Conservation in Egyptological Museum Co

Conservation in Egyptological museum collections

Deborah Schorsch
The Oxford Handbook of Egyptology
Edited by Ian Shaw and Elizabeth Bloxam
Print Publication Date: Nov 2020 Subject: Archaeology, Egyptian Archaeology

Online Publication Date: Dec 2020 DOI: 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199271870.013.69
Abstract and Keywords
Conservators are professionals dedicated to the physical preservation of cultural heritage

in varied contexts. In museums they work closely with curators and conservation scien
tists to maintain or improve the structural or chemical stability of works in their care. Pri
or to undertaking a treatment, conservators visually examine each artefact and use in
strumental analytical methods to establish and document its manufacture and materials,
the causes and extent of deterioration, and previous interventions, all of which can affect
its physical condition and appearance. In addition to undertaking technical examinations
and carrying out active treatment protocols, conservators institute preventive measures
and best practice guidelines to control the museum environment and minimize damage
during display, travel, and storage. Conservators of Egyptian antiquities face special chal
lenges predicated by unique aspects of ancient Egypt’s physical and cultural landscape.
Keywords: ancient Egypt, conservation, artefact, restoration, technical analysis, deterioration, preservation
Introduction
VIRTUALLY all physical matter, whether manipulated and transformed by human indus
try, or remaining untouched in nature, is subject to steady or periodic degradation; ar
chaeological artefacts suffer from decay and erosion during burial, and are often even
more physically vulnerable and chemically unstable after retrieval. Many Egyptian antiq
uities are appreciated for their beauty and as fascinating testimony of a sophisticated civ
ilization, and often extensive measures are undertaken to assure their preservation. Still,
more prosaic finds, even after they have been carefully examined and documented, must
also be preserved, not only for future study using new techniques or in the light of new
theories, but because they represent the efforts of human minds, hearts, and hands.
Conservators are professionals dedicated to the physical preservation of cultural her

itage.1 Most conservators employed in museums and other institutional Egyptological col
lections in North America and the United Kingdom have received specialized graduate
level training, including courses in materials science, instrumental analysis, and the man
Page 1 of 18
PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights
Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in
Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice).
Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 18 December 2020

ufacture of cultural materials at an academic institution. The situation is similar in Eu

rope, where university-based curricula have systematically replaced traditional craft-
based training in restoration. Practical treatment experience obtained during supervised
internships is common to these conservation-training programmes, and many practition
ers, although they do not necessarily continue to do so throughout their professional ca
reers, have worked on archaeological sites as excavator and/or conservator.
In Egypt in recent years, conservation training has become university-based, but with less
focus on internships as part of the curriculum. This lack of studio experience is being ad
dressed in part by various international initiatives that coordinate workshops and field
(p. 1206) schools for museum and field conservators. The conservation-related needs of
the Grand Egyptian Museum (GEM), currently under construction in Giza, has animated a
new generation of Egyptian conservators already working at the on-site Conservation
Centre, and the advent of digital publishing has made their activities more visible to the
professional community outside of Egypt.2
General considerations
The physical condition of any archaeological object is the consequence of many factors
that vary in origin but act in concert, and can include the inherent qualities of the materi
als employed, burial conditions, previous treatments, and environmental conditions after
retrieval.3 Conservation treatments in museums are usually undertaken to improve or
achieve structural or chemical stability. The removal of post-retrieval accumulations of
grime and dust to reveal original surface features, or restoration materials that are disfig
uring or deceptive is also frequently undertaken, while applying new restorations for cos
metic purposes can often be regarded as elective. Preventive conservation is designed to
moderate the effects of environmental and biological deterioration and thereby minimize
future treatments. Preventive activities include the introduction of guidelines for safe
handling, display, storage, and transport, and surveying collections for the purpose of es
tablishing conservation priorities.4
Conservators also devote considerable time to the technical study of manufacture and
materials of cultural artefacts, and to the development of new treatments, which includes
testing and adapting commercial products for conservation applications. In carrying out
technical investigations, studying deterioration processes, and designing new treatments,
conservators often work closely with conservation scientists. Newly excavated finds are
the focus of many archaeological conservators, and much conservation literature devoted
to Egyptological subjects is concerned with field conservation or monument preservation.
This article reflects, for the most part, the perspective of academically trained conserva
tors caring for institutional collections, typically repositories of materials removed long
ago from the ground, and, due to limitations of space, focuses on active and passive
preservation practices rather than equally important technical research undertaken to
elucidate manufacturing technologies and materials. In any case, a technical examination
carried out before undertaking treatment is almost invariably the standard for profession
Page 2 of 18

al conservation practice. Regardless of where they are employed or the nature of the ma
terials they work with, responsible conservators are guided by the ethical and profession
al standards established by the International Institute for Conservation and other interna
tional or national governing bodies.
The vast majority of ancient Egyptian artefacts are archaeological in origin, and whereas
many have established proveniences, others entered collections with little or no docu
mentation, usually as purchases or gifts. Egyptian antiquities are housed in many types of
institutions, including museums of art, archaeology, anthropology, and natural history, as
well (p. 1207) as libraries, historical societies, historic houses, and universities. Egyptol
ogy is an old discipline and several European museums will soon enter their third century
of existence, just as many younger institutions contain works assembled long ago by anti
quarians active even before Napoleon’s Egyptian expedition of 1798, which marked the
start of modern interest in ancient Egypt. As a result, one of the most serious problems
faced by conservators is the deleterious effects of early and repeated interventions car
ried out in the field or subsequently in order to stabilize or restore the artefacts.5
Likewise, a conservator’s ability to characterize manufacturing procedures and materials
may be severely challenged by treatments and restorations that have destroyed or ob
scured relevant evidence, and it cannot be overstated that proper documentation of treat
ments and scientific investigations is one of a conservator’s most serious responsibilities.6
A second, equally important factor related to the ongoing preservation of these objects,
some of which were made five millennia ago, is their inherent fragility; even statuary of a
hard stone such as granite may be lacking internal cohesion or have friable surfaces.
Egyptological collections generally include a broad range of materials, and unlike reposi
tories of other Old World archaeological artefacts, they preserve a profusion of organic
materials—derived from living creatures and composed largely of the element carbon—
that do not survive in most burial environments. Furthermore, the deliberate interment of
many objects made from these organic products, including wooden and cartonnage
coffins and mummy masks, textual and pictorial works on papyrus, wax figures and en
caustic painting, foodstuffs, corn mummies, and floral wreaths, is inherent to Egyptian fu
nerary culture.
After surviving burial in Egypt’s arid environment, organic materials are severely desic
cated, and often physically unstable due to the oxidation of cellulosic structures that
make up wood and plant fibres. In addition, most organic materials have been damaged
to some degree by insects during burial, although Egyptian antiquities are rarely the
source of active infestations in collections. Vigilance in monitoring incoming vegetal prod
ucts, including packing crates, food, and other non-art, and promptly treating works that
are affected, help to assure the safety of existing holdings.
The great variation in size of objects preserved in Egyptological collections, which may be
a single bead or a small temple, also affects strategies designed to safely store and dis
play them. Monumental works frequently require rigging and engineering expertise for
their assembly and installation, and subsequent treatments are often lengthy and must be
Page 3 of 18

