Agypten lesbar machen - die klassische Konservierung Restaurierung von Papyri und neuere Verfahren

Ägypten lesbar machen

≥

Archiv für Papyrusforschung und verwandte Gebiete Begründet von

Ulrich Wilcken Herausgegeben von

Bärbel Kramer Wolfgang Luppe Herwig Maehler Günter Poethke

Beiheft 24

Walter de Gruyter · Berlin · New York

Ägypten lesbar machen ⫺ die klassische Konservierung/ Restaurierung von Papyri und neuere Verfahren Beiträge des 1. Internationalen Workshops der Papyrusrestauratoren Leipzig, 7.⫺9. September 2006 Herausgegeben von

Jörg Graf und Myriam Krutzsch

Walter de Gruyter · Berlin · New York

앝 Gedruckt auf säurefreiem Papier, 앪 das die US-ANSI-Norm über Haltbarkeit erfüllt.

ISBN 978-3-11-020117-8 Bibliografische Information der Deutschen Nationalbibliothek Die Deutsche Nationalbibliothek verzeichnet diese Publikation in der Deutschen Nationalbibliografie; detaillierte bibliografische Daten sind im Internet über http://dnb.d-nb.de abrufbar. 쑔 Copyright 2008 by Walter de Gruyter GmbH & Co. KG, 10785 Berlin. Dieses Werk einschließlich aller seiner Teile ist urheberrechtlich geschützt. Jede Verwertung außerhalb der engen Grenzen des Urheberrechtsgesetzes ist ohne Zustimmung des Verlages unzulässig und strafbar. Das gilt insbesondere für Vervielfältigungen, Übersetzungen, Mikroverfilmungen und die Einspeicherung und Verarbeitung in elektronischen Systemen. Printed in Germany Einbandentwurf: Christopher Schneider, Berlin Druck und buchbinderische Verarbeitung: Hubert & Co. GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen

Inhalt Reinhold Scholl, Grußwort .....................................................................................1 Machteld van der Feltz, A conservation survey of papyrus collections in the Netherlands.............................................................................................3 Leyla Lau-Lamb, Condition survey of papyri, Hermitage Museum Oriental Department St. Petersburg, Russia .................................................................10 Manfred Anders, Papierfestigung. Möglichkeiten und Grenzen. Selbstklebefolien und Alternativen ................................................................17 Jörg Graf, Kapillarreinigung – eine schonende Methode in der Papyrusrestaurierung? ..........................................................................23 Reinhold Scholl, Das Papyrusprojekt Halle-Jena-Leipzig....................................28 Rainer Walther, Brandschutz in Bibliotheken. Lösungsansätze für Brandschutzfragen bei der Aufbewahrung von Papyrus ................................34 Bridget Leach, Papyrus conservation at the British Museum ...............................40 Leyla Lau-Lamb, Conservation of a papyrus (Karanis Tax Roll).........................49 Sophie-Elisabeth Geiseler, Textile Stützmaterialien in der Papyrusrestaurierung am Beispiel des Papyrus ÄS 818 .................................51 Eve Menei, Fifteen years of papyri conservation at the Louvre: the influence of Japanese techniques..............................................................62 Jörg Graf, Papyrusherstellung nach dem Groningen-Verfahren. Eine praktische Übung ...................................................................................68 Myriam Krutzsch, Falttechniken an altägyptischen Handschriften ......................71 Jörg Graf, Notwendigkeit der Dokumentation. Das Leipziger Restaurierungsprotokoll .................................................................................84 Myriam Krutzsch, Blattklebungen erkennen und dokumentieren ........................93 Myriam Krutzsch, Geheimnisse in Mumienmasken – Methoden zur Auflösung von Papyruskartonage...................................................................99 Erja Salmenkivi, A method of extracting cartonnages and some observations on their texts...................................................................106 Florence Darbre, The papyrus Codex Tchacos (Gospel of Judas)......................113

Anhänge Plakat des Workshops .........................................................................................117 Programm ...........................................................................................................118 Teilnehmer ..........................................................................................................120 Danksagung ........................................................................................................122

