Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 35

JAIC 1998, Volume 37, Number 1, Article 5 (pp.

49 to 67)



ABSTRACT—Fills on ceramics have a long history, associated either with covering up

an adhesive line or replacing a large loss. Numerous materials have been employed in
loss compensation, from thickened adhesives, pastes, and putties to substituted
fragments from other vessels, manufactured ceramic replacements, and cast resins and
waxes. Many of the early materials and methods of filling losses that have given way to
more efficient, predictable, and reversible techniques can now be classified as
“obsolete.” Even so, the ceramics conservator will encounter these materials in re-
treatment for centuries to come.

TITRE—Matériaux de remplissage obsoletes trouves sur des ceramiques. RÉSUMÉ—

Les produits de restauration des céramiques ont une longue histoire, associés soit à la
dissimulation d'une fissure recollée soit au comblement d'un trou. Un grand nombre de
matériaux ont été utilisés pour réparer les pertes, tels que des adhésifs épaissis, des
colles et des mastics, des fragments de substitutions venant d'autres céramiques des
pièces de rechange faites à la main ainsi que des résines et des cires moulées. La
plupart des méthodes et des matériaux anciens ont cédé leur place à des techniques
plus efficaces, plus sÛres et réversibles les rendant “obsolètes.” Malgré cela, la
restaurateur de céramiques rencontrera ces matériaux lors des retraitments dans les
siècles à venir.

TITULO—Materiales desusado para reponer faltantes encontrado en cerámicas.

RESUMEN—Los rellenos en cerámicas tienen una historia extensa, asoció o cubriendo
una raya adhesiva o substituye una pérdida grande. Se habían empleado materiales
numerosos con compensación de la pérdida, de espesó adhesivos, masillas de la y de
las pegamento, a sustituyó trozos de otro vasijas, fabricó reemplazos cerámicos, y
resinas y ceras molderon. Muchos de los materiales antiguos y métodos empastando
las pérdidas habían dado dirección a más eficaz, esperable, y técnicas reversibles y se
puede clasificar ahora como “desusado.” Suponiendo que así fuera, el conservador de
los cerámicas tropezará con estos materiales durante re-tratamiento por siglos aún


Ceramics, by their very nature, usually break when dropped, thrown, or struck with
sharp impact. Surely, as soon as humans discovered that firing clay was stronger than
sun-baking, the first breakages must have occurred. It was perhaps quite a surprise
how the vessel (or artifact) broke and could not easily be made whole again. Still, it is
reasonable to assume that very early attempts were made, and pottery was considered
valuable enough to repair as early as around 5000 B.C. (Williams 1988).
Early pottery restoration was never thought of as an especially worthwhile or respected
task. In Ecclesiaticus, chapter 22, of the Old Testament, Apocrypha, we are told “He
that teacheth a fool is like one that glueth potsherds together” (quoted in Skeist 1977,
4). In 1837, the profession of “China and Earthenware Mender and Rivetter” required
an apprenticeship fee and capital of £5–20, while the fees for a cabinetmaker and
upholsterer were quoted as £30–70 and £150–500, respectively (Lanmon 1969). Only
after the founding of organized conservation were prominence and acknowledgment
given to a field that requires more than patience and a good pair of hands (Hodges


There has always been a need to fill ceramics, as they rarely break without some loss,
either of small chips from the break edges or a larger piece that may have
“disintegrated” or been simply lost. Early repairs were carried out either to make the
ceramic usable again or for its sentimental value, attractive appearance, or religious
significance. The idea of filling minor losses, cracks, or blemishes was probably given
little thought.
Clamps, dowels, and rivets were some of the earliest repairs, as evidenced by their
survival on Greek and Roman pottery (Noble 1965; Snow 1986). They continued to be
used well into the 20th century, as evidenced by their recommendation for use on
American and English china in the 1960s and 1970s (Klein 1962; Larney 1975). Pitch or
pine resins were certainly used alone (Charters et al. 1993) or in combination with
clamps or ties, particularly if the vessel was meant to be reused (fig. 1).

Fig. 1. Storage vessels, in situ at Kaman Kale-hoyux, Turkey, dating to ca.800 B.C. The holes in the pots show that
they were repaired for reuse.
As ceramics began to be viewed as objects of greater value and appreciation, so did
the desire and need to restore them to their original appearance, preferably with no
evidence of previous damage. Fill materials, in the sense of fine putties or bulked
adhesives, have not been found on ancient repairs. Lime mortars and clay putties were
certainly known and used in antiquity, but it is not clear whether they were ever used in
ceramics repairs. This type of loss compensation developed only in the 19th century
with the increased demand for ancient ceramics. The antiquarian art market fostered a
desire for complete, restored vases, and by the mid-19th century major restoration
workshops were well established and advertising in Philadelphia, New York (Lanmon
1969), and European cities(Bousquet and Devambez 1950). It is not surprising, given
the demand, that the restorers were proud of their work. Restorations were often signed
and dated (figs. 2, 3), and claims of ingenuity and skill were common: “After the
replacement was colored and finished no one who had not seen the teapot as it had
been could have told that the spout was not original” (quoted in St.-Gaudens and
Jackson 1953, 40–41).

Fig. 2. Amphora fragment signed on the underside: “G.M.B in Roma i'anno 1837”

Fig. 3. Fill material, signed and dated: “René Koranski 1990”

Little documentation exists for the recommendation and use of fill materials for ceramics
prior to the 20th century, at which point ceramics restoration begins to develop as a
serious discipline (Buys and Oakley 1993). Along with this evolution, the increased
number of ceramics in museums and private collections created an even greater need
for ceramics restoration workshops. Apprentices were trained, and the increased
popularity of ceramics restoration in the 1960s resulted in numerous “how-to”
manuals—far too many to be listed here—that were full of recipes. These books reflect
not only the development of new methods and techniques used in the restoration of
ceramics but also the introduction of new synthetic adhesives and fill materials, virtually
unknown several decades earlier. Many of the fill materials described in this article have
now been completely abandoned and can be termed “obsolete.” They have been
replaced by new and improved materials, with increased stability, ease of application,
and reversibility. This development has also been accelerated by better communication,
education, and training in conservation methods and materials as well as reforms in
restoration ethics and aesthetics (see Buys and Oakley 1993 for a further discussion of
codes of practice and the Charter of Venice).