carried out under less than optimal conditions when transporting large works from a
gallery or storage space to the laboratory is not feasible.7 Furthermore, many artefacts
include in their makeup an assortment of materials and ‘units’, or are part of larger con
textual groups; for example, wooden coffins typically were assembled from separate
planks plus sundry wood scraps, usually with dowels of another species, and covered with
linen and then a gesso ground. Gesso, a mixture of plaster and adhesive, was also used to
create raised relief. Natural and synthetic inorganic pigments were applied with an or
ganic binder, and both painted and unpainted surfaces may have been all or partially cov
ered by varnish, resin, and other organic coatings, as well as precious-metal leaf and ap
pliqués of faience, glass, or stone in imitation of beaded jewellery. A coffin may be one in
a nested series, including a cartonnage mummy board or mask, and certainly would have
contained a mummy—itself (p. 1208) a composite of many materials—as well as associated
burial goods, preserved, if no longer inside the coffin itself, in the collection.
During past epochs the Nile Valley and adjacent deserts were entirely covered by seawa
ter, creating a highly saline burial environment. Furthermore, some of the artefacts de
rive from geological sources that are saturated with salt. Although Egypt is arid and has
been for thousands of years, subsurface water is present and rising, and in some cases
enclosed structures—tombs, temples, habitations—maintain environments that are rela
tively high in humidity. Soluble salts introduced by ground water can result in substantial
damage during burial and are a cause of ongoing instability after the objects have been
retrieved, particularly in collections where humidity is difficult to control.
Environmental conditions, specifically temperature, relative humidity, light, vibration, and

air quality, perhaps play the most decisive role in the preservation of cultural materials,
and it is essential that artefacts in galleries and storage areas are regularly monitored,
and that emergency procedures for system failures have been established. As a rule, cool
environments, which slow the rate of deterioration processes, are preferable, while opti
mal relative humidity levels vary from material to material, with inorganic media general
ly requiring drier environments. Permanent and temporary exhibitions are rarely orga
nized by media, necessitating the design of gallery spaces and vitrines that can accommo
date a range of materials with differing environmental requirements. Maintaining low
light levels is more critical for organic materials, although some pigments, independently
of their organic media, are light sensitive8, while both airborne and particulate pollution,
and vibration, caused by seismic activity, construction, or footfalls and knocking, can af
fect all materials.9
Egyptological collections are extremely popular with the general public and attract devot
ed amateur scholars. They often host huge numbers of visitors and sometimes require
significant monetary resources and conservation staff time. Because they are so beloved,
Egyptian antiquities are frequently requested for traveling exhibitions, which increases
risk of physical damage and the difficulty of containing the works in climate-controlled
environments. Furthermore, due to their size and weight, inherent fragility, and compos
ite nature, many are difficult to pack or have complicated requirements for mounting. On
Page 4 of 18

the other hand, traveling exhibitions often serve as motivation and a source of funding for
treating objects that might otherwise be neglected.
Deterioration processes of inorganic materials

Metal objects
Ancient Egyptian metal objects, for the most part, are made of gold, silver, and copper or
copper alloys, including arsenical copper and bronze. All of these corrode in response to
their environment as metal cations (positively charged ions) react with positively charged
anions present in the soil, air, or water to produce massive corrosion products or tarnish
layers. (p. 1209) It is, however, copper and copper alloys that require the most attention
from conservators, with the major problem being ‘bronze disease’.10 A consequence of
burial in a saline environment, bronze disease is a self-catalysing reaction that occurs
when an unstable copper-chloride corrosion product, nantokite, is exposed to oxygen and
moisture. It is more than just disfiguring: left untreated, bronze disease can result in the
complete disintegration of an object. Early cleanings using chemical baths and electro
chemical procedures designed to reveal surface features and to treat bronze disease of
ten led to the non-selective removal of both stable and unstable corrosion products, and
left reactive chemicals on exposed surfaces and in cracks in the remnant core to cause
further corrosion. Whereas several non-aggressive chemical treatments for bronze dis
ease that are generally effective have since been developed, long-term success often de
pends on keeping the treated works in a dry environment, and even under controlled con
ditions chronic cases can flourish. Often metal exposed by harsh treatment was artificial
ly patinated, painted, or waxed, or has tarnished, leaving the conservator to contend with
surfaces that are unstable, disfiguring, or misleading.11 In fact, without resorting to de
structive analysis, it is sometimes impossible to distinguish between ancient copper alloy
artefacts that have been stripped and repatinated and those made in modern times with
the intention to deceive.12
Fragile precious-metal antiquities frequently suffer mechanical damage during handling.

