illumination
  • Recto, Normal Illumination
  • Verso, Normal Illumination
  • Recto, Normal Illumination
  • Verso, Normal Illumination
  • Recto, Normal Illumination
  • Verso, Normal Illumination
  • Recto, Normal Illumination
  • Verso, Normal Illumination
  • Raking Illumination, Before Treatment
  • Recto, Normal Illumination, After Treatment
  • Raking Illumination, Before Treatment
  • Recto, Normal Illumination, After Treatment
  • Raking Illumination, Before Treatment
  • Recto, Normal Illumination, After Treatment
  • Raking Illumination, Before Treatment, Upside Down
  • Recto, Normal Illumination, After Treatment
  • Raking Illumination, Before Treatment, Upside Down
  • Recto, Normal Illumination, After Treatment
  • Raking Illumination, Before Treatment
  • Recto, Normal Illumination, After Treatment

To learn more about the storage, check out the final post of the four-part series: Storage Solutions!

If you missed the earlier installments, you can jump to previous posts using the links below:

  • Research and Examination – Examining the material composition of the objects
  • History – Historical information provided about the Egyptian inscriptions
  • Treatment – How the materials were treated after learning about their content
  • Storage Solutions – Individual solutions for separated fragments as well as storage as a collection

Acknowledgements

  • Katherine Davis, Lecturer in Egyptology in the Department of Middle East Studies at the University of Michigan
  • Suzanne Davis, the Associate Curator and Head of Conservation at the Kelsey Museum of Archaeology at the University of Michigan
  • Dr. Ann-Katril Gill at the University of Leipzig
  • Marieka Kaye, Harry A. and Margaret D. Towsley Foundation, Head, Conservation & Book Repair, University of Michigan Library
  • Obie Linn, Textile Conservator at the Cincinnati Art Museum
  • Ann Wuertemberger, Catalog Librarian at the Cincinnati and Hamilton County Public Library
  • Meredith Montague, Textile Conservator at the Museum of Fine Arts Boston

Ashleigh Ferguson Schieszer – Special Collections Conservator and Co-Lab Manager [CHPL]

Archeological Textile Discovery in the Stacks: The History

This is the second post of a four part series.

When a collection of Egyptian mummy bandage fragments at the Cincinnati and Hamilton County Public Library was found in an area used to store uncatalogued flat materials, the lab was asked to play a role in providing better stewardship.  

Click the links below to jump to the following posts:

  • Research and Examination – Examining the material composition of the objects
  • History – Historical information provided about the Egyptian inscriptions
  • Treatment – How the materials were treated after learning about their content
  • Storage Solutions – Individual solutions for separated fragments as well as storage as a collection

Learning About the Collection

Before coming to the lab, the library knew little about the fragments. So first and foremost, I reached out to a handful of scholars to see if I could glean any information.  I soon found myself engulfed in a journey of discovery with each colleague leading me to a new reference, sharing a collective wealth of knowledge.

History

With generous information provided by colleagues, the library learned the following about the fragments (fragment measurements below are with height and width at the widest points):

  • Normal Illumination
  • Raking Illumination
  • Ultraviolet Fluorescence
  • Infrared Radiation

This is the center fragment.  It contains Hieroglyphic script, measuring 21 x 23 cm.  It’s part of a 3-piece set that belonged to a priest called Wennofer.  The large scene in the middle belongs to Book of the Dead Spell 110 showing the deceased doing various things in the netherworld.

  • Normal Illumination
  • Raking Illumination
  • Ultraviolet Fluorescence
  • Infrared Radiation

This is the upper left fragment.  It measures 8 x 14 cm. Script contains images and no preserved text. This is part of the 3-piece set that also belonged to a priest called Wennofer. Images belong to the vignette of Book of the Dead Spell 148. “For making provision for a spirit in the realm of the dead” this spell provides the names of the Bull of Heaven and his seven cows, providing an eternal supply of food and beer.

  • Normal Illumination
  • Raking Illumination
  • Ultraviolet Fluorescence
  • Infrared Radiation

This is the bottom right fragment.  It contains Hieroglyphic writing and measures approximately 10 x 17 cm, containing a Thoth god image. It’s the final part of the 3-piece set that belonged to a priest called Wennofer. Preserved images are part of the vignette of Book of the Dead Spell 125, the so-called judgement scene.

  • Normal Illumination
  • Raking Illumination
  • Ultraviolet Fluorescence
  • Infrared Illumination

This is the bottom left fragment containing Hieratic script, however it is oriented upside down. It measures approximately 13 x 12 cm.  There isn’t an owner’s name preserved so we’re unsure if it belongs with any other fragments in this collection. Images contain a shrine column, sections of Book of the Dead Spells 125 and 126, as well as traces of the vignette belonging to Book of the Dead Spell 125.

  • Normal Illumination
  • Raking Illumination
  • Ultraviolet Fluorescence
  • Infrared Radiation

This is the upper right hieratic fragment with Hieratic script. It measures approximately 9 x 7 cm. There is no owner’s name preserved.

  • Normal Illumination
  • Raking Illumination
  • Ultraviolet Fluorescence
  • Infrared Illumination

This is the bottom center hieratic fragment measuring 4 x 10 cm, also with no owner’s name preserved and oriented upside down.

Further Reading

Check out this essay for Glencairn Museum News by Dr. Jennifer Houser Wegner to learn more about burial practices and in particular, funerary texts, such as the Book of the Dead.