Identifying repairs on ceramics has always been challenging, for both the collector and
the conservator. Early recommendations for testing restorations included tapping with
the edge of a coin; one source suggested that “the test of smell is also a useful one”
(quoted in Litchfield 1951, 20). Unfortunately, as with most early conservation
treatments, the lack of written records has left the objects conservator with the task of
identifying the materials that were used, either by empirical testing or now, with the aid
of sophisticated analytical techniques.
Visual observation under natural light and/or ultraviolet light (long-wave and short-
wave), as well as microscopic examination, has long been recognized as the first steps
in identification (Rorimer 1931; Noble 1965). These methods have limitations, however,
and need to be supplemented with chemical spot tests (Feigl 1946), solvent solubility,
and, if available, organic and inorganic analysis.
A good repair may sound the same, have a similar color, and be virtually invisible—
exactly as the restorer planned. Many of the adhesive and putty mixtures were colored
to match the ceramic and show little relationship to the color or texture of the original
raw materials. Moreover, in most instances a final application of paint or surface coating
completely hid the repair. Examination under ultraviolet light (long-wave or short-wave)
may detect only the presence of a repair, or the fact that the surface has been
repainted, sometimes with little or no fill underneath. Most inorganic pigments do not
fluoresce (de la Rie 1982), however, and a resin bulked with pigment will have much
less fluorescence, if any, than might be expected. Identification of repairs by smell is
certainly a limited technique.
Many fill mixtures were “home-made trade secrets,” whose recipes were guarded
carefully even if they were sold by workshops “to the amateur, hobbyist, collector, and
housewife” (Klein 1962, xi). Although the Klein workshop was famous for its self-
proclaimed “Klein method” (Klein 1962), the adhesives and fill materials that it used and
sold to the public have yet to be accurately identified.
An adhesive, by its very nature, is a fill material. It bonds fragments together and fills in
small losses along the break edge. Once clear or light-colored adhesives were begun to
be used, it became possible to tint or color the adhesive so that the fine losses along a
break edge were filled in as the fragments were assembled. The limiting factor was the
resulting thickness of the adhesive, which would interfere with tight joins. Nevertheless,
this practice was recommended for the repair of porcelain using epoxy adhesives
(Larney 1975).
Many of the materials and techniques used on ceramics were certainly borrowed from
other disciplines, including sculpture, painting, and architectural finishing. As noted
above, however, the field of ceramics restoration displays historical trends as well as
individual resourcefulness. The two main functions of fills on ceramics are to
compensate small and large losses. Small losses and cracks can be filled with little
need for structural support, assuming that fragments have been properly assembled
with a suitable adhesive (not always the case, as experience has shown). Large losses
require fill materials that can fill the area and contribute strength and structural support
to the whole.


The examples in this article are predominantly from the author's archives and the
collections of the Freer Gallery of Art, supplemented by examples from numerous
publications on ceramics restoration. The references are all in English, or from English
translations; most of the “how-to” manuals are from American workshops. The catalog
is arranged in roughly chronological order (see table 1). It is difficult to know how early
some of the techniques and materials were developed and at what point they ceased to
be used. General comments on identification and appearance are included but should
be considered only as guidelines. The ceramics conservator can quickly develop an
ability to recognize certain types of ceramics restorations, but should also be aware that
this is a field where innovation and resourcefulness abounded. Of all the identification
techniques available, solvent solubility is one of the most useful. It must be kept in
mind, however, that a ceramic may have had more than one campaign of restoration.
UV fluorescence is noted for the relevant material and is given under long-wave
examination. Short-wave examinations revealed no different specific appearances, only
a duller, lighter fluorescence. The solvents offered for solubilities are the most common
and are not a comprehensive list.
Bitumen—Bitumen was used more than 6,500 years ago to repair ceramics (Williams
1988) and probably as late as the 19th century A.D. The term encompasses various
naturally occurring mixtures of hydrocarbons, of indeterminate compositions, boiled
down to a tarlike material. The sources can vary from oil residues (tar or asphalt pits) to
pine or other tree resins. In the ancient Near East the prime source was the Dead Sea
(Lucas 1989). Dark brown-black and shiny in appearance, bitumen becomes extremely
brittle with age, breaking with sharp conchoidal fractures. Although it was not very
attractive, the liberal application of excess adhesive served the dual purpose of joining
and filling and can therefore be considered as the first fill material. Thickened pine
resins were commonly used to repair South American and Southwest Native American
pottery. Birch bark tar was used to repair a Roman jar in Britain (Charters et al. 1993)
and also probably produced a waterproof seal.

UV fluorescence: Bitumen fluoresces orange.

Solubility: Petroleum distillates, alcohol.

Animal hide or skin glues—Probably in use as early as the pine resins, and extremely
popular throughout the 19th century, animal protein glues remained in use into the early
20th century. These glues originated from mammal or fish sources that are rich in
collagen, such as skins, internal membranes, bones, and hooves. They are also the
adhesive base for numerous “glue putties,” which are used as a combination of
adhesive and fill material (fig. 4).
Fig. 4. Animal glue fills around substituted fragments, Syrian jar, Freer Gallery of Art, F 11.5

Originally a clear yellow-brown, animal glues age to a darker color. They are often used
in excess on ceramics, so that the excess itself fills the losses along a break line. To
stiffen the glue and to reduce its considerable shrinkage on drying, the glue is often
bulked with fillers and pigments. When set and dry, the fill material is quite strong, but it
can be carved or sanded as necessary. Fish glue with chalk, brick dust, or fire-clay dust
was also recommended for filling small gaps between joined fragments (Rathgen 1905).
The materials used to bulk animal glues included whiting (calcium carbonate), zinc
oxide, lead white (basic lead carbonate), and clay (St.-Gaudens and Jackson 1953).
These were also recommended as a base with animal glue to make gesso or fine
surface finishing over a coarser body fill (fig. 5). Animal glue bulked out with
earthenware clay is one of the most convincing imitations of terracotta ware. When
used for fills, this mixture can be virtually undetectable visually or by examination with
UV light. Only when this mixture is subjected to wetting or soaking is the secret
Fig. 5. Animal glue–whiting gesso layer over clay replacement fragments
Small amounts of linseed oil and turpentine (Rathgen 1905) were added to provide glue
putties with better workability, prolonged setting times, and durability. They are no
longer used because of their poor stability and tendency to migrate out of the putty and
stain the ceramic.
The major disadvantages to this fill material (with or without additives) include the
shrinkage of the glue, embrittlement over time, and extreme water sensitivity. These
properties generally result in the filler cracking and eventually breaking up (see fig. 6).