In the past, archaeological silver that had been converted entirely to corrosion products
during burial frequently was reduced electrolytically, while works with surviving metal
cores routinely were overcleaned using mechanical methods. In both cases, resultant sur
faces are ‘cold’, excessively polished or pitted, and lacking fine detail, and if not protect
ed from the environment, are subject to rapid tarnishing. To facilitate reforming or re
assembly, silver and gold, and occasionally cupreous (copper-containing), hammered-
sheet objects were annealed or soldered, processes that can damage their visual integrity
and destroy the possibility of a metallurgical examination useful for technical study.13
Page 5 of 18

Ceramics, faience, and glass
Ceramics and faience also suffer severely during burial in saline environments, although
the nature of the problem encountered by conservators—the infiltration of soluble salts
into the fabric of the artefact—is different than that generally posed by metals. As long as
the salts remain in solution, such materials generally are stable, but changes in humidity
during burial and after retrieval may lead to significant physical damage. When the envi
ronment becomes drier, the water evaporates and the salts recrystallize. The crystal
growth of the precipitated salts often causes the body to fracture and crumble. When
salts still in solution are drawn to the surface they often recrystallize directly at the inter
face between surface and substrate, causing fracturing and delamination of semi-imper
meable burnished or glazed surfaces. This destructive cycle continues during subsequent
periods of elevated and diminished humidity as the salts deliquesce (liquify as they ab
sorb moisture from the atmosphere) and recrystallize. The siliceous core of faience is
sometimes poorly fused, and with the loss of glaze there is a corresponding loss of inter
nal coherence, leading to further (p. 1210) crumbling and internal fracturing. Glazed
stones are generally less porous than ceramics and faience but still suffer from loss of
glaze through exfoliation. Unfired clay and unbaked mud inherently have little internal
cohesion and are hydrophilic, making them particularly vulnerable to erosion and abra
sion and to damage from soluble salts.14
Glass is one of the more stable materials used in ancient times, and due to burial condi
tions in Egypt, glass found there is often more well preserved than vitreous materials
from other ancient contexts. Still, Egyptian glass (and faience glazes) are susceptible to
delamination and other forms of surface deterioration that diminish the lustre and other
optical qualities associated with vitreous materials.15 Glass is a brittle material and con
servators encounter much breakage, although more significant are the deleterious effects
of old repairs and restorations with unstable and insoluble adhesives that also plague pre
viously treated ceramics and faience.
Limestone and sandstone
Limestone and sandstone present some of the most intractable problems to conservators
of Egyptological collections. These sedimentary stones vary in quality according to condi
tions of their formation; just as some sandstones are poorly cemented and consequently
quite fragile, poor-quality limestone may contain hydrophilic clay inclusions that swell
when saturated, leading to fracture of the limestone matrix. Many stone artefacts have
been weakened by erosion from wind and wind-borne sand. As noted earlier, both lime
stone and sandstone may contain salts from the time of their genesis, but they are even
more affected by the saline environments in which they are deposited, resulting in dam
age ranging in severity from delamination of painted surfaces, to complete disintegration
of the stone.
Plaster used in the restoration of stone artefacts may also be a source of moisture and
deleterious salts. Formerly, desalination by immersion or poulticing was routinely carried
Page 6 of 18

out on stone and ceramic materials, a measure that has generally been replaced by a
more passive approach using environmental controls, especially for stone.16 Problems re
lated to soluble salts, as well as the overall deteriorated condition of limestone, sand
stone, and granite, are often exacerbated by the presence of brittle, discoloured, insolu
ble resins and waxes applied previously for consolidation and repair. Structural repairs of
large, heavy sculptures and reliefs can be challenging, and earlier reconstructions using
iron and mild steel dowels, which rust and expand causing the stone to splinter or shat
ter, often must be reversed. Plaster or stucco works, typically masks, with or without a
linen structural component, also suffer from conditions related to soluble salts and the ill
effects of earlier treatments.17
Ivory and bone
Ivory and bone straddle the divide between organic and inorganic materials, although
very little of the organic component survives in ancient specimens. In spite of this, ivory
and bone are susceptible to changes in humidity that often lead to cracking and splitting
and this (p. 1211) can be intensified by the presence of adhesives and consolidants used in
prior treatments. Ancient bone and ivory are sometimes disfigured by biological agents,
or stained from exposure to fire, contamination from groundwater, or contact with metal
during burial.
Deterioration processes of organic materials

Wood
The composite nature of the numerous wooden antiquities recovered in Egypt, described
earlier, makes for complex conservation challenges. Many now suffer from the ill effects
of early treatments, particularly old adhesives and consolidants that attract grime, or
have aged poorly, causing staining and mechanical stresses. Due to insect and fungal
damage and other forms of degradation, wooden objects often display severe structural
instability and are easily affected by vibration. Paint layers sometimes survive without un
derlying wood to support them. To ensure their stability, fill materials that are lightweight
and non-hygroscopic (e.g. they do not absorb moisture) are chosen so that neither the
paint layers nor the wooden substrate fracture when shifts in environmental conditions
cause dimensional changes. Pigments were applied with organic binders that have disin
tegrated over time, leaving friable paint layers. The consolidation of matte paint presents
a great challenge as most adhesives saturate colours and add gloss, a problem encoun
tered also on polychrome stone statuary and reliefs and on other painted artefacts.18
Linen, papyri, cartonnage, and mummies
Linen, which is derived from the flax plant, is the fibre most frequently associated with
ancient Egyptian textiles, although garments of sheep’s wool or goat hair were also worn.
Degradation of fibres due to oxidation and the presence of salts leads to fragility, and due
Page 7 of 18

