Case Studies in Baketry Repair

1

TITLE – Case Studies in Basketry Repair: Two Abenaki Splint Baskets AUTHORS – Tessa de Alarcon*, Robin Ohern*, Ellen Pearlstein *The first two authors are listed alphabetically and they contributed equally to this work. ABSTRACT— Two case studies on structural repairs to previously treated Abenaki splint basketry are discussed. The paper includes a brief review of basketry technology as well as the history and techniques of loss compensation for splint baskets. The cultural background presented includes a discussion of Abenaki basketry, traditional materials, methods of preparation, and the introduction of new materials. Photomicrographs taken of samples from these baskets support the identification of sweet grass and black ash, and possibly a dealer-supplied Hong Kong cord. The condition and treatment process for each basket is presented while taking into account the objects’ structures, materials, and damages. Treatment techniques include reweaving with smooth Tyvek and dental floss both with and without adhesive. The successes and failures of the previous and current treatments are evaluated and are related to the structure of the baskets, their handling, and the environmental conditions of the storage area. 1. INTRODUCTION

The goal of this paper is to present two case studies as examples of the types of methods used for

repair and loss compensation and the thought process used in evaluating and choosing a

treatment solution for specific basketry types. The two baskets discussed here are examples of

ash splint basketry. One splint basket is bowl shaped while the other is a flat round lidded splint

basket (fig. 1). The latter is identical in form and decoration to a form known as an “arm basket”

(Pelletier 1982; Handsman and McMullen 1987). Different Algonkian and Iroquoian groups in

the North East of the United States and the south east coast of Canada make ash splint basketry

(Handsman and McMullen 1987). Based on visual comparison, the two baskets discussed here

were most likely made by the Abenaki (one of the Algonkain groups). Both of the baskets

presented here are examples of fancy baskets and were likely produced as tourist trade items

before 1940. The exact provenance cannot be known as a private collector in New England

2

purchased the two baskets and their previous collection history is unknown (Pearlstein 2011).

The baskets are part of a study collection and as such have been subject to handling and an

uncontrolled storage environment.

The woven structures of baskets perform the essential role of distributing the internal

stresses and the physical loads associated with their use. When elements are broken, the

distribution is disrupted and the relationship between the structural elements is altered and results

in localized stresses that can lead to additional damage and deterioration (Norton 1997). Splint

basketry is prone to certain forms of deterioration due to the materials and methods of its

construction. The splints or warps, being woody in nature, tend to become hard and brittle over

time. This can result in thin fibers lifting off the surface or vertical (longitudinal) splitting in the

warps. In addition, as they are made of wood, in low humidity the splints will shrink

anisotropically and become much narrower but retain most of their length. This can cause

loosening of the woven structure and a tendency toward physical damage. Once a splint breaks

the separate fragments may warp causing poor alignment of the join when a repair is attempted

(Fenn 1980). Both of the baskets discussed here are structurally unstable and represent the

condition problems typical of splint basketry once there is a break to one or more of the

structural elements.

Treatment options are complicated by the solvent sensitivity of the plant materials used to

make baskets. Treatments using solvents, while in some cases necessary, can lead to distortion,

loss of shape, stress caused by the swelling action of some solvents on plant materials, the

dissolution or extraction of soluble components of both dyes (if they were used to color the

warps or wefts) and components of the plant materials themselves (Odegaard and Kronkright

1984; Kronkright 1997). Solvent action can also move soiling on the surface of the object and

3

instead of removing it may redeposit it within the matrix of the basket (Odegaard and Kronkright

1984). The specific risks will depend on the solvent used, the species of plant used for the

construction of the object, and the part of the plant from which it originated (Kronkright 1997).

Repairs of baskets may be divided into either mechanical or adhesive repairs with the

former using stitching elements to restore structure and the latter using adhesive repair methods.

Examples of mechanical repair techniques include the introduction of supplementary elements

such as synthetic materials, cotton thread, or plant materials to stitch, sew, or bind the broken

elements together (Canadian Conservation Institute 1983; Florian, Kronkright, and Norton

1997). Another common mechanical repair technique is the insertion of supplementary splints

either behind the warps or wefts or within them, depending on the basket’s method of

construction (Norton 1997). Many of the treatment methods that are described can be used as

either repair or as loss compensation methods. Basketry loss compensation is often undertaken

not only for aesthetic reasons but also to restore the structural integrity of the piece.

In the 1990s a method of adhesive repair was introduced using both twisted and

untwisted Japanese tissue adhered across the break or area of loss. This technique is compatible

with a range of adhesives, but is most commonly used with wheat starch paste (Fenn 1980;

Kronkright 1997; Wills 2002). Wills (2002) has suggested that untwisted Japanese tissue may be

used in loss compensation by building up toned paper strips. Tyvek (high-density spun bonded

polyethylene sheet) has been proposed as a repair material for African plaited baskets and

specifically for reinforced adhesive repairs and loss compensation (Brako et al. 1990). Brako et

al. advocate the use of Tyvek over Japanese tissue paper for flat basketry elements for its

physical similarities, surface texture, strength, and working properties and for the compatibility

4

of Tyvek with a range of adhesives. Weaving the Tyvek repair strips in a similar manner to the

basket helps to provide support and visually integrate the object as well.

2. BACKGROUND

Both baskets were examined and treated in 2010 as part of a course on organic materials at the

UCLA/Getty Master's Program in Archaeological and Ethnographic Conservation and had been

treated by a previous class. The treatments involved the use of materials and techniques

sympathetic to the original materials and structure, and were designed to restore structural

integrity to the baskets and to aesthetically compensate for losses in the objects. The two baskets

shown here (fig. 1) are in a private collection and were purchased by their current owner at an

antique shop in New England. New England, as a location, is not helpful in determining a

specific attribution, since the wares of the different Algonkian groups were sold throughout the

North East of the United States (Pelletier 1982; Lester 1987). The baskets have been kept in a

non-climate controlled environment, and the causes of the damages to these baskets are

unknown; in both cases the damage existed prior to their purchase (Pearlstein 2011).