Fig. 6. Deteriorating fill made of animal glue and whiting

UV fluorescence: Animal glues naturally fluoresce a hazy or light white,

sometimes a pale yellow. When bulked out with clay or nonfluorescent
pigments, they do not fluoresce. Fresh linseed oil has a negligible
fluorescence but, when aged and yellow, fluoresces slightly yellow (de la
Rie 1986).
Solubility: Water, preferably warm.

Urushi (lacquer)—This is true lacquer, originating from the resin sap of the Asian tree
Rhus vernicifera. It has a long tradition of restoration use, primarily in Japan. It was
used as early as 2500 B.C. for the repair of cracked earthenware, and its use continues
into the 20th century (Nakasato 1988).
Urushi has a clear yellow-brown appearance as a resin. In use, it was often mixed with
pigments, and on ceramic repairs urushi was often coated with powdered gold (later
burnished), or maki-e (pictorial) designs (fig. 7). No attempt was made to blend the fill in
with the ceramic; in fact, the contrast presented by the original and the repair was

Fig. 7. Urushi repair with maki-e on a 16th-century Japanese bowl, Freer Gallery of Art, F 00.53
Urushi requires a very high humidity and a long time (24 hours) to set. It is irreversible
and extremely toxic to work with. While aesthetically challenging for Western tastes,
when coated with gold it is protected from oxidation and light and thus very stable.
Other lacquer types found in China and Burma are less stable and have not been found
as repairs. True urushi would allow the ceramic to be reused, a feature important in
Japanese culture.
By the late 20th century, with the advent of synthetic resin adhesives, urushi almost
disappeared from use as a ceramic fill material. However, it still has some traditional
use, and is recently making a comeback (see section 6, Conclusions).

UV fluorescence: None.

Solubility: Virtually insoluble. Can be softened by 50/50 acetone/ethanol

or pyridine.
Clamps, Rivets, Solder, Bolts, Metal Pins, and Ferrules—Metal and metalworking
techniques have been used since antiquity, both to join broken fragments and to fill the
holes created by the drilling required for their attachment. Various types of metalwork,
such as nails, screws, bolts and dowels, or pins were used to anchor fills to the
ceramic, particularly when additional structural support was considered necessary (St.-
Gaudens and Jackson 1953; Parsons and Curl 1963). These were usually inserted into
a drilled hole and cemented in using a plaster or mortar rather than pressure-fit.
Metal armatures (see figs. 8 and 9) were in common use by the early 19th century.
These included “wire supports, made to fit the individual piece in a neat and
inconspicuous way” (quoted in Burns 1941, 161–62). They were usually made of
copper or brass and often were anchored to holes drilled on the interior surfaces or
break edges. Solder was probably first used as a joining agent and a fill material in the
late 19th century. Pewter and tin solder were recommended for filling losses on the
edge of china or porcelain after first grinding grooves or dovetails into the ceramic body
to anchor the metal fill (Klein 1962; Yates 1953). Pewter pellets could simply be melted
into position using a heavy-duty soldering iron without the use of any flux, but flux was
necessary when two different metals were soldered together (Klein 1962). For large
losses, the soldered dovetails served a dual purpose—as a fill and as an anchor for
copper screening. The metal screening was tinned (coated with pure hot tin) to prevent
corrosion of the copper (Klein 1962). Putties or synthetic glaze mixtures were then
applied over the soldered fills or screening to imitate the ceramic surface.

Fig. 8. Clay, mixed with animal glue, formed around a metal armature
Fig. 9. Metal armature, fabricated and anchored to the ceramic body to support fill material
In general, metal dowels, pins, and armatures are not necessary for most ceramics
restoration. They necessitate damage to the original and often result in additional
weakness when done improperly.
Solubility: None. Mechanical removal required.
Substituted or “Alien” Fragments—From at least the 6th century B.C., and well into the
20th century, fragments or entire sections from another vessel were chosen to replace
missing pieces and to fill losses (Khazanova 1978; Elston 1990a). In antiquity,
substituted fragments on Greek vases were attached by mechanical means (clamps or
staples) (Elston 1990a). On more recent repairs, attempts were made to fit in a
fragment that was a good match, one with similar surface color or decoration (figs. 10–
12), while in other cases the fragment only served as a support or fill and was disguised
with surface fill or paint. The inserted fragments and those surrounding the loss were
often cut or filed down, causing irretrievable damage to both original ceramic and fill.
Whole sections of ceramics were “replaced” in this manner (Koob 1988), including
handles, bases, rims, or losses to the body (fig. 13).

Fig. 10. Section of Greek vase filled with substituted fragments. Note the attempt to line up the drapery designs
(the lower fragment is from another vase).
Fig. 11. Section from fig. 10 removed. The white putty is an animal glue/whiting gesso

Fig. 12. Section of fig. 11 as seen from the back. The assorted fragments are from numerous vessels, of different

Fig. 13. Major substitution ot restore a Greek vase. In addition to the fragments inserted into the body, the base and
rim are also from entirely different vassels.
This practice was well-documented as noted in a 1769 advertisement for artificial
replacements for teapots (Lanmon 1969). It was especially popular in the restoration of
Far Eastern ceramics (Buys and Oakley 1993), and probably preceded the use of
putties or cast fills. The ready availability of fragments from other vessels (lying around
in the ceramics restoration workshop) was perhaps one of the reasons, but the practice
was “justified” because a complete vessel resulted. Moreover, the restoration could not
easily be identified as a fake, since simple examination or probing with a sharp tool
would reveal “original” ceramic underneath the retouched surface.
These types of fills generally are not discovered until all the retouching and overpaint
on the restored area is removed, or a very careful x-radiograph is examined, and still
they may be undetected if the fragments were chosen from a vessel with nearly
identical thickness and radio-opacity. X-ray fluorescence and x-radiography are useful
nondestructive analytical techniques should the restorer have used two very different
(but visually identical) ceramics, e.g., a lead glaze spout on an alkaline glazed body.
Examinations to this extent were certainly not encouraged when a restored ceramic
was offered for sale, and many composite restorations have gone unnoticed and

Solubility: Insoluble. Removal depends on method of attachment to


Natural Waxes—Natural waxes such as beeswax have been in use at least since
Roman times (Braude 1943) and were certainly in use well into the 20th century (Yates
1953). Carnauba wax was often added to beeswax to form harder and more durable
fills. It has been found as fills on Greek vases that were restored in the late 19th and
early 20th centuries. Waxes were generally pigmented to match the ceramic or glaze
color (fig 14).