To learn about how the fragments were treated in preparation for long-term storage, check out the third post of the four-part series: The Treatment

If you missed the earlier installment, you can jump to previous post using the links below (or even skip to the final post on storage):

  • Research and Examination – Examining the material composition of the objects
  • History – Historical information provided about the Egyptian inscriptions
  • Treatment – How the materials were treated after learning about their content
  • Storage Solutions – Individual solutions for separated fragments as well as storage as a collection

Acknowledgements

  • Katherine Davis, Lecturer in Egyptology in the Department of Middle East Studies at the University of Michigan
  • Suzanne Davis, the Associate Curator and Head of Conservation at the Kelsey Museum of Archaeology at the University of Michigan
  • Dr. Ann-Katril Gill at the University of Leipzig
  • Marieka Kaye, Harry A. and Margaret D. Towsley Foundation, Head, Conservation & Book Repair, University of Michigan Library
  • Obie Linn, Textile Conservator at the Cincinnati Art Museum
  • Ann Wuertemberger, Catalog Librarian at the Cincinnati and Hamilton County Public Library
  • Meredith Montague, Textile Conservator at the Museum of Fine Arts Boston

Ashleigh Ferguson Schieszer – Special Collections Conservator and Co-Lab Manager [CHPL]

Nanocellulose Experiments in Art Conservation

Becoming Familiar with Nanocellulose

These days, nanocellulose can be found in everyday products, like compostable plastic-like bags; however, the use of nanocellulose is still in its infancy in terms of research and use in art conservation.  (For example, these decomposable poop bags look like plastic bags, but can actually be tossed in your compost pile!)

Introduction

This post takes a look at how nanocellulose films might be used in art conservation.  To dip our toes in, experiments at the Cincinnati Art Museum were performed with a group of conservators who work in different specialties: textiles, objects, fine art, photographs and bound materials. We tried out various types of nanocellulose films and how they might be applied to a range of materials.

Laura shows the high degree of translucency of the crystalline films she made in Indianapolis at a prior workshop
Cecile examines repairs on a war bond poster
Obie tests film on a textile

What is Nanocellulose?

Nanocellulose is made up of nanoscale cellulose particles that come from different sources, like:

  • Wood: The most common source
  • Non-Wood Plants: Cotton, ramie, sisal, bamboo, and agricultural by-products.  The decomposable poop bags mentioned above are made from corn starch nanoparticles!
  • Tunicates: Marine invertebrates, the only animals known to produce cellulose microfibrils.
  • Algae: Some species produce cellulose microfibrils within their cell walls.
  • Bacteria: Certain bacteria, like Gluconacetobacter xylinus, can produce cellulose microfibrils under the right conditions.

Types of Nanocellulose:

In conservation, the field has been experimenting with two main types:

  1. Microfibrillated Cellulose (MFC): A mix of cellulose microfibrils from pre-delignified cellulosic materials. This type of nanocellulose appears cloudy once dispersed into a film format.
MFC films are slightly cloudy

2. Cellulose Nanocrystals (CNC): Composed solely of the crystalline part of cellulose, exhibiting high crystallinity and a high aspect ratio.  This type of nanocellulose appears clear in a cast film.

CNC films are more translucent

Where to Buy

Many labs and companies around the world make nanocellulose products like gels, nanopapers, and foams. Here are a few:

  • Europe: Technical Center of Paper (CTP, France), EMPA (Switzerland), Weidmann Fiber Technology (Switzerland), Aalto University (Finland), VTT Technical Research Center of Finland, KTH (Sweden)
  • North America: The University of Maine (USA), Forest Products Lab, Wisconsin (USA), American Process Inc., Atlanta (USA), Celluforce (Quebec), Kruger Inc. (Quebec)
  • Asia: University of Tokyo, University of Kyoto, Asahi Kasei

What We Bought

In Cincinnati, we experimented with two products purchased from Weidmann Fiber Technology in Switzerland:

  • Celova for Art Conservation, 500g Gel: According to the Weidman Fiber Technology website, the gel has a high degree of fibrillation and is recommended for technical applications like art conservation. 

During practical applications, the MFC powder did not react the same way as the gel during the film creation. The powder precipitated out and did not cast a homogeneous film. 

Cecile’s initial tests with Solka-Floc Powdered Cellulose from Solvaira Specialties.  It is a very fine, highly purified cellulose powder made from bleached wood pulp.

While it may have been a mistake in our method of production, my guess is the powder isn’t as well fibrillated for casting and wonder if that’s why it stayed out of solution.

Next, I am eager to try the CNC form, which appears to be available at https://umaine.edu/pdc/nanocellulose/.

What makes nanocellulose films unique?

High Purity and Stability: They’re almost pure cellulose, super stable, and have a neutral pH. They’re less affected by temperature and humidity than regular paper.

Strong Yet Delicate: Mechanically, they’re stronger than traditional paper in some ways but less elastic and easier to tear.

Remarkable Transparency: The nanoscale dimensions of the fibers eliminate light scattering, resulting in highly transparent films, often called “nanopapers.” The transparency is influenced by the film’s structural density, particle size (MFC or CNC), the source material, and the manufacturing process. In practice, this transparency reminded me of the appearance of glassine tape.

How are nanocellulose films made?

There are various ways to make nanocellulose films, but conservators use one main method (as the others are found in larger scale manufacturing processes).

Casting Film by Evaporation: A low-cost and easily reproducible method where a nanocellulose solution is cast onto a substrate like a silicone mold or a polystyrene petri dish, allowing the solvent to evaporate. This technique produces homogeneous films.

Interestingly, it took an extraordinary amount of time for the solvents to evaporate at the Cincinnati Art Museum. Even after placing the trays in a fume hood to encourage drying, it took many days for the films to form during a low RH in December!