The two baskets discussed in this paper were likely produced as trade items. There were

a number of American Indian tribal groups in the United States and Canada that produced trade

baskets, or ‘fancy baskets,’ to be sold at tourist resorts starting in the Victorian era and

continuing into the 1920s. These groups include the Abenaki (Abnaki), Penobscot,

Passamoquoddy, and the Maliseet peoples (fig. 2) (Willoughby 1935; Pelletier 1982; Wiseman

2001). The names used by and for the native peoples of the Northeast have changed overtime

and are different on the US side of the border versus in Canada, while for many of these groups

their traditional homelands spanned both sides of the border (Phillips 1998). The names used

5

here are a combination of terms used in the contemporary literature and by the groups

themselves in the United States and Canada. Each of these groups made two types of ash splint

baskets: work baskets and fancy baskets. Work baskets are larger utilitarian baskets and were

traditionally made by men, while fancy baskets are smaller, highly decorative baskets produced

traditionally by women. Fancy baskets began to be widely produced as tourist trade items

beginning in the Victorian era. While this type of basket continues to be produced today, the

height of large-scale production occurred during the Victorian era and extended into the 1920s

(Pelletier 1982; Konrad and Nicholas 1987; Lester 1987; Porter 1990; Wiseman 2001). There

are features present in the two examples described here as case studies which make their

attribution most likely Abenaki although differentiating between these groups can be challenging

(Pelletier 1982). This is in part due to the fact that in addition to their shared cultural heritage (all

are Algonkian), during the period of high production all of these groups were exchanging ideas

and technology for basket production and were selling their wares to the same target audience in

the same areas, i.e. tourist resorts in the Northeast of the United States (Lester 1987).

Production of these items rapidly decreased in the 1930s in Canada and in the 1920s in

the United States (Pelletier 1982; Konrad and Nicholas 1987; Porter 1990; Wiseman 2001).

Different authors have proposed a variety of societal and economic explanations for the decrease

in production of fancy basketry by these New England tribes and it may be that a combination of

factors may have lead to this decline (Pelletier 1982; Lester 1987; Porter 1990; Wiseman 2001).

In any case, despite all of these noteworthy cultural changes, these types of baskets are still being

produced. There are native basket weavers still continuing these traditions today (Konrad and

Nicholas 1987; Lester 1987; An Interview with a Traditional Basket-Maker 2001). However, the

market for these baskets is no longer the same. Today they are purchased by, "people who

6

perceive the basket as an art form, appreciate the skill and expertise required to produce it, and

understand the cost" instead of as a souvenir or trinket (Lester 1987, 58). As the forms, styles,

and methods of production have shifted over time as basket weavers responded to shifts in

consumer taste, identification of materials and production methods of these baskets can be used

to estimate when they were produced.

Both of the baskets that are the subject of this study were compared to images of

Abenaki, Penobscot, Passamaquoddy, and Maliseet basketry in order to better provide specific

tribal attributions (Pelletier 1982; Handsman and McMullen 1987; Konrad and Nicholas 1987;

McFeat 1987; Fang and Binder 1990; Haskell 2005). The pattern and the form of the bowl

shaped basket were found to be similar to baskets documented by Pelletier (1982) and identified

as Abenaki. Many of these bowl shaped baskets also had lids suggesting that this object may

originally have had a lid. The presence of the Hong Kong cord in this basket, a non-traditional

material discussed below in section 2.1, suggests that a dealer may have supplied the cord and

commissioned the basket for the tourist industry. As the bowl shaped basket includes a material

that was introduced in the 1930s and which had a brief period of use by the Abenaki immediately

following its commercial introduction, this basket was probably made in the 1930s.

Images of "arm baskets" were found in Pelletier (1982) as well as in Handsman and

McMullen (1987) and in Konrad and Nicholas (1987). “Arm baskets” were also called

“galletes” or “flats” and were sold as sewing baskets (Pelletier 1982; Handsman and McMullen

1987). The wide sweet grass braids and the absence of a highly decorative handle constitute a

form seen in this example and referenced in Pelletier (1982) and Handsman and McMullen

(1987) as particular to the Abenaki. When Pelletier interviewed basket makers in the 1980s most

had never produced this form but recalled that their parents or grandparents had. This indicates

7

that this form is older but had reduced in popularity (Pelletier 1982). This may be true only

regionally as an example of this form was found made by Christine Nicholas, a contemporary

Pennobscot basket maker (Konrad and Nicholas 1987). Pelletier (1982) also observed that over

time the construction of baskets shifted towards baskets with lighter construction. Although this

was a widely produced and popular form, the heavier construction of the basket discussed in this

paper suggests that this example is an earlier basket when compared to the bowl shaped basket.

2.1 MATERIALS: PRODUCTION AND APPLICATION

The materials used in the two baskets discussed here are consistent with those used by a

number of groups in the North Atlantic Coast of North America. The bowl shaped splint basket

was made out of several different plant materials: a woody splint material, a grass-like weft

material, and a probably dealer supplied twisted cord. The “arm basket” is constructed of only

two materials: a woody material for the warps (splints) and a leafy material for the wefts. The

materials used in the production of baskets in this region includes black or brown ash chosen for

its strength, and flexibility, and sweet grass, chosen because of its ease of use, availability and

fragrance (Swauger 1966; Pelletier 1982; Konrad and Nicholas 1987). The twisted cord, visually

similar to examples of Hong Kong cord in Pelletier (1982), is an example of the introduction of

non-traditional materials.

The Abenaki prepared ash splints using a similar pounding method to that used by the

Maliseet, Passamoquoddy, and Penobscot, with one difference in the preparation details. All of

these groups first removed the bark from the log and then pounded the entire surface with a

heavy tool to separate the wood into sheets along the annual growth rings of the tree

8

(Willoughby 1935; Fenn 1980; Pelletier 1982; Konrad and Nicholas 1987; Speck 1997;

Wiseman 2001). Men typically prepared the splints and in later periods they were purchased pre-

made from dealers. Even pressure is critical in the labor-intensive pounding process or the layers

below the one being pounded would break and be unusable for basketry. Unlike other groups, the

Abenaki had two men pound a log together using a rhythmic stroke only working each area once

to ensure even pressure. Other groups covered the log with mud and then one man worked alone

pounding it to separate the growth rings (Pelletier 1982). The tool used to pound the logs varied

over time and includes a traditional tool called a wigebidemahigan, and in later periods the back

of an axe or a mallet was used (Pelletier 1982; Konrad and Nicholas 1987; Wiseman 2001).

Splints can also be prepared by shaving the wood along the grain, however, the resulting splints

are not as smooth and are more friable than pounded splints (Fenn 1980). Once the wood was

separated into sheets using any of these methods, they were then cut into uniform widths using a

gauge (a wooden tool with evenly spaced blades). Basket weavers often kept on-hand a range of

gauges to prepare different width splints to suit their needs (Pelletier 1982; Handsman and

McMullen 1987; Konrad and Nickolas 1987; Lester 1987; Speck 1997). Another distinguishing

aspect of the methods used by the Abenaki is that they often used a taper vise to cut tapered

splints instead of shaping them by hand (Pelletier 1982; McMullen 1987).

