Category Archives: analysis

Equipment choices for Visible Induced Infrared Luminescence

Posted on by
Reply

by Tessa de Alarcon

Since we have posted often about visible induced infrared luminescence (VIL) and the equipment we use at the Penn Museum, we on occasion get emails from other conservators and museum professionals asking about what equipment to buy and the costs associated with this photographic technique. This technique is often used for imaging Egyptian blue, but it can also be used for Han blue and Han purple. Much of the same equipment is also used for infrared reflectance.

E1827A-E multimodal data set including a visible image (left) and infrared reflectance image (center) and a visible induced infrared luminescence image (right).

Making specific equipment recommendations though are tough because there are a lot of options and a lot depends on your budget. Basically though, what you need are the right lights, a camera (and lens), and a long pass filter for the camera to capture in the infrared. I thought I’d do some testing to show how some these different elements impact the results in the hopes that it might help others figure out budgets, and to show that it’s also possible to build this equipment up piece meal, starting with equipment you might already have or is very low cost. Some elements though are pricey and things can add up.

All of the VIL images in this blog post also have a Spectralon standard in them (99% infrared reflectance standard). This is not low cost, and not required for the technique. It is often required for publication, and is useful for trouble shooting or developing new techniques. I’m mentioning this because it is useful to evaluate the data presented here, but it isn’t something that is strictly required. We did not have one for a long time, but were able to do this type of imaging. We waited as it was a big investment for us (approx. $500). These standards also range in price depending on the size and calibration.

An infrared (IR) filter is a requirement for this technique. I only tested one IR filter (though we have two). They range in cost depending on where you get it and the quality of the filer and the size of the filter. Ours is a B+W and is an 830nm IR long pass filter and is 62mm ($130). There are cheaper ones available as well as more expensive ones too. We got ours to fit our macro lens, and have adaptor rings (all our rings are generic brand low cost ones that were each under $10) to fit it onto other lenses that we have.

The right lights are a critical factor for this technique, but not necessarily one that has be high cost. You need a bright light with no infrared radiation, red lights are commonly used and LED bulbs are preferred as they produce no infrared radiation. I tested out three different lights for visible induced infrared luminesce. These include at the high end of the budget a Mega 64 Profile Plus RGB + UV Par light at maximum intensity with the red LEDs on only. This is a roughly $200 light. The other lights I tested are both low cost options. I tested one FEIT electric one red LED light bulb I put in one of our extra reflectors and photo light stands. I bought this bulb for $6 from my local hardware store, and a two daylight LED bulbs (UL certified) that I got from our facilities department to replace burnt out bulbs on our copy stand. I used both bulbs in the regular copy stand set up for imaging. I don’t know what the bulbs I got from facilities cost, but there are no brand name stamps on them so I’m guessing they weren’t expensive, that UL logo on it just means that it is a UL certified bulb.

The Mega 64 profile plus (left), a daylight LED bulb (center), and a red LED bulb (right)

I tried both our full spectrum modified camera, and our regular digital SLR (unmodified). Neither of these is an inexpensive camera, but should show generally the difference between using what ever digital camera you already have, and getting a similar cost one as a modified camera. Neither is new, we use our cameras until they can’t be repaired. The unmodified camera is a Nikon DSLR D5100 and the modified camera is a Nikon DSLR D5200. We bought our modified camera new, and sent it to Life Pixel to remove the internal filter, but they now sell used cameras that they will modify for you (there are options). Ours was modified to be a full spectrum camera. At the time of writing this post, the most economical option I saw on life pixel for a used camera with this modification package cost a total of $449. So even used not cheap. But lets get to the testing and start looking at results.

Lets get to the results from the modified camera. I have a visible reference image in the set, and the VIL images using each of the different lights. All the lights worked, but the brighter MEGA par 64 gave the best results, especially at exciting traces of Egyptian blue. Though the daylight no-name brand LED bulbs were not bad. These have a range of camera settings, and the benefit of the modified camera is that I could see the results in live view, focus the image and adjust the settings with minimal bracketing. The spectralon should not be visible, and if it is usually means that the image capture settings are not quiet right.

Modified Camera results: visible reference image (top left), VIL image with the MEGA 64 LED lights (top right), VIL image with the no-name daylight LED bulbs (bottom left), and VIL image with the RED LED bulb (bottom right).

