Wilfred/a’s many mysteries

Last week, we moved our mummy Wilfred/a from the Artifact Lab down to our new digital x-ray lab to capture some x-ray images and hopefully get to the bottom of the male/female debate.

Wilfreda after treatment

Wilfred/a after treatment

Above is an overall after treatment image of Wilfred/a. The goal of the treatment was to get this mummy out of the original packing materials, to assess and document the remains, and to house them in a way that they can safely be moved to our x-ray room for imaging, and then returned to storage. If plans are made to exhibit Wilfred/a in the future, further treatment can be carried out at that point, but for now, this mummy is stabilized and will be much more accessible for research.

We were excited to x-ray Wilfred/a’s remains, but while we are used to x-raying ceramics, wooden artifacts, metals, and other types of cultural materials, x-raying human remains is not something that any of us in the conservation department specialize in, so we brought in some experts to help us with this task: Dr. Janet Monge, Keeper and Curator-in-Charge of the Museum’s Physical Anthropology Section, and Dr. Morrie Kricun, Emeritus Professor of Radiology, Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania. In fact, it was Dr. Monge and Dr. Kricun’s initial examination of Wilfred/a’s remains and some old 1932 x-ray radiographs that made us think that this mummy may be female, rather than male.

With the assistance of Dr. Monge and Dr. Kricun, Conservator Tessa de Alarcon and I captured a complete sets of x-ray images of Wilfred/a. And the really cool thing about having a digital system is that we can capture the images in seconds, and see the results immediately. While full interpretation of the images is underway, I will share a couple of the findings that are quite interesting.

First, let’s clear up the debate and start addressing this mummy by the appropriate pronoun. This mummy is female, and therefore we’ll call her Wilfreda from now on (or until someone proposes a new, more appropriate name). Determining that Wilfreda is female was possible by a thorough examination of her pelvis. There are a few other possibly very cool findings related to the fact that she’s female, but I’m going to wait on the full interpretation before sharing any other details about this on the blog.

Secondly, we knew that Wilfreda’s head was missing, but what we didn’t realize was this:

wilfredanofeet

X-ray radiograph of Wilfreda’s lower legs and (missing) feet. Exposure: 65kv 5ma 6 seconds

Her feet are missing! From the outside, it is obvious that the wrappings around the feet were disturbed at some point, but it wasn’t possible to see until these x-rays were taken that the feet are totally gone. In this next image, which we captured to better see the linen wrappings, you can clearly see where the feet would have been:

45kV 5ma 6 seconds

Exposure: 45kv 5ma 6 seconds

The weird thing about this is that her feet were there when the 1932 x-rays were taken:

wilfredaoldxrays

2 different x-ray images captured in 1932, clearly showing the feet of the mummy.

Where have her feet gone? We don’t know. This is now a new mystery.

Just in case any of you are following this blog very closely, and are wondering if the feet could have been lost somewhere inside the old crate (pictured below), the answer is no, but some other things of interest did turn up in there.

wilfredascrate

Buried in the old padding of the crate, we found the following:

Wilfredasbox

  • a Keuffel & Esser Co. 1903 Catalog of drawing materials and surveying instruments
  • 4 tickets that say: “Only for School Children – Not Transferable. Barakat’s Lecture, on BIBLE LANDS, illustrated by ancient curiosities used 1800 years ago, and costumes worn 4000 years ago. ADMIT ____ who will Bring this and Five cents.” (I’ve neglected to write about him on the blog but Wilfreda was originally in the possession of Professor Elias Barakat, who, for about a decade, traveled around the US lecturing about the ancient world, with Wilfreda as one of his “curiosities.” His wife donated Wilfreda to the museum in 1911.)
  • Rubber stamps, for printing announcements, etc., one of them with Barakat’s name
  • small wooden dowels
  • a piece of cartonnage
  • fragments of wood, textile, paper, plant materials, seeds.

Leave it to Wilfreda to keep a few surprises from us. We’ll post more about the x-ray interpretations once we know more, and continue to try to put the pieces of these mysteries together.