Fig. 14. Natural wax fills, colored green, on a Syrian bowl (with substituted rim fragments), Freer Gallery of Art, F

When pigmented and mixed with a resin such as gum elemi (for better adhesion), these
wax fill mixtures made a very good imitation of a glazed surface. However, their poor
aging properties and tendency to pick up dirt and grime or discolor have generally
eliminated their use. Waxes were also recommended for strengthening and sealing fills
(Lucas 1924). Appearances under ultraviolet light vary considerably, depending on

UV fluorescence: Beeswax fluoresces yellow or, when old and oxidized,

orange. Carnauba wax does not fluoresce but reflects a pale gray-blue.

Solubility: Petroleum distillates, such as ligroine, naphtha, and toluene.

When severely aged, 1,1,1 -trichloroethane.

Paints and Sruface Coatings—These were an integral part of loss compensation and
often substituted for fills or compensated for inadequate fill appearances. They were
used with much the same chronology as waxes, and certainly included thinned wax or
natural resins as binders. Paints were used to hide (and fill) in losses along break lines
and to fill and cover minor scratches and other surface imperfections such as spalls or
firing defects.
The most common paints and coatings were shellac (fig. 15) or gum based, with finely
ground pigments as the colorants. Heavily pigmented paints using natural earth colors
were very popular because they were hard to detect under UV light. By 1980, wax,
shellac, and gum binders for paints had virtually disappeared from use, replaced by
more stable media.

Fig. 15. Sheellac-based paints, used to fill in surface losses on a Greek vase
Natural waxes were also used alone to coat fills in an attempt to more closely imitate a
ceramic surface sheen or glaze. The success with which waxes are able to produce a
translucent or glazelike appearance still make them popular today, but most uses of
natural waxes have been eliminated and replaced by more stable synthetic waxes
(Gänsicke and Hirx 1997).

UV fluorescence: Varied, depending on the binding medium.

Solubility: Varied, depending on the binding medium.

Clay—Clay may have been used from antiquity to the 20th century to cover repairs or
surface damage. It is commonly found completely covering the interior of vessels to
hide repairs and was applied because it generally does not fluoresce on its own.
Unfired clay is not very stable, particularly in high humidity. Animal glue and shellac
were common additives in the 19th century, as they allowed the clay to be molded or
shaped, and they imparted significant strength and durability after drying and setting.
Even so, it was generally necessary to build the clay “putty” up on a metal framework
anchored into the original ceramic fragments (see fig. 8).

UV fluorescence: None.

Solubility: Water (unless mixed with shellac).

Lime Plaster, Cement—These materials were in common use from perhaps the 5th
millennium B.C., but it is not known when they began to be used on ceramics for
repairs. They were very popular from the late 18th century until the late 20th century.
Lime plaster was often used to “anchor” pins and dowels and as a fill material. It
requires a long time to set (12–24 hours), during which time the ceramic cannot be
moved. Cement has been used to reinforce and “fill up” large storage vessels,
particularly those on display in colonnades or outdoor exhibits of archaeological
These materials are extremely detrimental to the ceramic because of the migration of
salts and the stress created by the weight. They are almost impossible to remove
without considerable damage.

Solubility: Lime plaster can be removed by wetting with water, followed by

careful mechanical removal. Alternatively, careful application of a weak
acid solution (e.g., 3–5% nitric acid) will break down the mortar or cement,
but it is not recommended for ceramics with carbonate fillers or inclusions.
Application must be followed by thorough rinsing.
Shellac—In common use as an adhesive and coating varnish from the late 16th
century, well into the 20th century, this natural resin (secreted by an insect) was and is
available in numerous grades, the most common being “orange flake.” Resin was
dissolved in warm alcohol and boiled down to a thick syrup for use as an adhesive or a
base for pigmented paint and putty (fig. 15).
Shellac became a favorite adhesive for complex pottery assemblies because of its
thermoplasticity. This quality allowed a restorer to heat up a misaligned join and move
the fragments into correct alignment. Unfortunately, the heating was generally done
using an open flame (alcohol lamp or Bunsen burner), and the resin often burned,
causing both irreparable damage to the ceramic and the insolubility of the resin. The
disadvantages also include its very dark brown appearance, brittleness, structural
failure, and difficulty in removal (Koob 1979; 1984).
Shellac was also bulked out like the animal glues for use as a fill material (fig. 16).
Shellac and mastic (pine resin from Pistacia lentiscus) were mixed together to form a
putty for repairing china (Braude 1943).

Fig. 16. Shellac putty used to fill gaps between replacement fragments
The problem of embrittlement is serious, as most shellac and animal glue restorations
from the mid- to late-19th century have now reached the end of their physical stability.
Stress caused by handling, shock, and abrupt changes in temperature or humidity can
cause collapse and additional damage. With the advent of modern synthetic
thermoplastic resins, shellac adhesive and shellac putties have almost completely
disappeared from use on ceramics.

UV fluorescence: Although pure shellac is known for its distinctive bright

orange or mustard yellow fluorescence under ultraviolet light, when bulked
out with clay or fillers it is usually a dull orange.
Solubility: 50/50 acetone/ethanol, warm ethanol, pyridine (Koob 1979).

Glassy Fluxes—These were low-melting ceramic glazes or fluxes used to “fuse” broken
fragments or substituted fragments together, in use from the 16th (possibly earlier) to
20th century. The application of fluxes or glazes was extremely risky because of the
danger of breaking the original ceramic or ceramic fragments during the refiring
procedure, as well as of damaging the original surface decoration, such as glazes and
colored slips (Lanmon 1969; Marshall 1996).
If done carefully, the flux melted at a temperature lower than the original ceramic and
not only joined the broken fragments together but filled any losses along the break line.
Low-melting glazes were also used to fill small losses, such as chips missing from the
rim. The ceramic could be reused.
Visually, there is always a color difference along the break edge. Pooling or surface
buildup of the new glaze or flux was also common and necessitated grinding away of
the excess, followed by polishing. The ceramic appeared whole under ultraviolet light.