Next up, the unmodified camera. The images are arranged in order of the lights used the same way as for the modified camera for easy comparison. So I did get results with all of the lights. The down side is that the live view shows nothing so the focus can’t be corrected. These images are all slightly out of focus because the focus in IR is different from the focus when capturing in the visible range and I focused the image before putting on the IR filter. All of them had to be taken at the longest possible exposure of 30 seconds. This made data collection easy since I had no choice in settings. And for the low costs bulbs it looked like they were just black with no data until I got them in adobe camera raw and converted them to grey scale by adjusting the saturation to -100. Then I could see something, but I did also adjust the exposure for the images you see here. You can see the spectralon and the background in all of the images and interpretation might be harder with these than the images taken with the modified camera. I will say I think this could be used for detecting Egyptian blue, but it’s important to note that the unmodified camera only got the thick areas of Egyptian blue, and didn’t have the sensitivity to pick up the traces visible in the images taken by the modified camera.

Unmodified Camera results: visible reference image (top left), VIL image with the MEGA 64 LED lights (top right), VIL image with the no-name daylight LED bulbs (bottom left), and VIL image with the RED LED bulb (bottom right).

For fun, I also tried putting the IR filter over my cell phone and using the MEGA par lights took a photo. This is just to show that even a small sensor like what is in a cell phone camera can work. It is out of focus though and like with the unmodified Nikon DSLR you aren’t getting traces of Egyptian blue. But it did show something, and I could see the results in the live view. This is also an avenue that I know others are working on: producing low cost modified cell phone cameras with built in filter wheels. Sean Billups has presented at AIC on this topic.

Cellphone VIL image: unprocessed and shown as shot with an 830nm IR long pass filter over a an unmodified cellphone camera

To wrap things up, I think it is possible to build this equipment up overtime. You can start with the camera you already have for documentation, and then get better lights and a camera as you can afford them. The IR filter can also be used for IR reflectance, this is also possible with any digital camera with a long exposure and using any light that produces infrared radiation. There is much less difference in data quality between a modified full spectrum camera and an unmodified camera for this method, though again there is no live view and sharp focus is hard to do with an unmodified camera. We use incandescent photo floods (real bright and toasty) but any light that gets warm probably produces infrared radiation and could be used. Daylight for example works real well too (and is free).

Infrared reflectance images (left) and infrared reflectance false color images (right). The modified full spectrum camera was used for the images on the top and the unmodified camera was used for the images on the bottom.

What’s all that 3D data for?

Posted on by
Reply

By Tessa de Alarcon

We’ve had a few posts (this one by Chelsea Kim and this one by Christy Ching) on creating 3D models using photogrammetry, and I thought I’d give some examples of what we are doing with that data once it’s collected. For some objects we are creating ortho-mosaics and these 2D images are going into reports as after treatment images as well as going into the catalogue model as record photography that also shows up in the online collection database. This wooden coffin 2017-20-1.3 is an example of this type of imaging.

2017-20-1.3 after treatment photos created using ortho mosaics generated from a 3D model created using photogrammetry.

For other objects we are also producing ortho-mosaics, but they are before treatment images. For example with E641 a wall painting that was previously on display.

E641 when it was on display

The wall painting is currently in two sections and each one has been imaged separately. These before treatment images have been used to create condition maps.

Before treatment ortho mosaics of E641 created with photogrammetry

The maps go into our reports and help provide visual documentation to support our written reports. For large objects, these kinds of condition maps are often easier to understand than written descriptions and can provide more precise information on the location of specific condition issues. Here you can see the condition map for E641. The map is not yet complete, I am still working on documenting one of the sections but I have combined the two maps into one image so you can see what that process looks like.

E641 condition map. The map for the section on the left is complete while the mapping on the section on the right is still in progress

The models can also be used to show surface distortion, so here in this screen shot of the 3D model of E641 you can see planar distortions in the wall painting where the fragments are not aligned. There may be a variety of causes leading to this distortion including poor alignment during the previous reconstruction or they may be the result of lifting/separation of the original material from its current modern backing.

Detail of E641. One the left is a mesh without the color added to the 3D mesh-model and on the right is the same area with the color and surface texture added to the model. The image on the left you can easily see the fragments and how they are misaligned in some areas.

I am currently working on learning how to create a 2D false color image where the colors reflect depth, so that we can have these planar distortions documented in 2D as well as being able to see them in the model.

So all together, this data is being used to document both the final condition of objects after treatment, as well as to document them before treatment. The models are also useful tools to assess complex condition issues and are valuable for evaluating next steps. For example, our current plan is to remove the wall painting from it’s current modern backing and put it on a new one. Our hope is to correct some of these planar distortions as a part of that process, and this model as well as one we make after treatment will be useful for evaluating the efficacy of the treatment and provide a base line for assessing its condition in the future.