Glass and polyester dishes are not recommended for casting onto as the films will not release from these containers.

What are nanocomposite films?

Simply put, nanocellulose is combined with an adhesive.  During the film’s creation, the adhesive is added into the nanocellulose solution to enhance the film’s physical and optical properties. Common conservation adhesives added to films include Klucel G, wheat starch paste, methyl cellulose, and gelatin.

In our experiments, we used 5% Klucel G, 4% Methocel A4CP, and strained Zen Shofu wheat starch paste. Two batches were made of varying amounts of gel to see if there was a difference in thickness of the films (spoiler: I couldn’t tell a noticeable difference!). 

For another batch, Cecile also added in some QoR Golden watercolors that have an aquazol-based binder for a bit of a brown-toned tint that might be handy for filling losses in photograph conservation.

Nanocomposite films created with 20ml of MFC gel with 5% Klucel G and 5% methocel added
Nanocomposite films created with 15ml of MFC gel with 5% Klucel G and 5% methocel added
Nanocomposite film with QoR raw umber and 25% Methocel

Applications of nanocellulose films in art conservation:

Nanocellulose film properties may be handy for use in art conservation for their:

  • High transparency and stability. Used as a repair material, the films blend into substrates and supporting fragile artifacts.
  • Compatibility with various adhesives
  • Minimal discoloration after aging ensures long-term stability and visual integrity of treated artworks.
  • Reversibility. They can be safely removed if needed.

Limitations to using nanocellulose films in conservation:

While promising, there are some downsides to consider:

  • Lower tear strength compared to traditional paper.  The films are delicate and might not work for items that need to withstand a lot of use.
  • Water Sensitivity: the films are highly reactive to moisture and require different application repair techniques than traditional paper repairs. For me, I wondered if the amount of time required for the learning curve of successful application was worth the result over traditional paper repairs.
  • Long-term behavior of nanocomposite films and their interaction with art materials requires further research to ensure compatibility and prevent unintended consequences.

Testing the Films on Paper-Based Materials

Both pure nanocellulose films and nanocomposite films were tested on a non-collection items using a variety of techniques.

Pure films were applied with a range of adhesives while nanocomposite films were adhered either by remoistening/reactivating with solvents or adhered by applying additional adhesive to the film, in addition to what was mixed in during the casting.

While Cecile worked on a war bond poster, Obie worked on a garment, and Laura tested treatment on an ink jet print, I tried my luck on a map.

Together, we all tested a scrapbook owned by Kelly.

First applications on a dark and brittle substrate surprisingly reminded us of the appearance of glassine tape in specular light!
After multiple tries, Cecile impressed me with her application in the red “u” that blends in better than in the black and yellow regions on the war bond poster

My Successful Applications

I had best luck with the nanocomposite films but only when they were reactivated with the adhesive they were made with. 

I used a map for a variety of tests on one item to compare results

For example, the 20 ml 0.2% MFC gel created with 0.6 g 5% methocel film blended beautifully into the paper when reactivated with 5% methocel.  The methocel was brush applied thickly.  See the repair below along the left side in specular light.  It doesn’t even look like tape here!  The repairs blend nicely.  Between the two, I found the methocel nanocomposite film blended better than the wheat starch paste.

Repair on far left: Nanocomposite film made with 5% methocel was reactivated with brush application of 5% methocel.

My second favorite options were the pure MFC films adhered with methocel and wheat starch paste.

My Application Failures

I could not for the life of me find a way to successfully apply the nanocomposite film with Klucel G to a paper substrate without it falling apart during the process. Cecile had better luck while for me, it stuck to everything!  I struggled both when it was reactivated with ethanol and when the film was brushed with the Klucel G solution.  Plus, it was super shiny and didn’t help the paper lie flat.

Shiny repair on far left: Nanocomposite film made with 5% Klucel G was reactivated with dip in ethanol

I had even worse luck with the nanocomposite films when they were only reactivated with water.  I could easily apply them to the paper, however, these performed the worst out of all the repairs, with the methocel nanocomposite film failing to even hold the tear together!  See the two center repairs below in specular light.  The wheat starch paste held, but didn’t want to hold the tear well aligned.

Failed repair in center: nanocomposite film with 5% methocel reactivated with water before adhering

Compared to kozo tissue repairs (on the same paper): the nanocellulose repairs overall were shinier (more akin to glassine tape in appearance!), but they didn’t seem to cause any planar distortions like the kozo tissue naturally wants to do.  However, the kozo tissue blends visually into the paper better.  The kozo tissue repairs are the ones with the tails sticking off the edge of the paper.

Repair on left: nanocomposite film made with 5% methocel applied with 5% methocel almost has a glassine tape-like appearance. Repairs on right with tails sticking off paper: traditional kozo paper repairs adhered with wheat starch paste

Conclusion:

Nanocellulose films offer promising potential for art conservation but require a learning curve to handle and apply. Their unique properties, combined with ongoing research and development, could lead to innovative solutions for preserving cultural heritage, but research on long-term stability, compatibility with specific artwork materials, and ethical considerations will be crucial for wider adoption in the field.

Health and Safety:

Pure nanocellulose gels and films are generally considered safe to handle.

Resources

Most of the info here comes from resources shared by paper conservator, Cecile Mear who organized our informal experimentations. Photograph Conservator, Laura Moeller also provided additional resources she gathered from a workshop held at the Indiana Historical Society in June 2019.

