Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 18

JAIC , Volume 39, Number 1, Article 1 (pp.

to ) Página 1 de 18

JAIC , Volume 39, Number 1, Article 1 (pp. to )



ABSTRACT—ABSTRACT—On the night of June 19, 1997, the on-site mosaic depot at Sardis,
Turkey, burned, entirely destroying the wooden roof. Two stacks of lifted mosaic sections,
already faced with animal glue and cotton, were stored in the depot and were covered by the
resulting debris of charcoal, ash, and exploded ceramic roof tiles. Each stack consisted of four
mosaic sections lying on top of each other, separated by plastic sheeting and layers of paper that
melted and burned on the top and sides. Initial recovery of the damaged and buried mosaics was
undertaken by the team of conservators and conservation students already on-site for the regular
excavation season. Removal of large and small debris was carried out, and periodic assessments
were made to decide final methods of cleaning and separation of the damaged layers.Secondary
recovery was undertaken in the 1998 season. Two methods of recovery were tested: first by
lining damaged layers with cotton cloth and acrylic emulsion, and second by securing portions of
a stack with polyurethane foam, flipping the stack, and removing layers from the reverse.
Recovery will continue during the 1999 season.

TITRE—La récupération de mosaïques sans revers à la suite d'un incendie à l'entrepôt au site des
fouilles de Sardes, en Turquie. RÉSUMÉ—La nuit du 19 juin 1997, l'entrepôt des mosaïques sur
le site des fouilles archéologiques de Sardes, en Turquie, a pris feu et le toit en bois fut
totalement détruit. Des sections de mosaïques qui avaient été prélevées et déjà protégées en
surface à l'aide de coton et de colle animale, se trouvaient en deux piles dans l'entrepôt et furent
recouvertes par des débris de charbon, de cendres et d'éclats de tuiles en céramique provenant du
toit. Pour chaque pile, il y avait quatre sections de mosaïque l'une par dessus l'autre, séparée
d'une feuille de plastique et de couches de papier. Le plastique fondit et le papier brÛla, causant
des dégâts entre chaque section et aussi le long des bords des sections. Les travaux de
récupération d'urgence de ces mosaïques endommagées et ensevelies sous les débris ont été
effectués par l'équipe de restaurateurs et d'étudiants qui se trouvaient déjà sur le site pour la
saison régulière de fouilles. Les débris les plus grossiers furent d'abord éliminés et ensuite les
plus petits, tout cela avec des évaluations périodiques afin de décider comment les sections de
mosaïques seraient nettoyées et séparées l'une de l'autre. La deuxième phase de la récupération
eut lieu durant la saison de fouilles de 1998. On mit à l'essai deux méthodes: le doublage des
couches endommagées au moyen de tissu de coton et d'une émulsion acrylique; et
l'immobilisation de certaines parties d'une pile à l'aide de mousse en polyuréthane, permettant
ainsi de retourner la pile et d'enlever les couches à partir du revers. La récupération se poursuivit
aussi durant la saison de fouilles de 1999.

mhtml:file://H:\Arqueología\Mosaico\JAIC , Volume 39, Number 1, Article 1 (pp_ to ).mht 13/02/2011