Eyes are the Window to the Soul, Or So They Say

Posted on by
Reply

By Tessa de Alarcon

Typically, at the Penn Museum when we are working on objects, even for display, we prioritize stability over aesthetics. This means that we are often do less cosmetic work than would be done at an art museum when it comes to putting in fills and toning out areas of loss. However, I recently undertook a project where I went further than I usually do to recreate lost material. This blog post is going to walk through why that decision was made in this case as well as some of the mysteries that I found along the way

E1019 Before treatment. At this point the object was being tracked as E17632

The object in this case is an Egyptian cartonnage mask E1019. When it entered the lab it had a lot of condition issues, including the top of the head was partially crushed, it had been heavily treated before, and it was missing the inlays for its eyes and eyebrows. The missing eye inlays had been giving many visitors to the lab the creeps as the mask appeared to have dark empty eye sockets. Because of this, from the start I had been polling to my colleagues about what level of repair I should do to reduce the distraction of the missing inlays. I was not at this point considering replacing them, but was instead thinking about maybe toning out some of the other losses on the cheek to draw less attention to the eyes.

E1019 before treatment, a detail of the face and eyes.

When it first entered the lab the mask was being tracked as E17632 but over the course of the treatment, I found a different accession number on the interior, E1019. With the help of our curators, we were able to piece together that E1019 was the original accession number, and E17632 had been assigned to it later. When I looked up the record for E1019 in the museum collection database, I found the record included two eye inlays! I was so hopeful that this would mean that I could reintegrate two inlays, one into each eye. However, when I reached out to the curators to get more information, I found out that they are two parts of the same eye, the white part of the eye and a pupil/iris.

Eye inlays E1019.1, and E1019.2 before treatment

Well, this left a new set of problems. Especially since you can see here, the white part of the eye was not very white anymore since it was covered with a dark brown substance. I was left with a lot of options, leave the eye inlays out, reintegrate them as they are, or clean them and reintegrate them, and if I reintegrated them should I then also create a replica set for the other eye?

Before making any decisions, I checked to see if they inlays fit the eye sockets in the mask, which they did. The inlays turned out to be for the masks right eye. After that, I spent some time characterizing the dark coating on the white part of the eye inlay. This included UV examination and comparing how the coating fluoresced with the brown modern materials I found on the interior of the mask from previous treatments. The results were not as clear cut as I was hoping. It seems that there is more than one brown substance on the inlay based on the UV examination. With this data in hand, I reached out again to the curators with the options of leaving the eyes out, reintegrating them as is, or cleaning and reintegrating. The curators indicated that they wanted the inlay reintegrated, and that they would like a replica for the missing inlay as well so that she looked even as one eye seemed worse than no eyes. Together we decided to clean the eye inlay, but to keep samples of the substances on the inlay for future analysis.

E1019.1 white part of the eye inlay in visible light (top) and under 368nm UV radiation (bottom). The rectangular material is a piece of acidic board with brown residues on it that had been used on the interior of the mask as part of a modern restoration. The fluorescence on the front of the eye inlay under UV is similar though not as bright as the modern brown residues but the back of the eye the brown residues do not fluoresce.

Once clean, I set about making a copy for the masks left eye to be a close but not identical match. Based on previous experience I decided to make the new inlay set out of a two-part light weight epoxy called Wood Epox as it is easy to shape and can be sanded and carved. To start, I made a paper template of the shape of each inlay. I made sure to mark what I wanted to be the front of each so that the shape would be a mirror image of the original inlay. The white inlay is slightly curved, so I also created a form that would have the same curvature using foam.

The inlay, E1019.1 after cleaning (left), the paper template of the inlays (center) and the foam support mimicking the curvature of the inlay with the inlay in place during a test fit (right).

Next, I rolled out some sheets of wood epox, and using the paper template trimmed out the shape I needed for both parts of the eye. The pupil/iris part I let set flat, what let the one fore the white of the eye set in the form I had made so that it would have the same curvature as the original. Once cured I sanded them to finish, with the final stages being wet sanding so that the replica inlays would also have a natural gloss.

The inlays replicas curing with the white part in the curved support (left) and the original inlays (E1019.1, and E1019.2) laid out above the shaped and sanded replicas (right)

The final step before assembly and placement in the mask was the paint them to resemble but not exactly match the originals. I used gloss medium for the pupil/iris as this inlay was especially glossy and I could not get that level of gloss with polishing and painting alone.

The original inlays (E1019.1 and E1019.2) laid out above the replicas after the replicas have been toned to be similar thought not identical to the originals

Finally, here you can see the end results after treatment. You will see though, that I have not attempted to recreate the inlays for the eyebrows. Because we had the one set of eye inlays, I had something to reference for making the replica set of inlays, however, there are still pieces missing which I had no frame of reference for. There were also likely inlays that went around the outside of the eye as well. These and the brows might have been made out of a variety of materials and without the originals for reference, there is no way to be certain about what their color and appearance would have been.

E1019 after treatment. The original inlays are in the masks right eye and the replicas are in the masks left eye.

Party Time or New Photo Light?