Continuing the treatment of Pinahsi

Just a quick update on the treatment of our mummy Pinahsi. I worked on him all day today and made some good progress. My efforts were focused on encapsulating the detaching, tearing, very fragile linen on the sides and underneath the mummy’s body. Just as I did with the feet, I used nylon bobbinett, toned with acrylic paint where necessary, to protect these damaged areas. In some places, I was able to wrap the bobbinett around the mummy and stitch it to itself, but in other places, I decided to adhere the bobbinett to discrete areas on the mummy, using Japanese tissue paper and methyl cellulose adhesive.

Here is a shot of the treatment in progress, showing the bobbinnet with small pieces of paper attached to one edge, which will be used to attach the bobbinett to the mummy. The edge of the bobbinett that will be visible is painted to match the linen.

Getting ready to attach the nylon bobbinett to the underside of the mummy. The edge of the bobbinett that will be visible is painted to match the linen, and there are small pieces of paper adhered to the edge, which will be used to attach the bobbinett to the linen.

Getting ready to attach the nylon bobbinett to the underside of the mummy.

And here are some before and after shots, showing areas that I’ve encapsulated with the netting:

A detail of the right side of the mummy before and after attaching the nylon bobbinett.

Details of the right side of the mummy before and after attaching the nylon bobbinett.

Details of the left side, before and after treatment.

Details of the left side, before and after treatment.

Tomorrow I’ll move on to some more challenging areas that I’ve saved for last! I’m hoping to “wrap up” this treatment sometime next week. Wish me luck!

 

What’s the deal with Pinahsi’s feet?

I think we can all agree that our mummy Pinahsi’s feet need a little TLC.

A detail of Pinahsi's feet

A detail of Pinahsi’s feet before treatment

A long time ago, the wrappings around his feet were damaged, exposing his toes. His toes are very well-preserved, despite the fact that 2 toes on the left foot are missing.

The second toe on each of his feet is lifted away from the others, and we have been debating whether this distortion was caused by the feet being tightly wrapped during mummification (which they were) or whether this distortion was caused by a condition Pinahsi had during his lifetime (I’m leaning toward the second possibility).

A view of the toes from the side

A view of the toes from the side

In any case, I thought it was about time his feet received a little bit of attention.

While I can’t do anything for those crooked toes, I am able to address the damaged linen and resin-coated linen wrappings around his feet. I repaired a few tears in the linen with Japanese tissue paper and 5% methyl cellulose, and then I wrapped the feet in the most damaged area with nylon bobbinett, toned to match the surrounding material with acrylic paint. Visually, the difference is subtle, but I can assure you that the feet are going to be much less prone to continued deterioration now that the damaged linen is stabilized and protected.

Details of the feet before (left) and after (right) treatment.

Details of the feet before (left) and after (right) treatment.

The back of the feet before (left) and after (right) treatment.

The bottom of the feet before (left) and after (right) treatment.

In the images above, you can probably pick out the band of bobbinett – it’s more visible on the bottom than on the top. When you get really close to the feet, the bobbinett is really obvious.

Detail of the top of the feet, showing the bobbinett overlay.

Detail of the top of the feet, showing the bobbinett overlay.

In our efforts to strike this balance between making our work more or less invisible, while also wanting to make sure that the new materials we add are easily distinguished from the original, we often refer to the “six-foot/six-inch” rule – at six feet, our work is not obvious but at six inches you will be able to see it. In this case, it is my hope that when the mummy is on display and viewed through the display case, the bobbinett I add will not be distracting to the viewer, but when you look for it, you’ll be able to pick it out.

Now I’m about to tackle the damaged linen on Pinahsi’s body. Just yesterday, we lifted Pinahsi up onto some Ethafoam support blocks, to allow me to access the damaged areas on the mummy’s sides and back.

Pinahsi raised up on Ethafoam blocks.

Pinahsi raised up on Ethafoam blocks.

I will provide updates as I complete more of the treatment!