After the splints were shaped they were formed into coils and dried. Before beginning to

weave with the dried splints, the basket maker would soften them in water. If desired, the basket

maker could also simultaneously dye the splints by soaking them in water containing a colorant

(Konrad and Nicholas 1987; Lester 1987; Wiseman 2001). Forms called blocks, over which the

basket would be constructed, were often used to speed up production and ensure uniform sizes.

These blocks were hand carved from wood, and depending on the complexity of the form, could

9

either be pulled from the completed basket or disassembled and removed from the interior of the

basket in sections (Lester 1987).

Northeast tribes, particularly the Abenaki, primarily used sweet grass as the decorative

element for their baskets (Pelletier 1982). Sweet grass grows best in moist sunny areas and was

cultivated in large quantities and harvested, cleaned, dried, and bundled specifically to be used to

produce basketry (Konrad and Nicholas 1987; Wisemen 2001). Cleaning of sweet grass was

done by combing the grass to remove stiff and dry parts either using ones hands or a comb

(Konrad and Nicholas 1987).

Some dealers such as Phileas Launiere (active from 1920-1945) introduced other

materials to be used in basketry instead of sweet grass including a material called Hong Kong

cord, as well as plastic cords, and twisted paper cords (Pelletier 1982). Hong Kong cord (fig. 9)

was introduced to speed production of the baskets but was not received favorably by tourists.

Therefore the Abenaki stopped using it for their baskets but other groups in the area have

continued its use to today (Lester 1987). As with many non-traditional materials, there is very

little information available on Hong Kong cord. Wiseman (2001, 133) mentions that, “in the

1930s a grass from the Orient began to supplant some sweet grass” but provides no further

description. Turnbaugh and Turnbaugh (1999) also mention the introduction and use of

commercial Hong Kong cord into splint basketry in the 1930s but do not characterize the

material any further. Handsman and McMullen (1987, 19) identify it as an imported

“commercially produced cord of natural fibers” used in wood splint basketry. A version of the

Hong Kong cord may still be used for basketry: a material called Hong Kong Seagrass is

available for sale at a basketry materials website (Cane & Basketry 2011).

10

The two splint baskets examined in this paper contain traditional and non-traditional

materials. The bowl shaped basket examined makes use of a commercial cord that may in fact be

Hong Kong cord, as well as Black Ash and sweet grass, which were frequently used to make

baskets in New England. Documenting both types of materials and can aid others in identifying

the materials and their preparatory techniques in other baskets. Identifying materials can help to

distinguish between traditional and introduced materials in New England baskets.

2.2 CONSTRUCTION METHODS AND TECHNIQUES

The forms and construction methods of these baskets are consistent with those used in

Abenaki basketry. The initial identification of the baskets was based primarily through

comparison of their forms to known examples of Abenaki basketry. Further research

demonstrated that the methods used in their construction as well as the decorative techniques are

particularly typical of this basketry tradition.

As these baskets are examples of forms produced in large quantities in standard sizes,

they were probably made using a block. There are existing blocks for both of these forms in the

collection of the Boston Children's Museum (Lester 1987). Both baskets begin in the same

manner with a radial arrangement of the splint warps (fig. 3) and are examples of a method

typically used in the northeastern region of the United States and Canada. The body of the bowl

shaped basket was produced by plaiting the warps and the wefts together using plain-weave on

concentric wefts (Adovasio 1977). The beginning section of the basket is known as the start and

can be characteristic of different basketry techniques and regional variations. This technique of

starting a basket results in an even number of warps that can cause problems when trying to

11

weave the wefts. An even number of warps means that when beginning the next row the wefts

will always follow the same path as the preceding weft. There were a number of solutions used

by the Abenaki to solve this problem. One of these was for the weaver to intentionally insert a

shift every time they circumscribed the basket. Intentionally shifting can create a spiral pattern in

the wefts (Pelletier 1982). This type of spiral pattern is visible on both baskets although more

clearly on the bowl shaped basket (fig. 4).

The side of the body and the sides of the lid of the "arm" basket are also plain weave but

with sweet grass. Both the top of the lid and the base of the body have bands of what McMullen

calls, "concentric wefts," meaning that each row is in an identical over under pattern rather than

alternating, as in a plain weave (fig. 5) (McMullen 1987). In addition, the base of the body and

the top of the rim also have a band where three narrow ash splints are used instead of sweet grass

for the wefts in a plain weave pattern. On the body of the basket near the rim is a wide band

made up of a single ash splint used as the weft.

Both baskets have a single wrapped rim where a narrow ash splint binding wrapped in the

Z direction is used to secure a on both the exterior and the interior of the rim. The bowl shaped

basket has what McMullen (1987) calls a simple unreinforced rim where warps are alternately

either cut off flush with the rim splints or folded over the interior splint. The interior hoop on

both baskets is a rounded wooden element while the exterior hoop is flat, making a "thick flat"

rim (McMullen 1987). The rim construction is similar on both but the “arm basket” has a thicker

support element than the bowl shaped basket. The rim of the “arm basket’s” lid has been finished

in a slightly different manner; it has a sweet grass bundle bound with a single binding in the Z

direction. These complex methods of rim construction were once widely used in the North

Atlantic coast of North America but due to increased production to meet the trade demands in the

12

Victorian era most of the Native American groups abandoned this method for alternative, less

time consuming interior rim supports. The Abenaki, however, did not and so their work tends to

have rounded wooden interior support elements or sweet grass bundles held with strong narrow

bindings (Pelletier 1982).

Other groups in the area favored the use of Black Ash to create loops known as cowwiss

(cow wiss)—which are not present on either basket—as a decorative technique in fancy basketry.

Pelletier (1982) and Swauger (1966) found that in examining baskets known to have been made

by the Abenaki they rarely used cowwiss as a decorative technique and tended to favor the

simple cowwiss designs when they did. There is evidence that the Abenaki in Vermont did

produce types of fancy baskets using a range of cowwiss weaving patterns (Wiseman 2001).

Neither of the two baskets studied for this paper include cowwiss decorative elements, further

suggesting their attribution to the Abenaki.

The two baskets both present features in the methods of decoration, their starts, and the

finishing techniques in the rim, which are particular or indicative of Abenaki basketry. In

addition, the techniques used in the bowl shaped basket are more typical of the latter period of

Abenaki basketry (1930s after the introduction of new materials) while the “arm basket’s” form

and heavier interior support is more indicative of an earlier period of construction.