to their large size, even routine handling and mounting of Egyptian textiles can present
serious difficulties. A problem faced by conservators working with shrouds and other
painted textiles is that of securing friable pigment and ground layers while retaining the
flexibility of the woven substrate.19 Some painted garments were previously trimmed and
lined as if they were easel paintings, a practice that can produce a stable and even attrac
tive display, but alters appearance and obscures context.
Papyrus, a quintessentially Egyptian product made from the beaten pith of a sedge (Cype
rus papyrus) that grew wild in marshlands, and may also have been cultivated in ancient
times, served as the most common material used as a support for written texts. Papyrus is
relatively durable, but like most organic materials it is weakened by oxidation and biologi
cal attack, and can be affected by soluble salts. Papyri are often found wrinkled, or inten
tionally rolled or folded, and once flattened—a process that can cause irreparable
(p. 1212) damage if not carried out as part of a conservation treatment—need protective
mountings that allow easy shifting of fragments as texts are deciphered, interpreted, and
pieced together. The replacement of old mounts, and mitigating the effects of chemically
unstable adhesives and backings, including mechanical damage, are among the greatest
conservation challenges.20
A material regularly used in Egypt and virtually unknown elsewhere in the ancient world
is cartonnage, a papier mâché-like composite made from linen or papyrus in an adhesive
binder, which once hardened was painted and gilded. In addition to the characteristic
forms of deterioration suffered by its various constituents, cartonnage is subject to di
mensional changes and will sag under its own weight when exposed to high humidity.
This problem is encountered often with cartonnage cases that were built up directly
around mummified remains and then later cut open to remove the body, a practice from
the early days of Egyptology. Another old practice, that of extracting papyri strips from
cartonnage so that their texts can be studied, is also destructive to the cases, though it
may provide previously unknown texts.21
Mummies, both human and animal, are linen bundles, often loosely wrapped, containing
bones, flesh, resins and other embalming materials, and sometimes amulets or jewellery.
Furthermore, untreated human bodies placed directly in the sand often were naturally
mummified. In addition to decay caused by biological attack, physical damage caused by
tomb robbers and poor excavation processes, and embrittlement of the linen due to oxida
tion, mummies may suffer in display and handling because of their size, weight, and semi-
rigid structure. The organic preservatives used for mummification sometimes develop a
milky surface known as bloom. In the past, and even as recently as 1981, human mummy
bundles sometimes were unwrapped22, a practice now judged not only disrespectful, but
recognized as irreparably destructive. In recent years, dialogue about the ethical issues
surrounding the treatment of human remains has become more widespread, and conser
vators working with mummies generally recognize that, in addition to physical preserva
tion, they must consider the ethical implications of intervention.23 Radiography and ad
vanced imaging techniques allow the non-destructive study of pathology and mummifica
tion practices, and help identify amulets or jewellery hidden in the wrappings. Some
Page 8 of 18

years ago, sealed anoxic (oxygen-free) vitrines (glass or Perspex display cases) that re
tard oxidation, originally developed for historical documents, were been adopted for the
display and storage of royal mummies in the Egyptian Museum in Cairo.24
Anoxic environments have also been found useful for controlling infestations, and fumiga
tion in museums is currently carried out by placing the objects affected in sealed environ
ments containing inert gases that kill insects, larvae, and eggs by suffocation.25 Works of
all sizes can be treated, but most importantly, the gases cause no coincident damage to
the artefacts and create no health hazards for those who treat or later handle them.
(p. 1213) Discussion: conservation challenges

Surely all museum professionals as well as field archaeologists working with ancient arte
facts would agree that the physical safety and continued preservation of collections are of
the highest priority. However, in practice other considerations arise that can jeopardize
this seemingly simple standard. Conservators cooperate with curators and directors, de
signers, and collection and facilities managers to balance conservation needs with institu
tional priorities, which understandably include making collections accessible to visitors
through permanent, temporary, or traveling exhibitions.
As noted previously, the maintenance of a proper environment during display, storage,

and transport of cultural properties is the most crucial factor in their preservation. Or
ganic materials are adversely affected by light, and it is the task of conservators to stipu
late limitations on light levels or the length of time that a specific object can be safely ex
posed. Most museums forbid the use of flash photography by visitors. Although conserva
tors may be responsible for establishing preventive conservation standards, they do not
necessarily have the authority or expertise to assure that these measures are taken. Con
servators and conservation scientists routinely specify and monitor light levels and rela
tive humidity and work closely with engineers and facilities managers who design and
manage climate-control systems.
Although it is desirable that visitors view the collection unimpeded by physical barriers,
works displayed in vitrines are better protected from damage including abrasion and soil
ing, as well as outright vandalism and theft. Vitrines also provide an important means of
maintaining artefacts in a controlled environment different from the ambient museum en
vironment. When stipulating that an artefact needs to be displayed in a vitrine, conserva
tors will also specify suitable environmental conditions. A further responsibility of the
conservator is to specify the materials that may come in contact with an artefact on dis
play, in storage, or in transport.26 Some artefacts are made of materials that emit gases
injurious to other media; for example, animal proteins in feathers and wool are a source
of hydrogen sulphide, which causes silver to tarnish. Of still greater consequence are the
possible effects of products used for the construction and interior decoration of a display
case, storage cabinet, or packing crate, or as gallery furnishings, which must be tested to
make sure they are safe. These include wood and other structural materials, gaskets, ad
Page 9 of 18

hesives, textiles, and paints, all of which have the potential to degrade works of art, espe
cially in sealed environments.
Preservation is also promoted by handling works only when wearing gloves, a practice
undertaken primarily for the purpose of protecting them from dirt, grease, acids, and
salts. Furthermore, residues of obsolete insecticides and some materials, such as benzo
triazole, still used in conservation treatments, as well as several pigments and metals, are
toxic or carcinogenic. Increasingly, professional installers and mount makers are embed
ded in conservation departments, but in many museums the mounts used for display, stor
age, and travel are still produced by technicians or art handlers under the supervision of
curatorial or collection management departments. In such cases, input from conserva
tors, who are (p. 1214) skilled in evaluating structural weaknesses and other forms of in
stability, is crucial in designing appropriate mounts, as well as determining whether a
work can safely travel, and in specifying conditions for packing and display off
premises.27
A conservator’s ability to devise and carry out effective strategies for the preservation of
any specific artefact is based not only on an understanding of modes of deterioration and
familiarity with procedures and products used in treatments, but also on knowledge of an
cient and historic technological processes and the physical properties of materials. Virtu
ally all works require a visual examination using different degrees of magnification and
different wavelengths of light, before treatment. Such examinations are often supple
mented with instrumental procedures for imaging, such as radiography and computed to
mography, and elemental or structural analysis, as well as consultation of pertinent tech
nical literature.28
Unfortunately the fundamental importance of technical investigations in designing an ap