  1. bpga36-20.pdf  Detailed introduction to nanocellulose films use in conservation
  2. Full article: A New Mending Material: Nanocellulose Film
  3. Nanocellulose Films in Art Conservation: A New and Promising Mending Material for Translucent Paper Objects
  4. bpga42-01.pdf  Photograph conservation
  5. bpga41-01.pdf  Fan conservation treatment—application of nanocellulose in gel form
  6. YouTube video: Practical techniques for creating nanocellulose film and the application of aqueous adhesives.
  7. Canham, R. ” Nanocellulose Calculator.” Burr Oak Bookbinding. Article related to YouTube video.
  8. Heritage Science. “Nano meets the sheet: Adhesive-free application of nanocellulosic suspensions in paper conservation.” Full Text.
  9. Heritage Science. “New treatments for canvas consolidation and conservation.” Full Text.
  10. Heritage Science. “Novel nanomaterials to stabilise the canvas support of paintings assessed from a conservator’s point of view.” Full Text.
  11. Pinkney, J. “Nanocellulose for Conservation.” University of Birmingham.

Ashleigh Ferguson Schieszer – Special Collections Library Conservator

Variety of experimental tests. The reticulated dishes contain the MFC powder while the homogeneous films were created using the gel.

Preservation Lab update

The Preservation Lab, after 13 years of collaboration between the University of Cincinnati and the Cincinnati & Hamilton County Public Library, is embarking on an expanded mission to provide our expertise and services to the larger cultural heritage community.  

Beginning in 2025, The Preservation Lab is transitioning to a regional lab model that is entirely managed, staffed and equipped by the University of Cincinnati. The Preservation Lab’s current staffing and location will remain the same during this transition.    

The Preservation Lab provides the full suite of preservation services to the University of Cincinnati Libraries and, for a fee, to other cultural heritage institutions. The Preservation Lab’s expertise is in book and paper conservation, with services available in general circulating materials repair, single-item conservation treatment, housing, exhibition prep, and preservation consulting.Please visit The Preservation Lab’s new website at https://libraries.uc.edu/thepreservationlab.html for updates and more information.

Holly Prochaska, Head, Preservation Services & Lab at the University of Cincinnati

Historical Binding Structures with Julia Miller

This week the Preservation Lab and the Archives and Rare Books Library hosted a 2-day workshop with the conservator and book historian Julia Miller. The workshop, Identifying and Describing Historical Binding Structure: A Stacks Appraisal Workshop, provided the Preservation Lab staff, University of Cincinnati Libraries’ (UCL) special collections catalogers, and UCL special collections stewards an opportunity to strengthen their skills of historical binding identification and description. We honed our descriptive skills by examining collections from the Archives and Rare Books Library and models/exemplars from Julia’s personal teaching collection.

Julia Miller is in the fore ground holding a highly decorated book that is read with gold stamping and tooling.
Julia Miller presenting to the Historical Binding Structures class.

Thanks to Julia Miller, one of the most knowledgeable and giving people that we have had the privilege to learn from.

Thanks to Chris Harter for providing access to so many Archives and Rare Book treasures and a wonderful space to learn and collaborate.

Thanks to Catarina Figueirinhas for suggesting the course and being the on-site coordinator and organizer.

Lastly, thanks to University of Cincinnati Libraries for their continued support of staff professional development!

Holly Prochaska [UCL] — Preservation Librarian

Problem Solving: An Exhibition-Style Enclosure for a Collection of Lafcadio Hearn Japanese Bindings

This set of Japanese side-sewn, crepe paper bindings, or Chirimen-bon, came to the Preservation Lab housed in their damaged traditional Japanese wraparound case, known as a maru chitsu. The set belongs to the Cincinnati and Hamilton County Public Library, which has an extensive Lafcadio Hearn collection. This collection of volumes was printed by Hasegawa Takejirō, a Japanese publisher who specialized in books written in European languages on Japanese subjects. The Japanese Fairy Tale Series was one of the more popular series, beginning with six volumes in 1885; though this later collection only has five volumes of fairy tales. Lacadio Hearn was one of the foreign translators employed by T. Hasegawa.

Original enclosure laying on a table
Original enclosure
Five volumes withing the original enclosure, the enclosure is open
Five volumes withing the original enclosure (pictured after treatment)

Due to the high profile nature of Lafcadio Hearn for the library and the beauty of the bindings, the collection is often shown during tours and used for display, however, the crepe paper volumes, while in excellent condition, are extremely floppy, and they are also side-sewn, both factors make them difficult to handle and display. The original enclosure is also very fragile and damaged, and susceptible to further damage if used as an enclosure moving forward. For all these reasons, the curators wanted an enclosure that would not only store the collection long-term, but could also be used for display.

This proved to be a challenge, but a fun one. I started by making a couple of sketches and then a couple of models…

Three models pictured, two are collapsible cradles and one display stand with foam insert
Models – two types of collapsible cradles and one model of the display tray/stand

For the models, I had two main focuses: 1) a collapsible cradle that would house and display one of the volumes, and 2) a display component that would act as a tray or level within the enclosure and house the remaining four volumes, in two stacks of two, side by side.

I will always advocate for making a model if you are trying to work through a new enclosure or adjust an existing enclosure or display piece, like a cradle. For example, I knew that a normal collapsible cradle wasn’t going to fit the bill for these volumes. Instead, I was going to need a stiff, squared off spine piece built into the cradle to help support the bindings’ spines.