2.3 MICROSCOPIC EXAMINATION OF THE MATERIALS

In order to assist in clarifying cultural attributions and to contribute reference plant

sections to the conservation literature, samples were taken from both baskets and compared to

reference samples as well as to examples in the literature. The materials were found to be

13

consistent with the materials used by the Abenaki. Microscopic samples were removed from the

splints of both baskets and cross sections and tangential sections prepared in water. These

prepared sections were then examined under magnification and compared to known examples of

Black Ash. The cross sectional samples from both baskets exhibited pores; a feature consistent

with hardwoods like Black Ash. The pores in the late wood of Black Ash occur as solitary pores

or in multiples of two or three (Hoadley 1990). Due to the processing done to create the splints

the distribution of the pores between the rings is difficult to determine as only a small fragment

of the cross-section is retained in a single splint. Black Ash rays are typically uni- to tri-seriate

(Hoadley 1990), which is consistent with the tangential sections of the samples from the objects.

It is also important to note that different species of ash are often indistinguishable when using

microscopic identification alone (Alden 2002).

The weft materials of both baskets appeared to be a grass, as confirmed by examination

of samples in cross-section and longitudinal view. The grass fiber from the bowl shaped basket

was difficult to interpret due to its processed, aged and degraded structure (fig. 6). The large cells

in the cross section (A) are vessel elements in the xylem that help to move water (Benham 2010).

Also visible in the cross section are phloem (B), a row of vascular bundle cells that form a sheath

around the bundle (C), guard cells for a stoma (D), and spongy mesophyll (E). While the

reference sample shows the complete leaf section with epidermal cells on both outer surfaces, the

basket sample is a partial cross-section due either to processing or to sampling.

However, the samples from the “arm basket” were less ambiguous and were consistent

with the features observed in the reference sample of sweet grass (fig. 7). The grass elements

appear to be monocot leaves, which have been prepared in a similar manner to the sweet grass of

the bowl shaped basket. As in the sample above, the cross-section shows that the grass has been

14

split leaving only the top half as can be seen through the comparison of the sample to the

reference sample of sweet grass (Hierochloe sp.). This may be a result of the preparatory

techniques used on the sweet grass that were not discussed in the literature. The basketry grass

elements appear to be consistent with sweet grass. The vascular bundles in the cross–section

appear to have the same basic form. Also, in the longitudinal view the base of the uniseriate hair

in the reference sample has a similar form to a feature in the basketry sample, which may be the

remnants of the base of a uniseriate hair (Florian 1997).

The cord appears to be made out of a monocot stem fiber (fig. 8) with a characteristic

vascular bundle pattern, rather than a common bast fiber such as jute, kenaf, or hemp, as is often

used for commercial cordage. The sampled cord may be an example of the Hong Kong cord

referenced by Pelletier (1982) based on visual similarities between Pelletier’s basketry images

and the bowl shaped basket. The cuticle is still present suggesting that the fiber is not highly

processed. The small bundles near the edge are sclerenchyma bundles, identified with an arrow,

and the clear cells are spongy parenchyma. The black circle identifies one of the scattered

vascular bundle with its inner bundle sheath of sclerenchyma cells, phloem, and xylem.

The materials used in the baskets appear consistent with the expected materials based on

the literature. One of the difficulties of identifying plant elements is the aged and degraded

condition of the organic materials. Comparison of aged samples with freshly prepared material is

difficult and contains a certain amount of uncertainty.

3. BOWL SHAPED BASKET

3.1 BOWL SHAPED BASKET CONDITION

15

The bowl shaped basket has several areas of loss and fracture to the rim elements that

compromise the basket’s structural integrity. The largest and most significant area of loss is

located in the rim where overlapping losses measuring 7-11 cm have occurred to all three

elements of the rim. These losses expose the ends of four of the warp elements. Due to the

woven structure of the basket, this area of combined loss makes the rest of the rim and the

nearby warp and weft elements vulnerable to further damage and loss. There are other minor

splits in the materials throughout the basket. As expected for a basket from the beginning of the

20th century, the Black Ash elements are stiff but still retain some flexibility. Some of the warp

and weft splints have small cracks in areas where they were particularly curved due to the basket

weave structure. Completing loss compensation for the large area would help to strengthen the

rim, which acts as an important structural element for the basket, and to protect the other areas

from damage.

This area of loss was previously treated using a repair made of smooth Tyvek (high

density polyethylene) painted to match the color of the basket (fig. 9) (Horelick 2008). The

Tyvek was folded in thirds to be a similar width as the splints and then slid over the intact splint

edges on either side and under the stitched narrow ash splint element—without the use of

adhesive. The Tyvek repair overlapped with the original material on either side by approximately

1.5 cm. This previous repair has the advantages of being minimally invasive, purely mechanical,

and sympathetic to the basket’s construction. While initially successful this repair did not have

sufficient flexibility or provide enough structural support to the object for it to be handled: it did

not have enough overlap with the object’s original rim to keep it in place. The rim flexed when

lifted and the previous repair came out of position. Consequently, the previous repair was

reconsidered during treatment of the basket.

16

3.2 BOWL SHAPED BASKET TREATMENT

The treatment for the bowl shaped basket focused on the large area of loss to all three rim

elements. Several features of the previous repair were retained when considering the ideal

characteristics of a repair for that area. The repair should provide structural integrity to the object

both while at rest and also when picked up. As such the repair needed to be flexible and maintain

the curve of the rim without exerting pressure on the rim elements. If possible the repair should

be done without the use of adhesive, which can cause staining and be difficult to remove from

plant materials. Both the Black Ash splints and the unprocessed sweet grass, which does not

have a protective cuticle present, would readily absorb solvents or adhesives applied to them. As

discussed in the introduction, the solvents necessary for most adhesive repairs can also be

problematic due to risks of distortion, loss of shape, stress caused by the swelling action of some

solvents on plant materials, dissolution or extraction of soluble components of basketry

materials, and redeposition of soiling (Odegaard and Kronkright 1984; Kronkright 1997).

Several potential repair materials and techniques were evaluated including thick Japanese

tissue paper, blotter paper, and smooth Tyvek (high density polyethylene). In order to evaluate

the Japanese tissue and blotter paper, these materials were moistened and then dried while held

along a curved shape that mimicked the curve of the basket rim. However, Japanese tissue had

insufficient strength to provide structural integrity. The blotter paper was slightly rough and did

not match the texture of the basket. It was also rejected due to concerns that the blotter paper

might lose its curved shape and exert strain on the basket if placed in a humid environment.

17

The smooth Tyvek was tested both as a longer folded element in the style of the previous

repair and as several strips to mimic the rim construction (fig. 10). The longer folded element

remained integrated with the rim better than the previous repair but wrinkled along the inside and

was therefore rejected. In a second technique, three separate Tyvek strips were inserted behind

the existing rim elements. One Tyvek strip was placed on the exterior of the rim, one on the

interior, and a third was interwoven with the warp elements by approximately 3 cm on either

side. The placement of these three strips mimicked the construction of the rim. This

configuration was the most successful: the Tyvek was strong enough to stay in place without

adhesive and protect the rim elements but flexible enough to move without stressing the

surrounding elements when the basket was lifted. The Tyvek strips were removed from the

basket and painted with Liquitex acrylic paints before being replaced in the area of loss. The

Tyvek strips visually integrate with the rim repair but can be differentiated from original material

by the thinness of the material, the visible break edges of the original rim elements, and UV

induced visible absorption that is distinct from the original materials (fig. 11) (Kerr, Capjack,

and Fedosejevs 2000).