Tafeln......................................................................................................... I–XXXII

Grußwort Reinhold Scholl (Leipzig) Im Namen der Papyrus- und Ostrakasammlung der Universitätsbibliothek Leipzig möchte ich Sie ganz herzlich in der Bibliotheca Albertina willkommen heißen. Wir freuen uns, daß so viele von Ihnen den weiten Weg auf sich genommen haben, um an diesem 1. Internationalen Papyrusrestauratorenworkshop teilnehmen zu können. Einige von Ihnen sind mir schon seit einigen Jahren gleichsam als Stammgäste der Papyrussammlung bekannt, mit anderen habe ich heute das Vergnügen, Bekanntschaft zu machen. Damit ist auch schon eines der Ziele dieser Tagung angesprochen, nämlich persönliche Kontakte zwischen denjenigen Personen herzustellen, die sich mit der Restaurierung von Papyri im weitesten Sinne beschäftigen. Es ist ein bunter Kreis geworden, der sich hier versammelt hat: Spezialisten auf dem Gebiet der Papyrusrestaurierung, verantwortliche Leiter von Papyrussammlungen, Wissenschaftler, die in erster Linie an den Texten auf den Papyri interessiert sind, und schließlich Personen, die sich generell mit Fragen der Bestandserhaltung und Bestandssicherung von wertvollen Kulturgütern beschäftigen. Oft wird nämlich ein Gegensatz oder Widerspruch zwischen Bestandserhaltung und Nutzung wertvoller Objekte konstruiert. An dieser Stelle kommt die Restaurierung ins Spiel. Denn diese dient sowohl der Erhaltung als auch der Zugänglichmachung von wertvollen Objekten sowohl für die Wissenschaft als auch für eine größere Öffentlichkeit. Gerade in Bibliotheken wird der Nutzer oft als Feind der Bücher und der noch wertvolleren Handschriften und sonstigen Sonderbestände in den jeweiligen Sondersammlungen angesehen. „Muß das sein?“, lautet häufig die Antwort auf eine Anfrage zur Einsicht in wertvolle Bibliotheksbestände. „Reicht nicht auch ein Schwarz-Weiß-Mikrofilm?“ Der interessierte und neugierige Leser hat in der Regel zuhause kein Mikrofilmlesegerät, geschweige denn einen sogenannten Reader-Printer. Einen Ausweg aus diesem Dilemma von Bestandsschutz und Bestandssicherung auf der einen und unkomfortable Mikrofilmnutzung auf der anderen Seite bietet die Digitalisierung der Bestände, wie sie u.a. auch im Rahmen des Papyrus-Projektes Halle-Jena-Leipzig betrieben wird. Aber vor all diese Maßnahmen ist gleichsam wie ein ehernes Naturgesetz die Restaurierung gesetzt: Ohne Restaurierung keine Verfilmung und keine Digitalisierung. Die Restaurierung ist nämlich die Grundlage und die Voraussetzung aller nachfolgenden Arbeiten, sei es der Verfilmung, der Digitalisierung oder der wissenschaftlichen Erschließung. Aus diesem Grunde ist die von Ihnen zu erbrin-

2

Archiv für Papyrusforschung, Beiheft 24, 2008

gende Arbeit unverzichtbar. Das sollte Sie auch mit Stolz und Genugtuung erfüllen. Restaurierung ist allerdings kein reiner Selbstzweck. Restaurierung hat eine dienende und unterstützende Funktion. Auch dies wird ein Thema des Workshops sein. Ich möchte aber hier nicht zu weit vorausgreifen, sondern an dieser Stelle den Organisatoren der Tagung Frau Myriam Krutzsch (Berlin) und Herrn Jörg Graf (Leipzig) ganz herzlich – ich denke auch in Ihrer aller Namen – für Ihre Mühen danken. Daß die Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft zur Finanzierung des Workshops beiträgt, ist ebenfalls ein Zeichen der Wertschätzung Ihrer aller Arbeit. Bleibt mir am Schluß nur noch, uns viel Erfolg bei diesem Workshop zu wünschen.