 

Examination and treatment of Wilfred/a

We still haven’t gotten to the bottom of the question of whether our mummy Wilfred is indeed Wilfred or is instead Wilfreda, because there have been a few things to take care of first. In the meantime, I am referring to the mummy as Wilfred/a. Hopefully this person would not be offended by the ambiguity, but we hope to clear this up soon by x-raying the mummy using our new digital x-ray system. Before we can do this, I have been working to stabilize the remains enough to allow them to be moved safely down to our x-ray room. In the process of stabilizing the remains, I have made some observations.

The exposed remains on the upper part of the body, while very fragile and disarticulated, are remarkably well-preserved in areas. The preservation of the hands and arms is particularly notable – the fingernails are intact on the left hand, and it is clear that the arms and hands were wrapped separately with linen as part of the mummification process, due to the presence of linen and impressions of linen on the skin.

A detail of the left hand and arm. Note the presence of fingernails, and the linen and linen impressions, marked on the photo with yellow and red arrows.

A detail of the left hand and arm. Note the presence of fingernails, and the linen and linen impressions, marked on the photo with yellow and red arrows.

Unfortunately, we can also see that there has been damage to the right hand since the 1932 x-rays were taken (Wilfred/a, along with many other mummies in our collection, was x-rayed in 1932 by Dr. J.G. Cohen at the Graduate Hospital). In the old radiograph, it is evident that on the right hand, the thumb is intact, and at least most of the hand and fingers are also intact (the hand is partially cut off on the image). Today, we’re missing the thumb, all of the fingers, and part of the hand – only 3 of the metacarpal bones remain.

Left image: 1932 radiograph, showing arms crossed and right hand intact. Right image: 2015 photograph, showing damage to right hand.

Left image: 1932 radiograph, showing arms crossed and right hand intact. Right image: 2015 photograph, showing damage to right hand.

In my examination of the remains, I did not locate any detached elements from the right hand, but it doesn’t meant that they’re not in there somewhere! We may locate them once we x-ray the remains again.

Also of note is that the arms are crossed over the chest, right over left. From what I have read, the crossed arm position is generally not seen until the New Kingdom, when it is reserved for royalty, until about 600 BCE or later. We think that Wilfred/a dates to the Ptolemaic or Roman period, based on the style of the intact wrappings around the legs.

This mummy was elaborate wrapped with narrow strips of linen, creating a rhomboid pattern.

Wilfred/a’s wrappings are intact from the pelvis down, with narrow strips of linen creating an elaborate rhomboid pattern.

Because Wilfred/a likely dates to this Graeco/Roman period, the arms crossed over the chest do not indicate royalty, necessarily, and may have been to emulate the pose of Osiris (see this article for more information).

Once these observations were documented, I started in on the treatment. Since there are no immediate plans to exhibit Wilfred/a’s remains, I took some measures to stabilize them for the move down to the x-ray room and for eventual return to storage. If we ever do decide to exhibit them, the conservation work to prepare them for display will be much more straightforward now that some of the initial work has been carried out.

After removing Wilfred/a from the mattress (with a little help from my colleagues), I carefully removed all fully detached material and bagged it according to material type. I lightly cleaned the surface of the exposed arms and the intact wrappings on the legs and feet, recovering some insect remains and remnants of old packing materials (like cotton and wood shavings) in the process. I then wrapped the mummy in Tyvek and bolstered the sides of the chest area with pillows made from Tyvek and polyester batting. Wilfred/a is now ready to move onto a rigid support, which we plan to make from archival honeycomb board specially purchased for this project.

Wilfred/a, pictured here after treatment, is now almost ready to be moved down to our x-ray room.

Wilfred/a, pictured here after treatment, is now almost ready to be moved down to our x-ray room.

 

Wilfred/a’s cartonnage

While we prepare our mummy Wilfred/a to be x-rayed, we are simultaneously working on fragments of cartonnage that may belong to the him/her.