One end of the curled rim element along the fill area was identified as potentially capable

of snagging. To make a fill to protect this rim element, a small strip of Tyvek was cut and

wrapped around a pencil. A hair dryer was used to heat the curled Tyvek strip. Once cooled, the

Tyvek strip retained a loose curl from the pencil. This helped to form the Tyvek strip to fit the

area of loss. The Tyvek strip was then painted to match the basket elements, placed behind the

curling rim element, and tucked between the Tyvek repair strips. The loop repair was not initially

held in place with adhesive because of concerns that if snagged it could exert stress and cause

damage to the basket. After several weeks the repair was reevaluated and wheat starch paste was

18

introduced between the curled Tyvek element and the other Tyvek repair splints to better

stabilize the curled element. Therefore the loop repair should protect the exposed areas of the

original element without adhering the repair material to the object itself.

4. “ARM BASKET”

4.1 “ARM BASKET” CONDITION

The “arm basket” has numerous breaks with associated loss. There are three areas of loss

compensation from a previous treatment including repairs to breaks in the warps and associated

loss compensation to the wefts on the lid (Morris 2008). Morris had repaired the breaks in the

warps using twisted toned Tengucho paper and wheat starch paste and the losses to the wefts

were compensated using bundles of twisted dental floss and Tengucho paper, which were

adhered in place with wheat starch paste and then toned. Some areas of the weft repair required

additional support, which was accomplished by stitching the ends of the bundled dental floss and

Tengucho paper in place with brown polyester thread (Morris 2008). However, the breaks and

losses in the body of the basket were not previously treated.

In addition to the breaks and losses in the lid, there are two large breaks across the warps

with associated losses to the wefts in the body of the basket. As in the case of the bowl shaped

basket, the breaks in the body of the arm basket compromise the structural integrity of the

basket’s body and cause typical problems resulting from localized internal stresses. The still

intact weft elements pull the walls of the body while in contrast the rigid base remains stationary

and unbending. The result is that both large breaks are stepped (fig. 12). This likely led to the

associated loss of the wefts in this area as they were exposed to additional friction and wear.

19

4.2 “ARM BASKET” TREATMENT

The goal of the treatment of the body of the lidded basket was to restore the alignment of

the warps, redistribute the tension of the wefts, and reduce the risk of further loss of the wefts.

Although there are a number of risks and concerns associated with adhesive repairs, the decision

in this case was that additional strength and force would be needed to accomplish the alignment

of the warps and an adhesive repair was necessary. Furthermore, as the wefts in this basket

consist of loosely bundled and braided leaf elements with large areas of loss around the breaks

causing these elements to become disordered and exposed, an adhesive repair and loss

compensation to bridge the wefts would be the best method of regrouping loose elements and

preventing further loss.

The treatment chosen was based on Morris' treatment of the lid (2008), both to remain

consistent throughout and because the previous repairs matched the appearance of the original

materials. In addition, these repairs were visible when the basket was examined under ultraviolet

induced visible fluorescence. This final feature allows for extremely close color matching, as

repairs will still be identifiable using standard conservation examination techniques.

The adhesive selected for use in this repair is wheat starch paste due to its working

properties as well as its wide acceptance and use in basketry repairs. Advantageous features of

wheat starch paste include the ability to control the amount of moisture, the long term stability of

the material, its ability to be removable when exposed to water (although some mechanical

action may be required), and its weakness in comparison with the basketry materials (if there is

20

too much internal stress, the join will fail rather than the basket elements) (Norton 1997). The

reversibility of the adhesive was increased through the addition of a small amount of

methylcellulose (approximately 3:1 wheat starch paste to methylcellulose). To reduce the risks

associated with using water on plant materials, the paste was applied as dry as possible.

The challenges for this particular repair were the integration of repair elements into the

tight weave and the introduction of adhesive into difficult-to-access locations. Repair strips were

prepared for the two breaks in the body of the basket using smooth Tyvek toned with Liquitex

acrylic paints. The Tyvek strips were placed first in the bottom half of each of the breaks behind

the broken warps. To aid in delivering the adhesive to a localized area only, a Mylar

(polyethylene terephthalate) tool was constructed. The Mylar was cut into a thin spatula shape

and the edges were sanded to prevent the Mylar from cutting into the basket. The flat surface of

the Mylar spatula was then abraded with sandpaper so that it would hold the wheat starch paste.

This tool was used to apply wheat starch paste between the Tyvek strip and the warp. After the

bottom portion had set, the top of each Tyvek strip was gently teased behind the top portion of

the broken warps. The same Mylar tool was used to apply wheat starch paste on the upper

portion of the break.

Finding a suitable method to maintain constant pressure on the object to keep the break

edges aligned proved challenging. Parafilm M (hydrocarbon wax film) was used based on a

method described by Barclay, Dignard, and Schlichting (2004). In their technique, a strip of

Parafilm is pulled taut across a basket break so that the film sticks to the basket and maintains the

pressure needed to keep the break aligned. This worked well for the small break however the

Parafilm M could not hold the large break in proper alignment and double alligator clip extra

hands were needed to hold the end of the Parafilm taut while the other end remained wrapped

21

around the rim of the basket (fig. 13). As one side of the repair elements were left unpainted,

these white sides of the Tyvek are visible on the interior of the basket and can be used to locate

these repairs under normal light examination. It should be noted that even after treatment some

of the break edges could not be perfectly aligned. It is possible that this may be in part due to the

splints having warped at some point prior to treatment.

The weft losses associated with the breaks were compensated using bundles of un-waxed

dental floss, which were pre-toned using Liquitex acrylic paints. The bundles were then woven

into the basket and adhered to the remaining edges of the wefts by painting the ends of the dental

floss bundles with wheat starch paste and inserting them into the sweet grass weft bundles (fig.

14).

5. DISCUSSION

Both case studies presented here relied on an evaluation and advancement of previous treatment

solutions. In the case of the bowl shaped basket, the previous treatment protected the rim with a

compatible material but was not sufficiently integrated into the woven structure of the basket to

provide handling stability. The current treatment used the same Tyvek material but wove it

further into the basket to better integrate it and mimic the basket weave.