JAIC , Volume 39, Number 1, Article 1 (pp. to ) Página 2 de 18

TITULO—Recuperación de mosaicos sin soporte de un incendio en el depósito de las

excavaciones de Sardis, Turquía. RESÚMEN—En la noche del 19 de julio de 1997, un incendio
en el depósito de mosaicos del sitio de Sardis, Turquía, destruyó completamente el techo de
madera del edificio. Dos pilas de secciones de mosaicos guardados en el depósito, a los que ya se
había cubierto con cola animal y algodón, quedaron cubiertos por restos de carbón, cenizas y
fragmentos de los azulejos de cerámica del techo. Cada pila consistía de cuatro secciones de
mosaicos, una encima de la otra, separadas por hojas de plástico y papel que se fundieron y se
quemaron en la parte superior y en los costados. El equipo de conservadores y estudiantes de
conservación que se encontraba en el sitio para la temporada regular de excavación llevó a cabo
la recuperación incial de los mosaicos dañados. Se quitaron los restos de escombros grandes y
pequeños y se hicieron observaciones periódicas para determinar los métodos finales a emplear
para la limpieza y separación de las capas dañadas.La segunda etapa de las tareas de
recuperación se llevó a cabo durante la temporada de 1998. Se probaron dos métodos de
recuperación: 1) forrar las capas dañadas con tela de algodón y emulsión acrílica y 2) asegurar
los componentes de las pilas con espuma de poliuretano, luego dar vuelta a las pilas y remover
las capas del reverso. Las tareas de recuperación continuaron durante la temporada del año 1999.


The principle that ancient mosaics are an integral part of the buildings in which they are
originally installed and that every effort should be made to preserve them within that context has
long been widely accepted (Second International Congress 1964, Article 8), and increasingly in
situ treatment is chosen as the most appropriate method for conservation of excavated mosaics
(Getty Conservation Institute 1991; Nardi 1996). Nonetheless, there are times when it becomes
necessary to remove mosaics from the buildings in which they were made (Mora 1980). Such
circumstances may include a threat of vandalism or theft from an unprotected site, danger from
natural phenomena, or the need to lift the mosaic in order to explore strata underneath.

Sardis, an archaeological site in western Anatolia, has been occupied by numerous civilizations
since antiquity. Sardis is unique in the region for having been the capital of the Lydians, whose
period of greatest strength extended from the 9th to the mid-6th century b.c. To explore the
Lydian material, it is often necessary to go through deposits left by later occupants.

In 1989, under the auspices of the Harvard-Cornell Archaeological Exploration of Sardis

(Crawford H. Greenewalt Jr., field director), a series of early 5th- and early 6th-century a.d.
Roman floor mosaics was discovered in the sector known as MMS/N, between an ancient east-
west road and the modern Izmir-Ankara highway (Greenewalt et al. 1993). These mosaics were
typical Roman paving mosaics made up of relatively large stone tesserae, approximately 1–2 cm
sq., set in lime mortar. In subsequent seasons, more mosaics were unearthed in the same sector
as the excavation continued to the east (Greenewalt et al. 1995). The mosaics (fig. 1) had been
built above a critical juncture in the Lydian defense wall, and it was deemed necessary to remove
these later features to investigate the Lydian structures below. When exploration of the Lydian
levels was complete, the mosaics would be reinstalled in their original location as part of an
overall plan for presentation of the MMS/N sector to the public.
Mosaics in situ in sector MMS/N at Sardis, 1990. ©
Archaeological Exploration of Sardis/Harvard

mhtml:file://H:\Arqueología\Mosaico\JAIC , Volume 39, Number 1, Article 1 (pp_ to ).mht 13/02/2011

JAIC , Volume 39, Number 1, Article 1 (pp. to ) Página 3 de 18

Fig. 1.

Beginning in 1990, portions of the mosaics were lifted by application of animal glue, cotton
cloth, and paper facing (fig. 2). The mosaics were divided into sections, loosened from the
bedding mortar by pounding, and lifted directly or by rolling (Salzman and Sherman 1990;
Griffen and Salzman 1991; Griffen and Tokumaru 1992) (fig. 3). The traditional glue-facing
method was chosen for its low cost and the ease with which needed materials could be obtained.
In addition, removal of the facing after backing would require only warm water rather than
organic solvents, which are expensive and difficult to use in the hot Turkish summer climate.
The drawbacks of glue-based facings are, of course, their susceptibility to water damage and the
eventual deterioration over time. These issues were of serious concern at the time of lifting;
however, it was hoped that sufficient resources would be devoted to backing and stabilizing the
mosaics so that the project would be completed in two or three years.
Mosaics divided into sections, before facing and
lifting. © Archaeological Exploration of
Sardis/Harvard University

mhtml:file://H:\Arqueología\Mosaico\JAIC , Volume 39, Number 1, Article 1 (pp_ to ).mht 13/02/2011

JAIC , Volume 39, Number 1, Article 1 (pp. to ) Página 4 de 18

Fig. 2.
Kent Severson and Ellen Salzman lifting mosaic
section by rolling, after facing. © Archaeological
Exploration of Sardis/Harvard University

Fig. 3.