A conservation survey of papyrus collections in the Netherlands With plate I

Machteld van der Feltz (Schiedam, the Netherlands) Introduction In the Netherlands there are several public and private papyrus collections, varying in size. The Belasting & Douane Museum (Tax and Customs Museum) in Rotterdam owns three papyrus fragments whereas the largest collection, that of the Rijksmuseum van Oudheden (R.M.O., National Museum of Antiquities) in Leiden consists of several hundreds of objects. There are no conservators specialized in papyrus restoration in the Netherlands. The work is usually done by conservators in other disciplines, especially during the preparation of exhibitions. As a result collection managers often do not know whom to ask material-related questions. The R.M.O. in Leiden is an example; a decision had to be taken to move the papyrus collection to the new fully climatized storage room or leave it where it was since 1984, in metal drawers in a non-climatized room on the top floor. In 2003 the Instituut Collectie Nederland (I.C.N., Netherlands Institute for Cultural Heritage) in Amsterdam was consulted. An attempt to answer the question was made within the scope of an essay written for the final exam in Book and Paper Conservation. The underlying question was: Can a correlation be found between the state of preservation and present storage conditions? One might get the impression from the following text that the Dutch papyrus collections are in a bad state. This is certainly not the case. The reason that the emphasis lies on risks and damage is that I needed to investigated these in order to be able to answer the question about papyrus storage in the R.M.O. Approach In order to get some idea of the types of damage that can occur in papyrus, and to find relevant markers for the state of preservation, a survey was made of most public collections in the Netherlands. The circumstances in which the papyri were kept (including temperature and relative humidity (RH)) were also taken into account. In addition to this, the literature on this subject was studied1 and spe_________ 1

A selection of the literature consulted can be found in the bibliography.

4

Archiv für Papyrusforschung, Beiheft 24, 2008

cialists from abroad were consulted by email. A two day visit to the studio in the University Library of Leipzig, where Mr J. Graf gave an extensive overview of the collection, proved very useful. In this way the main risks and damage could be defined. Results of the survey It was found that there are 12 public collections in the Netherlands; 8 in University libraries and 4 in museums. All collections were visited and the curators were interviewed. Questions were asked about the size of the collection, its provenance, storage conditions since acquisition, conservation and restoration practices and usage (consultation and exhibitions). The papyri were examined with emphasis on the way of mounting and types of damage. In most cases the reading rooms and the exhibition rooms were visited as well as the storage rooms. The size of the collections varies from under 10 objects to several hundreds: under 10: Belasting & Douane Museum, Rotterdam and Radboud University, Nijmegen. 10–100: Universities of Amsterdam (Classical studies), Leiden (Eastern studies) and Utrecht, Museum Meermanno, the Hague and the Allard Pierson Museum, Amsterdam over 100: Erasmus University, Rotterdam, Universities of Leiden (papyrology), Amsterdam (library) and Groningen, Rijksmuseum van Oudheden (R.M.O.), Leiden. Nowadays both collections of the University of Amsterdam are located in the University Library. The provenance of the collections: Most papyri were purchased from collectors or dealers in antiquities; others acquired at auctions, by donation or inheritance. Examples are: collection Belasting en Douanemuseum, Rotterdam Museum Meermanno, the Hague Utrecht University library Allard Pierson Museum, Amsterdam Erasmus University library, Rotterdam R.M.O., Leiden

size 3 10 22 + 50 131 (many fragments) hundreds

provenance Bought at an auction in London, 1948 Purchase in 1822, 1827 Inheritance 1956 Purchase in 1946 and gifts in 1950, 1974 and 1990 Bought from M. Fackelman in 1975 and 1978 Purchases in 1826, 1827, 1828, 1875, 1895, 20th Century

Storage conditions vary greatly; from a cupboard behind the professors desk to a fully climatized room. Wooden or metal cupboards are used. Usually there is no documentation of conservation and restoration practices, but some can be deduced from the objects as they appear today. An obvious one