Both treatments were revisited a year after completion. The Tyvek fill material for the

bowl shaped basket was no longer in its original configuration but had slightly buckled and

bowed (fig. 15). Since the Tyvek strips had been wedged tightly as far into either side of the rim

material as possible, this change was surprising. Changes in the climate of the storage room

where the basket had been located could account for differential movement of the ash splints and

the Tyvek. Located in Southern California, the storage room’s climate was affected by dramatic

22

changes in relative humidity (RH) that can occur over a short period of time due to the Santa Ana

winds. As the basket materials expanded and contracted to the changes in RH, the Tyvek strips

might have slowly worked their way loose. In order to counteract the changes due to fluctuating

RH, it may help to apply a small amount of adhesive to the Tyvek strips where they contact each

other between the warps of the basket. The adhesive would only connect the Tyvek to itself and

not interact with the basketry material.

The "arm basket" treatment also began with an evaluation of the success of the previous

treatment to the lid. The previous treatment used toned Tengucho paper, dental floss, polyester

thread, and wheat starch paste. The treatment method and the materials successfully maintained

the corrected alignment of the warps and were not causing any uneven tension in the object.

Therefore the same treatment materials were used in the body of the object. When this treatment

was revisited a year after completion, it was found to have remained stable and once compared

with the after treatment images, no discernable change was noticed. However, reviewing the

treatment again brought attention to the areas where full re-alignment of the join had not been

possible, and on further reflection, a better repair might have been achieved if there had been

local humidification of the splints in addition to the adhesive repair. It is also possible that

another method of maintaining the join alignment may have been more successful. Fenn (1980)

has suggested the use of small magnets to maintain pressure during an adhesive repair. Pressure

and alignments can be maintained by placing one magnet on the interior and the other on the

exterior of the splint to be repaired. The use of magnets instead of the Parafilm to support the

joins during treatment might also have resulted in a tighter repair.

The continued success of treatments depends on the handling of the objects as well as

environmental conditions. In this case, neither object was handled significantly after treatment

23

however the RH in the storage area fluctuated throughout the year. Therefore when designing

any additional treatments for these baskets, how the treatments will be affected by fluctuating

climate conditions should be considered.

6. CONCLUSION

In this paper, two case studies for splint basketry were presented along with a brief discussion of

the history and techniques of loss compensation for splint baskets. A history of materials and

construction methods for Abenaki basketry were discussed with an emphasis on how these relate

to the suggested cultural attribution. Materials identification from both of the baskets based on

the photomicrographs taken of samples from the baskets supported the identification of sweet

grass and black ash, as well as for Hong Kong cord. The condition of the baskets is summarized

as well as the treatment approaches taken to address condition issues. The treatment methods

described include reweaving with smooth Tyvek and dental floss both with and without

adhesive. The previous treatment and the current treatments are evaluated and the success and

failures of the treatments are related to the basket's structure, as well as the handling, and the

storage conditions for both of the baskets.

The research into the history of basketry production provided a timeline for the

introduction of certain types of materials and construction methods, which aided in providing

manufacture dates of prior to 1940 for both of these baskets. In addition, materials identification

and comparison to other examples of Northeast coast basketry further supported the cultural

attribution of these baskets as Abenaki and reinforced treatment decisions by conveying

information about material properties. Despite similarities in construction methods and in

24

materials used in both of these baskets, the location of their breaks and losses resulted in very

different treatment goals and considerations. The treatments both achieved stabilization and

visual integration while avoiding extensive adhesive use and the inherent risks of solvent

exposure. These two treatments show different approaches to these considerations as each

basket has different types of damage and so these case studies demonstrate different solution

possibilities that can be used to achieve similar goals.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS We would like to thank Ioanna Kakoulli and David Scott for their encouragement and Vanessa Muros for her frequent and instructive assistance. In addition, we would like to thank our classmates, Lily Doan, Elizabeth Drolet, Nicole Ledoux, Dawn Lohnas, and Cindy Lee Scott. Finally, this paper would not have been possible without the hard work and initial treatment completed by the previous students who worked on these baskets and we give them our most sincere appreciation. REFERENCES Adovasio, J. M. 1977. Basketry Technology: A Guide to Identification and Analysis. Chicago: Aldine Publishing Company. Alden, H. A. 2002. Scientific Limits of Microscopic Wood Analysis of Objects d'Art. Smithsonian Center for Materials Research and Education 2002. www.si.edu/scmre/learning/limits.htm (accessed 09/07/05). An Interview with a Traditional Basket-Maker. 2011. Abenaki Nation 2001. www.abenakination.org/interview.html (accessed 10/01/11). Barclay, R., C. Dignard, and C. Schlichting. 2004. The Gentle Art of Applied Pressure. Ottowa: Canadian Conservation Institute. Benham, D. Plant Anatomy http://biology.nebrwesleyan.edu/dbenham/PlantAnatomy/index.html (accessed 04/13/10). Brako, J., J. Levinson, M. Kaminitz, S. Sottman, and L. Nieuwenhuizen. 1990. A Basketry Repair Technique Using Tyvek . Poster at AIC. Cane & Basket. 2011. Hong Kong Seagrass 1lb Coil. www.caneandbasket.com (accessed 23/10/11).

25

Canadian Conservation Institute. 1983. Care of Basketry. CCI Notes 6/2. Ottowa: Canadian Conservation Institute. Fang, M.W., and M.R. Binder. 1990. A Photographic Guide to the Ethnographic North American Indian Basket Collection: Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology. Cambridge: Harvard University. Fenn, J. 1980. The Conservation of Splint Baskets. Ontario Museum Association Quarterly 9 (3):21-22. Florian, M. L. E. 1997. Plant Anatomy: An Illustrated Aid to Identification. In The Conservation of Artifacts Made from Plant Materials, ed. M. Florian, D. Kronkright and R. Norton. Los Angeles: Getty Publications. 1-82. Florian, M. L. F., D. P. Kronkright, and R. E. Norton, eds. 1997. Conservation of Artifacts Made from Plant Materials. Los Angeles: Getty Publications. Handsman, R.G., and A. McMullen. 1987. An Introduction to Woodsplint Basketry and Its Interpretation. In A Key into the Language of Woodsplint Baskets, edited by A. McMullen and R. G. Handsman. Washington, CT: American Indian Archaeological Institute. 16-35. Haskell, S.H. 2005. A Photographic Guide to the Ethnographic North American Indian Basket Collection Volume 2: Peobody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology. Second ed. Cambridge: Harvard University. Hoadley, R. B. 1990. Identifying Wood: Accurate Results with Simple Tools. Newton, CT: The Taunton Press, Inc.. Horelick, L. 2008. Treatment Report. UCLA/Getty Program for the Conservation of Archaeological and Ethnographic Materials, Los Angeles. InsideWood.2004-onwards. Published on the Internet. http://insidewood.lib.ncsu.edu/search (accessed 04/10/10). Kerr, N., L. Capjack, and R. Fedosejevs. 2000. Ability of Textile Covers to Protect Artifacts from Ultraviolet Radiation. Journal of the American Institute for Conservation 39 (3): 345-353. Konrad, Lee-Ann, and Christine Nicholas. 1987. Artists of the Dawn: Christine Nicholas and Senabeh. Searsport, Maine: Northeast Folklore Society. Kronkright, D. P. 1997. Mending Structures with Twisted and Folded Mulberry Paper Strands. In The Conservation of Artifacts Made from Plant Materials, ed. M. Florian, D. Kronkright and R. Norton. Los Angeles: Getty Publications. 287-292.