Solubility: Totally insoluble; irreversible.

Wood—As early as 1760, elaborately turned wooden bases for goblets, or handles for
teapots, were made to replace losses and “affixed” (Lanmon 1969). Wooden pins or
dowels were also used to connect replacement fragments or fills to the original ceramic
body. Sawdust was mixed with animal glue or other resin, for both small and large fills
(Buys and Oakley 1993).
Wood fills have also been encountered in the form of blocks or chunks joined together
by adhesive and puttied over (figs. 17, 18). After the initial discovery, the fills were
examined by x-radiography to identify the construction technique (fig. 19).
Fig. 17. Rim restorations removed from an earthenware bowl

Fig. 18. Detail of fig. 17 showing wood grain

Fig. 19. Radiograph of two rim restorations showing sections of wood

Manufactured Ceramic Fragments—From the 18th century (or earlier) to the 20th
century, fired clay fragments were specifically manufactured to fill a loss. A suitable clay
was chosen (e.g., earthenware for earthenware, white china clay for china) and the loss
was filled with the wet clay, already formed to the appropriate thickness. The clay was
probably rolled out as a slab, allowed to become “leather hard,” and shaped to fill the
loss. As the clay dried, it would shrink and could be easily removed from the loss area.
The clay fill was carefully allowed to dry and then typically cut or broken into smaller
fragments, primarily to prevent additional distortion upon firing, and also to imitate the
size and shape of original fragments. The fragments were then fired and used, as
above, to fill in losses (see figs. 5 and 16). The fragments were generally left unfinished
and were simply glued or puttied into place, then covered over with a finishing ground,
gesso, plaster, and overpaint (see fig. 5).
These restorations are often difficult to discern in a simple examination or under
ultraviolet light, as they are fired clay and their appearance is frequently very close to
the original. Closer inspection reveals the absence of finishing marks (no wheel or
turntable lines, no surface treatment such as slips or engobes), and a uniform thickness
that is different from the ceramic into which it has been inserted. The edges are usually
cut sharply or trimmed to accommodate the application of a thick adhesive or putty.
The earliest documented restoration incorporating this technique was 1837, but it is
likely this technique was used much earlier. During the dismantling of a previous
restoration, a fragment of the vessel was found to have been signed on the underside
(interior) in ink with initials and the phrase “in Roma l'anno 1837” (see fig. 2). The
fragment must have been signed during the restoration, as the vessel has too small a
mouth and neck to get one's hand in.
The main disadvantage to this practice was the fact that the ceramic replacement part
was subject to shrinkage, cracking, or distortion and after being joined to the original,
still required touch-up and inpainting.

Solubility: Insoluble. Removal depends on method of attachment to


Manufactured Ceramic Replacement Fragments with Fired Decoration—This

restoration concept, in use from the early 19th century to the mid-20th century, is similar
to the fabricated body fragments described above but taken further, to produce a close
or identical copy of the original (fig. 20). The initial manufacturing steps were the same
as above, with the addition of surface decoration, done with slips or glazes. The
fragments were again fired as fragments to minimize shrinkage, distortion, and changes
in surface color. Multiple firings may have been required, for the clay and the glaze(s).

Fig. 20. Manufactured replacement fragments with fired decoration, made of polychromed glazed ceramic, in the
style of the original (fragment on the left is original; fragments on the right are modern replacements), Arthur M.
Sackler Gallery, S 1987.85
Without doubt, this method required enormous skill, knowledge of the original, and
patience, especially in the reproduction of polychrome glazes. Manufactured fragments
were adhered in place along with the original fragments. Minor flaws and gaps were
filled and retouched. The results were often surprisingly good and this technique was
certainly done with deceit in mind. The repair can be easily distinguished from the
original once overpaint and adhesive are removed, however, because of the following

1. A different clay composition was used.

2. The fills or replacement pieces were fired as fragments, resulting in shrinkage, cracking,
distortion, and melting of the glaze (if applied) over the edges.
3. Glazes rarely have similar colors, compositions, or physical properties (i.e., crackle),
when compared closely to the original.
4. Glazes often have flaws characteristic of being fired as fragments, such as pooling or
“beading up” along break edges. Sometimes these flaws have been filed or sanded off.

This technique has been found on numerous types of ceramics, including Greek vases
(Snow 1986), European 18th-century ceramics (Buys and Oakley 1993), and Islamic
pottery (see fig. 20).

Solubility: Insoluble. Removal depends on method of attachment to


Sodium Silicate—Sodium silicate was recommended for use from the early 19th century
to the mid-20th century. Also known as “water-glass,” this material was produced by
melting purified silica sand with soda ash or sodium sulfate, then dissolving the
resulting glass mixture in water (Skeist 1977). It was readily available as a ground
powder or in solution of various specific gravities. Recommendations for use included
mixing it into a paste with whiting, pigments, ground glass, or flint (St.-Gaudens and
Jackson 1953; Hiscox 1948).
This compound is basically a water-soluble glass produced by mixing excess alkali with
silica. It behaves similarly to a severely crizzled glass in that repeated exposure to high
humidity will rapidly leach out the soluble alkali and degrade the glass. Limitations also
include the fact that the sodium silicate paste and ceramic original need to be heated
for application.

Solubility: Limited solubility. Once set, the paste behaves like a weak,
unstable glass.

Paper, Papier-mâché, Other Cellulosic Materials—In use from the mid-19th century to
early 20th century, shredded paper was boiled with glue, whiting, linseed oil, and
turpentine to make a “stone cement” for filling large gaps on ceramics (Rathgen 1905).
Newspaper, envelopes, and other paper materials were used as crude molding or
backing material and have often been found left on the inside of a vessel attached to
putties or cast fills. The date of the newspaper or stamped envelope often provides
information as to the date of the restoration. Cotton bandages were recommended for
use as reinforcements on the inside of the ceramic “when a heavy pot is reconstructed
from a great many pieces” (Plenderleith 1934, 25–26). The bandages were soaked in
shellac, glue and plaster, or wax mixtures (fig. 21).
Fig. 21. Gauze soaked in animal glue, used as backing for a fill

Solubility: Dependent on binding material.