M. van der Feltz, A conservation survey of papyrus collections in the Netherlands

5

is the use of bad quality backing paper which can lead to several problems: acidification and/or cockling, thereby causing fractures and cracks in the papyrus. In the early days restoration was not as scientifically orientated as it is now. Reversibility of the treatments was not a general principle The extent of consultation by the public differs among collections as well as the number of objects that are exhibited. Exhibitions can be temporary or ‘permanent’, i.e. for several years. The most popular mount consists of two glass plates or glass and cardboard bound with gummed or self-adhesive tape. Sometimes gaps are left in the tape to allow air circulation. In some collections Perspex is used. Occasionally papyri are not mounted at all; they are still in a paper or plastic folder. In the R.M.O. many small fragments have been pasted into purposely made books (scrapbooks). As for the types of damage, an attempt was made to find damage indicative for the state of preservation and to classify them in such a way that a correlation with (present) storage conditions could be found. At first a distinction was made between damage before and after acquisition. The provenance can make quite a difference; whether it is a rubbish-dump or a sepulchral chamber. If papyri have been underground they can have been into contact with water containing salts. These salts crystallize on the papyrus and could cause mechanical damage. They also form a typical bloom on glass mounts. Papyri were often cut up into smaller pieces in order to increase their total value for the traders. After acquisition storage conditions might not have been adequate, leading to deterioration. And here again, rolls were cut up into smaller pieces to make it easier to handle them. Some early conservation and restoration methods have proved to be harmful as well as some ways of mounting, e.g. the use of bad quality backing paper. This can lead to darkening and mechanical damage (cockling and cracks) to the papyrus. In addition to this there is the ageing inherent to the material itself which is an ongoing process starting immediately after it has been made into papyrus. The original organic material could differ in quality as well. Certain pigments have turned out to be corrosive. Abrasion or fading of ink can be observed. Insect attack is something that could occur before or after acquisition, and the same is true for mechanical damage. There is very little documentation of storage conditions and restoration methods until fairly recently. Two examples of a correlation between storage conditions and the state of preservation were found. One example from the R.M.O. is particularly striking. In 1863 a lithograph drawn after a papyrus was printed in the so-called ‘Monumens’.2 When one looks at the papyrus as it is now, much of the writing which was visible in 1863 has disappeared.3 It is difficult to find out the cause of this _________ 2 3

Leemans, C. (and others) Monumens égyptiens du Musée d’Antiquités des Pays-Bas à Leide, Leiden 1839–1905. Taf. Ib.

6

Archiv für Papyrusforschung, Beiheft 24, 2008

degradation, but two things are clear: degradation took place after 1863 and it is unlikely that it is due to the present-day circumstances. The second example comes from another collection. It involves growth of mould between the glass plates. In this case there were no gaps in the binding tape, which can lead to an unfavourable micro-climate. This is a rare example of a correlation between damage and present circumstances. In this particular collection the temperature in the storage room is often too high. The conclusions are: 1. It is difficult to divide all possible damage into ‘old’ and ‘new’ damage. 2. This classification does not facilitate a correlation of the state of preservation to (present) storage conditions. A classification into mechanical, physical/chemical and biological damage does not make the situation any clearer because all of these can occur before and after acquisition. Finally the types of damage were defined according to those of the papyrus itself, the inks and pigments, and the mounts. This proved to be helpful in the definition of risks. Having obtained a general idea about possible damage to papyrus I concentrated again on the R.M.O. collection. As mentioned before, most papyri are mounted between two sheets of glass. Smaller fragments are often pasted onto paper. First of all, the climate in the present papyrus store was investigated. Measurements of temperature and RH were taken during the months of April and May 2003. At the end of May, when the central heating was switched off, there was a short period in which the temperature and the RH changed more than 3° C and 3% per 24 hours. This should be avoided. In summer the temperature varies with the outside temperature and the RH is 50–55%. In winter the temperature is around 20° C and the RH is 30%. The amount of light in the exhibition rooms was measured as well and found to be within the recommended limits (50 lux and 75 micro-Watt per lumen for the ultraviolet component). Secondly the main (poten–tial) types of damage in this collection were defined: 1. discolouration of the papyrus and/or the backing paper 2. salt bloom on the glass mounts 3. mechanical damage A correlation of these to the present storage conditions is not clear. The discolouration is due to the acidification of the backing paper. The salt has so far not caused visible damage. The mechanical damage is mainly due to the backing paper and to handling and reframing. It may be more useful to look at risk factors, e.g. reframing. When glass plates break and are replaced by new ones, there is a risk of loosing some of the artefact. Also the arrangement of fragments can be lost. Some fragments start moving between the plates and end up against the self-adhesive tape around the edge, in direct contact with the glue. New frames are often used for exhibitions or loans. Other risks are inherent to the material; e.g. the backing paper and some corrosive pigments.