propriate treatment for each individual artefact, and for the natural advance of the field
of conservation, is sometimes not given credence by museum curators and administra
tors, themselves pressured by exhibition deadlines and financial constraints. Further
more, just as an archaeological excavation destroys primary sources of information in the
pursuit of studying them, some treatments, even when essential for preservation, can de
stroy evidence of an object’s manufacture or subsequent history. Treatments that are
merely cosmetic require even more consideration before they are undertaken. Although
the aim of complete reversibility is sometimes unattainable, it is an issue that cannot be
ignored, and in every case, the importance of documentation is paramount.
Unless their holdings originate entirely from scientific excavations, Egyptological collec
tions, like virtually all private or public collections, contain forgeries. In concert, conser
vators, conservation scientists, and curators evaluate works in their care, and those un
der consideration for acquisition, to determine whether or not, or the degree to which,
they are authentic. Whereas curators generally rely on style, iconography, and inscrip
tions for evaluating the authenticity of undocumented works, conservators and conserva
tion scientists consider different types of evidence.29 Physical condition is crucial, and
equally important is the nature of the materials and manufacturing techniques employed,
Page 10 of 18

particularly in so far as they are, or are not, consistent with the proposed cultural context
of the work in question. Regrettably, there are many gaps in our knowledge, and even
when instrumental methods are used to gather evidence, there are possible sources of er
ror. Whereas analytical data and observations may be accurate and valid, interpretation is
subject to individual experience and knowledge of comparable works of undisputed au
thenticity, which themselves may have been altered in ways that lead to erroneous con
clusions. Although this can be frustrating for curators who hope that ‘science’ can give
them unambiguous answers, there is rarely a single feature that inexorably condemns a
work, and decisions are based on weighing a body of evidence of varying consequence or
clarity. Sometimes works are ‘authentic’, but so damaged or irrevocably altered that little
of their original integrity—material, cultural, or aesthetic—survives. On the other hand,
works prematurely condemned sometimes never recover their rightful reputation.
It might be advisable to remove existing restorations, once identified, from au

(p. 1215)
thentic works, or add new ones. Whether a work should be restored and how new restora
tions should look requires ongoing discussion as the treatment progresses.30 The degree
of restoration or reconstruction acceptable for cultural materials varies widely in actual
practice according to context. Different types of institutions have different standards for
restoration. For instance, in some collections the value placed on verity—presenting a
work as it now is, as opposed to how it once was—may be paramount, but a similar work
in a different collection may be used as a didactic tool or presented as an aesthetic state
ment. Even within a single museum, guidelines for historical, archaeological, and ethno
graphic artefacts are not uniform, just as different curators in the same curatorial depart
ment may have diverging aesthetic visions.
To this day, in spite of international accords, national legislation, and the Egyptian Min
istry of State for Antiquities’ vigilance, archaeological artefacts are illegally removed
from Egypt through the efforts of international smuggling rings and then sold to un
scrupulous or uninformed dealers, collectors, and institutions in Europe, North America,
and Asia. Recent geo-political events in Egypt and surrounding regions has of course ex
acerbated this situation—see Chapter 11 in this volume on ‘Cultural Heritage Manage
ment’. In considering possible acquisitions on behalf of their institutions, conservators
have an obligation to apply their specialized knowledge to recognize newly excavated
artefacts and debunk false attributions intended to disguise illegal traffic.31
The field of conservation as a whole—and with the major contributions of Alfred Lucas, a
pioneer in the restoration and technical study of Egyptian antiquities, the conservation of
Egyptological materials specifically—has roots reaching into the nineteenth and early
twentieth centuries. In terms of current practice, however, it is still a relatively new and
rapidly evolving discipline, as technical investigations of works produce fresh insights in
to materials, manufacture, and mechanisms of decay, and new methods and products for
preservation are developed. In the past, skilled craftsmen were employed as restorers by
individual curatorial departments and often work was contracted to outside practitioners.
However, with the emergence of conservation as an academic discipline, the trend has
been to create independent departments within museums, allowing conservators to ad
Page 11 of 18

here to established professional standards for collections care.32 For conservators of

Egyptian antiquities, as for all conservators, the paramount concern is the preservation of
the physical integrity of the works, along with the interpretation and preservation of evi
dence attesting to their manufacture and history. Conservators are committed to working
collaboratively with a wide range of museum professionals—curators, scientists, adminis
trators, registrars, art handlers, and facilities managers—to protect the works in their
joint custody, while making them available for public pleasure and scholarly inquiry.
Suggested Reading
Although many significant articles focusing on deterioration, treatment, passive conserva
tion, technical investigation, and historical trends in the conservation of Egyptian
antiquities have appeared for over a century, for the sake of brevity, publications
(p. 1216)
referenced here are more or less limited to those published within the last 20 years. Im
portant earlier literature can be located on conservation or Egyptological bibliographic
websites (see online resources below) and in two conference proceedings: Watkins and
Brown 1988 and also Brown et al. 1995. An equally useful, more recent publication in
this informal series is Dawson et al. 2010.
Recent interest in coffin technology and conservation has produced A. Amenta and H.
Guichard (eds) 2017 and publications of the Second Vatican Coffin Conference in 2017
and the Ancient Egyptian Coffins Conference (Cambridge UK) in 2016 are forthcoming.
Helpful introductions to the scope of conservation in Egyptology are found in book chap
ters by Gänsicke, 2008 and 2015.
Online resources
Art and Archaeology Technical Abstracts (AATA)
http://www.aata.getty.edu/NPS/
Bibliographic Database of the Conservation Information Network (BCIN) http://

www.bcin.ca/English/home_english.html
International Institute International Institute for Conservation of Historic and Artistic