Cartonnage fragments before treatment, in no particular arrangement or orientation

Cartonnage fragments before treatment, in no particular arrangement or orientation

There are 35 pieces, some of which are assemblages of multiple fragments mended together, plus some very small fragments in a ziploc bag.

The cartonnage consists of 2 layers of linen adhered together, with a fine plaster coating on one side, which is painted, and a thinner, more coarse layer of plaster on the other side. Here is a magnified image of one of the fragments, and an image of it in cross-section:

The painted side of one fragment of cartonnage (left) and the same fragment in cross-section (right), 7.5X magnification

The painted side of one fragment of cartonnage (left) and the same fragment in cross-section (right), 7.5X magnification

It is unclear what these fragments originally belonged to. They definitely do not make up an entire object, and they are mostly flat. We can see that there are at least 3 figures depicted in the painted decoration, but we’re still in the process of trying to piece together the rest of the design, and trying to figure out which pieces join together.

Pre-program intern Yan Ling examines the cartonnage fragments with the aid of an optivisor.

Pre-program intern Yan Ling examines the cartonnage fragments with the aid of an optivisor.

Yan Ling, our pre-program intern and an art conservation undergraduate from the University of Delaware, is helping me document the fragments. As part of our examination process, we will be looking at the fragments with our Mini Crimescope, and we’ll post anything interesting that we find on here soon.

 

Another new mummy in the lab

We have another new mummy in the lab, and we may actually know this one’s name (unlike Wilfred, or Wilfreda, who has that nickname for some unknown reason).

E16221, Mummified man from Abydos

E16221, Mummified man from Abydos

According to our database, and the original catalog card, this is a mummified man named Pinahsi. He was excavated in 1901-02 from Abydos by Sir W. M. Flinders Petrie, and dates to the 19th Dynasty. The mummy doesn’t appear to be mentioned in Petrie’s Abydos publications, but there is a note on the catalog card that he may be related to the owner of the stela “Pa-asi” which is mentioned in his publication, and was found by Petrie in the Osiris temple at Abydos. I’m uncertain how this stela and the mummy are linked, but I’m hoping that this may become more clear once we access related information in our Archives.

Pinahsi has been on display in our Mummy Gallery since 1990, and we removed him from display for some much-needed conservation treatment. When the mummy came into the lab, I guessed that he dated to the New Kingdom, because the wrappings on the head look nearly identical to those on this disembodied head (below) that we worked on in the lab last year.

E2162, New Kingdom (22nd Dynasty) mummy head

E2162, New Kingdom (22nd Dynasty) mummy head

Fortunately for Pinahsi, we have his whole body, which is wrapped in many layers of linen, ranging from coarser to very fine weave, and some of the uppermost layers are impregnated with resin (just as we see on the mummy head above). Pinahsi is very heavy, which indicates just how much of this resin was used in the process of mummifying him.

Pinahsi

Detail of the head and upper half of Pinahsi’s body, showing resin-soaked linen around the head, and severe insect damage on the linen over the chest

We’ll be working on stabilizing his linen wrappings in areas where they are torn and detaching, and we will make a new support for him before he returns to exhibit.

Pinahsitoes

Detail of Pinahsi’s feet. The linen is badly damaged in this area, exposing the toes. One visitor remarked yesterday that it looked like he was trying to wriggle out of his wrappings!

We will also x-ray his remains again; they were x-rayed back in the 1930s and you can see one of these images by clicking here, which shows that Pinahsi has amulets included in his wrappings. Hopefully with our new digital x-radiography equipment, we’ll be able to capture even better images of these amulets and his remains.

To catch a glimpse of Pinahsi before he goes back on display, visit the Artifact Lab – every day the museum is open over the holiday, we will have someone working in the lab between the open window hours, which are 11:15-11:45 and 2:00-2:30 Tuesday – Friday, and 12:30-1:00 and 3:30-4:00 Saturday and Sunday.

 

Wilfred or Wilfreda?

So, there has been some controversy over the fact that our mummy Wilfred is being referred to by a man’s name because there is some suspicion that this mummy may in fact be female!