The first mosaics were lifted in 1990 from a level slightly above most of the remaining mosaics.
These were generally fragmentary, and every effort was made to utilize the losses and broken
edges in dividing up the largest sections. The largest section of the mosaic was lifted in 1991.
The floor was cut during lifting into regular sections along lines in the design of the mosaic to
facilitate handling, yielding roughly rectangular sections 1–2 m sq. Several additional small
sections were lifted in the 1992 season. As part of the routine excavation process, the mosaics
had been thoroughly photographed and drawn by the Sardis expedition staff. The precise
location of each cut and the original location of each section were indicated on photocopies of
these drawings as the sections were lifted. The total area of mosaic lifted in all three seasons may
be conservatively estimated to be around 55 to 60 sq. m.

The fragmentary mosaics lifted in 1990 were unrolled and stored face down in nearby sheds on
makeshift shelving. Owing to space limitations, some unrolled sections were stacked in layers,
separated by plastic sheeting. The large sections of mosaic lifted in 1991 and 1992 were stored
on wooden platforms in the space formerly known as the “rest area” of the reconstructed
Bath/Gymnasium complex. These mosaics were also unrolled, positioned face down, and

mhtml:file://H:\Arqueología\Mosaico\JAIC , Volume 39, Number 1, Article 1 (pp_ to ).mht 13/02/2011

JAIC , Volume 39, Number 1, Article 1 (pp. to ) Página 5 de 18

interleaved with plastic sheeting, in stacks of four to five panels per stack. A large, well-
preserved inscription (executed in smaller tesserae than the rest of the mosaic) had been lifted
last from the center of the mosaic paving. This section was positioned on top of the main stack,
in the center of the depot for storage. The stacks were covered with plastic sheeting, and a low
plastic tent was erected over the entire group for additional protection from potential roof leaks
(fig. 4).
Stacked mosaics covered with plastic in storage
depot, 1996. Courtesy of Stephen Koob

Fig. 4.

At the end of the Bath/Gymnasium reconstruction project in 1973, this area had been roofed with
wooden trusses and ceramic tiles. The walls of this space are of massive marble and mortared
brick and rubble masonry. At the time of storage, the roof was in excellent condition, with no
visible sagging or leaks, and it was thought this space made an excellent place to store the
mosaics until they could be backed. In 1991, the space was fitted with wooden security doors at
either end. At last inspection, in 1996, the mosaics were in good condition with no evidence of
deterioration of the adhesive or the textile reinforcing used in the facing.

mhtml:file://H:\Arqueología\Mosaico\JAIC , Volume 39, Number 1, Article 1 (pp_ to ).mht 13/02/2011

JAIC , Volume 39, Number 1, Article 1 (pp. to ) Página 6 de 18


On the evening of June 19, 1997, at approximately 8:00 p.m., a brush fire in the west end of the
Bath complex carried to an old construction shed. As local firemen and the guard on duty
struggled to contain the fire, sparks carried by the light winds continued to spread the fire across
the dry grass and overgrowth. By 9:30, the fire had reached the area near the mosaic storage
depot and ignited the wooden beams supporting the roof. The dry, well-seasoned timbers burned
quickly, generating enough heat to shatter nearly all of the roof tiles and spall large flakes off the
massive marble blocks that formed the depot walls. Before midnight, the roof collapsed, sending
a heavy load of burning beams and tile fragments crashing down on the stacked mosaics.