M. van der Feltz, A conservation survey of papyrus collections in the Netherlands

7

Conclusion It has not been possible to relate damage in papyrus directly to the present storage conditions. However, it is possible to define risks and to take measures for preventive conservation. The following recommendations were given for the R.M.O.: 1. Most of the collection can stay in the present store room. 2. A few papyri which show corrosion by pigments should be moved to the climatized stores. 3. Great care should be taken when handling the papyri, be it for consultation or exhibition. 4. At exhibitions the amount of light should be no more than 50 lux with a maximum ultraviolet component of 75 micro-Watt per lumen. In the long term: 1. Optimal conditions would be a dark storage room with a temperature of 18° C and RH 50%. Fluctuations of more than 3° C and 3% per 24 hours should be avoided. 2. The old backing paper should be replaced by acid-free paper and the same holds for the old cardboard used in some mounts. 3. Mounts should have small gaps in the binding tape to avoid an unfavourable micro-climate. Acknowledgements I would like to thank Mr. J. Graf, dr. M.J. Raven, Ms. B. Reissland, drs. S. Scholten, Ms. M. Stauthamer and Prof. dr. K.A. Worp for advice and helpful discussions. Bibliography Fackelmann, M. Restaurierung von Papyrus und anderen Schriftträgern aus Ägypten, Studia Amstelodamensia ad epigraphicam, ius antiquum et papyrologicam pertinentia XXIV, Zutphen 1985. Leach, B. and Tait, J. Papyrus, in: P.T. Nicholson and I. Shaw, eds. Ancient Egyptian Materials and Technology, Cambridge University Press 2000, p 227–253. Leemans, C. (and others), Monumens égyptiens du Musée d’Antiquités des Pays-Bas à Leide, Leiden 1839–1905. Parkinson, R. and Quirke, S. Papyrus, British Museum Press 1995. Raven, M.J. Papyrus van bies tot boekrol, Zutphen 1982.