Posted on by
Reply

By Tessa de Alarcon

The conservation department recently acquired a new light for multi-modal imaging – an ADJ MEGA PAR Profile Plus (one for use at the conservation lab annex and one for the museum main lab). The MEGA PAR is a tunable LED light source, with 64 different color channels. While not designed for analytical imaging, it provides a bright and large spot size that we can use for visible induced infrared luminescence (VIL) imaging of Egyptian blue. It will also be something we can use to test out other imaging methods in the future. Taking VIL images is not new to the lab, but the light source we had been using stopped working and we needed to replace it. We are grateful to Bryan Harris for making the purchase of the new equipment possible.

The spectralon and the new MEGA PAR Profile Plus light (right) and the new equipment in use (left)

Along with the new light, we also acquired a new reference standard, a 99% reflectance spectralon. This standard is critical for developing methods and standard procedures for imaging in the lab. In this post I am going to show an example of how this standard can be used and how I developed a protocol for VIL imaging with the MEGA PAR light.

Set up for round one testing: Egyptian green (left pigment sample) Egyptian blue (right pigment sample) and a V4 QP grey scale card.

Since the MEGA PAR light is new, one of the first things I did when it arrived (after unpacking it and reading the instructions of course) was run a variety of tests on known reference materials to see what settings might work for creating visible induced infrared luminescence images of Egyptian blue. As part of that process, I set up a grey scale card (QP card V4) and two reference pigment samples, Egyptian blue and Egyptian green (both from Kremer pigments). I chose these so I would have a known pigment that should luminesce, the Egyptian blue, and one that should not, the Egyptian green. Using the department modified full spectrum camera, I took a visible reference image of the known pigments and the QP card using our regular fluorescent photo lights and a visible bandpass filter over the camera lens so that I could have a normal color image.

Screen shot of thumbnail images of the round 1 testing

Then I captured a series of images using the same set up but replacing the visible band pass filter with an 830nm long pass infrared filter so that I could capture images in the infra-red, with the fluorescent light turned off and the MEG PAR turned on. Each of the images I captured were with the same settings on the camera and with the MEGA PAR light in the same position, just going through each of the 64 color channel options.

Screen shot of Adobe Camera RAW showing the process for evaluating the response of Egyptian blue to each setting

I converted the images to grey scale adobe camera RAW by sliding the saturation level from 0 to -100, so that the red, green, and blue values (RGB) would each be the same. I then used the dropper tool to take a reading over where the Egyptian blue standard is in each image and recorded the number. The higher the number, the brighter the luminescence.

Set up for round 2 testing with the Egyptian blue pigment sample (top left), the Egyptian green pigment sample (below the Egyptian blue), the 99% reflectance spectralon standard (right), and a V4 QP grey scale card (bottom).

After doing that I had a reduced set of options that produced good luminescence in the Egyptian blue for a second round of testing. For round two I did the same thing with the more promising group, but also included in my images the 99% reflectance spectralon standard so that I could check and verify that the light is not producing infra-red radiation. If there is any infra-red, than the 99% reflectance standard should be visible. None of the second round of options showed any infra-red. While any of them can be used for VIL, CL08 gave the strongest response.

Screen shot of round 2 testing evaluation

After developing a working set-up, I did a test in the photo studio using an object that I knew had Egyptian blue, and the standards. I captured a visible image with the modified camera with the visible band pass filter and the fluorescent photo lights, and a VIL image with the 830nm long pass filter and the CL08 setting on the MEGA PAR. The false color image was created by splitting the color channels on the visible image in photoshop, discarding the blue data, and putting the VIL data in the red channel, the red visible data in the green channel, and the green visible data in the blue channel. As you can see the spectralon is not visible in the VIL image meaning there is no IR radiation being produced by the MEGA PAR light.

Images of E12974 with a visible image (left), a visible induced infrared luminescence image in the center showing Egyptian blue in white (center), and a false color image showing Egyptian blue in red (right).

After all this work, I had an opportunity to see how the new light would perform in less than ideal settings. I have been working on a study of one of the coffins in the collection, 2017-20-1.3, to examine the coatings and pigments. VIL is the perfect method of identifying blue areas on the coffin but the coffin is too big to fit in the department photo studio. The set of images below were taken in the Artifact Lab (our public lab in a gallery space) where there is IR from the windows (daylight) as well as from the gallery lights. I hoped that a short exposure with the new very bright MEGA PAR would reduce the effects of IR in the image. As you can see in these photos below, the 99% reflectance spectralon is slightly visible but not as clearly as the Egyptian blue on the coffin. These results are much better than what we used to get in the Artifact Lab using our old light, so I am very happy with these results.

Detail from the coffin 2017-20-1.3 with a visible reference image (left) a VIL image with Egyptian blue in bright white (center) and a false color image created by combining channels from the visible reference image with data from the VIL image resulting in the Egyptian blue showing up as red (right).