Closed collapsible cradle with volume inside
Closed collapsible cradle
Collapsible cradle opened, detailed image showing the spine support piece of the cradle, with volume inside
Supported spine piece
volume sitting in cradle open
Cradle opened
volume sitting in cradle open
Volume displayed

One of the main areas I had to troubleshoot was the display tray, which would house the four remaining volumes. I knew I wanted to create a stand that would basically replicate one side of a collapsible cradle and have a 1/2 inch Plastazote foam insert, which happened to nestle the thickness of two volumes perfectly, that was covered in Tyvek. But I had concerns about gravity and reliability of PVA to hold the foam insert in place overtime. And I wasn’t happy with my initial ideas of how to remove the volumes (and also the original enclosure and collapsible cradle) from the insert(s), which consisted of a tab underneath the volume. It created friction that would ultimately cause damage to the actual volumes.

Ultimately, I am extremely happy with what I came up with. I think it functions very well, and checks all the boxes it needed to check. Safe, secure storage. Elegant display. User-friendly.

Display tray open, with four volumes in it, two volumes are visible and on display
Display stand open
Detail image of the display tray
Display stand closed. A lip was added to support the foam insert overtime
Display tray closed with one set of volumes removed
Display stand closed with one set of volumes removed
two volumes supported by a polyester film sling
Polyester slings were created as a solution for removing items safely and easily from the enclosure

The display stand includes a cloth tape inserted into the boards to keep it from opening too far, a foam insert covered in Tyvek, a lip to support the foam insert overtime, and two polyester film slings to aid in removing the volumes from the foam insert. The polyester slings proved to be an excellent solution for removing all the elements from the enclosure safely and easily.

For those interested in how some of the components were constructed, here are some in-progress images…

Photo showing the display stand being made
Detail of the turn-in for the display stand lip; cut similarly to how we cut our clamshell enclosure tray turn-ins
Photo showing the display stand being made
Detail of the turn-in for the display stand lip; cut similarly to how we cut our clamshell enclosure tray turn-ins
Foam insert being covered in Tyvek
Foam insert, vertical panels covered in Tyvek first
Tyvek cut in preparation for covering the foam
Tyvek sheet cut in preparation for attaching to foam
Tyvek cut in preparation for covering the foam
Tyvek sheet cut in preparation for attaching to foam
Foam insert being covered in Tyvek
Tyvek attached to the front of the foam piece
Tyvek turn-ins cut
Tyvek turn-ins cut

Because of the way the trays/components of the enclosure are constructed, they are actually interchangeable. So if the “lower tray” with the original enclosure and collapsible cradle ends up on top of the display tray/stand, that’s not an issue at all. And there is a 1/4 inch Volara foam piece adhered to the outer tray of the clamshell enclosure, so whatever items are on top will be cushioned by soft foam in the enclosure.

Contents of the enclosure pictured
Lower tray pictured in the enclosure

Get a full tour of the enclosure by watching our reel on Instagram:

Jessica Ebert [UCL] – Assistant Conservator

Archeological Textile Discovery in the Stacks: The Research

This is the first post of a four part series. Click the links below to jump to the following posts:

  • Research and Examination – Examining the material composition of the objects
  • History – Historical information provided about the Egyptian inscriptions
  • Treatment – How the materials were treated after learning about their content
  • Storage Solutions – Individual solutions for separated fragments as well as storage as a collection

Discovery in the Stacks

When a collection of Egyptian mummy bandage fragments at the Cincinnati and Hamilton County Public Library was found in an area used to store uncatalogued flat materials, the lab was asked to play a role in providing better stewardship.  

Discovered in the stacks: A mounted collection of six Egyptian textile fragments that date to the Ptolemaic Period (around 300-30 BCE), recto

Mummy bandage wrappings are rare finds in public libraries, and discovering that the materials where uncatalogued was not terribly surprising; having the specialized knowledge to catalog such a unique object may not have been available at the Public Library at the time of the acquisition.  With no identifying marks, and mounted to an aged board, the provenance of these objects are unfortunately unknown.

Collection suffered from a lack of storage housing without identifying information, found by staff performing a collections inventory, verso

Concerned about their overall safety of the fragments, as they were attached to a brittle board that could potentially chip and break if mishandled, it was clear that a solution for long-storage was needed.  Therefore, the items were brought to the lab for a comprehensive examination.

As a book and paper conservator with little knowledge of archeological textiles, the first step towards selecting a preservation solution was to better understand the fragments and conduct research on how to care for them. Because of the age and fragility of the items, my goal became to find a storage solution that could facilitate access while limiting handling of the actual objects themselves.

Examination

In order to conduct research, the condition of the individual fragments were fully examined with a variety of illumination techniques to better understand their composition. The collection was photographed with a DSLR camera in normal illumination, raking light, infrared, and ultraviolet fluorescence. The images revealed valuable information such as the possible types of adhesives used in mounting, the degree of linen loss, as well as the type of pigment applied to the linen. 

Creating the photographic documentation also allowed me to reach out to other scholars, to inquire about their history, while providing high quality images.

Types of Photography Performed During Examination

  • Normal Illumination – General reference image
  • Raking Illumination – Shows losses in linen, brown paper linings, and breaks in board
  • Infrared Imaging – Reveals inscriptions hidden along stains
  • Ultraviolet Fluorescence – Exposes differing types of adhesives
  • Normal Illumination – Overall images were taken of both the front and back of the mounting board. Normal illumination images serve as general reference photographs, representing how we perceive the object in normal room lighting.
  • Raking Illumination – Reveals the surface topography, showing breaks, tears, and losses in both the linen fragments and the mounting board.
  • Infrared Imaging – A modified DSLR camera and specialized filters remove visible light and capture longer wavelengths than the human eye can see, revealing the carbon-based writing while allowing the stains to disappear, making the writing more legible.
  • Ultraviolet Radiation– Ultraviolet radiation produces a fluorescence that readily shows the two differing types of adhesives used to adhere the fragments onto the backings. The first adhesive used to adhere the fragments to a brown paper backing does not fluoresce, while an adhesive that is smeared onto the face of the backing board does fluoresce.  This indicates that the fragments were adhered at different times to the two different substrates, first being adhered overall to a paper backing, then later mounted onto the board.