8

Archiv für Papyrusforschung, Beiheft 24, 2008

Zusammenfassung In den Niederlanden gibt es mehrere öffentliche und private Papyrussammlungen unterschiedlicher Größe. Es gibt aber bisher keine Restauratoren, die auf die Konservierung und Restaurierung von Papyrus spezialisiert sind. Diese Arbeit wird meistens von Restauratoren anderer Disziplinen übernommen. Dies hat zur Folge, dass Eigentümer von Sammlungen oft nicht wissen, an wen sie materialspezifische Fragen richten können. Auch das R.M.O. in Leiden hatte dieses Problem. Es war vor die Entscheidung gestellt, die Papyrussammlung entweder in das neue, klimatisierte Depot zu überführen oder sie weiterhin an ihrem bisherigen Standort, einem unklimatisierten Raum auf der obersten Etage des Museums, zu belassen. Letztendlich wendete das Museum sich an das Instituut Collectie Nederland (ICN, Amsterdam). Die Frage, ob es einen Zusammenhang zwischen dem Erhaltungszustand von Papyri und deren Aufbewahrungsumständen gibt und ob sich hierauf basierend ein Erhaltungskonzept für die Sammlung erstellen ließ, wurde im Rahmen einer Diplomarbeit bearbeitet. Ziel dieser Studie war es, einen Überblick über die in den Niederlanden vorhandenen öffentlichen PapyrusSammlungen zu bekommen, die Schadensbilder zu bestimmen und Risikofaktoren zu benennen. Hierzu erfolgte eine Inventarisierung der in den Niederlanden vorhandenen Papyrussammlungen. Eine Enquete wurde an die Besitzer von Papyrus Sammlungen versendet. Diese stellte das Projekt vor und umfaßte Fragen zur Herkunft der Sammlung, ihrer Aufbewahrungsgeschichte, ihrem Umfang, dem jetzigen Aufbewahrungsort, dem Erhaltungszustand der Sammlung sowie der Beanspruchung durch Benutzer bzw. Ausstellungen. Bei Besuchen der Sammlungen wurden die spezifischen Schadensbilder, Montageformen und Aufbewahrungsumstände untersucht. Die Inventarisierung der Sammlungen erbrachte, dass es insgesamt 12 öffentliche Papyrussammlungen in den Niederlanden gibt. Sie befinden sich vor allem in Universitäten (8) und kleineren Museen (4). Die Beantwortung der Enquete erfolgte durch die Konservatoren. Die Sammlungen haben oft eine wechselvolle Geschichte. Sie wurden erworben durch Schenkung, Ankauf von Sammlern oder Antiquaren und bei Auktionen. Ihr Umfang variiert von Einzelobjekten (2) bis zu umfangreichen Sammlungen (5). Die meist vorkommende Art der Aufbewahrung ist die Montierung zwischen Glassplatten und Plexiglas. Die Aufbewahrungsorte der Papyri sind sehr verschieden, vom Schrank bis zu vollklimatisierten Depots ist alles vorhanden. Um einen Zusammenhang zwischen Erhaltungszustand und den derzeitigen Aufbewahrungsbedingungen zu bestimmen, wurden die Schadensbilder in zwei Kategorien eingeteilt: alte Schäden (bereits am Fundort vorliegend) und neue Schäden (später entstanden). Mit dieser Einteilung ließ sich die gewünschte Korrelation allerdings nicht finden. Auch die Einteilung in mechanische, chemische/physikalische und biologische Schäden war nicht befriedigend. Letztendlich wurden die Schäden eingeteilt in Schäden am Papyrusträger, der Tinte und an Pigmenten, sowie Schäden durch Montage. Da sich hier auch kein

M. van der Feltz, A conservation survey of papyrus collections in the Netherlands

9

eindeutiger Zusammenhang zwischen Erhaltungszustand und Aufbewahrungsumständen beweisen ließ, wurden für jede Sammlung die Hauptrisikofaktoren festgestellt z.B. Papyrus, aufgeklebt auf holz- und säurehaltige Papiere, Kupferfraß, Selbstklebebänder, Verglasung unter Luftabschluß, Erneuern von Montierungen, Ausstellungen und Vorschläge zur Risikominimierung unterbreitet. Es kann gesagt werden, dass alle öffentlichen Papyrussammlungen in den Niederlanden in einem ziemlich guten Erhaltungszustand sind. Obwohl nicht alle Sammlungen in klimatisierten Räumen aufbewahrt werden, ist dies nicht das größte Risiko. Die am häufigsten auftretenden Schäden sind mechanische, die durch die Benutzung entstehen.

Condition survey of papyri, Hermitage Museum Oriental Department St. Petersburg, Russia Leyla Lau-Lamb (Ann Arbor, Michigan) As part of the APIS project in July 2005 I was invited from the Hermitage Museum to assess the papyri collection and also given permission to go public about it. Since the Institution will also join the APIS (Advanced Papyrological Information System: http://www.lib.umich.edu/pap/) project. There will be images in the future accessible, but not at this time. After carefully assessing the collection of about 900 papyri, I recommended that all papyri require re-housing. In my opinion, all papyri need conservation treatment. Many fragments are very endangered. Papyrus treatment proposal The purpose of the proposed treatment to the papyri is to make each fragment as legible and coherent as can be practically achieved: to secure each piece so it can withstand the handling required to scan it; to remove foreign materials as much as possible: dirt, dry leaves, glassine tape, that are damaging the papyrus; and to house each piece in a manner that is secure, archivally sound, and appropriate to the anticipated use of the collection. Proposed specifications for treatment are as follow: 1. All fragments need conservation and housing treatments. 2. Fragments that are currently in damaging or unsound housing – too many fragments in one folder or in one glass – folders are too weak, not supportive and acidic – glazings closed with damaging tape, and/or tape is loose – papyri are slipping and getting damaged – different inventory numbers in one glass frame or folder, should be separated – broken glass – fragments with a thick layer of gesso from Cartonnage – papyri mounted to cardboard – papyri mounted to silk – papyri with mold?