Local firefighters doused the depot with water from the Sart Belidiyesi (Sardis Fire Department)
tanker truck. Unfortunately, the sole tanker could not be quickly refilled, and the fire was not
immediately extinguished (fig. 5). Early the next day, the remaining charred beams, many still
smoldering, were pulled from the depot by local workers. The fire was still burning in many
areas and was finally extinguished by additional dousing with water.
The morning after the fire: still smoldering.
Courtesy of Sarah McGregor Howarth

Fig. 5.


Removal of the large smoldering beams required a certain amount of walking on the debris and
on surfaces where mosaics were known to have been stored underneath. Other materials stored
in the depot included rush mats and synthetic resin roofing panels from the new roof under
construction over a nearby excavation. Although these combustible materials were removed
from around the mosaics while still smoking, they did not appear to contribute significantly to
the impact of the fire on the mosaics.

Workers began to clear the room by shoveling the debris and shattered tiles into wheelbarrows
(fig. 6), starting at the ends of the room and working toward the center where the mosaics were
stacked. In spite of efforts to minimize foot traffic on top of the mosaics, occasional steps on the

mhtml:file://H:\Arqueología\Mosaico\JAIC , Volume 39, Number 1, Article 1 (pp_ to ).mht 13/02/2011

JAIC , Volume 39, Number 1, Article 1 (pp. to ) Página 7 de 18

burned platforms were unavoidable during the initial clearing operations. It was feared that water
used in putting out the fire had softened the adhesive used in facing, so as soon as possible, all
foot traffic was directed away from the stacks to avoid further disruption of the tesserae. As
paths around the mosaics were opened, conservation staff and volunteer archaeologists began to
pick pieces of roof tiles off the surface of the mosaics by hand (fig. 7). Picking continued until
the first layers of charred tesserae began to appear.
Removal of large debris. Courtesy of Sarah
McGregor Howarth

Fig. 6.
Hand-picking of smaller debris off the stacked
mosaics. From left to right: Stephen Koob, Sarah
McGregor Howarth, and Perry Choe. ©
Archaeological Exploration of Sardis/Harvard

mhtml:file://H:\Arqueología\Mosaico\JAIC , Volume 39, Number 1, Article 1 (pp_ to ).mht 13/02/2011

JAIC , Volume 39, Number 1, Article 1 (pp. to ) Página 8 de 18

Fig. 7.

With the perimeter of the platforms and the bulk of the debris cleared, a preliminary assessment
of the condition of the mosaics was made. The heat of the fire and combustion of facing
materials left the facing and interleaving materials in the uppermost layers of the stacks
completely destroyed. The blackened tesserae of the top layers were mixed with the layers
beneath and with tesserae-sized fragments of roof tiles and charcoal. It was clear from the
beginning that any effort to brush the surface of the stacks to remove debris would disturb what
little order remained in the loose tesserae. Sadly, the small tesserae used in the inscription, stored
at the top of the main stack, appeared to be randomly mixed with the larger tesserae beneath.

Fire had penetrated beneath the platform at the south end of the depot, resulting in partial
collapse at the end of the stack and at the west side nearby. In this area the mosaics were
slumped into a resultant void in a jumble of mixed tesserae. Around the edges, the facing and
plastic interleaving were completely charred, and tesserae were slumping toward the outside of
the stacks. The disorderly slumping of tesserae suggested that some of these areas were
irretrievably lost. Nonetheless, some order to the tesserae seemed to survive in many areas (fig.
8). A little probing around the edges of the stacks showed that beneath the first one or two layers,
the cloth facing seemed to be intact, giving hope that at least some of the mosaics could be
Stacked mosaics after initial cleaning. Courtesy of
Sarah McGregor Howarth

mhtml:file://H:\Arqueología\Mosaico\JAIC , Volume 39, Number 1, Article 1 (pp_ to ).mht 13/02/2011

JAIC , Volume 39, Number 1, Article 1 (pp. to ) Página 9 de 18

Fig. 8.