Just before Thanksgiving, Dr. Janet Monge, Keeper and Curator-in-Charge of the Museum’s Physical Anthropology Section, along with colleagues Page Selinsky and Francesca Candilio, took at peek at the mummy and there was a hot debate over some of the features on the pelvis, but they all started leaning toward the conclusion that the mummy may be a woman.

The group huddled around the mummy. Photo by Nina Owczarek, copied from the Museum's Instagram account.

The group huddled around the mummy. Photo by Nina Owczarek, copied from the Museum’s Instagram feed.

The group felt like they needed to see the bones better. One of them (half-jokingly) asked if we could just lift the pelvis out. While we plan to take some new x-rays using our new digital radiography equipment, we have to do some work on the mummy in the lab first. But in the meantime, we can take a look at the x-rays taken in 1932 over at the Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania. The only notes from this old radiographic study say “adult”.

Radiograph of the chest area, showing the crossed arms, ribs, vertebrae.

Radiograph of the chest area, showing the crossed arms, ribs, vertebrae

Radiograph of the pelvis.

Radiograph of the pelvis

Radiograph of the feet.

Radiograph of the feet

Dr. Monge offered to share these images with her colleague Dr. Morrie Kricun, Emeritus Professor of Radiology, Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania. Dr. Kricun was able to manipulate the image of the pelvis to view it as it would look like if it was undisturbed.

Manipulated radiographic image of the mummy's pelvis

Manipulated radiographic image of the mummy’s pelvis

He’s also leaning toward female, but wants to do some additional imaging, which we plan to do soon. I promise to update the blog as soon as we do this! But for now, I feel like I may need to start calling this mummy Wilfreda.

 

Meet Wilfred

I swear, sometimes I think we’re just trying to outdo ourselves. There has been a whirlwind of activity lately – in the museum, in the conservation department, and in the Artifact Lab. Between “finding” a 6500 year-old skeleton in storage, to moving into our new conservation suite, it’s been so busy that I haven’t been very good about writing updates (but I promise to post some of the stuff about our new digs and equipment on the blog soon). Just when I thought things were settling down, this mysterious crate showed up at my door:

Wilfred crate

Okay, so at this point, it wasn’t a complete mystery – I knew what was in that crate (more or less) because last summer, some brave souls in the Egyptian Section managed to get this crate down from a very high shelf in storage. Once it was down, they found this note pinned to the top of the box:

Wilfred label

Well, hello, Wilfred. As you can see, the team was very happy with themselves afterward, even if they had to get a little dirty in the process.

"Team Wilfred" (Dr, Joe Wegner, Jean Walker, Jamie Kelly)

“Team Wilfred” (Egyptian Section Associate Curator Dr. Josef Wegner, Assistant Keeper Jean Walker, and volunteer Jamie Kelly). Photo by innocent bystander Dr. Jen Wegner

So who/what is Wilfred, exactly? Well, inside the crate we found this:

Wilfred crate open

It’s an old, dirty mattress, with a wooden stick resting on top. And inside that mattress, we found…

wilfred in crate

A mummy! A badly damaged, but nonetheless very well-preserved mummy.The upper half of the body is where most of the damage is visible, exposing the human remains underneath, while the lower half appears pretty well-wrapped.

Today, my colleagues and I hoisted Wilfred out of the crate onto a temporary support. Here is what he looks like, sitting out on a table in the lab:

Wilfred on table

And there’s more. But I won’t write any more about him in this post, except to say that no, this isn’t the first time he’s been studied since coming to the museum in 1911 (he was x-rayed in the 1930s), but it is the first time that any of us here at the museum are really getting a good look at him.

There will be much more to follow…so stay tuned!