L. Lau-Lamb, Condition survey of Papyri, Hermitage Museum

11

3. Folded parts of papyri need to be flattened, – minor flattening can be achieved by minimal local humidification (with damp brush), – major flattening can be accomplished by gently humidifying the papyrus between damp blotters, gradual manipulation of bent fibers, and drying between blotters. 4. Loose surface soil should be removed with air bulb and/or gentle brushing. The removal of surface should be approached conservatively; should be attempted anywhere soil is obscuring the text; methodology and care should place the highest priority on not removing ink. 5. Where it can be done safely, previous repairs that are damaging the piece should be removed. Techniques for removal may be ranked from the least invasive to the most risky as follows: Mechanical only, mild heat, humidity, water, organic solvent vapor, organic solvent liquid. In each case the least risky technique that accomplishes the removal should be used. In some cases the risk of removing the repair may be judged a greater danger than the harm it is creating (where the adhesive had been applied over ink, for example, or where the removal of the original repairs will reduce the piece back to incoherent fragments); in such cases the conservator should leave a potentially harmful repair undisturbed. 6. Where necessary, torn or detached fragments should be secured with methyl cellulose if possible, or 1mm segments of glassine paper with Dextrin adhesive, Japanese paper with wheat starch paste, or Japanese paper pre-prepared with carboxymethylcellulose. These bridges should be placed so as not to cover areas of ink. All the above mentioned materials can be removed, if removal is necessary in the future, with gentle humidification. 7. Fragments currently housed in acidic weak folders, but strong enough to withstand careful handling should be re-housed in folders constructed of buffered 20point board; one side of the folder will be laminated with thin, smooth, buffered blotting paper to prevent the papyrus from sliding freely if the folder is tilted. During my stay at the Hermitage, Dr. Julia Lougovaya had identified some suitable archival folder stock in a local art supply store. We identified 3 suitable folder sizes for the collection and started to prepare the folders and moving papyri into new archival folders. Folders should be grouped (max. 20) into custom built drop front boxes, or commercially bought drop-spine archival boxes. (Custom Manufacturing, Inc. MicroClimate MCI boxes, cut and scored to exact dimensions as needed, [email protected])

12

Archiv für Papyrusforschung, Beiheft 24, 2006

8. Single fragments that are currently mounted between glass can be re-housed between glass. The piece should be secured on single sheet of 4 mm glass with small (about 1mm) segments of glassine with Dextrin adhesive, or Japanese paper with wheat starch paste. These anchors must be placed so as not to cover areas of ink. A second sheet of glass should be placed over the piece and the edges bound with Filmoplast SH linen tape. Each Inventory number should have its own housing, unless the fragments belong together. The glass should be selected in one of the standard sizes recommended in my “APIS Guidelines” or custom cut to the fragment. The glass must permit at least 2.5 cm between the papyrus and all edges. If the fragment is strong and anticipated use for classes or display is low, it may be re-housed in a folder. Great thought and consideration of a variety of factors have gone into the decision to propose housing part of the collection between glass. Some pieces in this collection are large, extremely fragile, have many loose fragments, have been published and identified as especially interesting or significant, receive fairly frequent reference, are used for classes or display. These pieces need special protection against handling. The collection is, first of all, a working collection, and frequently a researcher needs unobstructed access to the original document for purposes of examination or correction. The housing must therefore be designed to permit opening and re-closing that is simple and minimally damaging. 9. Fragments mounted to cardboard and silk should be removed gently mechanically and with humidity from damaging support material if possible, and if the papyri can withstand the procedure and are strong enough not to damage any writing. Fragments should be re-housed. 10. The entire glazed collection should be re-checked for mold. Fragments infested with mold should be tested (the Hermitage Conservation lab is connected with a Conservation Science Laboratory Department). The mold infested glazed papyri should be isolated from the rest of the collection, treated according to safety regulations, fume hood and organic face masks, cleaned mechanically, or with small suction device, and then re-housed. Inventory of fragments between glass Wooden cabinet with 260 inventories numbered glazed papyri: Some observations: I have images for some inventory numbers, but not for all. Inv. No. 3479 fragments slipped 3762, 3761, 3760 mold? 3779 needs alignment of fibers, fragments