Research

Using the high-quality images described above, I reached out to experts in Egyptology and papyrology at the University of Cincinnati Classics Library and the University of Michigan to learn about the history of the objects. Right away, I was given extremely detailed information by generous colleagues.

One of the first surprising things I learned is that two of the fragments were oriented upside down.  So in their mounted format, they were not properly represented. Perhaps even more exciting was the discovery that three fragments were able to be attributed to a priest named Wennofer! (There will be more about the history of the pieces in the second part of the series, stay tuned.)

Of Parts and Pieces

It was serendipitous that during my research one of the contacts I was put in touch with was Dr. Ann-Katrin Gill from the University of Leipzig.  Dr. Gill happened to be in the midst of a larger project titled: Of parts and pieces: unearthing, reassembling, and documenting papyri and linen objects in US libraries.  As you can imagine, she was thrilled to receive the treatment documentation of the Public Library’s fragments to add to the collection.  We have hopes that should any other fragments belonging to these be discovered, perhaps they could become reunited.

Materiality

The Egyptian mummy bandage fragments, or cloth shrouds, are also referred to as archaeological linen textile fragments. I learned the following about the materiality of the fragments.

Inscriptions

Fragments contain either formal hieroglyphs (using pictorial characters) or cursive hieratic script (which is a later Egyptian shorthand writing system used by scribes). It was determined that the fragments likely date to the Ptolemaic Period (around 300-30 BCE) based on the writing style used during that time period. 

Inscriptions are written in black ink with a reed or rush pen, referred to as rush ink.  The ink appears to be typical of the time period, most likely carbon-based with a gum binder. The fragments when viewed though infrared imaging (see slide show above) shows the carbon in the ink absorbing infrared radiation, making the ink appear dark black in infrared images, while the organic staining drops out of the image.

20th Century Alterations

Lined with Brown Paper

At some point in the fragments’ history, the textiles were lined on the back in an acidic machine-made brown paper (reminiscent of brown craft paper tape).  If you look carefully in the raking light image (see slide show above), you might notice the brown lining paper poking through losses in the textiles as a slightly darker shade of brown than the board support.  Under UV fluorescence (see slide show above), the adhesive used in conjunction with the brown paper lining does not fluoresce. This adhesive was found to be readily water soluble and possibly a gum-based adhesive.

Trimmed Edges

You might notice the fragments are cut into odd shapes. Likely, they were trimmed to remove frayed ends and damaged parts.  There’s no way to know if the fragments were trimmed before or after they were lined with the brown paper lining, however the edges are fairly consistent with one another. One could make the case they were trimmed at the same time.

Mounted to a Board

After lining, these fragments would have then been mounted to a board, with two identified as upside down (oops)! Faint patterns on the back of the paper board resemble off-setting from wood, likely caused by a wooden backing board in a frame. If these assumptions are correct, it’s my guess that the fragments were mounted then framed for the tourist trade, with the frame now lost. 

Condition

Being mounted on an aged, unsupported, brittle board put the fragments at risk of breaking along with the board. Since the board already contained cracks and breaks along the edges, this concern felt urgent.

Despite the precarious storage and concerns surrounding the fragments being exposed to the elements, the textiles themselves appeared in fairly good condition for being over 2,000 years old! Viewing the fragments in raking light (see slide show above) reveals a considerable amount of linen loss throughout the textiles. However, it doesn’t appear that these losses were a recent incident in the past half century.  The losses were likely present when the fragments were lined with brown paper backing.

Next Steps

Next steps were to prepare the objects for safe keeping in long-term storage. To do so, required research on possible treatment options to safely store the items in their proper orientations. Also, knowing that not all fragments belonged in context with each other was further justification to split the collection into separate parts. Read on for more discoveries in this preservation journey!

To learn more, check out the other three posts in the series:

  • History – Historical information provided about the Egyptian inscriptions
  • Treatment – How the materials were treated after learning about their content
  • Storage Solutions – Individual solutions for separated fragments as well as storage as a collection

Acknowledgements

  • Katherine Davis, Lecturer in Egyptology in the Department of Middle East Studies at the University of Michigan
  • Suzanne Davis, the Associate Curator and Head of Conservation at the Kelsey Museum of Archaeology at the University of Michigan
  • Dr. Ann-Katril Gill at the University of Leipzig
  • Marieka Kaye, Harry A. and Margaret D. Towsley Foundation, Head, Conservation & Book Repair, University of Michigan Library
  • Obie Linn, Textile Conservator at the Cincinnati Art Museum
  • Ann Wuertemberger, Catalog Librarian at the Cincinnati and Hamilton County Public Library
  • Meredith Montague, Textile Conservator at the Museum of Fine Arts Boston

Ashleigh Ferguson Schieszer – Special Collections Conservator and Co-Lab Manager [CHPL]

Vivak, Velvet, and Vantage: Display Installation for FotoFocus 2024

Introduction

One of my favorite aspects of working for the Preservation Lab is the problem solving required to reach our clients’ goals. Whether performing treatments, building housings, or installing displays, we frequently find ourselves thinking outside the box to come up with custom solutions to unique problems.