Various methods were tested for removing finer debris from between the tesserae, including
forced air from squeeze bulbs and an agricultural sprayer, but these only disturbed the tesserae
further. In the end, a vacuum cleaner fitted with a screen over the nozzle was used to lift the
charcoal fragments and smaller roof tile fragments from the damaged surfaces (fig. 9). After
several weeks of vacuuming, the mosaics were left to completely dry out (fig. 10). At about the
same time, a new steel roof was constructed over the depot.
Cleaning fine debris from the tesserae using a
vacuum cleaner. © Archaeological Exploration of
Sardis/Harvard University

mhtml:file://H:\Arqueología\Mosaico\JAIC , Volume 39, Number 1, Article 1 (pp_ to ).mht 13/02/2011

JAIC , Volume 39, Number 1, Article 1 (pp. to ) Página 10 de 18

Fig. 9.
Cleaned mosaics left to completely dry out.
Courtesy of Sarah McGregor Howarth

mhtml:file://H:\Arqueología\Mosaico\JAIC , Volume 39, Number 1, Article 1 (pp_ to ).mht 13/02/2011

JAIC , Volume 39, Number 1, Article 1 (pp. to ) Página 11 de 18

Fig. 10.


At the beginning of the 1998 season, further examination of the mosaic stacks was carried out by
conservators, and, based on this examination, it was agreed that the top layers were irreversibly
damaged and could not be salvaged. Lifting random tesserae from the top of the stack revealed
that the stones were charred on the front and backside. Tests using organic solvents, dilute
mineral acids, and even abrasive cleaning were not successful in regaining the original white and
blue coloration in the stones (Wolfe 1998). The top layers of the mosaic were sacrificed during
the first stage of recovery and used to test methods for recovering undamaged sections. The
jumbled tesserae around the perimeter were also removed to expose the cross section of the
stacks and so determine the overall condition. These simple actions transformed the stacks from
piles of rubble to stacks of four or five layers of mosaics separated with partially melted
polyethylene sheet, deteriorated kraft paper, and the original cotton facings. Lifting the upper
layers proved that, indeed, some of the tesserae remained in order and were not charred by the

mhtml:file://H:\Arqueología\Mosaico\JAIC , Volume 39, Number 1, Article 1 (pp_ to ).mht 13/02/2011

JAIC , Volume 39, Number 1, Article 1 (pp. to ) Página 12 de 18

fire. The separating layer of plastic appeared to have melted slightly and fused to the backside of
the tesserae but could be mechanically removed by tearing. The animal glue used to face the
mosaics had remelted, flowed, and redeposited, making the sandwich of mosaic sections a
complex intermixture of facing materials and stones that varied in condition from layer to layer.

Using tesserae that had fallen or were removed from the stack, conservators tested methods for
lining a layer for lifting and separating the mosaic sections. Pressure-sensitive tapes, such as duct
tape, 3M Scotch 471, and 3M Scotch 850 polyester tape, were tried without success. Lining
techniques were tested using cheesecloth and various adhesives that included Paraloid B-72 in
acetone and Primal AC-33. Both resins successfully adhered the tesserae to the cheesecloth, but
the Primal acrylic emulsion was selected for use because it did not require the use of expensive
and toxic solvents and it provided longer working time. The adhesive was also readily available
for purchase in Turkey.

The top surfaces of the tesserae to be lined were first cleaned using low vacuum pressure and a
soft brush to remove surface dirt and particulate matter. Cheesecloth moistened in a 10%
solution of Primal AC-33 and water was draped over an area 1 m sq. and pounded into the
crevices using a dry brush. After pounding, a 40% solution of the adhesive was brushed onto the
cheesecloth. When the lining was dry, the layer was carefully lifted by wedging both hands
underneath the lined tesserae and manually detaching any stones that were still clinging to the
old facing cloth (fig. 11).
Lifting a lined mosaic from the top of the stack,
1998. © Archaeological Exploration of
Sardis/Harvard University

Fig. 11.