 

Sizing up our child mummy

Everyone loves Tanwa, our child mummy, but a lot of people ask about her size. “Isn’t she kind of small for a 5-year-old?” they’ll ask. Without knowing a whole lot of 5-year-olds myself, I usually say, yes, I guess, but you have to remember that she’s wrapped really tightly and that people were generally smaller in stature 2000 years ago. We also don’t know how she died, so theoretically, her size could have been affected by a disease or something that eventually caused her to die. But the truth is, I don’t know how she compares to the size of kids today.

But today I had the perfect opportunity to size her up, and a willing subject, my niece Luisa. Luisa is “almost 4-years-old” (this is a direct quote). We held Luisa up next to Tanwa for a little height comparison.

luisa and tanwaLuisa is the tallest in her class and she’s “almost four”, and she’s just about the same height as Tanwa. So I would say that Tanwa isn’t so short after all. What do you think?

 

Conserving Egyptian Collections, day 2

Day 2 of Understanding Egyptian Collections at the Ashmolean featured 11 speakers (including myself), and the papers covered a wide range of topics.

The front entrance of the Ashmolean Museum

The front entrance of the Ashmolean Museum

I didn’t take any photos during the talks, so I have less visual content to share for this post. For ease of sharing the information about the presentations, I’m going to list the talks here, with speakers names, titles, and brief remarks (all of the talks over the 2 days deserve way more attention than I give them here and in my previous post – hopefully a publication will result – see more about this below). Several of the talks had co-authors, but I’m only listing the co-authors names if they were present at the meeting.