Gutta-percha—A natural rubber latex, gutta-percha was used from the late 19th to the
early 20th century both as a bonding and fill material (Braude 1943; Yates 1953). This
material is extremely viscous and difficult to work with, is dark in color (but can also be
bleached), and ages poorly, with significant shrinkage and embrittlement. Rubber
“varnish” was also suggested as a binding agent for a colored fill (André 1976). The
aging properties of this material are known to be poor (Horie 1987).

UV fluorescence: None.

Solubility: Chlorinated hydrocarbons, especially chloroform. When aged

and brittle, it becomes totally insoluble. Very hot water (70–80°C) will
soften the rubber enough for it to be peeled away without damaging the

Cellulose Nitrate—This extremely popular synthetic resin has been in conservation use
since the late 19th century (Horie 1987). When bulked with sawdust, it was popularly
known as “Plastic Wood” (St.-Gaudens and Jackson 1953). The color of the fill
depended on the color of the sawdust used and any added pigment.
This resin was also recommended as a strengthening agent (or consolidant) for fills
(Lucas 1924). Problems and limitations included considerable shrinkage and poor
stability. The resin yellows appreciably, becomes extremely brittle, and can eventually
crack and disintegrate. Since the advent of polyvinyl acetate and acrylic adhesives, the
manufacturing production of this resin has dropped off dramatically, as has its

UV fluorescence: Pale yellow.

Solubility: Extremely soluble in acetone, even when old.

Cellulose Acetate—This is a close relative to cellulose nitrate and was used slightly
later (1920 to 1980) and much less frequently. It is more brittle than cellulose nitrate but
became popular because of its lower inflammability. It was recommended as a
strengthening agent for fills (Lucas 1924). It oxidizes at room temperature, becomes
brittle, and has poor water resistance.

UV fluorescence: Very pale white.

Solubility: Acetone, ethyl lactate, methylene chloride.

Polyester Resins—In use from the early to the late 20th century, these synthetic resins
were recommended for fills on both ceramics and glass (Parsons and Curl 1963; André
1976). They were sometimes strengthened or backed with fiberglass (fig. 22). Polyester
resins shrink and are very exothermic during setting, tend to be very brittle, and are
difficult to remove without loss of ceramic surface. Other forms of polyester resin
include proprietary “car body fillers,” which were recommended under this category as
suitable for filling porcelain (Williams 1983). Objections and drawbacks include the
unknown compositions, accelerators for setting, considerable shrinkage, and color.
Polyester resins are catalyzed by a peroxide initiator but also have added accelerators
(for fast, controlled setting) which cause yellowing and anaerobic surface setting (Horie
1987; Skeist 1977).
Fig. 22. Polyester resin, backed with fiberglass
The excessive strength of the polyester resins makes them inappropriate for use on
ceramics and they are also susceptible to yellowing, oxidation, and hydrolysis (Horie

UV fluorescence: Bright white; when deteriorated, yellow.

Solubility: Polyester resins swell in acetone, methylene chloride.

Poly (Vinyl Acetate) Putties—In the early to mid-20th century, vinyl acetate resin (grade
unknown) mixed with clay was suggested as a plastic putty. This mixture “becomes
extremely hard and strong after it sets” (Burns 1941, 161). White glues are proprietary
emulsion adhesives based on polyvinyl acetate or acrylic resins and have also been
bulked with whiting and pigments to form a paste for fills (André 1976).
The dispersions in water have emulsifiers and plasticizers that cause yellowing and
cross-linking (Horie 1987). They also have very low glass transition temperatures and
tend to attract dirt and grime.

UV fluorescence: Pale white.

Solubility: Vinyl acetate resins are soluble in acetone, or alcohol,

preferably with a small amount of water. White glue putties swell or gel in
acetone and alcohol.
AJK/BJK Dough—In use as a fill material from 1960 to 1980, this consisted of a mixture
of Alvar (polyvinyl acetal), jute, and kaolin in solvents, to be used as a putty (UNESCO
1968). It could also be rolled out and cut into small strips to be used dry. Since Alvar is
thermoplastic, the dry strips could be warmed and shaped to fit the size and contours of
a loss. After cooling, the shaped strips were stuck in place with an adhesive to form a
support grid upon which more AJK Dough putty could be added to complete the fill.
Because of the high proportion of solvents in the dough mixture, shrinkage was
generally a serious problem, and it was necessary to apply thin layers one at a time.
The filled area could then be worked to a final surface using solvents or mechanical
means, often with an agreeable appearance, without any added coloring or inpainting
(fig. 23).

Fig. 23. Earthenware storage jar with losses filled using AJK dough. Fills are not pigmented or painted.
In 1980, Alvar ceased to be manufactured and was replaced by Butvar (polyvinyl
butyral), made up to form BJK Dough. The properties and uses of the material
remained the same. The idea of creating a stable and reversible backing or lattice-
support that was thermoplastic remained popular. The BJK strips were stuck in place
using an adhesive, and, instead of completing the fill with more BJK Dough, acrylic or
other putties were generally used.
Although stocks of this dough still remain in numerous laboratories, its use has virtually
ended and it has been replaced by other materials such as Hexcelite (Brown 1989).

UV fluorescence: AJK Dough fluoresces a very pale yellow-orange,

mostly masked by the jute fibers. BJK Dough was not examined.
Solubility: AJK Dough is soluble in acetone, and acetone/alcohol. BJK
Dough is soluble in alcohol.


Some of the materials (not mentioned above) that are still in use for fills on ceramics
include plaster of paris, epoxy, or acrylic resins bulked out with fillers such as
microballons and fumed silica, as well as proprietary putty fillers such as Polyfilla and
Dap. It is difficult to predict how long these restoration materials will continue to be in
use. As research and new applications develop (Tennent et al. 1992), new materials
with predictable and stable properties are discovered, and “old favorite” traditional
materials slowly move to the endangered species list or disappear into the realm of the
obsolete. New advances in polymer science and ceramic technology may yet provide
us with a ceramic composite that has all the properties of a good casting and molding
resin with the stability and reversibility of Class A resins (Feller 1975).