Using this lining technique, the top layer was removed from the badly damaged south end of the
longest stack of mosaics where the fire had penetrated beneath the platform. The second layer
was in better condition, with less disorder and charring. As the lining procedure continued and
the stack was methodically peeled apart, the condition of the mosaics improved. It was surprising
to find in the middle of the stack some of the original kraft paper intact and the original
permanent marker labeling still legible.

A second test method for recovering the charred mosaics involved removing an entire section

mhtml:file://H:\Arqueología\Mosaico\JAIC , Volume 39, Number 1, Article 1 (pp_ to ).mht 13/02/2011

JAIC , Volume 39, Number 1, Article 1 (pp. to ) Página 13 de 18

from a stack by sandwiching the layers between boards and then flipping the entire package. The
first trial was also attempted on the badly damaged south end of the largest stack. A thin sheet of
steel was slid between the bottom of the mosaic stack and the supporting plywood palette, and
the section was separated from the stack using a utility knife to cut the surviving cotton, paper,
and plastic.

The truncated section was then transferred to a wooden plywood board and framed with
polypropylene foam adhered to the plywood. The top of the mosaic was protected with
polyethylene sheet and an expanding polyurethane foam (of the type used for building
construction) laid in the space between the mosaic and the frame. A piece of plywood was
placed on top, forcing the foam to fill the voids and crevices on the surface of the mosaic section,
locking it in place. After the mosaic section was secured between the plywood boards and foam
using C-clamps, it was flipped and disassembled. Lifting the plywood cover, the face of the
tesserae from the mosaic section originally stored on the bottom of the wood palette was exposed
as a flat layer, ready for immediate facing (fig. 12).
Julie Wolfe cleaning a mosaic from a flipped stack,
1998. © Archaeological Exploration of
Sardis/Harvard University

Fig. 12.

In the course of the 1998 season, approximately 2.5 × 3 m of mosaic were declared
unsalvageable and removed (fig. 13). A total of 7 m sq. was recovered and stored in racks in the
depot. Excluding unsalvageable material still in place, it is estimated that 10 more sections of
recoverable mosaics remain in the stacks. A combination of these two techniques for recovering
the mosaic sections will continue to be used during the 1999 season (Wolfe 1998).
Condition of the stack of mosaics after the 1998
season. On the left top side of the stack lies a
salvaged mosaic section that has been lined with
cheesecloth and Primal AC-33 and flipped over.
Courtesy of Julie Wolfe

mhtml:file://H:\Arqueología\Mosaico\JAIC , Volume 39, Number 1, Article 1 (pp_ to ).mht 13/02/2011

JAIC , Volume 39, Number 1, Article 1 (pp. to ) Página 14 de 18

Fig. 13.


Once the damaged mosaics are lifted and separated, this project will be back where it was in
1992, although on a somewhat reduced scale. When the mosaics were first removed from their
bedding, there was a general plan to develop a rigid backing system that would permit
reinstallation in the excavated area within three or four years. Development of such a backing
system was in progress when the disaster occurred, but owing to a variety of other pressures
within the expedition, the project had been delayed. This event dramatically demonstrates how
vulnerable mosaics are when they are separated from their rigid substrates and held together by
temporary facings. Storage conditions for faced mosaics should be given as much consideration
as plans for more permanent disposition and should include factors that will ensure stability of
the facing reinforcement and adhesive. Ironically, the room in the Bath/Gymnasium complex
was a good choice for a temporary storage depot: the heavy masonry walls provided good
physical protection and were certainly fire-resistant, and the tile-and-timber roof was very well
constructed and watertight. Applying this lesson more generally, the fire should remind all those
working on archaeological sites of the dangers of leaving projects partially completed for long
periods of time.

mhtml:file://H:\Arqueología\Mosaico\JAIC , Volume 39, Number 1, Article 1 (pp_ to ).mht 13/02/2011