Works (IIC)
https://www.iiconservation.org/
International Council of Museums–Committee for Conservation (ICOM–CC)
http://www.icom-cc.org/
http://museumpests.net (pest management)
Online Egyptological Bibliography
http://0-oeb.griffith.ox.ac.uk.library.metmuseum.org/
Page 12 of 18

Bibliography
Amenta, A. and Guichard, H. (eds) 2017. Proceedings First Vatican Coffin Conference: 19–
22 June 2013. 2 volumes. Vatican City: Edizioni Musei Vaticani.
Atherton-Woolham, S. D. and McKnight, L. M. 1914. Post-Mortem Restorations in Ancient

Egyptian Animal Mummies Using Imaging. Papers on Anthropology 23, 1: 9–17.
Balachandran, S. 2009. Among the Dead and their Possessions: A Conservator’s Role in
the Death, Life, and Afterlife of Human Remains and their Associated Objects, Journal of
the American Institute for Conservation 48, 3 (Fall/Winter): 199–222.
Becker, L. and Schorsch, D. 2010. The Practice of Objects Conservation in The Metropoli
tan Museum of Art (1870–1942). Metropolitan Museum Studies in Art, Science, and Tech
nology 1, 11–37.
Bouvard, J. T. and Penrhys Jones, M. 2009. Means, Materials and Ethics: The Conserva
tion of Two Egyptian Mummies for Long-Term Display. In J. Ambers, C. Higgitt, L. Harri
son, and D. Saunders (eds), Holding it all together: ancient and modern approaches to
joining, repair and consolidation. London: Archetype, 2009, 166–72.
British Museum Studies in Ancient Egypt and Sudan 23 (2016).
Brodie, N. and Tubb, K. W. 2001. Illicit Antiquities: The Theft of Culture and the Extinc
tion of Archaeology. New York: Routledge.
Brown, C. E., Macalister, F., and Wright, M. M. (eds) 1995. Conservation in Ancient Egypt
ian Collections: Papers Given at a Conference Organised by the United Kingdom Institute
for Conservation, Archaeology Section, and International Academic Projects, Held at Lon
don, 20–21 July 1995. London: Archetype.
Caple, C. (ed.) 2011. Preventive Conservation in Museums. London; New York: Routledge.
Chataignère, M. and Delange, E. 2000. La porteuse d’auge du Département des

(p. 1217)
antiquités égyptiennes: une restauration casse-tête. Revue du Louvre et des musées du

France 4: 84–9.
Craddock, P. T. 2009. Scientific Investigation of Copies, Fakes and Forgeries. Oxford;

Burlington, MA: Elsevier/Butterworth-Heinemann.
Cruickshank, P., Pullan, M., and Potter, J. 1999. Recent Treatments of Painted Egyptian
Shrouds: The Influence of Condition and Intended Role, The Conservator 23: 37–44.
Daniels, D. and Leach, B. 2004. The Occurrence and Alteration of Realgar on Ancient
Egyptian Papyri, Studies in Conservation 49: 73–84.
Page 13 of 18

Dawson, J., Rozeik, C., and Wright, M. M. (eds) 2010. Decorated Surfaces on Ancient
Egyptian Objects: Technology, Deterioration and Conservation: Proceedings of a Confer
ence Held in Cambridge, UK on 7–8 September 2007. London: Archetype.
Derriks, C. (ed.) 2017. Collections at Risk: New Challenges in a New Environment. Pro
ceedings of the 29th CIPEG Annual Meeting in Brussels, September 25–28, 2012, Royal
Museum of Art and History, Brussels, Belgium. Material and Visual Culture of Ancient
Egypt 4. Atlanta, GA: Lockwood Press.
Fletcher, A., Antoine, D., and Hill, J. D. (eds) 2014. Regarding the Dead: Human Remains
in the British Museum. London: British Museum.
Gänsicke, S. 2008. Artifact Conservation and Egyptology. In R. H. Wilkinson (ed.), Egyp

tology Today. New York: Cambridge University Press, 163–85.
Gänsicke, S. 2015. Conservation of Egyptian Objects: A Review of Current Practices in

the Field and in the Museum. In M. K. Hartwig (ed.), A Companion to Ancient Egyptian
Art. Blackwell Companions to the Ancient World. Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons, 522–43.
Gänsicke, S. et al. 2003. The Ancient Egyptian Collection at the Museum of Fine Arts,
Boston. Part 1: A Review of Treatments in the Field and their Consequences, and The An
cient Egyptian Collection at the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston. Part 2: A Review of Former
Treatments at the MFA and their Consequences, Journal of the American Institute for
Conservation 42 (Summer): 167–92 and 193–236.
Gänsicke, S. et al. 2012. New Mounting Systems Provide Mobility for Two Ancient Ob
jects at the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston, Journal of the American Institute for Conserva
tion 51, 1 (Spring/Summer): 27–45.
Garland, K. M. and Twilley, J. 2010. The Scientific Examination and Re-Treatment of an

Egyptian Limestone Relief from the Tomb of Ka-aper. In Objects Specialty Group Post
prints. Objects Specialty Group 17. Washington, D.C.: American Institute for Conservation
of Historic and Artistic Works, 113–32. Available at: http://resources.conservation-
us.org/osg-postprints/postprints/v17/garland/ http://resources.conservation-
us.org/osg-postprints/postprints/v17/garland/
Garland, K.M., Bernstein, J., and Rogers, J. 2015. Raising Meret-it-es: Examining and Con
serving an Egyptian Anthropoid Coffin from 380–250 BCE, Journal of the American Insti
tute for Conservation 54, 2 (May): 102–13.
Hansen, E. F., Walston, S., and Bishop, M. H. 1994. Matte Paint: Its History and Technolo
gy, Analysis, Properties, and Conservation Treatment with Special Emphasis on Ethno
graphic Objects, A Bibliographic Supplement to Art and Archaeology Technical Abstracts,
Volume 30, 1993. Marina del Rey, CA: Getty Conservation Institute.
Hatchfield, P. B. 2002. Pollutants in the Museum Environment: Practical Strategies for