Special Photography for Larger Objects: Photogrammetry

Posted on by
Reply

By Christy Ching

Conservation Technician Christy Ching photographing the underside of an Egyptian coffin 2017-20-1.3 for photogrammetry.

One project I have really enjoyed working on as a pre-program conservation technician is documenting larger objects for a process called photogrammetry. Photogrammetry is a technology that gathers spatial and color information of an object from multiple photographs to form a geometrically corrected, highly detailed, stitched image called an orthomosaic. Essentially, photogrammetry creates a distortion-free, three-dimensional model of an object based on two-dimensional photos of every surface photographed in sections. 

Left: Four photographs of an ancient Egyptian coffin lid L-55-16B at various angles, which were used to create a 3-D model. Right: 3-D model draft of L-55-16B.

*L-55-16B (21-46-9) is a loan object from the Philadelphia Museum of Art (PMA)

This can be done for objects of any size. However, we are mostly reserving this technique for larger objects, specifically larger textiles and Egyptian coffins. This is because photographing the coffins and textiles normally with a single shot requires a greater distance between the object and the camera in order to fit the entirety of the object into the frame, and doing so reduces the image quality. Not only that, but the camera distortion that is inherent in all photographs will become more obvious. The resulting image will not be an accurate representation of the coffin or textile, which is not ideal for documentation purposes. 

The image on the left is a single-shot photograph of L-55-16B while the image on the right depicts the same coffin lid created by photogrammetry. When comparing the two images, the camera distortion in the single-shot photograph can be seen especially in the feet and head of the coffin lid.

With photogrammetry, we can take parts of the 3-D model and use them as high resolution, distortion-free, 2-D images of the object instead.

Six views of L-55-16B depicting the top, interior, and the four sides of the coffin lid generated using photogrammetry.

So far, a little less than ten coffins, a few textiles, a pithos fragment, and a giant granite relief have been documented using photogrammetry. The models and orthomosaic images are all generated by Jason Herrmann from CAAM, and we are very grateful that he is doing this for us! To learn a little bit more about the photogrammetry process, view this Digital Daily Dig here.

This project was made possible in part by the Institute of Museum and Library Services.

Beloved Objects

Posted on by
Reply

be Tessa de Alarcon

Like most other Philadelphia residents, the Penn Museum staff are adapting to working from home. As part of this, the Museum staff have recently been posting on the museum’s Instagram feed info on their favorite objects (pennmuseum #VisitFromHome). This got me thinking about the relationship between people and the things we interact with every day. The objects in the museum’s collection, while loved and cared for by the staff, also bear evidence of love and care from before they were in the museum’s collection. One such object recently came across my desk for treatment, E7517A and E7517B, a Nubian wooden box and lid from Karanog. I am not going to talk about the treatment today, so that I can focus on the care it received before it entered the museum.

E7517A and E7517B after treatment.

In the pictures above and the details below you can see that this wooden box has a variety of metal components, including copper alloy straps and a lock plate on the box, and staples on the lid as part of a repair to cracks and breaks through the wood.

The detail of E7517A, the box, on the left shows the lock plate and one of the metal straps, and the detail on the right of E7517B shows the staples on the lid.

Staples like these are a common repair both in antiquity and historically for a variety of materials and are not an unusual feature on objects in the museum’s collections (here are just a few other examples of both types of staples: AF5211, B9220, 2006-15-41, B20014). If you look closely though, you can see that the metal straps and the lock plate go over the inlays on the box. This suggests that these elements were not part of the box originally and were a later addition.

These components are also made from a variety of metals. I tested them using both a magnet to check for iron, and a portable X-ray fluorescence spectrometer (pXRF) and found that they are a range of metals including iron, copper tin alloys (bronze), and copper zinc alloys (brass). Also, parts that appear similar, like the straps are not made up of the same alloying components, some contain lead in addition to the copper and tin, and some have no lead. The staples are also a range of metals including iron, brass, and bronze.

When I started working on the box, I wanted to tease out when these metal components were added as they could have been either ancient or modern. With this type of question, I typically set up an appointment with our archives to look at the original field notes and field photography. However, in this case, much of the data on the excavations at Karanog is online, including pdf’s of the excavation publications. In the museum’s database I found that the box was from a burial: tomb G 445. Going through the publication, I was able to use the context information to find not only a description of where it was found within the tomb, but also a sketch of the burial, a photo of the box, and a detailed description of it in a catalogue of the finds. The box had been found in the burial with two individuals buried one above the other and was found next to their legs.

Drawing of tomb G 445 from Woolley, Leonard, and David Randall-MacIver. Karanòg: The Romano-Nubian Cemetery. Vol. 3. University museum, 1910: 44. The blue highlighting is an addition to point out the location of E7517A and E7517B in the burial.
Plate 22 from Woolley, Leonard, and David Randall-MacIver. Karanòg: The Romano-Nubian Cemetery. Vol. 3. University museum, 1910.