JAIC , Volume 39, Number 1, Article 1 (pp. to ) Página 15 de 18

Finally, this fire demonstrates the need for some kind of firefighting plan in all storage
situations, particularly in isolated areas like the small village of modern Sardis. Along with a
plan for fighting fires and routine maintenance of firefighting equipment, there needs to be a
certain amount of training in the use of that equipment. In the Sardis depot fire, one of the senior
archaeologists at the site, Andrew Ramage, ran to the site with an old carbon dioxide fire
extinguisher from the excavation house. Through his heroic efforts, an important marble
inscription located outside the door of the depot was saved; but, in the process, his hands were
severely burned by the icy handle of the device.


Getty Conservation Institute. 1991. The conservation of the Orpheus mosaic at Paphos, Cyprus.
Malibu, Calif.: Getty Conservation Institute.

Greenewalt, C. H., C.Ratté, and M.Rautman. 1993. The Sardis campaigns of 1988 and 1989.
Annual of the American Schools of Oriental Research51:1–43.

Greenewalt, C. H., C.Ratté, and M.Rautman. 1995. The Sardis campaigns of 1990 and 1991.
Annual of the American Schools of Oriental Research52:1–28.

Griffen, P., and E.Salzman. 1991. Conservation final report. Harvard-Cornell Archaeological
Exploration of Sardis, Cambridge, Mass.

Griffen, P., and I.Tokumaru. 1992. Conservation final report. Harvard-Cornell Archaeological
Exploration of Sardis, Cambridge, Mass.

Mora, P.1980. Mosaics no. 2: Safeguard. Rome: ICCROM.

Nardi, R.1996. Zippori, Israel: The conservation of the mosaics of the Building of the Nile. In
Archaeological conservation and its consequences, ed. A.Roy and P.Smith. Copenhagen: IIC
Annual Congress. 127–32.

Salzman, E., and J.Sherman. 1990. Conservation final report. Harvard-Cornell Archaeological
Exploration of Sardis, Cambridge, Mass.

Second International Congress of the Architects and Technicians of Historical Monuments.

1964. International Charter for the Conservation and Restoration of Monuments (Charter of
Venice). Venice: International Council on Monuments and Sites, 1966.

Wolfe, J.1998. Recovery of mosaics damaged in the 1997 fire. Harvard-Cornell Archaeological
Exploration of Sardis, Cambridge, Mass.


mhtml:file://H:\Arqueología\Mosaico\JAIC , Volume 39, Number 1, Article 1 (pp_ to ).mht 13/02/2011

JAIC , Volume 39, Number 1, Article 1 (pp. to ) Página 16 de 18

Adhesive resins: Paraloid B-72 and Primal AC-33

Rohm and Haas

Philadelphia, Pa.

Distributed by Conservator's Emporium

100 Standing Rock Circle

Reno, Nev. 89511

Pressure sensitive tapes: duct tape, Scotch 471, and Scotch 850 polyester tape

3M Corporation

Box 33053

St. Paul, Minn. 55133-3053

Distributed by hardware or fine arts supply stores.

Primal AC-33

Art and Restoration

Karaça Sokak 18

Dolapdere, Beyoglu


(212) 238-4511


KENT SEVERSON graduated from the New York University (NYU) Institute of Fine Arts
Conservation Training Program in 1985. He spent two seasons at Sardis while attending NYU.
Between 1985 and 1996, he was a conservator with the private firm of Daedalus Inc. (formerly
Dennis and Craine, Associates) in Cambridge, Massachusetts. Since 1989, he has participated as
consultant and supervisor of NYU conservation students at several archaeological sites,
including the Harvard-Cornell Sardis Expedition, the New York University project at
Samothrace, Greece, and the New York University expedition to Aphrodisias, Turkey. Since
1996, he has been living part-time in Turkey, teaching archaeological conservation in the
Department of Art History and Archaeology at Bilkent University, Ankara, and continuing
archaeological fieldwork. He is currently senior field conservator for the Aphrodisias expedition

mhtml:file://H:\Arqueología\Mosaico\JAIC , Volume 39, Number 1, Article 1 (pp_ to ).mht 13/02/2011