  • “Evolving Attitudes: past and present treatment of Egyptian Collections of the Oriental Institute.” Alison Whyte, Associate Conservator, Oriental Institute. Alison shared many old archival photos which have helped conservators understand old restorations, and make decisions about how to revisit the conservation of objects that have been in their collection for a long time. Alison also shared the project of the guest curator Rozenn Bailleul-LeSuer of the special exhibit “Between Heaven and Earth – Birds in Ancient Egypt“. Rozenn’s work included CT-scanning and making a 3D print of an eagle mummy, and 3D replicas of its skeletal remains. She brought a 3D print of the eagle mummy to show us, but unfortunately it got lost on her way to the conference along with the rest of her luggage! Let’s hope that it eventually turns up.
  • “Mummy case saved by LEGO: a collaborative approach to conservation of an Ancient Egyptian cartonnage.” Sophie Rowe, Conservator, and Julie Dawson, Senior Assistant Keeper, Conservation, Fitzwillliam Museum, University of Cambridge. LEGOI was familiar with this project due to the fact that it was prominently featured in the news last year. This project was a collaboration between conservators and engineering student David Knowles, who designed a structure to support a cartonnage coffin upside-down during treatment, and devised a plan to use LEGO structures to provide long-term support for the coffin from the interior. To the right is an image of the LEGO structure (it looks a little different from the LEGOs we’re all familiar with).
  • “The importance of technical analysis and research for the conservation and display of archaeological garments.” Anne Kwaspen, Conservator of the Archaeological Textile Collection, Katoen Natie. I had never heard of Katoen Natie before – it is a company based in Antwerp that has invested in collecting art, through a program called HeadquARTers. They have a collection of archaeological textiles from the art market and private collectors. Anne discussed the study and conservation of their Egyptian wool and linen tunics, and their approach to display.
  • “Problems and possibilities for the Petrie Museum’s pottery display.” Susanna Pancaldo, Senior Conservator, UCL Museums and Collections. Susanna spoke about recent upgrades to the pottery room at the Petrie Museum. Their pottery room has approximately 3400 objects on display in 36 cases, and was suffering from issues with light, extremes in relative humidity and temperature, lack of mounts and damaging mounts, lack of space, and outdated/minimal labels. In 2014 they received funding to make improvements, including new lighting, new interpretive information, the addition of an introductory showcase showing Petrie’s sequence dating technique, and to carry out conservation surveys and treatments, among other things.
  • “Innovations for the display of Dynastic textiles using existing designs at the Metropolitan Museum of Art.” Emilia Cortes, Conservator, Metropolitan Museum of Art. Emilia’s presentation focused on the remounting of Egyptian textiles on exhibit to allow for easier access. She showed how she was able to modify existing mounts for elaborate, intricate objects, including this incredible floral collar from Tutankhamun’s embalming cache. Her retrofits included the innovative use of food-grade silicone for preventing movement of objects on exhibit.
  • “King Menkaure in Motion: the metamorphosis of a Monolithic royal sculpture from the Old Kingdom.” Susanne Gansicke, Conservator, Museum of Fine Arts, Boston. Susanne described the monumental task of moving their King Menkaure statue from one gallery to another within the Museum of Fine Arts. With 2 years lead time, they were able to do gamma radiography of the sculpture in the gallery to help prepare and make decisions about the move, which involved setting the statue on a lifting frame, with 12 wheels attached, and then moving it with the assistance of 2 lifts. It was a very thoughtful project and an impressive feat!
  • “On not exhibiting a corpse: the Mummy Chamber, Brooklyn Museum.” Lisa Bruno, Head Objects Conservator, Brooklyn Museum of Art. In preparation for the museum’s new “Mummy Chamber“, conservators at the Brooklyn Museum worked on 2 unwrapped mummies, Pa-seba-khai-en-ipet and an anonymous man. The anonymous man, who was methodically unwrapped in the late 1950s, with the procedures documented in the book Wrapped for Eternity, was rewrapped in the conservation lab for display. The decision was made not to display the remains of Pa-seba-khai-en-ipet due to his poor condition, and ultimately, because displaying his remains would mean displaying a corpse, not a mummy.
  • “Reflecting on Egyptian Pigments: the use of Fibre Optic Reflectance Spectroscopy (FORS) for pigment analysis at the Fitzwilliam Museum.” Jennifer Marchant, Antiquities Conservator, and Abigail Granville, Pigment Analyst, Fitzwilliam Museum, University of Cambridge. Jennifer and Abigail discussed their use of FORS to analyze pigments using a FieldSpec 4 spectroradiometer, which measures in the UV/visible/near IR range. They are building their own reference library, and finding that it is useful as an initial non-invasive examination method, and may be used in the examination of varnishes and binding media as well.
  • “A case for keeping: the life and afterlife of ritual metal statuary in Ancient Egypt.” Deborah Schorsch, Sherman Fairchild Center for Objects Conservation, Metropolitan Museum of Art. Deborah spoke about examples of Egyptian metal statues in collections around the world that show evidence of reworking for various reasons, often for the purpose of the object serving a new ritual function, or removing details in order to retire objects. One example she spoke about at length was the copper and gold Hierakonpolis falcon in the Egyptian Museum in Cairo. This statue had 4 different phases, with new material being added in each phase of its life.
  • “Bringing it all together In the Artifact Lab: Conservation, research, display, interpretation.” (Me! I spoke about working on Egyptian material and mummies in a public space, and some of the unique interactions and investigations that we have carried out as a result of the working environment.)
  • “Ancient Worlds: Open data, mobile web, haptics, digital touch.” Stephen Devine, Digital Communications Officer, and Sam Sportun, Collection Care Manager/Senior Conservator, Manchester Museum. Stephen and Sam introduced us all to Haptic technology and how it is being used at the Manchester Museum to allow visitors to “handle” artifacts. They also spoke at length about the importance of mobile technology and the development of an app to allow visitors to explore and provide feedback about their Ancient Worlds exhibit.

Ashmolean Head of Conservation Mark Norman gave the closing remarks, and expressed their interest in producing a publication from the conference. All of the talks were also filmed, and the conference organizers are planning on making the talks available via iTunesU.

I also should mention that there were several posters at the conference, which were presented on a monitor as a slideshow, and the poster presenters were given ipads to share their “posters” during the breaks. I’m sorry to say that I didn’t have a chance to see several of the posters, so I’m hoping this content will be made available in the future as well!

It was a short, but very worthwhile trip to Oxford. I hope to have the opportunity to return soon.

Christ Church buildings as seen from Tom Quad

Christ Church buildings as seen from Tom Quad