26

Lester, J. . 1987. "We Didn't Make Fancy Baskets Until We Were Discovered": Fancy-Basket Making in Maine. In A Key into the Language of Woodsplint Baskets, ed. A. McMullen and R. G. Handsman. Washington, CT: American Indian Archaeological Institute. 39-59. McFeat, T. 1987. Space and Work in Maliseet Basket-Making. In A Key into the Language of Woodsplint Baskets, ed. A. McMullen and R. G. Handsman. Washington, CT: American Indian Archaeological Institute. 60-73. McMullen, A. 1987. A Key Into Technical Vocabulary. In A Key into the Language of Woodsplint Baskets, ed. A. McMullen and R. G. Handsman. Washington, CT: American Indian Archaeological Institute. 170-171. Morris, S. 2008. “Arm basket”: Twined Container. UCLA/Getty Program for the Conservation of Archaeological and Ethnographic Materials, Los Angeles. Norton, R. E. 1997. Conservation of Artifacts Made from Plant Materials. In The Conservation of Artifacts Made from Plant Materials, ed. M. Florian, D. Kronkright and R. Norton. Los Angeles: Getty Publications. 195-286. Odegaard, N., and D. P. Kronkright. 1984. Giving Your Baskets a Long Healthy Life: A Basic Guide to Basketry Conservation. Fibersarts Magazine 11 (1): 43-49. Peabody Turnbaugh, S., and W. A. Turnbaugh. 1997. Indian Baskets. West Chester, PA: Schiffer Publishing Ltd. Pelletier, G. 1982. Canadian Ethnology Service: Paper No. 8: Abenaki Basketry, National Museum of Man Mercury Series. Ottowa: National Museums of Canada. Pearlstein, E. 2011. Personal Communication. Los Angeles. Phillips, R.B. 1998. A Note on Names and Peoples. In Trading Identities: The Souvenir in Native North American Art from the Northeast, 1700-1900. Seattle: University of Washington Press. xv-xvii. Porter, F.W. 1990. The Art of Native American Basketry: A Living Legacy. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, Inc. Speck, F. 1997. Penobscot Man: The Life History of a Forest Tribe in Maine. Orono, ME: The University of Maine Press. Swauger, J. L. 1966. Abnaki Indian Artifacts in Carnegie Museum. Carnegie Museum Annals. Pittsburg: Carnegie Museum. Turnbaugh, W.A., and S.P. Turnbaugh. .1999. Basket Tales of the Grandmothers: American Indian Baskets in Myth and Legend. Peace Dale, RI: Thornbrook Publications.

27

Wikipedia.org. 2006. Wohngebiet Westlicheabenaki.png. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Wohngebiet_Westlicheabenaki.png licensed under GNU free documentation license (accessed 10/15/10). Willoughby, C. C. 1935. Antiquities of the New England Indians: With Notes on the Ancient Cultures of the Adjacent Territory. Cambridge, MA: Peabody Museum of American Archaeology and Ethnology. Wills, B. 2002. Toning Paper as a Repair Material: Its Application to Three-Dimensional Organic Objects. The Paper Conservator 26:27-36. Wiseman, Frederick Matthew. 2001. The Voice of the Dawn: An Autohistory of the Abenaki Nation. Hanover, NH: University Press of New England. SOURCES OF MATERIALS Black Ash splints

BA-LSR18 ASH SPLINT 1/8 LASHER, hand pounded Black Ash 11 Baywoods Drive Shirley, MA 01464 BasketweavingSupplies.com

Liquitex Acrylic Paint Liquitex Artist Materials P.O. Box 246 Piscataway, N.J. 08855 Methylcellulose Methylcellulose (TAD016004) Talas Brooklyn, N.Y. 11211 5 Mil Mylar Polyester Mylar D, 2MIL (TFM001010)

Talas Brooklyn, N.Y. 11211 Parafilm M, hydrocarbon wax film American Can Company Greenwich, Conn. 06830 Sweet grass

Starwest Botanicals

28

11253 Trade Center Drive Rancho Cordova, CA 95742

Tyvek

Tyvek Soft Structure (TNW001002) high-density spun bonded polyethylene sheet Talas Brooklyn, N.Y. 11211 Unwaxed dental floss

Safeway Food stores Unwaxed Dental Floss P. O. Box 99 Pleasanton, California 94566

Wheat starch paste

Conservation Materials LTD Sparks, Nev., 89431

AUTHOR BIOGRAPHIES Tessa de Alarcón is currently a Post Graduate Fellow at the University of Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology. She graduated from the UCLA/Getty program for the Conservation of Archaeological and Ethnographic Materials in 2012. During her third year she interned at El Zotz, an archaeological site in Guatemala, and the University of Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology. While in school she interned at Kaman Kalehöyük, an archaeological site in Turkey (Summer 2010). Her pre-program internships were at the Denver Art Museum (2008-2009), and Casa Santo Domingo, an archaeological site and museum in Antigua Guatemala (2006-2007). Address: UCLA A210 Fowler Building, Los Angeles, CA, 90095-1510; [email protected]. Robin O’Hern is currently a Mellon Fellow at the National Museum of the American Indian. She graduated from the UCLA/Getty program for the Conservation of Archaeological and Ethnographic Materials. During her third year, she has interned at the Agora Excavations of the American School for Classical Studies at Athens, the American Museum of Natural History, and the Pitt Rivers Museum at Oxford University. She received a Masters in Theological Studies from Harvard Divinity School where she studied religion and material culture. Prior to conservation graduate school, she interned at the Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology in 2009, worked at the Straus Center for Conservation and Technical Studies at the Harvard Art Museums, and volunteered at the conservation department of the Walters Art Museum. Address: as for de Alarcon; [email protected]. Ellen Pearlstein is an Associate Professor in the UCLA/Getty Master's Program in Archaeological and Ethnographic Conservation and in Information Studies. She has an MA in art history and archaeology from Columbia University and an Advanced Certificate in conservation from the Conservation Center of the Institute of Fine Arts, New York University specializing in