JAIC , Volume 39, Number 1, Article 1 (pp. to ) Página 17 de 18

and is working in private practice in Boston, Massachusetts. Address: 35 Queensberry St., #9,
Boston, Mass. 02215

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. From 1980 to 85, he was conservator of the Agora
Excavations with the American School of Classical Studies in Athens, Greece. From 1986 to 98,
he worked as conservator, specializing in ceramics and glass, at the Freer Gallery of Art and
Arthur M. Sackler Gallery, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. In 1998, he took up the
position of conservator at the Corning Museum of Glass. Address: The Corning Museum of
Glass, One Corning Glass Center, Corning, N.Y. 14830.

JULIE WOLFE holds an M.A. in art conservation from the State University of New York at
Buffalo. She has a certificate of advanced training from the Harvard University Art Museums
specializing in objects conservation. She was an assistant conservator at the Williamstown Art
Conservation Center and is a recipient of a 1998 IMLS grant at the Solomon R. Guggenheim
Museum. Address: SRGM, 620 W. 47th St., 6th floor, New York, N.Y. 10036

PERRY CHOE received a B.A. from Cornell University in 1989 and completed her M.A. in the
history of art and a certificate in the conservation of works of art from the Institute of Fine Arts
of New York University in 1999. She has interned at the Metropolitan Museum of Art, and the
Baltimore Museum of Art, and worked as assistant to the director at Cathedral Stoneworks. She
is currently interning at the National Museums and Galleries on Merseyside, England. Address:
The Conservation Centre, National Museums and Galleries on Merseyside, Whitechapel,
Liverpool, England L1 6HZ

STEPHANIE E. HORNBECK received a B.A. cum laude in art history from Wellesley College
in 1990 and an M.A. in art history and a diploma in conservation from the Institute of Fine Arts,
New York University in 1999. She specializes in the conservation of archaeological and
ethnographic objects. She is assistant conservator at the National Museum of African Art,
Smithsonian Institution. Address: National Museum of African Art, Smithsonian Institution, 950
Independence Ave., S.W., Washington, D.C. 20560-0708

SARAH MCGREGOR HOWARTH received a B.A. from Boston University in 1989. She is
completing her M.A. in the history of art and a certificate in the conservation of works of art
from the Institute of Fine Arts of New York University. Since 1998, she has worked as a
conservator on the Greek and Roman reinstallation project in the Sherman Fairchild Center for
Objects Conservation at the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York. Address: 424 East 85th
St., #18, New York, N.Y. 10028

ANTHONY SIGEL received a B.F.A. in painting and sculpture from the School of the Art
Institute of Chicago in 1983. He spent nine years as a preparator and mountmaker at the Art
Institute's department of European Decorative Art, Sculpture, and Classical Art, where he
received his initial conservation training and experience through an informal museum
apprenticeship. He is currently associate conservator of objects and sculpture at the Straus Center
for Conservation, Harvard University Art Museums, where he has worked since his advanced-
level internship in 1992. From 1995 to 1998, he served as conservator for special projects at the
Archaeological Exploration of Sardis, in western Turkey, co-sponsored by the Harvard

mhtml:file://H:\Arqueología\Mosaico\JAIC , Volume 39, Number 1, Article 1 (pp_ to ).mht 13/02/2011

JAIC , Volume 39, Number 1, Article 1 (pp. to ) Página 18 de 18

University Art Museums and Cornell University. Address: Straus Center for Conservation,
Harvard University Art Museums, 32 Quincy St., Cambridge, Mass. 02138

Section Index

mhtml:file://H:\Arqueología\Mosaico\JAIC , Volume 39, Number 1, Article 1 (pp_ to ).mht 13/02/2011

Centres d'intérêt liés