ONE ROLE, TWO CONTRASTING TREATMENTS: ASSESSING THE SPECIFIC NEEDS OF OBJECTS

This poster addresses some of the issues underlying the conservation of archaeological textiles, as demonstrated by two preHispanic Andean tunics one small and one large originally excavated from burial sites. Both arc woven using camelid wool, with colourful patterns achieved with natural dyes. The tunics belong to the Royal Pavilion, Art Gallery & Museums in Brighton, England, and were required for storage and display L 1]. Although the tunics came from a similar background and context their condition was different though both were creased and soiled and they appeared to present different types of evidence, requiring differing approaches to prepare them for their designated role as exhibits. The small tunic showed clear signs of use, such as holes and fragments of stitching, repairs and fibre abrasion [2]. In contrast, the large tunic showed little sign of wear but was heavily stained, probably due to bodily fluids. The conservation of archaeological objects always raises questions with regard to the preservation of historical evidence [3, 4). To what extent can any treatment envisaged to prepare an object for display be reconciled with this aim? And to what extent do the requirements of storage, study and display justify the potential loss of such evidence? In the case of these two tunics, their future role weighed heavily in the choice of treatment. The preservation of archaeological evidence was not considered a priority according to the client; but, since the tunics did not appear to have undergone previous treatment, creasing and soiling could represent historical evidence of use, burial practices or even genetic material, although some creasing and soiling might equally be the result of subsequent storage or handling. Surface cleaning was carried out on both tunics to remove loose particulate soiling, which can be dislodged and cause abrasion to the fibres. This soil was collected and retained, since it can be used for future analysis. The small tunic, which was in a less fragile condition but distorted, received extensive treatment in preparation for proposed vertical (hanging) display. It was prepared for wet cleaning by sandwiching the fragile areas between net and preserving the stitching holes by the temporary insertion of a polyester thread. Synperonic Nand carboxymethylcellulose sodium salt were used in the washing formulation, with the addition of trisodium citrate and citric acid to enhance the process [5-8]. Semi-transparent stitched support patches were applied to the fragile areas to reduce the risk of future damage and to stabilize them for display, keeping both sides accessible to view for study. The large missing areas were supported on a cotton fabric, not only for visual purposes but also to add extra strength [9]. The tunic was mounted on a purpose-made, clothcovered pad support, suitable for both storage and vertical display. This was achieved by leaving tile shoulder area of the pad hollow inside, allowing the insertion of a tubular display support. The large tunic underwent less treatment, as it was judged too fragile for vertical (hanging) display. It was humidified to relax the folds and creases, reducing the risk of future damage such as the breakage of fibres, and to allow safe support for storage and display. It was supported on a custom-made pad. The most fragile side was covered with a semi-transparent fabric (nylon net) which was then attached to the support pad. Stitching was applied around the edges of missing· areas and through the weaving slits, avoiding the tunic itself. Strips affixed to the pad were then used to attach the tunic to a padded board. This alternative and comparatively less interventionist method allows the object to be supported without requiring the removal of creases and soiling. The conservation of these two tunics presented an opportunity to explore the practical issues relating to the preservation of historical evidence in archaeological objects. In the case of the large tunic, most such evidence appears to have been preserved by the comparatively limited treatment. Although some evidence particularly soiling was lost with the more extensive treatment of the small tunic, much was preserved through the storage of samples, representing a compromise solution. Four factors were identified for consideration when determining the most appropriate choice of treatment: the nature of the object L 10), the condition of the object, the role of the object, and practical constraints. Ideally, a balance is achieved between all four factors, but this is not always possible from a practical standpoint: sometimes one factor will outweigh the rest. When taking these factors into account, the conservator should maintain an open mind regarding materials and treatments, since no single approach can adequately meet the needs of every object in every situation. Luciana da Silveira is a textile conservator, Rua Belizario Tavora 467, Apto. 210, Rio de Janeiro, RJ 22245-070, Brasil.