The textual information from the publication includes some important pieces of information: first that, “it had been considerably restored before being deposited in the tomb, brass binding had been added at the corners and the broken lid had been rudely mended with bronze rivets” (Woolley and Randall-MacIver, 44) and that “it remains in the condition in which it was found, no repairs to it having been necessary” (Woolley and Randall-MacIver, 71).  While the language used to describe these metal components seems to me a bit harsh, not only is it described as “rudely mended”, the lock plate is described as “a perfectly useless lock plate”, it does make it clear that these metal components are from when it was in use (Woolley and Randall-MacIver, 44, 71). It should also be noted that the metal identifications given in the publication were not done through analysis, so don’t match with the results I have from pXRF.

Because of the detailed information in the publication, I also know what was in the box when it was excavated: another smaller box (E7510A and E7510B) and two wooden spindle whorls (E7506 and E7507).  These are all shown in the image below.

Objects found inside E7517A: a box and its lid (E7510A and E7510B) and two spindle whorls (E7506 and E7507)

So, all together what does this information tell me about the history of this box? First, the repairs and modifications to this box happened during its use before it was put in the burial of the two individuals in tomb G 445. The fact that the metal components, even similar ones, have different compositions could mean a few things. It could be that it was repaired and modified using scrap metal with the components being made from different scraps, that the repairs occurred at different times and so with different metals, or both. If they were not made using scrap metal, it is possible that some of the straps may have had to be replaced at some point and that may be why some are leaded bronze and some are not. These straps do not appear to have a function and may instead reflect changes in taste. The function of the box may have also changed, and this may be why they needed to add the lock plate. The various metals for the repairs to the lid almost certainly resulted from various treatment campaigns, meaning that it was repaired, used, broken, and repaired again. In any case these modifications and repairs tell a story of care and use and suggest that this box was loved and treasured by the people who owned it. This may also be why it eventually was placed in a burial, perhaps as a particularly prized possession of one or both of the individuals in the burial.

This project was made possible in part by the Institute of Museum and Library Services.

A final look at Ptah-Sokar-Osiris

Posted on by
Reply

Julia Commander is a third-year graduate student in the Winterthur/University of Delaware Program in Art Conservation. She is currently completing a curriculum internship at the Penn Museum.

When we last checked in with the Ptah-Sokar-Osiris figure, I was working on finding a satisfactory cleaning approach. The figure has a darkened layer over the front surface, which obscures the beautiful patterns, colors, and hieroglyphs. My goal for cleaning was to clarify designs and improve legibility, although the sensitivity of the paint layers has made this an interesting challenge.

After cross-section analysis, I looked into instrumental techniques to better understand the condition issues. One promising technique was gas-chromatography mass-spectrometry (GC-MS) since the darkened layer was potentially a coating material. I took a sample by swabbing the dark layer from the wood substrate. Since only a small amount of material can be gathered this way, I collected several swabs in a glass vial for analysis. I sent this down to Winterthur Museum’s Scientific Research and Analysis Laboratory (SRAL), which has previously collaborated on samples from the Artifact Lab. Dr. Christian Petersen, a GC-MS specialist, sent back my spectra with some interesting results. He described the mixture as “waxy dirt,” which helps to clarify what likely happened to the surface. Wax may have been applied to consolidate the badly flaking paint, and this layer could have trapped dirt over time as the figure rested face-up in storage.

Focusing on the wax component did not immediately produce better cleaning results, and I continued testing gels with variations on solutions, application method, and timing. I eventually tried an application of Pemulen TR-2 gel, a polymeric emulsifier, with a proportion of solvent added. This gel was more effective for lifting the waxy grime and did not require excessive action on the surface. Used along with a silicone solvent barrier layer, I was able to lightly clean without lifting pigments from the surface. While I had some initial ideas about cleaning, this method was something that I only found through the process of trial and error.

L-55-29 detail, cleaning test

Even though I cleaned slowly in very small sections, the actual treatment step took much less time than the research, testing, and planning phases. Take a look at the results below.

L-55-29, before cleaning (left) and after cleaning (right)

Aside from cleaning, a few other steps were taken to stabilize the statue. The headdress, which is constructed from multiple pieces of wood, had a large gap that allowed the pieces to move individually. To add support and decrease movement, removable fills were made from Volara foam and Japanese tissue. These materials were turned into small “pillows” that were then pressure-fit into place.

L-55-29 headdress, shaping and fitting Volara foam fills

The figure, headdress, and base do not fit together in a stable arrangement. Instead of intervening further with the object itself, an exterior mount will be constructed to hold the components in place. This method has worked well with a similar Ptah-Sokar-Osiris figure, which you can see displayed in the Upper Egypt Gallery!

Another Ptah-Sokar-Osiris figure on display in Upper Egypt, showing the back of the figure and the mount holding the three pieces together.

Overall, this project provided quite a few challenges and an opportunity to explore cleaning techniques. Thanks for following along on this experience with Egyptian painted surfaces!

Cleaning Questions and Cross-Sections

Posted on by
Reply

Julia Commander is a third-year graduate student in the Winterthur/University of Delaware Program in Art Conservation. She is currently completing a curriculum internship at the Penn Museum.

The investigation of the painted Ptah-Sokar-Osiris figure continues. Previously, I mentioned that I would be taking cross-section samples to gain a better understanding of the paint layers. This type of sampling involves taking tiny (less than 1 mm) flakes of paint to capture the stratigraphy. Once I have a slice showing all of the layers, I can look at the edge under magnification to observe the structure from surface down to ground level.

In this case, I took four samples from representative areas on the figure in order to compare the layers. Before sampling, I looked at each area under magnification and made notes about surface characteristics and conditions. To sample, I continued working under magnification with a fresh scalpel blade.

L-55-29, cross-section sample areas. You can also see the darkened appearance of the front surface.

As you can probably imagine, handling a tiny little paint flake can be tricky. To make observation possible, conservators embed cross-section samples within a mounting material, typically a clear resin. Mini ice cube trays are perfect for making small blocks of resin for this purpose. After embedding the sample between two resin pours, one face of the cube is polished to a glossy finish. The polishing process helps to get a clean cut of the sample from an edge-on perspective.

Mounting cross-sections with a clear polyester resin, molded in a mini ice cube tray. The cubes are then polished with Micro-Mesh cushioned abrasive cloths.

You never know exactly what your cross-section will end up looking like until it’s under the microscope. Flakes can shift while the resin cures or be affected by polishing, so it’s an exciting moment to see the results. Sample X2, below, shows a clear view of the layer structure. Similar to the way conservators use ultraviolet (UV) light during object examinations, cross-sections are often viewed with various light sources to show different properties. Here, you can see the sample in visible light and UV light (365 nm).

Sample X2, 100X total magnification, in visible light (right) and ultraviolet light (left). Samples were viewed on a Zeiss Axio Scope.A1 polarized light microscope.

We can see a few interesting features here. The sample area appeared to have predominantly red paint, although it was heavily obscured by the surface darkening. The uppermost layer of dark material could be related to a discrete layer of soiling or coating, or we could be seeing black paint. Since the front surface of the figure is intricately painted, it’s difficult to completely rule out paint as a possibility. Aged coating materials often fluoresce in UV light, which can help to distinguish them from underlying paint layers. In this case, we can see small flecks of fluorescence (indicated by the red arrows) but not a distinct fluorescent layer. We can also observe faint fluorescence in the ground layer, which is consistent with the idea of an aged animal glue binder.

Another sample, X4, came from an area of plain red paint without any adjacent black designs. This area was also affected by the surface darkening issue, although to a less severe extent. Here, instead of a discrete layer of dark material, we can see small specks above the red paint layer (indicated by the red arrows). These dark specks are most likely related to soiling or discolored coating and unlikely to be original applied paint.

Sample X4, 200X total magnification, visible light (right) and ultraviolet light (left). Samples were viewed on a Zeiss Axio Scope.A1 polarized light microscope.

The cross-section samples offered some insights into the multi-layered nature of the delicately painted surface. As with most analytical techniques, results lead to more questions than clear-cut answers. Luckily, my colleagues here in the lab got together to talk about this complex condition issue and offer different perspectives and approaches. To clean or not to clean the darkened layer? Clarifying the surface details would be helpful for interpretation, but an even more gentle cleaning system will be needed to avoid damage to paint layers. The consensus: further testing needed!

A Complete View and a Complete Treatment: Conservation of the Roman Period Mummy Mask

Posted on by
Reply

Update – this post contains outdated language. We no longer use the term “mummy” and instead use “mummified human individuals” to refer to Ancient Egyptian people whose bodies were preserved for the afterlife. To read more about this decision, follow this link.   

After using humidification and four extra hands, the mask is now unfolded! This complete view of the object provides us a wonderful opportunity to look at the materials used in construction and allowed treatment to finally move forward.

Before jumping into treatment, I had the opportunity to perform Multispectral Imaging (MSI) on the mask, allowing us to analyze some of the pigments non-destructively and with great results.

E2462. From left to right: Visible light, Ultraviolet illumination, Visible induced IR luminescence

E2462.
From left to right: Visible light, Ultraviolet illumination, Visible induced IR luminescence

Under ultraviolet illumination, a bright pink fluorescence was visible (middle), indicating the use of a madder lake pigment in the cheeks and to accentuate the face and hands. I also used visible induced IR luminescence to pinpoint the use of Egyptian Blue pigment in the crown, jewelry, and green leaves (right, Egyptian Blue highlighted in pink). This is a material commonly found in Roman period Egyptian artifacts.

In addition to finding out some of the materials used, I also completed full documentation of the object. Although some of the surface is still intact, the paint layer is in poor condition with areas of flaking and powdering. There is also a large loss to the textile along with some smaller tears and holes.

E2462 During treatment detail of flaking paint

E2462 During treatment detail of flaking paint

As my first order of business, the paint needed to be stabilized. This paint, like many other Egyptian painted surfaces, is sensitive to water and adhesives can cause staining and darkening. This meant a lot of testing was required to find the perfect adhesive for the job.

Using both testing panels and small, discrete areas of the surface, I tested adhesives until I found funori, a seaweed-based polysaccharide. This material preserved the matte and light tones of both the paint and ground layers.

Amaris Sturm, summer intern, consolidating surface of E2462

Amaris Sturm, summer intern, consolidating surface of E2462

As treatments usually go, you sometimes get unexpected bumps along the way. As I was consolidating I discovered that the flesh tones in the face and hands were significantly more sensitive to the water-based adhesive. I quickly had to rethink my approach, ultimately using a methyl cellulose in 50:50 ethanol: water for the hands, face, and larger flakes in the yellow framing the face.

Once consolidation was complete, I moved on to the next hurdle: the molded mud plaster mask. A large gap is present between the fragmented mud plaster crown and the textile below. To support the plaster and its mends, I made a removable fill of carved Volara foam and Japanese tissue, all toned with Golden acrylic paints to make the supports more discrete.

Removable fills to support the heavy mud plaster crown in E2462

Removable fills to support the heavy mud plaster crown in E2462

Fragmented, actively shifting, and detached mud plaster was mended with a 40% AYAT in acetone applied by brush and syringe. Unstable and weightbearing cracks and gaps were filled with a 25% AYAT in acetone that was bulked with microballoons and toned with dry pigments. Fill material was applied with syringed, shaped with a brush and wooden skewer, and  smoothed with a little bit of acetone. A thin toning layer of acrylic paint was applied to fills to make them a warmer tone, but still distinguishable from original material.

Filling compromised gaps on E2462

Filling compromised gaps on E2462

And with that, the treatment is complete! The mask is now stable and will be returned to storage safe and sound.

E2462 Before treatment (left) and After treatment (left)

E2462 Before treatment (left) and after treatment (right)

  • Amaris Sturm is a second-year graduate student in the Winterthur/ University of Delaware Program in Art Conservation. She recently completed her summer internship in the Penn Museum’s conservation labs.

APPEAR Project – APPEAR Interim Meeting at the British Museum

Posted on by
Reply

Update – this post contains outdated language. We no longer use the term “mummy” and instead use “mummified human individuals” to refer to Ancient Egyptian people whose bodies were preserved for the afterlife. To read more about this decision, follow this link.   

Hi! This is Eve Mayberger with an update about the Ancient Panel Painting: Examination, Analysis, and Research (APPEAR) project. During the past few months, I have been investigating the three Fayum mummy portraits in the Penn Museum with digital photography, multispectral imaging (MSI), portable x-ray fluorescence (pXRF), x-ray radiography, and reflectance transformation imaging (RTI). A few weeks ago, I had the opportunity to travel to London and represent the Penn Museum at the APPEAR interim meeting.

2016-05-18(1)_web

APPEAR Project, British Museum

The meeting was jointly organized by the Getty and the British Museum. Representatives from invited institutions were asked to present an update on the current research of Fayum mummy portraits in their collections. Although not every participating institution was able to send a representative, there were individuals from the United Kingdom, Europe, and the United States. The group included conservators, conservation scientists, art historians, and artists who were all personally engaged with different aspects of the APPEAR project.

20160422_095218edit_web

APPEAR Project, Presentation at the APPEAR interim meeting

For the APPEAR research at the Penn Museum, I talked about our non-destructive analysis, imaging, and outreach initiatives for the three portraits in the collection. I focused on some unusual observations I recorded with MSI on the Portrait of a Young Man (E16213). My presentation was well received and inspired a lively debate about MSI terminology and standardization protocols.

APPEAR-blog-post-screen-shot_web

APPEAR Project, Penn Museum Presentation

Between talks and over meals, I was able to chat with other APPEAR participants about their various institutions and current research initiatives. At the end of the meeting, the British Museum was kind enough to give us an extensive tour of their new conservation labs and scientific research department. It was an amazing experience and I was honored to present our research at the Penn Museum to the larger APPEAR community.

Eve Mayberger, Curriculum Intern