L. Lau-Lamb, Condition survey of Papyri, Hermitage Museum

3678 3781 3785 3786 3789–3792 3788 3794 3833 5418 5657 5658 5659 5662 5665 5668 8446

13329

13477 13478 13479 13481 13482 13483 13484–134866

13487 13488 13489

13

mold? mold? mounted to acidic paper mounted to cardboard many fragments slipped, damaged badly loose tape at the edges, glass is separating mold? mold? tape is loose, fragments are too close to the edge mold? Plexi, fragment mounted to acidic cardboard Plexi, fragment mounted to acidic cardboard fragments are folded 2 small fragments, need alignment mold 14 cm x 18 cm, broken glass on top and bottom each 1cm thick, fragment very much endangered, many fragments broken off, fibers delaminating, many glassine repairs, extremely dirty, fragile, brittle, needs major alignment 60 cm x 17.5 cm, large broken glass, on front and back, torn large fragments, fiber delaminating, folded fragments, tape, some fragments in cigar box many folds tape is loose, many folds 6 fragments, 2 fragments slipped tape is damaged, folds broken glass, damaged slipped fragments folds extremely endangered, mounted to cardboard, tape on edges is open and torn, and fragments slipped all over, small fragments broken off, folds with hidden text, (recommended to store this item flat, until conservation can be applied) small folds tape is detached; glass is open, dirty, sand, fiber delaminating, folds, and many paper repairs interesting cut out for exhibit reasons? needs rehousing to see the verso of the papyrus

14

Archiv für Papyrusforschung, Beiheft 24, 2006

13495 13496 13497 13498 13500

13501–13507

13508 13510–13511 13553 13638–13648

13649–13668 13683–13700 18276–18280 18281–18285 18286–18301 18349 18370 18560

housed between Vinylite, dirty, folds, (separation may involve ionizer, see APIS Guidelines tape is broken broken glass, papyrus has glass splinters, extremely endangered, folds, and smudged ink in some areas 1 large, 2 small fragments, fragments slipped, folds, needs alignment white tape is broken, glass is separating, has repairs, dirt, sand, plant debris, folds, fiber delaminating folds, fiber delaminating, needs alignment, plexi, 6 fragments, not belonging? mounted to acidic cardboard, fiber delaminating, folds ink is covered 2 fragments may belong together? acidic cardboard on the back, mounted? folds Plexi, fragments slipped mold, very badly manifested, greenish color, fragments slipped, ink is covered from mold, tape on edges is torn 27 fragments plus, fiber delaminating 31 fragments slipped all over fragments are attached to paper, fiber delaminating 5 fragments, fragments are folded, fibers delaminating, dirty 16 plus fragments, endangered glass is broken, fragments slipped and damaged, broken fragment folded dirty, 16 lines on the verso covered up Storage of the collection

Mounted papyri can be shelved vertically. Oversize papyri should be stored horizontally. Metal cabinets would be most suitable, because wooden cabinets can have off gasses, and contract moisture. Also I may have detected a major mold problem on the glazed papyri, maybe caused by the river flowing very close to the premises? The mold seemed not to be spreading; in some cases there is mold on one side of the fragment and not on the other side. Also neighboring papyri next to mold infested papyri found to be just fine.

L. Lau-Lamb, Condition survey of Papyri, Hermitage Museum

15

The environment The optimal temperature should be maintained at a constant 65F +/- 2 degrees. The optimal Humidity must be contained at a constant 35% +/- 4%. Light 1-5 Foot candles (11-55 Lux) UV content: