VVAA. Mosaic. Conservation Newsletter GCI. 2006

8/3/2019 VVAA. Mosaic. Conservation Newsletter GCI. 2006

1/32

Conservat ion

The Getty Conservation Institute


2/32

TheJ.PaulGettyTrust

DeborahMarrow Interim President and Chie Executive Ofcer

TheGettyConservationInstitute

TimothyP.Whalen Director

JeanneMarieTeutonico Associate Director, Programs

KathleenGaines Assistant Director, Administration

KristinKelly Assistant Director, Dissemination and Research Resources

GiacomoChiari Chie Scientist

FranoisLeBlanc Head o Field Projects

Conservation, The Getty C onservation Institute Newsletter

JereyLevin Editor

AngelaEscobar Assistant Editor

JoeMolloy Graphic Designer

ColorWestLithographyInc. Lithography

The Getty Conservation Institute (GCI) works internationally to advance

the feld o conservation through scientifc research, feld projects,

education and training, and the dissemination o inormation in

various media. In its programs, the GCI ocuses on the creation and

delivery o knowledge that will beneft the proessionals and organiza-

tions responsible or the conservation o the visual arts.

The GCI is a program o the J. Paul Getty Trust, an international cultural

and philanthropic institution devoted to the visual arts that also

includes the J. Paul Getty Museum, the Getty R esearch Institute, and

the Getty Foundation.

Conservation, The Getty Conservation Institute Newsletter,

is distributed ree o charge three times per year, to proessionals

in conservation and related felds and to members o the public

concerned about conservation. Back issues o the newsletter,

as well as additional inormation regarding the activities o the GCI,

can be ound in the Conservation section o the Gettys Web site.

www.getty.edu

The Getty Conservation Institute

1200 Getty Center Drive, Suite 700

Los Angeles, CA 90049-1684 USATel 310 440 7325

Fax 310 440 7702

2006J.PaulGettyTrust

The GettyConservationInstituteNewsletter

Volume 21, Number 1, 2006

Front cover:Detailoaourth-centuryRomanmosaic,oneoseveraloundintheHouseotheNymphsatNeapolis,nowmodernNabeulinTunisia.ThemosaicdepictsasceneromthestoryotheTrojanWar:Chryses,apriestoApollo,iskneelinginrontoKingAgamemnon,askingthatthekingreleasehiscaptivedaughter,Chryseis.ThemosaicispresentlyhousedintheRegionalArchaeologicalMuseumoNabeul.Photo:BruceWhite.


3/32

C

o

nt

ent

sFeature 4 Mosaic Conservation Fity Years o Modern Practice

ByGaldeGuichenandRobertoNardi

The philosophy and approach to the conservation o mosaics underwent signicant change

in the postWorld War ii period, a transormation that is still under way. Where once

mosaics were routinely removed rom archaeological sites, now the trend is to conserve

them in situ when possible.

Dialogue 9 A Need for Strategy A Discussion about Conserving Mosaics in the Arab World

Amr al-Azm o Damascus University, Acha Ben Abed o the Institut National du

Patrimoine o Tunisia, and Isabelle Ska, a private conservator currently consulting or

Lebanons Direction Gnrale des Antiquits, talk with Martha Demas and JeVrey Levin

o the Getty Conservation Institute.

Newsin 16 Assessing the Protective Function of Shelters over Mosaics

Conservation ByJohnD.Stewart,JacquesNeguer,andMarthaDemas

Over the last two years, English Heritage, the Israel Antiquities Authority, and the Getty

Conservation Institute have been pursuing research into the eYcacy o shelters in

protecting in situ mosaics.

20 Lessons Learned A Report on the 2005 ICCM Conerence

ByThomasRoby

In November 2005 in Tunisia, the International Committee or the Conservation

o Mosaics (iccm) held its ninth conerence, which explored what has been accomplished

in the almost thirty years since the iccms ounding. The conerence also drew some

conclusions about where the mosaic conservation eld needs to go.

GCINews 25 Projects, Events, and Publications

Updates on Getty Conservation Institute projects, events, publications, and staV.


4/32

Conservation, The GCI Newsletter l Volume 21 , Number 12006l Feature

TheancientRomansiteoThuburboMajusinTunisia,withoormosaicsinsitu.SeenhereistheperistyleotheHouseoNeptune.Photo:ElsaBourguignon.

VisitorsadmiringtheGreatHuntmosaicattheVillaRomanadelCasaleinPiazzaArmerina,Sicily.Thesitesextraordinarymosaics,whichdecoratealmosteveryroom,wereconservedinsituwhenmajorexcavationwascom-pletedatthesiteinthelate1950sanunusualpracticeatthetime.Photo:GuillermoAldana.


5/32

Ithere Cesare Brandi introduced the solution o conserving thevillas remarkable mosaics in situand protecting the entire site.

In the 1960s, a dramatic evolution in mosaic conservation

began. Two important proessional gures came to prominence

in this decade: Rol Wihr in Cologne, Germany, and Claude Bassier

in Prigueux, France. Wihr was a conservator-restorer, working at

the Rheinisches Landesmuseum in Trier. Bassier, in private practice,

was called in on rescue excavations when mosaics were discovered.

He was able to arrive within two dayswith trucks, a crate, and

a tent with heating systemsready to work, even in the middle

o winter. In their work, both Wihr and Bassier introduced newapproaches, which included systematic documentation, new

supports (honeycomb aluminum instead o concrete), and new

adhesives (resins instead o glues and cement). They also continued

the established practice o polishing the mosaic suraces.

A third signicant gure who advanced the eld technologi-

cally at an early date was Antonio Cassio o the Istituto Centrale

per il Restauro in Rome. Cassioa mosaicist rom a amily o

mosaicistspreerred a more sensitive and controlled method or

detaching mosaics. He used a system typical o mosaic making

itsel, which permitted the detachment o mosaics in pieces averag-ing twenty-ve square centimeters. This method substantially

reduced cutting stressesand thereore reduced damage to mosaics

being lited.

In the late 1960s, again in Italy, a diVerent eldmural

paintingwas undergoing a theoretical and practical reevaluation,

which would subsequently have a direct and important impact on

mosaic conservation. In 1968iccrom (International Centre or the

Study o the Preservation and Restoration o Cultural Property)

joined with the Istituto Centrale per il Restauro to initiate an annual

our-month course on the conservation o wall paintings. Initially

In some sense, mosaic conservation is a practice as old as themaking o mosaics themselves. Today one can still nd ancient

mosaics with patches that were made as part o maintenance when

the foors were still in use. In more recent centuries, restoration was

widely practiced on objects o antiquity, including mosaics. And

rom the rst decades o the twentieth century, we have ne exam-

ples o restorations.

Prior to the mid-twentieth century, discoveries o mosaics

happened mainly during archaeological excavation o known sites.

The postwar period in Europe was a time o tremendous construc-

tion and reconstruction, and discoveries o mosaics occurred morerequently throughout the continent. That does not mean these arti-

acts were ultimately preserved. According to a 1971 study made by

Claude Bassier, a French engineer, o660 pavements ound in

France and published by archaeologists, at least 92 percent were

abandoned, destroyed, or lost. The remaining oneswhen the sub-

jects were gurative and considered valuablewere, according to

the traditional techniques o the time, systematically removed rom

archaeological sites. Some were re-laid on concrete slabs, while

others were abandoned in storage, where many remain today.

In the early postwar period, strategies or mosaic conservationwere very limiteddetachment was the primary option available.

Interventions were typically undertaken without adequate planning

and with a workorce that consisted mainly o artisans, crats-

persons, or carpenters. Conservation practice was based solely on

empirical knowledge, and the materials used by practitioners were

limited to cement, gypsum, and glues. In addition, documentation

was lacking. Practitioners worked in isolation, without the benet

o proessional associations. An exception to the typical treatment

o excavated mosaics was the completion o the excavation o the

Villa Romana del Casale in Piazza Armerina, Sicily, in the late 1950s;

Conservation, The GCI Newsletter l Volume 21 , Number 1 2006l Feature 5

Theollowingwasadaptedromthekeynoteaddressdeliveredattheninthconerence

otheInternationalCommitteeortheConservationoMosaics,whichtookplace

inNovember2005inTunisia.Thepresentationexploredthethemeotheconerence,

LessonsLearned,lookingbackonthehistoryandpracticeomosaicconservation

andthephilosophythathasguidedit.

MOSAIC CONSERVATION

FIFTYYEARS

OFMODERNPRACTICE ByGaldeGuichenandRobertoNardi


6/32

the highlight o the course was the detachment o a wall painting,

but very quickly, in situ consolidation was embraced as a more

appropriate method, as wall paintings came to be considered an

integral part o the buildings to which they belonged. This evolu-

tion in wall paintings conservation led to the publication in 1977 o

Conservation oWall Paintings by Paolo Mora, Laura Mora, and Paul

Philippot, still a undamental book or the proession.