Problem Solving, Exhibition and Storage. London: Archetype.
Page 14 of 18

Hatchfield, P. B. 2015. The ‘Bersha Procession’ in Context, Part II: Conservation History
and Technical Study. In A. Oppenheim and O. Goelet (eds), The Art and Culture of Ancient
Egypt: Studies in Honor of Dorothea Arnold. Bulletin of the Egyptological Seminar 19.
New York: The Egyptological Seminar of New York, 311‒30.
Janis, K. 1997. Die Bearbeitung eines ptolemäischen Mumienpektorales im Inter

essenkonflikt zwischen Papyrologie und Restaurator, Göttinger Miszellen 161: 87–95.
Koob, S. P. 2006. Conservation and Care of Glass Objects. London: Archetype.
Leach, B. and Tate, J. 2000. Papyrus. In P. T. Nicholson and I. Shaw (eds), Ancient Egypt
ian Materials and Technology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 227–53, esp. 239–
50.
Lucker, T. 2009. Erhaltenes Original und historische Konstruktion: die Neuauf

(p. 1218)
stellung von Opferkammern und Tempelreliefs des Alten Reichs im Neuen Museum
Berlin. In U. Peltz and O. Zorn (eds), kulturGUTerhalten: Standards in der Restau
rierungswissenschaft und Denkmalpflege. Mainz: von Zabern, 145–51.
Maekawa, S. (ed.) 1998. Oxygen-Free Museum Cases. Los Angeles: The Getty Conserva
tion Institute.
Maekawa, S. and Elert, K. 2003. The Use of Oxygen-free Environments in the Control of
Museum Insect Pests. Los Angles: The Getty Conservation Institute.
Miller, E., Lee, N. J., Uprichard, K., and Daniels, V. 2000. The Examination and Conserva
tion of the Rosetta Stone at the British Museum. In A. Roy and P. Smith (eds), Tradition
and Innovation, Advances in Conservation, Contributions to the Melbourne Congress, 10–
14 October 2000. London: IIC, 128–32.
Morshed, N. el D. and Veldmeijer, A. J. 2014–15. Conserving, Reconstructing and Display

ing Tutankhamun’s Sandals: The GEM-CC’s Procedure, Jaarbericht van het Vooraziatisch-
Egyptisch Genootschap Ex Oriente Lux 45: 93–107.
Niemeyer, B. 1997. Early 20th-century Restorations and Modern Conservation Treatments

on Archaeological Objects. In I. D. MacLeod, S. L. Pennec, and L. Robbiola (eds), Metal
95, actes de la conférence sur la conservation des métaux, Semur en Auxois, 25–28/Sept/
1995. London: James & James, 190–5.
Re, A. et al. 2016. The Importance of Tomography Studying Wooden Artefacts: A Compari
son with Radiography in the Case of a Coffin Lid from Ancient Egypt, International Jour
nal of Conservation Science 7, special issue 2: 936–44.
Röhl, S. and Finneiser, K. 2013. Ein altägyptisches Vorratsfäß aus Abydos: Geschichte und
Restaurierung, Restauro 119, no. 2 (March): 49–54.
Rozeik, C. 2009. The Treatment of an Unbaked Mud Statue from Ancient Egypt, Journal of
the American Institute for Conservation 48, no. 1 (Spring): 69–81.
Page 15 of 18

Schorsch, D. and Frantz, J. H. 1997–8. A Tale of Two Kitties, Metropolitan Museum Bul
letin 55 (Winter): 16–29.
Scott, D. A. 2002. Copper and Bronze in Art: Corrosion, Colorants, Conservation. Los An
geles: Getty Publications, 122–34.
Seiler Liepe, U. 2000. Eine Mumienmaske in Leipzig: Restaurierung der bemalten, gips
getränkten Leinenumkleidung, Restauro 106, 8 (Nov.–Dec.): 594–7.
Smyth, A. W. et al. 2016. Vibration Mitigation and Monitoring: A Case Study of Construc
tion in a Museum, Journal of the American Institute for Conservation 55, no. 1 (Feb.): 32–
55.
Taylor, J. H. 1995. Unwrapping a Mummy: The Life, Death and Embalming of Horemkene
si. London: British Museum Press.
Tétreault, J. 2003. Airborne Pollutants in Museums, Galleries, and Archives: Risk Assess
ment, Control Strategies, and Preservation Management. Ottawa: Canadian Conservation
Institute.
Wang, Q., Huang, H., and Shearman, F. 2009. Bronzes from the Sacred Animal Necropolis
at Saqqara, Egypt: a Study of the Metals and Corrosion, British Museum Technical Re
search Bulletin 3: 73–82.
Ward, P. 1989. The Nature of Conservation, A Race Against Time. Marina del Rey: The
Getty Conservation Institute.
Warda, J. (ed.) 2011. The AIC Guide to Digital Photography and Conservation Documenta
tion. 2nd edn. Washington, D.C.: American Institute for Conservation of Historic and
Artistic Works.
Watkins, S. C. and Brown, C. E. (eds) 1988. Conservation of Ancient Egyptian Materials:

Preprints of the Conference Organised by the United Kingdom Institute for Conservation,
Archaeology Section, Held at Bristol, December 15–16th, 1988. London: Archetype.
Whyte, A., Stock, S., and Murray, A. 2002. An Unusual Dark Patina on Egyptian Copper
Alloy Objects in the Royal Ontario Museum. In P. B. Vandiver, M. Goodway, and J. L. Mass
(eds), Material Issues in Art and Archaeology VI: Symposium Held November 26–30,
2001, Boston, MA, USA. Warrendale, PA: Materials Research Society, 269–80.
Yara, I., Abdrabou, A., and Abdallah, M. 2016. A Non-Destructive Analytical Study and the
Conservation Processes of Pharaoh Tutankhamun’s Painted Boat Model, International
Journal of Conservation Science 7, 1: 15–28.
Notes:
(1) Ward 1989.
Page 16 of 18