FotoFocus

The problem solving aspect of the job was in full force with a recent display request from Art and Special Collections Reference Librarian, Sara Williams, for CHPL’s (Cincinnati and Hamilton County Public Library’s) participation in FotoFocus 2024 this Fall.

For those unfamiliar, FotoFocus is a biennial “month-long celebration of photography and lens-based art that unites artists, curators, and educators from around the world” (as described by the FotoFocus website). This year’s event was FotoFocus’ seventh iteration and encompassed 107 projects at 86 participating venues across Greater Cincinnati, Dayton, Columbus, and Northern Kentucky.

The Display Request

The theme for FotoFocus 2024 was Backstories, which focused on hidden stories within photographs that are not initially obvious. With this theme in mind, Sara Williams came up with the idea of highlighting stories hidden within one of CHPL’s most highly prized collection items: the 1848 Fontayne and Porter Panorama Daguerreotype. (For more information about this historic photograph, its preservation, and daguerreotypes in general, an earlier blog post I wrote on the subject can be found here.)

1848 Fontayne and Porter 8 full-plate panorama daguerreotype

To convey this idea, Sara requested that the exhibit contain surrogate images attached to the back of the display cases, with images popping out at varying degrees of depth, highlighting the idea that each subsequent image is zoomed in closer, just as the story within the images become more in-depth.

Constructing a Prototype

I am still relatively new to the world of conservation, and even newer to that of display installation. When confronted with a task I am unfamiliar with such as this request, I like to think about what needs to be achieved, and then brainstorm how it can be achieved practically using stock materials we have in the lab. I did not yet have the specs on the display cases or the sizes of the specific images, but Sara gave me several printed foam board images like what would be used in the display to run tests with. Most importantly, I knew the two following bits of information:

  • The display needed images attached to a cloth-covered wall within the display case.
  • The images needed the ability to be mounted at custom depths from the cloth-covered wall.

After some brainstorming with our head conservator, Ashleigh Ferguson Schieszer, we decided to try using Vivak to “pop out” the images at various depths.

Vivak is a copolyester plastic that can be easily bent into various shapes, yet retains its shape once creased. It is also clear, making it useful for displays due to its ability to blend into backgrounds and not detract from the featured objects.

We also decided to use our cubicle walls as a test site until we could get our hands on the actual cases, since attaching a support mount to a cloth covered wall was a unique challenge for us.

First Prototype

First Vivak Support prototype
Attached to wall with two pins along top

I constructed the first prototype by creasing a small sheet of Vivak twice into a “J” shape. I poked two holes in the smaller lip of the “J” so that I could use pins to secure it to the cloth-covered wall, with the image adhered to the larger lip.

This was moderately successful. These would be easy to construct and the pins held the support’s weight. But I was concerned about the Vivak bowing under the weight of the images, especially for the ones that were to be at the furthest depth from the cloth-covered wall, as it was already wanting to sag without an attached image under its own weight.

Second Prototype

I made the second prototype into a “C” shape, so that there were two lips that could be pinned to the cloth-covered wall. My hope was that this would add more stability and reduce the potential sagging. This was certainly an improvement, but it still felt unstable, and I felt the Vivak pieces that needed to be longer still might sag.

Support with added base to combat sagging
“C” shape with added backing strip

I next added an additional support piece of Vivak along the back of this prototype so that the pins would penetrate it as well as the two lips, adding even more stability. This yielded the most favorable result so far, yet I felt like the process could be streamlined.

I wanted the “pop-outs” to be contained to one piece of Vivak, so for the final prototype so I extended the two lips of the “C” so that they overlapped each other making a square shape.

Final Prototype

Final prototype with overlapping Vivak strips
Attached to wall with Vivak folds at top and bottom – still showed propensity to sag
Attached to wall with folds along sides – this eliminated the tendency to sag!

The final prototype gave the stability of the second prototype but was easier to produce as only one piece of Vivak needed to be cut. After constructing this successful variation, I had the idea to rotate the “pop-out” 90 degrees so that the creased section of the Vivak would be vertical rather than horizontal, eliminating any tendency for it to sag from these creases outward.

Installation

Sara had also requested that both the cloth-covered wall and base of the display be covered in black velvet to give the display a cleaner look, as the existing cloth had seen better days. This was accomplished by removing the boards, cutting enough velvet so they could be wrapped and completely covered on its exposed side, and then secured on their hidden underside using a staple gun.

The case before modifications, during deconstruction
The walls and base of the case were recovered with black polyester velvet
The case reconstructed after recovering

I had initially planned on using large “T”-shaped pins to fix the “pop-outs” to the cloth-covered wall, as they were abundant in the lab, and I felt the length of them would yield a stronger hold. However, upon attempting to test the prototype on the actual display case, it was discovered that the wall I assumed was cloth-covered foam was cloth-covered wood. As the “T”-shaped pins were long and not very sturdy, they would be extremely difficult to hammer into the wood.

I ended up using small ½” brass escutcheon pins. They are low profile and would be relatively easy to hammer into cloth-covered wood. I punctured 4 pilot holes through the overlapping “C” lips so the pins could hold the Vivak together, and then individual pins were hammered through the holes into the cloth-covered wood.

Long T-pins compared to the shorter escutcheon pins
The shorter pins were the perfect length to nail into the thin display case wall

Once the velvet was installed and the “pop-outs” were secured to the freshly velvet-covered boards, the images could be adhered directly to the Vivak using double stick tape, as they were surrogate images printed onto foam board.

Nailing the Vivak support to the display case wall
3M 415 double stick tape was used to adhere the surrogate images to the Vivak supports

The Display During Installation

Once the cases were modified with the black velvet polyester and the Vivak supports were nailed into place, the bases were ready for Sara to add additional components underneath.

View at an angle showing the varying depths of field
Three cases ready for final touches by Sara Williams

After Installation

The completed display, entitled Depth of Field: The Universe of the Daguerreotype went live on September 24, and was located on the 2nd floor of the South building at the Downtown Main branch of CHPL through November 1st. Sara Williams curated a wonderful series of images, featuring supplemental newspaper articles, city directories, images shot through a microscopic lens, and more to highlight both the scientific and human stories that are contained within this iconic Daguerreotype.

Captions describe:

  • The astonishing achievement of how the photographic images were captured outdoors when normally, daguerreotypes are produced indoors to control the complicated process.
  • How moisture and dust caused deterioration specks which are shown under 100x magnification and routinely monitored.
  • The panorama’s unique anoxic custom enclosure, where the absence of oxygen prevents further degradation.

Although the display is no longer viewable, its primary subject still is. The 1848 Fontayne and Porter Panorama Daguerreotype can currently be viewed in the Cincinnati Room of CHPL’s Downtown Main branch along with other fantastic displays curated by Sara. Be sure to check them out and be on the lookout for the return of FotoFocus in 2026!

View of the exhibit after installation next to the Story Center

Matt McCoy – Conservation Specialist [CHPL]

Are You Ready for Halloween?

With Halloween creeping up, it’s either a chance for you to unleash your spooky side or to totally panic and obsess over costumes until the last second. Ghost? Meh. Mummy? Boring. Werewolf? Too hairy. But if you work in a conservation lab, fear not. We have you covered!  

This year, we’ve scoured the lab to create costumes that mix chilling creativity with eccentric conservation tools! Each costume has a difficulty rating, so you’ll know if it takes professional skill or just a wildly spooky imagination. 

So, grab some supplies, get haunting, and remember: Conservation may be reversible, but goofy Halloween memories are forever!  

Edward Scissorhands costume, woman in black holding many scissors

Edward Scissorhands
Difficulty level – Easy
Materials and tools needed:

  • Scissors, tons of scissors
  • Black clothing
  • Strong hands (those old scissors may refuse to work properly)

Note – Not recommended for the long-haired among us…so remember, safety first! Keep a safe distance, and beware of those “accidental” snips, unless your colleagues think that you desperately need “just a little trim off the top”.

Mock crime scene with woman pretending to collect evidence by a fake chalk outline

Crime Scene Tech
Difficulty level – Medium
Materials and tools needed:

  • Masking tape
  • Caution tape
  • Gloves
  • Lab coat
  • Tweezers
  • Scalpel
  • Thread (to mimic hair samples)
  • Binder’s board to create a body/chalk outline (create a tri-fold for easy travel)
  • Golden gloss/matte media (or anything that fluoresces) to create “blood” splatters
  • Polyethylene bags (to collect evidence)
  • UV lamp
  • Protective UV goggles
  • Fluorescent scale (optional)
  • Camera (optional)
  • Tripod (optional)
  • A strong stomach, not for the faint of heart

Note – For the body outline, just kindly convince a colleague to lie on the binder’s board. Nothing says “team building” like creating a fake crime scene!

The following costumes can be done as a group effort or a solo act – dealer’s choice!

Ghostbuster on the left, painting of old man at the center, conservator seated on the right

Vigo the Carpathian (Painting)
Difficulty level – Hard
Materials and tools needed:

  • Print out of Vigo the Carpathian – our Lab recently switched to a 17″ wide Epson printer, so we are unable to print large scale items, so Jessica skillfully created the painting with two printouts pieced together.
  • Corrugated board
  • Cloth tapes (to create handles on the back of the painting)
  • Gold spray paint
  • Double-sided tape
  • Black/dark clothing
  • Strong arms and captivating eyes

Note – For that eerie stare DON’T FORGET to remove the eyes from the print out…the creepier, the better!

woman dressed as paintings conservator seated in front of a painting

Sigourney Weaver (as “Paintings Conservator”)
Difficulty level – Easy
Materials and tools needed:

  • Lab coat
  • OptiVisor
  • Acrylic paints
  • Gloves
  • Cotton swab
  • Beaker with filtered water
  • Paint brushes
  • Vigo printing proof, as reference (optional)
  • Must not be easily spooked by creepy eyes staring into your soul

Note – We know we aren’t a paintings conservation lab, but I think we pulled it off…or at least better than the movie, I hope!?

woman dressed as a ghostbuster

Ghostbuster / Bill Murray as Dr. Peter Venkman
Difficulty level – Easy
Materials and tools needed:

  • Jumpsuit from your favorite brand (Dickies, Albion Fit, etc.)
  • Nilfisk GD 10 Back HEPA Vacuum (Proton Pack)
  • Print out of Ghostbusters logo
  • Double-sided tape
  • Portable fan (for special effects)
  • Must be courageous yet capture the whimsy and humor of Bill Murray! Ready for anything!

Note – A portable fan can really elevate the special effects for this costume! Just check out our Instagram reel to see for yourself…

Happy haunting to you all! May the ghost tyrant and sorcerer Vigo (also known as Prince Vigo von Homburg Deutschendorf, Scourge of Carpathia, Sorrow of Moldavia, Vigo the Carpathian, Vigo the Cruel, Vigo the Torturer, Vigo the Despised, Vigo the Unholy1) protect you in all your spooky endeavors!

Catarina Figueirinhas [UCL] – Assistant Conservator

Images by Jessica Ebert [UCL] – Assistant Conservator & Social Media Coordinator