Please join the Preservation Lab (300 Langsam Library) for our annual open house on May 1st. There will be cookies! And bookmarks! And stickers!
Also, new this year, two learning opportunities in Langsam Library by the circulation desk (see below)!
Open to the public. Parking available for a fee in Woodside Garage.
With so much special collections materials going through the lab, sometimes I forget to appreciate the beauty of general collection items. No such problem with this beauty – a stenciled book cover with splashes of gold.
I love pochoir, screen printing, and risograph (the stencil arts), so was thrilled to see this Greek monograph from 1899. It really reminds one of the intense labor that goes into the production of even one book and the subtle difference apparent in each one.
Holly Prochaska, Head, Preservation Services & Lab at the University of Cincinnati
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:
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:
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.
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:
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.
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:
Cons:
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!
This versatile portfolio facilitates storage, handling, and display as the cover can be folded behind the window and backing board.
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:
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:
Ashleigh Ferguson Schieszer – Special Collections Conservator and Co-Lab Manager [CHPL]
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:
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.
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.
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.
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.
Collection is mounted to an acidic board with two of the fragments oriented upside down.
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.
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:
Ashleigh Ferguson Schieszer – Special Collections Conservator and Co-Lab Manager [CHPL]
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:
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.
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):
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.
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.
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.
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.
This is the upper right hieratic fragment with Hieratic script. It measures approximately 9 x 7 cm. There is no owner’s name preserved.
This is the bottom center hieratic fragment measuring 4 x 10 cm, also with no owner’s name preserved and oriented upside down.
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):
Ashleigh Ferguson Schieszer – Special Collections Conservator and Co-Lab Manager [CHPL]
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!)
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.
Nanocellulose is made up of nanoscale cellulose particles that come from different sources, like:
In conservation, the field has been experimenting with two main types:
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.
Many labs and companies around the world make nanocellulose products like gels, nanopapers, and foams. Here are a few:
In Cincinnati, we experimented with two products purchased from Weidmann Fiber Technology in Switzerland:
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.
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/.
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.
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.
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.
Nanocellulose film properties may be handy for use in art conservation for their:
While promising, there are some downsides to consider:
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.
I had best luck with the nanocomposite films but only when they were reactivated with the adhesive they were made with.
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.
My second favorite options were the pure MFC films adhered with methocel and wheat starch paste.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Ashleigh Ferguson Schieszer – Special Collections Library Conservator
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
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.
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
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.
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…
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.
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.
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…
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.
Get a full tour of the enclosure by watching our reel on Instagram:
Jessica Ebert [UCL] – Assistant Conservator
This is the first post of a four part series. Click the links below to jump to the following posts:
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.)
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 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:
Ashleigh Ferguson Schieszer – Special Collections Conservator and Co-Lab Manager [CHPL]