Almost all the fill materials described in this article are no longer in use and should be
considered obsolete. Most of the natural resins and waxes have poor or limited aging
characteristics, and they discolor, becoming brittle and cracking, before deteriorating
further. Other materials such as wood, gutta-percha, and metal (fittings or solder) are
both physically incompatible and visually obtrusive. Moreover, they have often resulted
in damage to ceramics in application or in attempts at removal.
Interestingly, one of the older techniques mentioned above has recently become
fashionable again and may yet have a future. This is the recurring use of urushi, which
has both a long history and excellent stability under good storage conditions. It is the
subject of renewed interest in conservation studios in Japan and is currently taught
there as a ceramics restoration technique. Collectors in the United States have also
expressed an interest in having broken Japanese ceramics restored in this traditional
manner. Unfortunately, the technique is difficult (and toxic) to work with and has an
aesthetic appearance that is neither suited for everyone's taste (see fig. 7) nor
appropriate for all ceramics.
The making of fired ceramic restorations has also recently been recommended as a
“new” method for ceramic fills (Andreyeva 1995; Hogan et al. 1996), but, in this author's
opinion, the technique should remain on the obsolete list. It requires a multistep
process, involving casting and molding the original, making a template and throwing the
clay on a wheel, firing the replacement pieces (or vessel), and then modifying the newly
made vessel or ceramic fragments to fit. Creating a good fit (and join) is difficult owing
to the substantial shrinkage, cracking, or distortion of the new clay upon drying (Hogan
et al. 1996); after joining the old and the new, the irregularities must be filled. It is also
difficult to justify the fabrication of a reconstruction that is more than 75% modern to
insert a few fragments. A modern ceramic reproduction displayed alongside the original
fragments would be more appropriate. Since there are other materials and methods
available (Elston 1990b; Koob 1987) this technique seems to be both unnecessary and
extremely time consuming.
Certainly some of the finer manufactured ceramic imitations and restorations done in
the 19th century are worthy of preservation. They are a testament to the aesthetic and
ethical approaches of the period. Suggestions that they be left on restored vessels, or
possibly reused in treatment, are still subjects of much debate (Pavlukhina 1995).
Tracing the development of ceramic restoration styles and the workshops with which
they were associated could enlighten this debate. It has already been noted how
different ceramics collections reflect the time at which they were restored as well as the
influences of aesthetic taste and appreciation (Bousquet and Devambez 1950).
Loss compensation on ceramics is still an active topic of debate in the conservation
field, particularly as to the extent of restoration. Not all broken or reconstructed
ceramics require loss compensation, and the decision to fill losses should be
determined on the basis of the eventual disposition of the ceramic, whether it be for
museum or private display, study and publication, or archaeological storage. Other
deciding factors include the current trends in aesthetics and restoration philosophy
(Podany 1995).
It is logical to limit the amount of intervention that a ceramic endures and the types of
materials that are used in its conservation (Koob 1991). Of paramount importance is
preserving the integrity of the ceramic object through the use of predictable,
dependable, easily usable, and reversible fill materials. The combination of materials
and their potential differences in aging and interaction pose further problems for the
stability of a ceramic. Even today, a restored ceramic may have so many different
synthetic materials attached to it (Barov 1988) that it is difficult to predict when one will
deteriorate or interact with another.
Fortunately, the experienced ceramics conservator now has an arsenal of solvents and
techniques to aid in the removal of all of these resins, putties, and fills. Retreatment
requires both the ability to identify the material and understand its chemistry well
enough to remove it. Technical analysis and research by conservation scientists and
polymer chemists have greatly aided the ceramics conservator in this area, so that
these obsolete fill materials can be safely removed without risking damage to the
ceramic (or to the conservator). Once the ceramic is returned to its fragmented state,
the next step is to put the pieces back together. The restoration challenge begins again.


I thank Dr. Chris Maines, conservation scientist in the Scientific Research Department,
National Gallery of Art, for the identifications of unknown resins. I also thank Julie
Lauffenberger, conservator at the Walters Art Gallery, and Sidney Williston, head
conservator at Mario's Conservation Services, for assistance in tracking down early
references, and Hiroko Kariya, project conservator at the Brooklyn Museum, for the
treatment and photographs of the bowl in figures 17–19.