Establishing the ICCM

All this was in the air in 1977 when the rst meeting on mosaic

conservationwith orty-ve participantswas organized in

Rome. At the end o this conerence, ten o the participants decided

to create the International Committee or the Conservation o

Mosaics (iccm) and to act as its rst board. The publication o the

proceedings o the meeting was calledMosaic No. 1: Deterioration

and Conservation, and it was addressed to conservator-restorers,

archaeologists, technicians, administrators, and the public. Another

important result o the meeting was a recommendation to launch

a course on mosaic conservation.

The 1977 meeting in Rome was the starting point or a series

o regular conerences. The ollowing year, the Institut National

du Patrimoine in Tunisia hosted the second conerence and went on

to host subsequent meetings o the iccm board. Other iccm coner-

ences ollowed. The latest conerence, the ninth, took place in

Hammamet, Tunisia, in 2005 (see p. 20). Following each o these

meetings, the proceedings were published. In addition to the

proceedings, twelve newsletters have also been published. These

materials represent or the proession a basic source o inormation

that did not exist ty years ago.

The evolution in the thinking o the iccmand, indirectly,

the trend in its proessional principlesis refected in the themes o

each o those conerences (see sidebar). It is evident rom looking at

those themes that by 1983 the iccm was pointing out the importance

o in situ conservation and encouraging its use whenever possible.

In this way, it mirrored an evolution already ollowed by wall paint-

ings specialists.

Another principle that the iccm has come to strongly support

is the rejection o the use o cement in the conservation and restora-

tion o mosaics. It had been clear or some time that the use o

cement in the conservation o ancient monuments risked an expan-

sion o damage. In response, Italian conservation scientist Giorgio

Torraca launched research in 1980 to replace cement with, paradoxi-

cally, one o the oldest construction materials knownlime-based

mortar. However, even within the iccm, it required almost ten years

o heated debate beore lime-based mortars were generally accepted

and beore they replaced cement applied in direct contact to mosaics.

The use o lime-based mortars has allowed the development o in

situ consolidation and urthered the practice o maintenance in situ

when possible. (Unortunately, despite the abundant evidence o

destruction caused by cement in conservation interventions, this

material is still used on mosaicsand worse, its use is still occasion-

ally taught as a technique in some countries.)

One other important advance that can be credited to

discussion and refection during several iccm conerences was the

acceptance by conservation practitioners o a planned approach to

saeguarding mosaic foors. In 1996 a question-driven fowchart

was developed to help practitioners determine which o several

options would be most appropriate to a particular context and set

o problems. The questions related to risk, visitation, signicance,

available resources, and archaeological investigation, and they led to

6 Conservation, The GCI Newsletter l Volume 21 , Number 12006l Feature

TechniciansstabilizingamosaicpavementwithlimemortaratthesiteoThuburboMajus,Tunisia.Trainingtechniciansinthecareandmaintenanceoinsitumosa-icsenhancestheabilityoculturalauthoritiestopre-servemosaicheritage. Photo:KristinKelly.

Mosaicslitedromtheiroriginalsitesandplacedinstorage.Thereisanurgentneedtoproperlyconservethenumerousmosaicsre-laidonconcreteorconsignedtostor-age.Photo:GaetanoPalumbo.


7/32

consideration o a range o options, including backlling, liting and

transerring to a museum, liting and re-laying in situ, and consoli-

dation in situ.

The previous standard practice o leaving a mosaic on site

without protectionor o liting the pavement and abandoning it

in storagewas clearly the result o a lack o planning, as well as

demonstrative o the attitude o some archaeologists, insensitive to

conservation, who elt that their work ended the day they published

their ndings. A systematic analysis o practical conditions can help

determine diVerent and more appropriate approaches or dealing

with an excavated mosaic. With any o these options, serious plan-

ning beore implementation is required.

Ater the three iccm conerences dedicated to in situ conserva-

tion, the our subsequent conerences reerenced in their titles the

issues o public presentation o mosaics. As early as 1977 it was

suggested inMosaic No. 1 to involve the public so that specialists

responsible or conservation receive support rom individuals. It is

the public, ater all, that benets and is served by the world-wide

conservation movement. This statement established in the mosaic

conservation eld the recognition that an objective o the conserva-

tion proession is to present and to interpret or the public the

cultural properties that we are engaged in conserving.

In order to infuence the actual practice o mosaic conserva-

tion, these new ideas and approaches required adequate training at

all levels. Yet the development o training did not happen quickly.

Twelve years passed ater the 1977 recommendation or training

beore the rst course or decision makers was initiated. The one-

month courseorganized by iccrom in 1989 in Romewas

attended primarily by archaeologists. Today some o the partici-

pants o that early course are members o the iccm board.

Conservation, The GCI Newsletter l Volume 21 , Number 1 2006l Feature

AviewosomeothemosaicsinsituandvisitorwalkwaysatthesiteoPaphos,Cyprus.Today,mosaicconservationisnotlimitedtosmallexcavatedareasortoworksinmuseumsbutincludesentirearchitec-turalcomplexesorsiteswiththousandsosquaremetersomosaics.Photo:MarthaDemas.

DetailoamosaicpavementadjacenttoanirrigatedgardenatasiteinIsraelinthelate1990s.Furtherresearchontheprotectionoinsitumosaicsisnecessaryortheirlong-termpreservationandpresentation.Photo:FrancescaPiqu.


8/32

Unlike three decades ago, the scope o mosaic conservation is

no longer restricted to a ew square meters o tesserae recently exca-

vated or on exhibit in a museum. Today it has expanded to include

entire architectural complexes or sites where thousands o square

meters o mosaics are in danger. And today the conservator is joined

by other proessional gures in the eld o conservation in address-

ing the problems o mosaic conservation. Among them are conser-

vation scientists who share an interest in nding solutions to mosaic

conservation globallyand not simply through the lens o a micro-

scope. The act that 250 colleagues rom thirty countriesand with

many diVerent backgroundsattended the ninth iccm conerence

indicates that common problems exist and that the interest to solve

them collectively is very high.

At the same time it is evident that there are still issues that

have not been resolved, and a great deal o work remains to be done.

There is an urgent need to properly conserve and store hundreds,

i not thousands, o mosaics previously re-laid on reinorced con-

crete or abandoned in storage. Reburial o mosaics is an importanttool or preserving mosaics, but it requires clear protocols and

a technical and nancial assessment. Further research on the

protection o mosaics rom biological growth would contribute

to mitigating a widespread problem conronting the preservation

and presentation o mosaics. Studies o the cost o maintenance

o mosaics in situ are needed to help promote this approach.

Assessments o training needs or archaeologists, conservator-

restorers, and technicians are essential to ensuring long-term

protection o mosaics. And nally, the publication o a major book

on the conservation and restoration o mosaics is long overdue.The above issues are only some o the challenges aced by the

proessionals charged with the responsibility or conserving and

exhibiting mosaics. There is still a long way to go. Nevertheless,

it is realistic to look to the uture with a eeling o optimism.

With the help o the iccm, the great vitality demonstrated by the

proession has resulted in standards o mosaic conservation practice

today that appeared almost unreachable thirty years ago. Much has

been accomplished, and those accomplishments orm an essential

oundation or the work that lies ahead.

Gal de Guichen is honorary president o the ICCM and ormer program director and

assistant to the director general at ICCROM. Roberto Nardi is vice president o the

ICCM and the ounder o the Centro di Conservazione Archeologica in Italy, a private

company working in the feld o conservation o archaeological sites and monuments.

Conservation, The GCI Newsletter l Volume 21 , Number 12006l Feature

Since that time, several courses at various levels have been

and continue to beorganized. While this activity is generally

welcome, certain doubts exist regarding their eYcacy. Some o these

sessions are too shortlasting a ew weeks at mostor the trainers

lack the teaching abilities required. In some instances, the produc-

tion o new mosaics is taught at the same time as conservation

techniquesa questionable pairing.

An example o training appropriately adapted to the challenge

aced is the technician training program launched by the gci and

Tunisias Institut National du Patrimoine in 1998 (see Conservation,

vol. 17, no. 1). This long-term involvement in training technicians

in the care and maintenance o in situ archaeological mosaics is

attempting to enhance the ability o cultural authorities in Tunisia

to preserve the wealth o mosaic heritage ound in that country.

A Maturing of the Profession

For the mosaic conservation eld, the last ty years constitute

a period o great change and maturation. The creation and

development o the iccm have advanced the work begun by the

Association Internationale pour lEtude de la Mosaque Antique

(aiema) and later developed by the Association or the Study and

Preservation o Roman Mosaics (asprom) in Great Britain and the

Associazione Italiana per lo Studio e la Conservazione del Mosaico

(aiscom) in Italy.

ConerencesotheICCM

Rome, Italy 1977 Deterioration and Conservation

Tunis and Carthage, Tunisia 1978 Saeguard

Aquileia, Italy 1983 Conservation In Situ

Soria, Spain 1986 Conservation In Situ

Palencia, Spain 1989 Conservation In Situ

Faro and Conimbriga, Portugal 1992 Conservation, Protection, Presentation

Nicosia, Cyprus 1996 Mosaics Make a Site: The Conservation

In Situ o Mosaics on Archaeological Sites

Saint-Romain-en-Gal

and Arles, France 1999 Mosaics: Conserve to Display?

Thessalonki, Greece 2002 Wall and Floor Mosaics: Conservation,

Maintenance, and Presentation

Hammamet, Tunisia 2005 Lessons Learned: Refecting on the Theory

and Practice o Mosaic Conservation


9/32

ANEEDFORSTRATEGY

ADISCUSSIONABOUT

CONSERVINGMOSAICS INTHEARABWORLD

Conservation, The GCI Newsletterl Volume 21 , Number 1 2006l Dialogue 9

JereyLevin:Lets start with the ways that the conservation o

mosaics has evolved in the Mediterranean world over the last ten

to teen years. How would each oyou characterize the changes,

iany?

Amral-Azm:When I took over the conservation and science labs in

Syria, the standard practice or mosaic conservation in Syria was

basically removal. Once the mosaic was removed, it was laid onto

a metal rame with reinorced concrete. You can imagine what a vol-

atile mix that is in terms o mosaic conservation. Oten these pieces

would then be put on display either within museums or outside,

exposed to the rain and other weather processes. Since the year 2000,

Ive banned the use o that technique all over Syria. There is no

more pouring o concrete, and weve now moved on to lightweight

rames, including Aerolam [honeycomb aluminum panels].

Although we have also experimented with cheaper options, none

o our experiments has really provided us with a viable alternative.

I would say that at the moment in storage, awaiting conservation,

are probably about three thousand square meters o mosaics.

MarthaDemas:Amr, youve stopped the policy ore-laying on

cement, but are you still liting mosaics rom their original

contexts?

al-Azm: Yes, we are. The reason or removal is another issue that we

have to deal with. In situ conservation requires not only the Depart-

ment o Antiquities saying, were not going to remove it, but also

coordination with the archaeologists who are uncovering these

mosaics, ensuring that they have suYcient unds to pay or it. You

have to deal with the bureaucracy that has to und employment or

people to protect these mosaics once theyre exposed. There are reg-

ulations preventing an increase in the number o employees within

the public sector. So what choice do I have but to remove? At least

once a mosaics been removed, we can start to provide decent care

or it, rather than allow it to deteriorate in poor storage conditions or

create new problems or it once its been laid on concrete.

How has the conservation omosaics evolved in the Arab

region othe Mediterranean world in recent years? What

are the challenges that these countries conront in develop-

ing strategies to preserve mosaics?Conservationspoke with

three specialists in the eld who have devoted much o theirproessional eVorts to the preservation omosaics.

Amr al-Azm is the ormer director oconservation or the

Directorate General or Antiquities and Museums in Syria.

An archaeologist by training, he is the current head othe

Centre or Archaeological Research and Scientic Labora-

tories at Damascus University.

Acha Ben Abedis director omonuments and sites at the

Institut National du Patrimoine (INP) oTunisia. Former

director othe Bardo Museum in Tunis and curator oseveral international exhibitions, she has managed or the

INP the collaborative project with the GCI to train techni-

cians in the maintenance omosaics in situ. She is the

author oa number opublications on Tunisian mosaics.

Isabelle Ska, a conservator in private practice in Beirut,

is the ormer head othe Conservation Laboratory at the

National Museum oLebanon, where she carried out

recovery operations or the museums collections ollowing

the countrys civil war. She is currently working on archaeo-

logical sites and coordinating conservation projects or

Lebanons Direction Gnrale des Antiquits.

They spoke withMartha Demas, a senior project specialist

with GCI Field Projects, andJerey Levin, editor o

Conservation, The GCI Newsletter.


10/32

IsabelleSka:In Lebanon, we inherited the 1950s and 1960s practice

o re-laying mosaics on cement. Many o these re-laid pavements

were moved because their original discovery site was destroyed.

Others, however, remained on their unaVected original site. The

period o the last ten or teen years since the civil war, with inten-

sive reconstruction work done under pressure rom developers, has

consisted largely o emergency excavationespecially in Beirut.

Unortunately, most o the mosaics discovered throughout this

period were removed and stored with little conservation treatment.

The Department o Antiquities now aces the dilemma o what to

do with all these mosaics. In act, the problem is twooldthe older,

cement-backed mosaics and the more recently detached and inad-

equately conserved mosaics.

Demas: You dont see an evolution toward a more acceptable

solution or mosaics?

Ska: People realize that cement is not a viable option anymore,

which is a step orward. Mosaics are systematically lited when a siteis going to be destroyed. To date, there has been no discussion on

a strategy to tackle this problem diVerently in the long term.

AchaBenAbed: The Tunisian experience is a little bit diVerent

rom the others. In the late 1970s and the beginning o the 1980s,

we worked on mosaics in situa Tunisian and American team

with Margaret Alexander, who was president o the iccm

[International Committee or the Conservation o Mosaics] at that

time. We werent happy with what we had been doingliting

mosaics or just cleaning them, taking notes, and documenting them

or the books. We started being sensitive to the disintegration o the

mosaics. Many times we studied one pavement, and when we came

back the next year, nothing was let.

In 1993 I was invited by the gci to join their course in Cyprus

on the conservation o excavated sites, and then I personally started

to realize how important it was to keep mosaics in situ. We started

this process being araid o the idea o liting the mosaics. And then

we decided to start training technicians, because we dont have any

mosaic conservators here in Tunisia. We have conservators, but they

mainly specialize in museum objects. With the Getty, we started to

think in terms o having a training orce or maintenance. We had

eight people in the rst group, and were now working with the third

group. We still have lots o problems, but when I compare what we

have here to what I see elsewhere, Im happy with what we did.

I think the solution can be adapted to what I see in other Arab coun-

tries. This problem o hiring peoplein Tunisia we had the same

problem. We could not hire any new technicians, so we had to deal

with what we hadworkmen or young people, with a minimum

o education. We have tried to adapt the whole process o training

to this prole.

Levin: Does that mean that you rarely do detachment at this point

in time?

BenAbed: Weve had this campaign with all o my colleagues

telling them that i they start doing any detachment or liting,

the whole international community is going to be against us! Still,

with some emergency excavation, we dont have any choice and

we have to detach.

al-Azm: Acha, I understand what you said, and thats all really won-

derul. But who pays or in situ preservation? The Tunisian govern-

ment? Or have you managed to get oreign excavators working in

Tunisia to pay or it?

BenAbed: We have bilateral missions but we do not have so many

maybe less than ten. Its the Tunisian government that pays or the

conservation and maintenance. We include it in the budget. Thats

what Im doing now. I get some money and I put a certain amount

o that money into conservation.

al-Azm: Its wonderul that you have the budget rom the Tunisian

government to do that. One o our problems is long-term sustain-

ability. You might have a site o150 hectares, a site like Apamea,

where you cant have just one or two guards. You need a small army

o peopleespecially i you have mosaics there. So you have to

change peoples perception about why they need to keep these

mosaics in situ and not steal them. I the local population is involvedin the care and maintenance o these mosaics, and through develop-

ment programs they eel the nancial benets o having these mosa-

ics, then they will become guardians o the site. Instead o having to

hire a hundred guards, you have a local community o maybe a thou-

sand who will volunteer to do this. Its a long-term thing, because it

will take a long time or these communities to begin to understand.

In the short term, I need to get oreign missions to start putting

aside parts o their budgets to pay or the in situ preservation, which

they dont do now.

10 Conservation, The GCI Newsletter l Volume 21 , Number 12006l Dialogue


11/32

BenAbed: But what about when they leave? The problem is then you

have to pay rom your side. Let me say something about my experi-

ence. Ater some contact with conservators, I came to this idea that

I dont need just guardsI need people working on mosaics. And

once they are on the site and working, o course they will guard it.I dont see the point o having someone standing or hours without

doing anything. So we took some o these people who had been hired

to be guards and we trained them or conservation maintenance.

Ska: In Lebanon, all archaeological assets are government property.

However, the relevant public authorities do not have the nancial or

human resources to deal with the huge conservation problems that

ace the countrys cultural heritage. Ideally these responsibilities

would be shared between them and other local organizations, such

as local municipalities and nongovernmental associations. However,

or reasons pertaining to the legalities involved in ownership, they

are reluctant to do so. One approach would be to develop new part-

nership policies in which public authorities share nancial responsi-

bility, within a legal ramework, with these other organizations.

BenAbed:I dont agree with you. I think we are mixing two things.

Heritageand its the case everywhere, as ar as I knowshould be

the responsibility o the government. I dont think individual or

private groups can really take care o the heritage. They will not give

money because they think the heritage is something goodthey will

give money to get something in return. It should be under the con-trol o the government. What is important is to get more expertise

rom outside the government. Push people to be trained in the area

o heritage. But I dont think that responsibility or the heritage

should be given to anyone else.

Ska: I didnt say given. I said shared.

al-Azm:The idea o sharing or not sharing is critical. But its not just

about sharing in the sense o, we can get an NGO in or only the

government can deal with the problem. Its an issue o strategy.

This is the core o the problem, at least in Syria. We have a very, very

rich archaeological heritage. And we have more and more joint

or bilateral, as you saidexcavations coming in. Sites are being

opened up and materials are being brought to light. But while its

good to have great discoveries, its a problem i you dont put inplace a strategywhich is what the government has to do. In the old

days, you brought all sorts o stuVout and then cherry-picked the

bits you wanted and you threw away the rest. There was no such

thing as cultural heritage management. Today this is unacceptable.

There has to be a coherent strategy. And only the government is

going to be able to do thatimpose rules and conditions. I you

excavate a site and you nd a mosaic, youre going to have to nd the

money to pay or the maintenance o this mosaic. And this is what

we have been pushing or in Syria. Otherwise, we might as well leave

the stuVin the ground.

Demas: What do you think is the main motivating actor or all

othis excavation? Is it really research oriented, or is it oriented

toward exposing sites or tourism?

al-Azm: The driving orce in Syriaapart rom rescue excavations

where you build a road, or something like thatis that every aca-

demic institution wants a piece o the pie. We give out more permits

or excavations than we can manage in terms o the amount o mate-

rial. There are hundreds o mosaics coming out o the ground, and

there has to be a strategy or handling this material. We need tomake sure we have enough storerooms to store the stuVcoming out.

We have to make sure theres nancing available or protecting the

structures that are being excavated that we wish to preserve.

We have to make sure that there is money, personnel, and support

or mosaic foors that are going to come out. Are we going to build

a shelter over them? Are we going to remove them? Are we going

to preserve them in situ? I we preserve them in situ, who is going

to do the preservation? Do we have enough trained staVto do this?

Beore we go out and open up new sites in the name o new

Photo:CourtesyAmral-Azm

Conservation, The GCI Newsletterl Volume21 , Number 1 2006 l Dialogue 11

I the local population is involved

in the care and maintenance o these mosaics,

and through development programs

they eel the fnancial benefts o having these mosaics,

then they will become guardians o the site.Amr al-Azm


12/32

discoveries, lets clear up the mess we have. And i we are going to

open up new sites, maybe we should think about sites that will have

some sort o return in terms o tourism.

Ska: This would be in an ideal situation. However, departments

o antiquities come under a great deal o pressure to grant excava-

tion rights to various universities and research institutions.

Although these can be limited by the department in terms o num-

ber and/or time, the complexity o problems involvedadministra-

tive and nancialhampers long-term conservation decisions.

BenAbed: For Tunisia, the process started maybe ten or teen years

ago, when we decided to come down on this business o excavation.

Except or emergency excavation, you should have only two or three

excavations, maximum. We have lots o students, but we just give

them already excavated study materials. Nobody is complainingabout this.

al-Azm: We have 130 oreign excavations working here every year.

Ska: Lebanon currently has only ten or twelve ongoing excavations.

Emergency excavations are a diVerent problem. I dont think stop-

ping excavations is viable. One could suspend them or one or two

years, but not indenitely. Long-term solutions or the conservation

o archaeological sites, and most particularly or the conservation

o mosaics, must be ound.

BenAbed: Isabelle, what i you limited excavations to one or two

a year, and not ten or twelve?

Ska: Excavations are already limited in Lebanon. You need, how-

ever, to establish a conservation strategy, whether you have excava-

tions or not.

Levin: Isabelle, with regard to nonemergency excavations in

Lebanon, is there any sort orequirement that excavation teams

have some strategy and some resources set aside or long-term

maintenance othe sites?

Ska: No. This is why I mention the idea o sharing responsibility.

At the moment, the current pattern is that archaeological teams

undertake the excavation, and once the dig comes to an end the

Department o Antiquities resumes ull responsibility or the sites.

Unortunately, due to a lack o unds, they are not always able tomaintain them. Reburial options are being considered now in order

to reduce maintenance costs.

Demas: What are the main impediments to achieving that type

ostrategy at a nationwide level?

al-Azm: In Syria weve already started doing it. When a lot o excava-

tors reapply or their permit, they are told, no, you cannot continue

until you restore what youve already excavated. This policy, which

has been coming in over the last six or seven years, has caused a lot

o riction between the archaeological missions and the dgam[Directorate General or Antiquities and Museums]. Its been

a struggle orcing heads o excavations to nd additional unds and

resources to maintain the structures that they have excavated.

The problem with mosaics is that they are more intensive in terms

o the attention required, because youre preserving an object in situ.

Demas: Its one thing to have a policy or oreign excavations, but

what about a policy or decision making about what we excavate

and how we care or the mosaics that we already have? Where do

you see the impediments o implementing that kind opolicy?

BenAbed: For many years, in the agreements that were signed

between the National Tunisian Institute o Archaeology and oreign

universities, we had a provision saying that some o the budget

should be given to restoration. And some o these teams did great

jobs. But what happened is people would leave ater ve, ten, or

teen years, and we didnt have anyone in the country that could do

the conservation. Thats why we decided to ace the problem and

make the business o conservation our problem. We still now ask

that a third, I think, o the budget o the oreign excavation team

Long-term solutionsor the conservation o archaeological sites,

and most particularlyor the conservation o mosaics,

must be ound. Isabelle SkafPhoto:CourtesyIsabelleSkaf



13/32

should be dedicated to conservation and restoration. But we had

to be able to take over with conservation and maintenance. That is

one o the main problems. You have to think about whats ater the

excavation.

Demas: Thats what I was interested in getting at. What happens

in the longer term? Its a sustainability question.

Ska: In Lebanon, the reason there is no strategy is that you dont

have the tools to implement it. Obsolete 1933 legislation dating back

to the French Mandate, combined with inherited administrative

procedures instituted under the Ottomans, make or a poor environ-

ment in which to encourage better managerial know-how. On top

o all this is a lack o unds. It can be quite discouraging and rus-

trating trying to move orward in an environment so complicated

and diYcult.

al-Azm: Pretty much the same would apply here, but I would add the

lack o trained personnel. What trained personnel we have are too

ew, and quite oten their training tends to be incomplete. When

I think o well-trained personnel, I think o someone like Isabelle,

who studied in an academic school or conservation. We dont have

that yet, but the decision makers in Syria have come to realize that

this is a problem, and they are now sending out graduatestwenty

to thirty graduates at last countto get this kind o education.

It will take them three to our years o study, and then they will

come back and hopeully begin to implement these practices.

Demas: Both Amr and Isabelle have mentioned the need or train-

ing, and Acha has talked about the importance otraining in

Tunisias strategy. Where would each oyou see the priorities in

training in your countries or mosaic conservation?

Ska: We need to train at all levels. We need to train conservators, we

need to train technicians, and we even need administrative training.

Trained technicians cannot unction without the logistics o a well-

organized environment. A holistic approach to the problem rather

than a single-aspect solution would be the most eVective option.

BenAbed: Thats or sure. But who is going to do this? Do you think

its the agency or the head o whatever institution you have?

Ska: The situations in Tunisia and in Lebanon are very diVerent.

In Tunisia, a well-established government administration has pro-

vided good results. As Ive said, Lebanese authorities dont have the

unding, and the preservation o the countrys cultural heritage is

not a top priority. An awareness campaign involving the public,

ngos, and the press could be a good place to start, in parallel with

the training o technicians. Because the private sector is very strong

and dynamic in Lebanon, it could play a positive role in partnership

with the government, and without many o its restraints.

Demas: Is the situation also dierent in terms opolitics? Is a

peaceul political context important or being able to implement

these strategies?

Ska: Its very important. Certainly the country has suVered rom

political uncertainty in recent years, urther relocating cultural heri-

tage to the bottom o government priorities.

al-Azm: In Syria we have winds o change blowing, with the uncer-

tainties that winds o change bring. But they also bring new oppor-

tunities, because we are now being encouraged to change the ways

we do things. Although Im not part o the decision-making process

anymore, I have colleagues who are, and I know or a act that they

are being asked to look at logistical changes, administrative changes,

and changes in the ways things are generally done. With the existing

sets o laws and administrative hierarchies, its going to be diYcult.

But i people are willing to make changes at all these diVerent levels,

and i, as Isabelle said, we take a holistic view, then I think we have

a chance o improving. Its not just about training people.

We are training a lot o people at the moment. The Italian gov-

ernment, or example, has just given Syria something like 12.2 mil-

lion euros or cultural heritage-based projects, and a sizable chunk

o that is or mosaics. Were setting up a new mosaic workshop and

training twenty mosaic conservators and technicians over a two-year

program. Theyre not going to come out being ully fedged experts,

but theyre going to get intensive training in how to conserve mosa-

ics and stone. At the same time, once these people are trained, they

have to be allowed to implement their training and use the new

materials that theyve learned about.

Demas: And, ocourse, they have to be hired aterward. You need

that commitment rom the government.

al-Azm: The Italians gave the money on the condition that they are

hired at the end o it. There is that kind o commitment.



14/32

Demas: What about tourism as a actor in motivating governments

to preserve sites or the public?

Ska: In Lebanon, tourism is a great motivator. The problem is that

the organizations responsible or promoting tourism are in competi-

tion with those responsible or the conservation o heritage sites,

and there is no consultation or coordination between the two, which

hinders both sides. The nature o the tourism also plays a part. I

you look at the gures or tourists in Lebanon, hal come rom Arab

countries, and in general they are not really interested in archaeo-

logical sites. This is not a criticism, merely a actthey preer other

kinds o recreational activities. I dont know how much motivation

there is to invest in an archaeological site when there could be much

more economic benet by investing in other tourist activities.

al-Azm: In Syria, positions are polarized. You have conservators andarchaeologists on one end, and the Ministry o Tourism on the

other, and every once in a while, they happen to meet in the middle

over a particular issue. But its always tense, and everybody is eye-

balling the other side with great suspicion. A tourism ministrys

prime objective is to get as many tourists in as possible. The danger

is that you end up with overexploitation o a site, leading to its dete-

rioration. Archaeologists, on the other hand, would like to preserve

everything completely pristine and not have anybody go near it

except in extreme circumstances. This is where you need what

might be called cultural heritage managers who can look at theissues that are dear to the hearts o the people in tourism and look at

the needs and requirements o those in archaeology and bridge the

gap between the two. We need people who are trained to do that

kind o work.

BenAbed: I have this project at Dougga, one o the big Roman sites

in Tunisia. The aim o the project is to get more tourists. I am the

head o the project, so the head o the project is a heritage proes-

sional, not a tourism proessional. The project had problems. They

had thought about everythinghotels, restaurants, libraries,

trainsbut nobody talked about the site and its conservation.

I stopped everything in the rst phase o the project and said,

Well, now, rst lets look at the site, and see what we can do in terms

o conservation. I dont nd any problem in talking about

conservation with tourism people. You just have to explain. Itsmatter o dialogue and o give-and-take. Let them be a part o this

process o conservation and explain to them that i they want to

keep the site, they have to go through the conservation. Otherwise

the site disappears.

Demas: But youre not getting mass tourism, are you, in Tunisia?

BenAbed: We have had all these European tourists coming or the

beach. But now the government wants another kind o tourist, a bet-

ter quality tourist coming or the sites and the cultural heritage.

Which is a good thing, I think.

Demas: This tourism comes mainly rom outside. To what extent is

there interest among Tunisians in their cultural heritage?

BenAbed: They did start a ew years ago with the schools and stu-

dents. There is a program at the high schools where students have to

go at least once a year to visit a site, a museum, and things like that.

The idea is good, but the way its done is not good at all, and we are

evaluating this program and thinking about doing it another way.

And at the same time, I think you have 10 percent o tourists rom

Tunisianot so many. The locals are willing to come, but you haveto attract them, you have to have educational programs and night

programs, which is not done yet. We are ar rom this when I com-

pare what we have to European countries. But I hope we can start

seriously with this Dougga project.

Levin: Acha, early in this conversation you made reerence to the

act that you had spoken to some oyour colleagues regarding the

disapproval ointernational organizations toward the detach-

ment omosaics. My question or Amr and Isabelle is how much

Photo:KathleenLouw

We are talkingabout conservation,

and that means training,that means strategy,

that means management.Acha Ben Abed



15/32

infuence, iany, do international organizations ocused on con-

servation have on thinking and practice in Syria and Lebanon?

al-Azm: In some cases, quite a lot o infuence. I can cite one example.

Twelve months ago there was an illegal building erected in Palmyra,

and the issue was taken on by unesco, which sent a letter to the

dgam saying that i you allow this particular activity to go on, then

you are endangering the status o Palmyra as a World Heritage Site.

The dgam had tried or a year to get this building torn down, and it

was meeting resistance rom various interested parties. But as soon

as this letter became publicly known in the power circles, orders

came right rom the top that the building was to be removed right

nowand it was literally bulldozed within two or three days. World

organizations can have a lot o impact.

Ska: International organizations have some infuence by virtue otheir well-known prestige. What they sayespecially when it comes

to a World Heritage Sitehas some importance. Sometimes gov-

ernment policy can be aVected by this prestige. For instance, there is

currently a project or the World Bank to sponsor the presentation,

interpretation, and conservation o two sitesBaalbek and Tyre.

The World Bank has stipulated certain conditions in terms o capac-

ity building and conservation requirements. So yes, international

organizations certainly do have a positive role to play.

Demas: How do you all eel about the need or specialization in

conservation omosaics? Are we specializing too much here?

Is this not part othe bigger issue oarchaeological sites? Is there

a need to have an international organization, such as the ICCM,

that looks specically at mosaics?

Ska: Its certainly useul to have an organization like the iccm or

mosaics, rom a technical point o view. However, since anyone who

works in this eld will almost certainly be aware o the need to be

inormed o the broader issues, I dont eel there is a problem with

specialization.

al-Azm: Id agree with Isabelle entirely.

Demas: Speaking othe ICCM, the theme othe recent conerence

was Lessons Learned (see p.20). Im wondering iyou came

away with any particular lessons in mind that you elt emerged

out othat conerence most orceully.

Ska: I think the management aspect was an important topic at this

conerence, especially the type o management problems that

directly aVect conservation decisions.

al-Azm: In addition to what Isabelle mentioned, I would say the need

to be inormed and to kept abreast o what people are doing in terms

o how theyre managing their problemsthe solutions coming out

on a regional level. It was interesting to see how a lot o us were ac-

ing similar problems. In addition to our own unique problems, we

have many similar problems, and no one was really talking to anyone

else. All these people were trying to do the same thing in some way,

and yet nobody had really discussed that until we met at the iccm

and started listening to each others lectures or started meeting each

other or looking at the posters.

BenAbed: Thats the eeling I had. Everyone has his own little expe-

rience and is thinking he will nd the solution or everything. Then

you nd somebody else doing the same thing. Everything is the

sameand at the same time, its diVerent. Lots o people have been

saying, training technicians on in situ mosaic conservation, that is

what we are doing, and I have the eeling we are not really talking

about the same concept. It is important that Arab countries that

share the same problems, the same kind o heritage, the same men-tality, build something together, because Im sure we can understand

each other. We are talking about conservation, and that means train-

ing, that means strategy, that means management.

al-Azm: Tunisia has had a much longer experience in managing its

mosaics than anyone else. Yet only very recently have I been enlight-

ened by what theyve done. I only wish that I had been more aware

o their experience earlier and had been able to learn rom itand

perhaps that people beore me had done the same, as well. And that

people ater me will learn rom other peoples experience. That is

what its all about. Learning rom other peoples experiences

rather than reinventing the wheel again and again and again.



16/32

on as well by growing pressures to develop archaeological sites or

tourism, or which shelters are oten constructed to serve visitor

comort and interpretation. While the two aims o conservation and

visitation are not necessarily incompatible, too oten the protective

unction o the shelter design is secondary to, or eclipsed altogether,

by the architects vision o how a shelter might meet a museological

objective and enhance visitor experience. From a conservation

perspective, the design o shelters should involve a clear decision-making process and address criteria aimed at protecting the archaeo-

logical remains. Even so, such critical inormation is oten provided

in only the most general terms, without reerence to the condition

o mosaics and associated risks. Also, there is oten a lack o techni-

cal specications that would allow the architect or engineer to build

a shelter that will mitigate or prevent uture deterioration.

Recent initiatives are beginning to address the need or

perormance evaluation and conservation criteria or shelter design.

Specialized conerences on shelters in Bologna (2000), Arizona

(2001), and Sicily (2003), and shelter initiatives o the IstitutoCentrale per il Restauro in Rome, all attest to the current interest in

protective shelters. These eVorts have been notable or the emphasis

on clear criteria and a multidisciplinary approach to planning or

and designing a shelter. Assessments and evaluations o existing

shelters are also increasing. Environmental monitoring is being used

to assess perormance o a shelter or, in advance o shelter construc-

tion, to inorm the design. Modeling o shelter environments is also

practiced. Numerous historical overviews and critical assessments

o well-known shelters have also emerged in recent years.

Impact of Shelters on In Situ Mosaics

Despite these indicators o a more rigorous and sophisticated

approach to the evaluation and design o shelters, we remain

severely hampered by an incomplete understanding o causes o

deterioration o mosaics and thereore an inability to provide

architects with a specic conservation brie or the protection o the

site. Although they are still oten ignored, general criteria or pro-

tective shelters have long been understoodincluding the need to

provide eVective drainage, inhibit birds, mitigate environmental

16 Conservation, The GCI Newsletter l Volume 21 , Number 12006l News in Conservation

Hundreds of archaeological sites worldwide are covered

by modern constructions that provide shelter rom the sun, rain,

wind, and snow or excavated remains and or visitors. These

sheltersas they are commonly calledcome in a variety o shapes,

sizes, and materials, ranging rom primitive wooden huts and deli-

cate, decorative nineteenth-century metal pavilions to heavy slabs o

concrete and high-tech designs, such as space rames or membrane

structures. Although there are notable examples o nineteenth-century and early twentieth-century sheltering, such as those at

Pompeii and Herculaneum or over mosaic sites in England, the

majority o shelters date rom the 1960s onward.

The types o archaeological remains protected by shelters

are equally varied, ranging rom Paleolithic tool assemblages to

Byzantine churches and Maya pyramids. Among these, ancient

mosaic pavements are especially prevalent. Mosaic pavements were

a common eature o private houses and villas, public buildings and

porticoes, and basilicas and churches in the Hellenistic, Roman,

and Byzantine periods, and they are thereore to be ound through-out the Mediterranean and much o Europe and the Middle East.

Beginning in the 1980s and gaining momentum in the 1990s,

a distinct trend in the conservation o mosaics has been toward

preservation in situ, rather than removal to a museum or to storage,

which was previously standard practice, especially or gural

mosaics. This shit to in situ conservation refects, in part, a change

in how we value mosaics. Artistic or aesthetic considerations

refecting a view o mosaics principally as artistic creationswere

uppermost in the decision to remove them to museums. In contrast,

in situ preservation recognizes the historic and scientic values o

context(the architectural ensemble or which they were created),

technology (the inormation that resides in the stratigraphy), and

authenticity (the excavated mosaic as a testament to its physical

history, with all its marks and scars o age).

In response to this shit in approach, there has been a corre-

sponding growth o interest within the conservation eld in treat-

ments and methods o protecting mosaics in situ, including a

marked acceleration in the construction o shelters over mosaics.

It would, however, be misleading to suggest that shelter construc-

tion is driven primarily by conservation needs. It has been spurred

ASSESSINGTHEPROTECTIVEFUNCTION

OFSHELTERSOVER MOSAICS

ByJohnD.Stewart,JacquesNeguer,andMarthaDemas

TheollowingwasadaptedrompresentationsgivenattheninthconerenceotheInternationalCommittee

ortheConservationoMosaics,heldinTunisia,November2005.


17/32


18/32

had conducted previous research and design initiatives related to

shelters and is currently working on a mosaics projectwas inter-

ested in increasing its understanding o the impact o shelters on

mosaic sites. Recognizing this shared interest, the three organiza-

tions agreed to collaborate on a shelter evaluation project.

Considering existing sheltered sites, the evaluation seeks to

understand the relationship between the condition o a mosaic

pavement and the environment created by the design o its shelter.

The ultimate aim is to dene improved criteria or shelters over

mosaics in diVerent environments. This is a complex undertaking,

since there are many variables to consider, such as the original mate-

rials and techniques o mosaic construction, the mosaics setting and

environment, the materials and design o the shelter, and whether

the mosaic is re-laid on a new support (oten cement) or rests on its

original lime-based support.

The methodology that has been developed by the three part-

ners entails two phases: survey o shelter design and mosaic condi-

tion, and in-depth site-specic investigation and monitoring.The rst phase involves a rapid countrywide-level survey o the

design o shelters and the condition o the mosaics that they protect.

From this rapid assessment, we hope to understand general trends

and determine i a basic correlation between mosaic condition and

shelter construction can be established. It is especially important to

learn i the mosaic is showing active (that is, ongoing) deteriora-

tionan indication that the mosaics environment is not conducive

to long-term preservation. Excluded rom the assessment are

aspects o shelter construction and mosaic condition that have no

direct bearing on active deterioration, such as visitor-relatedeatures (e.g., walkways) or damage (e.g., graYti). These aspects are

not excluded because o their lack o importance, but simply

because these are problems we understand and know how to address.

What we do not understand is the relationship between shelter

design and deterioration, such that we can speciy the type o envi-

ronment a shelter should create and ways to avoid creating condi-

tions that will promote active decay.

Prior to the on-site survey, existing written, photographic, and

graphic records o the shelter and environmental data are compiled,

as the basis or understanding change over time and or determiningthe presence o active deterioration. Good archival records are criti-

cal to understanding whether deterioration is ongoing and to assess-

ing the rate o change over time. One o the main challenges and

weaknesses o the survey has been the lack o available records, o

quality inormation, and o rationales behind treatment decisions,

especially liting and re-laying. Nevertheless, the compilation o

existing data constitutes a basis or uture monitoring and recording.

The on-site survey is based on empirical observation. Intended to be

undertaken in one day, it records mosaic materials, deterioration

phenomena, site environment, and aspects o shelter construction,

with emphasis on eatures related to drainage and ventilation.

Conditions are numerically graded by their extent and severity.

The strength o the survey lies in its collection o site-specic data

in a systematic manner across a broad spectrum that allows or

comparability among sites and regions and has the potential or

revealing patterns o deterioration.

Assessment in England and Israel

Rapid assessment has now been conducted on all sheltered mosaics

in England and Israel, but the process o collating and synthesizing

the data has only just begun. Apart rom environment, a major

distinction between mosaic sites in England and Israel is the date o

excavation and shelter construction and the accuracy o associated

archival material. Hal o the English sites were excavated and pre-

sented under shelters in the nineteenth century, and some o these

mosaics were not re-laid until a century later.

Preliminary results rom England suggest that most mosaicsprotected by enclosed traditional structuresmany or well over a

hundred yearsare in reasonably good condition, although hal o

these mosaics have been re-laid on new supports. The shelter survey

points to site hydrology and internal environment as key elements to

control, especially where aggressive soluble salts are present. Active

deterioration o mosaics on the English sites always seems to be

associated with such salts, and survey results indicate they may be

exacerbated by shelter design, such as signicant heat gained rom

solar exposure (i.e., solar gain).

In Israel, most sites were excavated and sheltered in the latetwentieth century. Mosaics in enclosed shelters were, on the whole,

ound to be better preserved than those in open shelters, but most o

these were re-laid. In cases o re-laying, it is diYcult to distinguish

whether benecial or negative impacts on a mosaic derive rom the

shelter or rom re-laying on a new support. Where mosaics are

re-laid on a support o cement with iron rebars, results suggest that

sheltering (both open and closed) provides suYcient protection to

slow deterioration when compared with similar mosaics let exposed

to the environment. The main threats to sheltered mosaics were

identied as lack o regular monitoring and maintenance o themosaics and the shelter, as well as inadequate site drainage. In some

cases, bulging o the mosaic may actually have occurred as a result

o the environmental conditions created by a shelterespecially

when those conditions involved changes in relative humidity and

moisture content, leading to crystallization o soluble salts and/or

soil expansion and contraction.

We anticipate that the results o the rapid surveys will clariy

the areas o greatest danger in designing shelters or mosaics under

diVerent environmental conditions. But the inormation provided

by the surveys can only point to general trends o preservation and



19/32

patterns o deterioration. To go beyond such generalizations will

require in-depth site-specic investigation and monitoring o

selected sites in the second phase o the project. This step will likely

involve testing a hypothesis or deterioration by monitoring ambient

and subsurace environments over several seasonal cycles.

Combined with other long-term monitoring being conducted at

sites such as Chedworth in England and Orbe in Switzerland, it is

hoped that results can orm the basis or more inormed decisions in

designing shelters to protect mosaic sites.

Conservation, The GCI NewsletterlVolume21 , Number 1 2006 lNews in Conservation 19

InIsraeltherearesome36sheltersover

105mosaics.Mosaicsitesaredistributed

throughoutthecountryinvariedclimatic

conditions,rangingrommaritimeenviron-

mentswithhighrelativehumidityand

aerosolstodesertclimateswithextreme

temperatureuctuations.Thefrstprotec-

tiveshelterswerebuiltinthe1930s,butthe

majoritywereconstructedinthe1990s,

whendevelopmentoarchaeologicalsites

ortourismbecameanationalpriority,and

large-scaleprojectswerecarriedoutatthe

sitesoCaesarea,Zippori,andBeitShean.

Thereisaullspectrumosheltertypes

coveringmosaics,rangingromsimple

shedconstructionstoullenclosureswith

controlledenvironments. Photos:Nicky

Davidov,IsraelAntiquitiesAuthority(unless

otherwisenoted).

Locatedinanareaoextremeheatand

aridityneartheDeadSea,thedramaticopen

tensilestructureprovidesthethird-century

mosaicsoEinGediwithprotectionrom

solarradiationandthusromextremeuc-

tuationsotemperature.

AtthesiteoCaesarea,whichislocated

onthecoast,whererelativehumidityisvery

high,asimpletimbershelterconstructed

inanexperimentalcontextlackedsufcient

ventilation.Theresultwascondensation

problems,whichledtosaltcrystallization,

bulging,anddetachmentothemosaic.

TelItztabaisthesiteoaByzantinebasilica

withseveralgeometricmosaics,locatedin

theJordanValley,southotheSeaoGalilee.

Asimpleopenshelterthatwasconstructed

in1996overoneothemosaicshas

preventedintensivegrowthovegetation,

whichdamagedtheotherexposedmosaics

inthecomplex.

Theclosedshelteroverthesynagogueat

Zipporiincorporatestwotransparentwalls,

air-conditioning,andlighting.Sinceitscom-

pletionin2002,theshelterhasprovided

goodprotectionorthere-laidmosaic.

Thetransparentwallsaresetsufciently

backromthemosaictoavoidthecommon

problemoextremeheatandtemperature

uctuations.

Overviewotheshelter. Mosaicpavement.

Thesynagogueshelterexterior. Thesynagogueshelterinterior.

Viewotheshelterandexposedmosaic. Detailoexposedmosaicwithvegetation

growth.

ShelterovertheNNtestarea. Detailomosaicromtestarea.Photo:BettinaLucherini.

Ein Gedi Synagogue

Caesarea, NN4 Site

Beit Shean, Tel Itztaba

Zippori, The Synagogue

John D. Stewart is a senior architectural conservator with English Heritage. Jacques

Neguer is the head conservator with the Israel Antiquities Authority. Martha Demas is

a senior project specialist with GCI Field Projects.

ShelteredMosaicsinIsrael


20/32

I

LESSONSLEARNED

Two members rom Arab countries were elected to the iccm board

at the end o the conerencea signicant widening o the boards

geographical representation.

The our days o conerence papers were organized into

diVerent sessions with their own themes: evaluating mosaic practice,

caring or mosaics in museums, documenting and assessing sites at

risk, managing sites with mosaics, sheltering mosaics, and trainingconservation practitioners. In addition, there was a session on case

studies in which papers illustrating recent conservation projects

were grouped. Conclusions drawn rom the various sessions were

summarized at the end o the conerence (see sidebar). Publication

o the proceedings will be undertaken by thegci.

In the closing session o the conerence, the iccm board put

orth two general recommendations:

1. Taking into consideration the great need or the mainte-

nance o mosaics let in situ in the open air or under shelters, the

iccm encourages the managers o archaeological sites to systemati-

cally measure during the next three years the cost to maintain the

mosaics in good condition while presenting them to the public.

2. Recognizing that numerous training programs, without any

connection between them, have been launched in various countries

during the last years, the iccm encourages the undertaking o an

assessment o needs or training in Mediterranean countries in

order to eventually launch a coordinated eVort to improve the level

o knowledge and intervention o the proessional staVo these

countries.


In November 2005 in Hammamet, Tunisia, the International

Committee or the Conservation o Mosaics (iccm) held its ninth

conerence since its ounding in 1977. The iccm has its roots in the

Association Internationale pour lEtude de la Mosaque Antique

(aiema), which has ocused on the study and understanding o

mosaicsrather than on their conservationsince its inception in

1963. The 1977 meeting, which gave birth to the iccm, was orga-nized by iccrom and included members oaiema. That meeting in

Rome was a signicant example o collaboration between archaeolo-

gists and conservation proessionals concerned about the deteriora-

tion and loss o mosaics on archaeological sites.

The latest iccm conerence was a collaborative eVort hosted by

the Institut National du Patrimoine (inp) o Tunisia and its director

o sites and monuments, Acha Ben Abed, with the proessional and

organizational support o the Getty Conservation Institute and

under the guidance o the iccm boardparticularly its president,

Demetrios Michaelides. The theme o the conerence was Lessons

Learned: Refecting on the Theory and Practice o Mosaic Conser-

vation. It seemed appropriate that ater almost thirty years oiccm

conerences, the mosaic conservation eld should look back on its

experiences and draw conclusions about what has been accom-

plished and where the eld needs to go. The location o the 2005

conerence provided an opportunity to attract participants rom

Arab countries and rom Turkey, which are usually poorly repre-

sented at iccm conerences. To capitalize on this opportunity, the

Getty Foundation provided a grant that enabled the participation

o orty-nine proessionals rom ten Arab countries and Turkey.

AREPORT

ONTHE2005

ICCM

CONFERENCEByThomasRoby


21/32

SiteVisitsinTunisia

TheICCMconerenceincludedvisitstotheancientsiteso

ThuburboMajus,JebelOust,Neapolis(Nabeul),andCarthage,

aswellasavisittotheBardoMuseuminTunis,whichhouses

theworldslargestcollectionoancientmosaics.Thevisits

toThuburboMajusandJebelOustprovidedtheopportunitynot

onlytoseetheextensivemosaicsothosesitesbutalsoto

meetandtoviewtheworkothemosaicmaintenancetechni-

cians.Duringthreedierentrecentourteen-weekcourses,

theseINPtechniciansweretrainedorthemaintenance

oinsitumosaicsbyateamoGCIstaandconsultants.

Themaintenancetechnicianshavealreadyhadadramatic

eectonanumberositeswithmosaics.Buttheyneedthe

supervisionoTunisianconservators(whichdonotyetexist),

aswellasositemanagers,tosupportanddirecttheirwork.

TheINPisworkingtodevelopthesenewsitepersonnel

profles,withtheassistanceotheGCI.AtNeapolis,asite

newlyopenedtothepublic,theinsitumosaicsotheHouse

otheNymphswerevisited,andtheregionalarcheaological

museuminthemoderntownoeredtheopportunitytoview

thefgurativemosaicsothehouse,whichhadbeenremoved

romthenearbysitemanyyearsago,ollowingitsexcavation .

Conservation, The GCI Newsletterl Volume21 , Number 1 2006 l News in Conservation 21

SitevisittoThuburboMajus.Photo:KathleenLouw.

MosaicmaintenancetechniciansworkingatJebelOust.Photo:ElsaBourguignon.

AmosaicpavementatthesiteoNeapolis,withthefgurativeportionothemosaicremoved. Photo:SibyllaTringham.


22/32


SiteVisitsinLibya

TheICCMconerenceendedwithanoptionalthree-daypost-

conerencetourtoLibya,whichincludedvisitstotheArchaeo-

logicalMuseuminTripoliandtotheancientcitiesoSabrata

andLeptisMagna,aswellastoVillaSileneandseveralother

smallersitesnormallyclosedtothepublic.Atthesiteso

SabrataandLeptisMagna,inparticular,onecouldsee

beyondthescaleandextraordinaryartisticandhistoric

signifcanceotheirarchitecturalremainsthelong-term

eectsoinsufcientsitemaintenanceandmanagement.

ThetourincludedvisitstothesitemuseumsoSabrataand

LeptisMagna,wherethemajorRomanandByzantinemosaic

discoveriesromthepastcenturycouldbeviewed,including

thespectaculargladiatorscenesromarecentlyexcavated

villaoutsideLeptisMagna.Photos:ElsaBourguignon.

AnapsidalwallmosaicatVillaSilene. DetailoamosaicattheSabrataMuseum.

AmosaicinsituatSabrata.

LeptisMagna.


23/32

Another issue raised was mosaic reburial. At least one

participant was convinced that this was not an eVective technique

or preserving mosaics in the long term, while others avored it. At

past conerences as well, papers that addressed the reburial o mosa-

ics sometimes provoked divergent opinions. During the 2005 con-

erence, it was proposed that reburial be a session topic at the next

iccm conerence, as a way o achieving more inormed opinions and

consensus about this important mosaic and site conservation option.

This conerence, which invited participants to refect on the

history o the mosaic conservation eld, did not always reach the

hoped-or level o sel-analysis, but it did lead to the realization

among many that a fexible approach to mosaic conservation is

needed. At past iccm conerences there was a greater division, i not

antagonism, between those who practiced conservation through the

liting o mosaics and those who practiced in situ conservation.

At the Tunisia conerence, various participants acknowledged that

liting should happen much less oten than it still does, but that in

certain instances it is the last and only option or the conservationo a mosaic.

A common opinion expressed at the conerence was that the

eld needs to take a much broader view o mosaic conservation and

address it as an element o overall site management, while also

taking a long-term approach, which requires maintenance and mon-

itoring to ensure the sustainability o conservation interventions.

However, or this approach to be successul, the development o new

categories o staYng and a greater nancial commitment o govern-

ments responsible or sites are required.

The next iccm conerence will take place in Palermo in 2008;it will be hosted by the Sicilian Regional Center or Conservation

(Centro Regionale per la Progettazione e il Restauro). This event

promises to showcase the eVorts o Sicilian authorities to take a

broader, long-term approach to mosaic conservation at its sites,

including the amous Villa Romana del Casale at Piazza Armerina

just as Tunisia has begun to do by training conservation technicians,

as well as uture conservators and site managers.

Thomas Roby is a senior project specialist with GCI Field Projects and manager o the

Institutes collaborative project with the Institut National du Patrimoine in Tunisia that

is providing training in the care and maintenance o in situ archaeological mosaics.

For additional inormation regarding the ICCM, please visit its Web site

at www.iccm.pro.cy.

Conservation, The GCI Newsletterl Volume21 , Number 1 2006 l News in Conservation 23

It is interesting to compare these recommendations with those

that came out o the 1977 meeting. Both meetings addressed the

need or training in mosaic conservation, although more training

initiatives have been organized in the nearly three decades since

1977. The ocus now is more on the quality and sustainability o the

training than on making it available. Whereas in 1977 the concern

was or the loss o inormation resulting rom the detachment or

other interventions on mosaics, now that in situ conservation is

more commonly practiced, there is a need or documentation

regarding the costs o in situ conservation, so that mosaics, along

with the rest o the site, can be better managed.

The recommendations o previous iccm conerences called

or the conservation in situ o mosaics through protection or

reburial and through maintenancewith detachment considered an

intervention o last resort. They also called or research by scientists,

conservators, and archaeologists to improve the methods o preserv-

ing and maintaining mosaics (1986). Past conerences have speci-

cally recommended the use o conservation materials compatiblewith the original lime-based materials o mosaics (i.e., not cement),

and the provision by site directors o the nancial resources neces-

sary or in situ mosaic conservation (1996). More recently the iccm

has advocated that programs or conserving and presenting mosaics

should be part o an overall site conservation plan that is based on

the collaboration o archaeologists, conservators, architects, admin-

istrators, and the general public (1999). The importance o the

public in the conservation o mosaics and in issues o presentation

has been increasingly recognized at iccm conerences.

Over the past thirty years, iccm conerences have managed toeVect a shit rom the detachment o mosaics to their conservation

in situ. These conerences have also increased the awareness

o those in the mosaic conservation eld regarding the essential role

o preventive conservation, as well as the importance o monitoring

and maintenance or successul in situ conservation. But how much

o this message is reaching archaeologists and site directors who do

not have a specialist interest in mosaics? Discussion at the coner-

ence suggested that it was very diYcult to nd iccm conerence

proceedings in libraries. Relatively ew copies o the proceedings are

printed, and little eVort is made to distribute them to major libraries.To reach more people outside the eld, the director oiccrom at the

time o the conerence, Nicholas Stanley-Price, proposed the

production o a short publication o principles and guidelines or

mosaic conservation or nonconservation audiences. While this

would be outside the usual activities o the iccm, such initiatives

could help improve the level o collaboration between it and archae-

ological organizations such as aiema, thereby advancing the practice

o mosaic conservation.


24/32


2005 iccm

Conerence

Session

Conclusions

On the nal aternoon othe

2005ICCM Conerence, an over-

view was presented othe main

messages that emerged during the

thematic sessions. This overview

was based on summary points

reproduced herewhich were

distilled rom each session by

conerence rapporteurs.

Evaluating Mosaic Practice

Evaluation o past interventions

and practices is essential to

improving current and uture

practices but is largely depen-dent on accurate and accessible

documentation.

The practice o mosaic conserva-

tion has evolved rom one o lim-

ited options (detachment), mate-

rials (cement), values (aesthetic),

and stakeholders (proessionals),

to one involving complex decision

making and planning with a

range o viable in situ options

(both temporary and long term),

the use o scientifc methods and

compatible materials, and the

recognition o multiple values

and varied stakeholders.

Conservation interventions are

sustainable only when there is a

clear vision, an eective

management structure and

planning process in place,

trained personnel, and regular

maintenance and monitoring.

Decisions about how to treat a

mosaic must be made on a case-

by-case basis (there is no single

ormula that can be applied to all

mosaics on a site). They are the

result o thorough assessment

and need to be based on defnedcriteria and guidelines.

An understanding o causes o

deterioration to in situ mosaics

requires recognition o unsolved

problems, implementation o

long-term and in-depth investiga-

tions, and wide dissemination o

their results.

Caring for Mosaics in Museums

Decisions need to be shared by

curators and conservators in

order to achieve successul

and sustainable conservation

solutions.

Previous conservation interven-

tions can sometimes be detri-

mental to the condition o

mosaics in museums; negative

eects o past treatments (suchas embedded iron rods) can oten

be mitigated or slowed through

preventive conservation

measures, such as the control

o temperature and relative

humidity in both gallery and

storage conditions.

It is important to consider both

the objects and the building

envelope in making conservation

decisions about mosaics dis-

played in museums; poor storage

conditions is a subject o increas-

ing concern.

Where adequate documentationdoes not exist, analysis o past

treatments and treatment materi-

als may be necessary in order to

develop appropriate conservation

measures; historic photographs

can also be useul in understand-

ing the change in an objects

condition over time.

In some cases, past interven-

tions have become important

to the history o the object

and merit conservation in their

own right.

Interpretation and presentation

to the public are important

values in museum conservation;

treatments carried out in ull

view o the public can be useul

in increasing understanding o

and support or conservation.

Documenting and Assessing

Sites at Risk

Mosaic corpora that include

conservation inormation and

risk assessment strategies under-

taken at national or regional lev-

els can be signifcant tools or the

conservation and management othe mosaic heritage.

It is important to establish

systematic documentation stan-

dards and protocols to acilitate

decision making and to improve

practice.

Attention should be given to

the development o documenta-

tion strategies that permit

improved sharing o inormation,

perhaps through more eective

use o digital technologies and

the Web.

Archaeologists and conservators

must work together eectively on

rescue excavations to ensure that

decisions made are those that are

best or the heritage at risk.

Managing Sites with Mosaics

There is a clear trend emerging

to look at sites holistically and to

undertake more systematic

assessment and planning beorearriving at decisions regarding

conservation and management

o sites.

Stakeholder participation is

crucial in gaining support or in

situ preservation and in the pre-

vention o looting.

Techniques like geographic

inormation systems (GISs) may

be useul in documenting, moni-

toring, and managing the mosaic

heritage.

There are multiple options or

mosaic conservation that include

conservation in situ, detachmentand replacement in situ, detach-

ment and replacement in a

museum, and reburial. These

choices should be made through

a systematic study o the entire

site that considers the condition

o each mosaic and its treatment

history, the environment, the

desirability o presentation to the

public, and the cost.

Better and more comparable

inormation is needed regarding

the relative costs o various types

o treatment in order to make

inormed decisions regarding site

conservation.

Further research may be required

regarding reburial methods

and the nature o the reburial

environment.

Sheltering Mosaics

The assessment o existing

shelters, with regard to protec-

tion,

VVAA. Mosaic. Conservation Newsletter GCI. 2006

Documents

Transcript of VVAA. Mosaic. Conservation Newsletter GCI. 2006