29

archaeological and ethnographic objects. Ellen was the first L.W. Fröhlich Fellow in objects conservation, Metropolitan Museum of Art in 1982–1983 studying fatty patinas on African wood sculpture. She was Senior Objects Conservator at the Brooklyn Museum from 1983 to 2005 and Adjunct Professor at the Conservation Center from 1991 to 2005, and teaches conservation classes in the United States and abroad including locations such as Egypt and the Netherlands. Ellen is a Fellow in the American Institute for Conservation. Her research interests include fading behavior of undyed featherwork; American Indian tribal museums and how museum staff defines cultural preservation; effects of environmental agents on ethnographic and natural history materials; introducing context into cultural materials’ conservation education; and curriculum development. Address: as for de Alarcon; [email protected]. LIST OF FIGURE CAPTIONS Fig. 1: Two Abenaki baskets (late 19th – early 20th century) from a private collection made of Black Ash splints, sweet grass and Hong Kong cord. Basket on the left is a bowl shaped basket (L: 23.5 cm, W: 23 cm, H: 11.5 cm) made of Black Ash splints and cord and grass wefts. Basket on the right is an arm basket (Lid: D: 20.5cm, H: 3.5cm and Body: D: 19.7cm H: 6,2cm), made of Black Ash splints and sweet grass wefts

Fig. 2: The shaded region of the map indicates the region of the United States and Canada currently occupied by the Western Abenaki peoples (Wikipedia 2006). Fig. 3: The start of the bowl shaped basket. The arrow starts from the first splint and points in the direction of the additional splints. Fig. 4: Detail of the interior of the bowl shaped basket, taken in raking light. The spiral pattern from the shifts in the weft elements is underlined. Fig. 5: Detail image of the interior of the lid of the "arm basket" showing the areas of plain weave as well as areas of concentric wefts. Fig. 6: Photomicrograph of a sample of the grass fiber from the bowl shaped basket with different features labeled. The large cells in the cross section (A) are vessel elements in the xylem that help to move water (Benham, 2010). Also visible in the cross section are phloem (B), a row of vascular bundle cells that form a sheath around the bundle (C), guard cells for a stoma (D), and spongy mesophyll (E). Fig. 7: Photomicrographs showing the cross-section and longitudinal view of samples from the grass wefts in the arm basket (top and bottom left) and cross-section and longitudinal view of a reference sample of sweet grass (top and bottom right). Fig. 8. Cross sectional view of a sample of the cord from the bowl basket. The cord cross section has sclerenchyma bundles near the exterior, identified with an arrow. One of the scattered vascular bundles is circled in black. Fig. 9: Image of the bowl shaped basket before treatment with the previous Tyvek repair. Possible Hong Kong cord wefts are visible.

30

Fig. 10: Images of the trial unpainted Tyvek repairs. a) The image shows a bi-folded piece of Tyvek. b) The image depicts the unpainted white strips of Tyvek woven in the same manner as the original materials. Fig. 11: Exterior (above) and interior (below) view of the repair for the bowl shaped basket under normal light (left) and UV induced visible fluorescence (right). Fig. 12: Detail showing the largest break across the warps of the bottom of the arm basket and associated loss. Fig. 13: Image showing the system used to align the large break in the arm basket during treatment using Parafilm M, extra hands, and a small weight Fig. 14: Images of the arm basket after treatment under normal light (top and bottom left) and under UV radiation (top and bottom right). Fig. 15 Image of bowl shaped basket showing the Tyvek repair out of alignment one year after treatment. The white arrows indicate possible areas of applying adhesive between pieces of Tyvek to maintain better alignment.

Case Studies in Basketry Repair: Two Abenaki Splint Baskets Figures

31

Fig. 1: Two Abenaki baskets (late 19th – early 20th century) from a private collection made of Black Ash splints, sweet grass and Hong Kong cord. Basket on the left is a bowl shaped basket (L: 23.5 cm, W: 23 cm, H: 11.5 cm) made of Black Ash splints and cord and grass wefts. Basket on the right is an arm basket (Lid: D: 20.5cm, H: 3.5cm and Body: D: 19.7cm H: 6,2cm), made of Black Ash splints and sweet grass wefts

Fig. 2: The shaded region of the map indicates the region of the United States and Canada currently occupied by the Western Abenaki peoples (Wikipedia 2006).


32

Fig. 3: The start of the bowl shaped basket. The arrow starts from the first splint and points in the direction of the additional splints.

Fig. 4: Detail of the interior of the bowl shaped basket, taken in raking light. The spiral pattern from the shifts in the weft elements is underlined.


33

Fig. 5: Detail image of the interior of the lid of the "arm basket" showing the areas of plain weave as well as areas of concentric wefts.

Fig. 6: Photomicrograph of a sample of the grass fiber from the bowl shaped basket with different features labeled. The large cells in the cross section (A) are vessel elements in the xylem that help to move water (Benham, 2010). Also visible in the cross section are phloem (B), a row of vascular bundle cells that form a sheath around the bundle (C), guard cells for a stoma (D), and spongy mesophyll (E).


34

Fig. 7: Photomicrographs showing the cross-section and longitudinal view of samples from the grass wefts in the arm basket (top and bottom left) and cross-section and longitudinal view of a reference sample of sweet grass (top and bottom right).

Fig. 8. Cross sectional view of a sample of the cord from the bowl basket. The cord cross section has sclerenchyma bundles near the exterior, identified with an arrow. One of the scattered vascular bundles is circled in black.


35

Fig. 9: Image of the bowl shaped basket before treatment with the previous Tyvek repair. Possible Hong Kong cord wefts are visible.

Fig. 10: Images of the trial unpainted Tyvek repairs. a) The image shows a bi-folded piece of Tyvek. b) The image depicts the unpainted white strips of Tyvek woven in the same manner as the original materials.


36

Fig. 11: Exterior (above) and interior (below) view of the repair for the bowl shaped basket under normal light (left) and UV induced visible fluorescence (right).

Fig. 12: Detail showing the largest break across the warps of the bottom of the arm basket and associated loss.

Fig. 13: Image showing the system used to align the large break in the arm basket during treatment using Parafilm M, extra hands, and a small weight


37

Fig. 14: Images of the arm basket after treatment under normal light (top and bottom left) and under UV radiation (top and bottom right).

Fig. 15 Image of bowl shaped basket showing the Tyvek repair out of alignment one year after treatment. The white arrows indicate possible areas of applying adhesive between pieces of Tyvek to maintain better alignment.

Case Studies in Baketry Repair

Documents