André, J. -M.1976. The restorer's handbook of ceramics and glass. New York: Van
Nostrand Reinhold.
Andreyeva, L.1995. On the possibility of using burnt ceramic masses for the restoration
of damaged ceramics. The ceramics cultural heritage, proceedings of the international
symposium, Ceramics Heritage of the 8th CIMTEC-World Ceramics Congress and
Forum on New Materials, Florence, Italy. Faenza, Italy: Techna. 739–46.
Barov, Z.1988. The reconstruction of a Greek vase: The Kyknos Krater. Studies in
Bousquet, J., and P.Devambez. 1950. New methods in restoring ancient vases in the
Louvre. Museum3(2):177–79.
Braude, F.1943. Adhesives. Brooklyn, N.Y.: Chemical Publishing Co.
Brown, J. B.1989. Hexcelite: a replacement for AJK/BJK dough. Conservation News,
United Kingdom Institute for Conservation newsletter40:11–12.
Burns, N. F.1941. Field manual for museums. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government
Printing Office.
Buys, S., and V.Oakley. 1993. Conservation of ceramics. London: Butterworths,
Charters, S., R. P.Evershed, and L. J.Goad. 1993. Identification of an adhesive used to
repair a Roman jar. Archaeometry35(1):91–101.
de laRie, R.1982. Fluorescence of paint and varnish layers, (Part 1)Studies in
de laRie, R.1986. Ultraviolet radiation fluorescence of paint and varnish layers.
Scientific examination of easel paintings, PACT13:91–108.
Elston, M.1990a. Ancient repairs of Greek vases in the J. Paul Getty Museum. J. Paul
Getty Museum Journal18:53–68.
Elston, M.1990b. Technical and aesthetic considerations in the conservation of ancient
ceramic and terracotta objects in the J. Paul Getty Museum: Five case studies. Studies
in Conservation35:69–80.
Feigl, F.1946. Qualitative analysis by spot tests, inorganic and organic applications. 3d
ed.New York: Elsevier Publishing Co.
Feller, R. L.1975. Speeding up photochemical deterioration. Bulletin Institut Royal du
Patrimonie Artistique15:135–50.
Gänsicke, S., and J. W.Hirx. 1997. A translucent wax-resin fill material for the
compensation of losses in objects. Journal of the American Institute for
Hiscox, G. D., ed.1948. Henley's twentieth book of formulas, processes and trade
secrets. New York: N. W. Henley Publishing Co.
Hodges, H. W. M.1975. Problems and ethics of the restoration of pottery. In
Conservation in archaeology and the applied arts: Contributions to the 1975 Stockholm
Congress, London: IIC. 37–38.
Hogan, L., L.Butler, J.Cooper, K.Elliott, D.Ling, J.Quinton, M.Sank, S.Stirling, W.Walker,
and F.Ward. 1996. Reconstructing major missing areas of ceramics vessels using clay.
ICOM Committee for Conservation preprints, 11th Triennial Meeting, Edinburgh,
Scotland. Paris: ICOM. 2: 833–38.
Horie, C. V.1987. Materials for conservation: Organic consolidants, adhesives and
coatings. Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann.
Khazanova, I. A.1978. Some problems concerning the repeated restoration of antique
painted vases. ICOM Committee for Conservation preprints, 5th Triennial Meeting,
Zagreb. Paris: ICOM. 1–6.
Klein, W. K.1962. Restoring china and glass: The Klein method. New York: Harper &
Koob, S. P. 1979. The removal of aged shellac adhesive from ceramics. Studies in
Koob, S. P.1984. The continued use of shellac as an adhesive: Why? Adhesives and
consolidants: preprints of the contributions to the Paris congress. London: IIC. 103.
Koob, S. P.1987. Detachable plaster restorations for archaeological ceramics. Recent
advances in the conservation and analysis of artifacts. Jubilee Conservation
Conference, London: Summer Schools Press. 63–65.
Koob, S. P.1988. The conservation and restoration of red-figure stamnos No. 48-30-3.
Expedition30(2): 29–30.
Koob, S. P.1991. The use of Acryloid B-72 in the treatment of archaeological ceramics:
Minimal intervention. Materials issues in art and archaeology, II, Materials Research
Society Symposium Proceedings 185, ed.P.Vandiver et al. Pittsburgh: Materials
Research Society. 591–96.
Lanmon, D. P.1969. Putting the pieces together: Ceramics and glass repairing in the
eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. Delaware antiques show catalogue. 95–102.
Larney, J.1975. Restoring ceramics. New York: Watson-Guptill Publications.
Litchfield, F.1951. Pottery and porcelain: A guide to collectors. New York: M. Barrows
and Co.
Lucas, A.1924. Antiques: Their restoration and preservation. London: Edward Arnold &
Lucas, A.1989. Ancient Egyptian materials and industries. 4th ed., rev. by J. R.Harris.
London: Histories & Mysteries of Man, Ltd.
Marshall, A.1996. Personal communication. Hillwood Museum, 4155 Linnean Ave., NW,
Washington, D.C. 20008.
Nakasato, T.1988. Urushi as restoration material. The conservation of far Eastern art:
Abstracts of the contributions to the Kyoto congress. London: IIC. 49.
Noble, J. V.1965. The techniques of painted Attic pottery. New York: Watson-Guptill
Parsons, C. S. M., and F. H.Curl. 1963. China mending and restoration. London: Faber
and Faber.
Pavlukhina, N.1995. Restoration of the antique vases from the collection Marquis of
Campana in the Hermitage Museum (historical pages and actual problems). The
ceramics cultural heritage. Proceedings of the international symposium, Ceramics
Heritage of the 8th CIMTEC-World Ceramics Congress and Forum on New Materials,
Florence, Italy. Faenza, Italy: Techna. 731–38.
Plenderleith, H. J.1934. The preservation of antiquities. London:Museums Association.
Podany, J.1995. Faked, flayed, or fractured? Development of loss compensation
approaches for antiquities at the J. Paul Getty Museum. In Loss compensation:
Technical and philosophical issues, AIC Objects Specialty Group postprints, vol. 2.
Washington, D.C.:AIC. 38–56.
Rathgen, F.1905. The preservation of antiquities. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Rorimer, J.1931. Ultra-violet rays and their use in the examination of works of art. New
York: Metropolitan Museum of Art.
St.-Gaudens., P., and A. R.Jackson. 1953. How to mend china and bric-a-brac as a
hobby…as a business. Boston: Charles T. Branford Co.
Skeist, I.1977. Handbook of adhesives. 2d ed.New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold Co.
Snow, C. E.1986. The Affecter amphora: A case study in the history of Greek vase
restoration. Journal of the Walters Art Gallery44:2–7.
Tennent, N. H., T.Baird, J.Kerr, and M.Slager. 1992. The conservation and technical
examination of some Spanish lustre ceramics. In Conservation of the Iberian and Latin
American cultural heritage: Preprints of the contributions to the Madrid congress, eds.H.
W.Hodges, J. S.Mills and P.Smith. London: IIC. 158–64.
UNESCO. 1968. The conservation of cultural property. Belgium: United Nations.
Williams, N.1983. Porcelain repair and restoration. London: British Museum
Publications Ltd.
Williams, N.1988. Ancient methods of repairing pottery and porcelain. In Early
advances in conservation, ed.V.Daniels. British Museum Occasional Paper 65. London:
British Museum. 147–50.
Yates, R. F.1953. How to restore china, bric-a-brac and small antiques. New York:
Gramercy Publishing Co.


STEPHEN P. KOOB received an M.A. (1976) in Classical Archaeology from Indiana

University and a B.Sc. (1980) in Archaeological Conservation and Materials Science
from the Institute of Archaeology, University of London. He spent five years as
conservator of the Agora Excavations with the American School of Classical Studies in
Athens, Greece. In 1986 he started as conservator, specializing in ceramics and glass,
at the Freer Gallery of Art and Arthur M. Sackler Gallery, Smithsonian Institution. He
has also done extensive private work, re-treating Greek vases for the Walters Art
Gallery, the University of Pennsylvania Museum, Princeton Art Museum and The Yale
University Art Gallery. Address: Department of Conservation and Scientific Research,
Freer Gallery of Art, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. 20560.
Section Index
Copyright © 1998 American Institute for Conservation of Historic and Artistic Works
Nombre de archivo: JAIC Fill materials 1
Directorio: H:\Restauración enero 2011\Biblioteca\Biblioteca
Autor: trpasovi
Palabras clave:
Fecha de creación: 18/06/2008 9:04:00
Cambio número: 3
Guardado el: 18/06/2008 9:22:00
Guardado por: trpasovi
Tiempo de edición: 17 minutos
Impreso el: 02/02/2011 17:29:00
Última impresión completa
Número de páginas: 34
Número de palabras: 10.957 (aprox.)
Número de caracteres: 60.268 (aprox.)