(2) Morshed and Veldmeijer 2014–15; Derriks 2017.
(3) Wang et al. 2009; Hatchfield 2015.
(4) Caple 2011.
(5) Gänsicke et al. 2003; Röhl and Finneiser 2013.
(6) Miller et al. 2000; Warda 2011.
(7) Gänsicke et al. 2012; Lucker 2009.
(8) Daniels and Leach 2004.
(9) Smyth et al. 2016.
(10) Scott 2002.
(11) Scott 2002; Whyte et al. 2002.
(12) Schorsch and Frantz 1997–8.
(13) Niemeyer 1997.
(14) Rozeik 2009.
(15) Koob 2006.
(16) Garland and Twilley 2010.
(17) Seiler Leipe 2000.
(18) Hansen et al. 1994.
(19) Cruickshank et al. 1999.
(20) Leach and Tate 2000; British Museum Studies 2016.
(21) Janis 1997.
(22) Taylor 1995.
(23) Balachandran 2009; Bouvard and Penrhys Jones 2009; Fletcher et al. 2014.
(24) Maekawa 1998.
(25) Maekawa and Elert 2003.
(26) Hatchfield 2002; Tétreault 2003.
(27) Garland et al. 2015.
(28) Re et al. 2016; Yara et al. 2016.

Page 17 of 18

(29) Schorsch and Frantz 1997–8; Craddock 2009; Atherton-Woolham and McKnight 2014.
(30) Chataignère and Delange 2000.
(31) Brodie and Tubb 2001.
(32) Becker and Schorsch 2010.
Deborah Schorsch
Deborah Schorsch is a Conservator at the Sherman Fairchild Center for Objects Con
servation Department, Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York, USA
Page 18 of 18

Conservation in Egyptological Museum Co

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Conservation in Egyptological Museum Co

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Conservation in Egyptological museum collections

Conservation in Egyptological museum collections

Print Publication Date: Nov 2020 Subject: Archaeology, Egyptian Archaeology

Abstract and Keywords

Conservators are professionals dedicated to the physical preservation of cultural heritage

Conservators are professionals dedicated to the physical preservation of cultural her­

Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 18 December 2020

ufacture of cultural materials at an academic institution. The situation is similar in Eu­

Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 18 December 2020

Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 18 December 2020

Environmental conditions, specifically temperature, relative humidity, light, vibration, and

Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 18 December 2020

Deterioration processes of inorganic materials

Fragile precious-metal antiquities frequently suffer mechanical damage during handling.

Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 18 December 2020

Ceramics, faience, and glass

Limestone and sandstone

Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 18 December 2020

Ivory and bone

Deterioration processes of organic materials

Linen, papyri, cartonnage, and mummies

Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 18 December 2020

Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 18 December 2020

(p. 1213) Discussion: conservation challenges

As noted previously, the maintenance of a proper environment during display, storage,

Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 18 December 2020

Unfortunately the fundamental importance of technical investigations in designing an ap­

Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 18 December 2020

It might be advisable to remove existing restorations, once identified, from au­

Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 18 December 2020

here to established professional standards for collections care.32 For conservators of

Art and Archaeology Technical Abstracts (AATA)

Bibliographic Database of the Conservation Information Network (BCIN) http://

International Institute International Institute for Conservation of Historic and Artistic

International Council of Museums–Committee for Conservation (ICOM–CC)

http://museumpests.net (pest management)

Online Egyptological Bibliography

Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 18 December 2020

Atherton-Woolham, S. D. and McKnight, L. M. 1914. Post-Mortem Restorations in Ancient

British Museum Studies in Ancient Egypt and Sudan 23 (2016).

Chataignère, M. and Delange, E. 2000. La porteuse d’auge du Département des

antiquités égyptiennes: une restauration casse-tête. Revue du Louvre et des musées du

Craddock, P. T. 2009. Scientific Investigation of Copies, Fakes and Forgeries. Oxford;

Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 18 December 2020

Gänsicke, S. 2008. Artifact Conservation and Egyptology. In R. H. Wilkinson (ed.), Egyp­

Gänsicke, S. 2015. Conservation of Egyptian Objects: A Review of Current Practices in

Garland, K. M. and Twilley, J. 2010. The Scientific Examination and Re-Treatment of an

Hatchfield, P. B. 2002. Pollutants in the Museum Environment: Practical Strategies for

Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 18 December 2020

Janis, K. 1997. Die Bearbeitung eines ptolemäischen Mumienpektorales im Inter­

Koob, S. P. 2006. Conservation and Care of Glass Objects. London: Archetype.

Lucker, T. 2009. Erhaltenes Original und historische Konstruktion: die Neuauf­

Morshed, N. el D. and Veldmeijer, A. J. 2014–15. Conserving, Reconstructing and Display­

Niemeyer, B. 1997. Early 20th-century Restorations and Modern Conservation Treatments

Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 18 December 2020

Watkins, S. C. and Brown, C. E. (eds) 1988. Conservation of Ancient Egyptian Materials:

(1) Ward 1989.

Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 18 December 2020

(2) Morshed and Veldmeijer 2014–15; Derriks 2017.

(3) Wang et al. 2009; Hatchfield 2015.

(4) Caple 2011.

(5) Gänsicke et al. 2003; Röhl and Finneiser 2013.

(6) Miller et al. 2000; Warda 2011.

(7) Gänsicke et al. 2012; Lucker 2009.

Conservators are professionals dedicated to the physical preservation of cultural her

ufacture of cultural materials at an academic institution. The situation is similar in Eu

Unfortunately the fundamental importance of technical investigations in designing an ap

It might be advisable to remove existing restorations, once identified, from au

Gänsicke, S. 2008. Artifact Conservation and Egyptology. In R. H. Wilkinson (ed.), Egyp

Janis, K. 1997. Die Bearbeitung eines ptolemäischen Mumienpektorales im Inter

Lucker, T. 2009. Erhaltenes Original und historische Konstruktion: die Neuauf

Morshed, N. el D. and Veldmeijer, A. J. 2014–15. Conserving, Reconstructing and Display