Case Studies in Basketry Repair: Two Abenaki Splint Baskets

JAIC 51 (2012):123–143

123

CASE STUDIES IN BASKETRY REPAIR: TWO ABENAKI SPLINT BASKETS

TESSA DE ALARCÓN, ROBIN O’HERN, AND ELLEN PEARLSTEIN

ABSTRACT—Two case studies on structural repairs to previously treated Abenaki splint basketry are discussed. The article includes a brief review of basketry technology and 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 reveal sweet grass, black ash, and possibly a dealer-supplied Hong Kong cord. The condition and treatment process for each basket are presented, taking into account the objects’ structures, materials, and damages. Treatment techniques include reweaving with smooth Tyvek and dental floss with and without adhesive. The successes and failures of the previous and current treatments are evaluated and related to the structure of the baskets, their handling, and the environmental conditions of the storage area.

TITRE—Études de cas sur la réparation de la vannerie: deux paniers en éclisse abénakis RÉSUMÉ—Deux études de cas de vannerie en éclisse abénakise, dont les structures avaient déjà été réparées, sont présentées. On passe également en revue la technologie de la vannerie, ainsi que l’histoire et les techniques de compensation des pertes pour ce type d’objet. Le contexte culturel présenté sur la vannerie abénakise traite des matériaux traditionnels, des méthodes de préparation et de l’introduction de nouveaux matériaux. Des microphotographies d’échantillons prélevés sur ces paniers révèlent qu’ils ont été fabriqués avec du foin d’odeur, du frêne noir et possiblement de la corde en provenance de Hong-Kong. L’état et les procédures de traitement sont présentés pour chaque panier, en relation avec sa structure, ses matériaux constitutifs et ses altérations. Un retissage avec du Tyvek et de la soie dentaire, avec ou sans adhésif, figure parmi les techniques de traitement. Les succès et les échecs des traitements précédents et actuels sont évalués, en relation avec la structure des paniers, leur manipulation et les conditions climatiques de la réserve.

TITULO—Estudios de caso en reparacion de cestas: Dos cestas abenaki hechas con tiras de madera RESUMEN—Se discuten dos estudios de

caso sobre reparaciones estructurales hechas a dos cestas Abenaki fabricadas con splint baskets (tiras de madera) que ya habían sido tratadas previamente. El articulo incluye una breve visión general de la tecnología de cestería y la historia y las técnicas usadas para compensar perdidas en este tipo de cestas. Los antecedentes culturales presentados incluyen una descripción de la cestería Abenaki, los materiales tradicionales, los métodos de preparación y la introducción de materiales nuevos. Se tomaron fotomicrografías de muestras de las cestas que revelaron que contienen sweet grass, black ash (fresno negro) y posiblemente una cuerda comprada a un vendedor de Hong Kong. Se presenta la condición y el proceso del tratamiento de cada cesta, teniendo en cuenta la estructura de los objetos, los materiales y los daños. La técnicas del tratamiento incluyen el volver a tejer las áreas de daño con Tyvek suave e hilo dental con y sin adhesivo. Los éxitos y los fracasos de los tratamientos anteriores y los que se hicieron ahora son evaluados y relacionados con la estructura de las cestas, su manipulación y las condiciones ambientales del área del deposito.

TÍTULO—Estudos de caso em reparo de cestaria: duas cestas Abenaki feitas de lâminas de madeira RESUMO—São discutidos dois estudos de caso sobre reparos estruturais de cestaria Abenaki de lâminas de madeira, previamente tratadas. O artigo inclui uma breve revisão da tecnologia de cestaria e da história e técnicas de compensação de perdas para cestas feitas de lâminas de madeira. Os antecedentes culturais apresentados incluem uma discussão da cestaria Abenaki, dos materiais tradicionais, dos métodos de preparação, bem como a introdução de novos materiais. Fotomicrografias feitas a partir de amostras destas cestas revelam gramínea glicéria, freixo negro e um cordão possivelmente fornecido por um comerciante de Hong Kong. A condição e o processo de tratamento de cada cesto são apresentados, levando em consideração as estruturas dos objectos, os materiais e os danos. As técnicas de tratamento incluem retecer com Tyvek liso e fio dental com e sem adesivo. Os sucessos e fracassos dos tratamentos anteriores e atuais são avaliados e relacionados com a estrutura das cestas, o seu manuseio, e as condições ambientais da área de armazenamento.

JAIC 51 (2012):123–143

124


have been subject to handling and an uncontrolled storage environment.

The woven structures of baskets distribute the internal stresses and the physical loads associated with their use. When elements are broken, the distribu-tion is disrupted, and the relationship between the structural elements is altered and results in localized stresses that can lead to additional damage and dete-rioration (Norton 1997). Splint basketry is prone to certain forms of deterioration due to construction materials and methods. The splints or warps, being woody in nature, tend to become hard and brittle over time, which can result in thin fibers lifting off the surface or vertical (longitudinal) splitting in the warps. In addition, because they are made of wood, in low humidity the splints will shrink anisotropically and become much narrower but retain most of their length. This deterioration 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 baskets discussed in this article are structurally unstable and represent the condition problems typical of splint

1. INTRODUCTION

This article presents two case studies as examples of the 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 are examples of ash splint basketry. One splint basket is bowl shaped, whereas the other is a flat, round, lidded splint basket (fig. 1). The latter is identical in form and decoration to the arm basket (Pelletier 1982; Handsman and McMullen 1987). Different Algonkian and Iroquoian groups in the Northeast United States and the Southeast Coast of Canada make ash splint basketry (Handsman and McMullen 1987). On the basis of a visual compar-ison, the two baskets discussed were most likely made by the Abenaki (one of the Algonkain groups). Both baskets are examples of fancy baskets and were likely produced as tourist trade items before 1940. The exact provenance cannot be known because a private collector in New England purchased the two baskets and their previous collection history is unknown. The baskets are part of a study collection and as such

Fig. 1. Two Abenaki baskets (late 19th to 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 (length, 23.5 cm; width, 23 cm; height, 11.5 cm) made of black ash splints and cord and grass wefts. Basket on the right is an arm basket (lid: diameter, 20.5 cm; height, 3.5 cm; and body: diameter, 19.7 cm; height, 6.2 cm) made of black ash splints and sweet grass wefts.

JAIC 51 (2012):123–143

125


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 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.

2. BACKGROUND

Both baskets were examined and treated in 2010 as part of a course on organic materials at the UCLA/Getty program for the Conservation of Archaeolog-ical and Ethnographic Materials and have 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 aestheti-cally compensate for losses in the objects. The two baskets (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 because the wares of the different Algonkian groups were sold throughout the Northeast United States (Pelletier 1982; Lester 1987). The baskets have been kept in a non–climate-controlled environment, and the causes of the damage to these baskets are unknown; in both cases the damage existed before their purchase.

The two baskets were likely produced as trade items. A number of American Indian tribal groups in the United States and Canada 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 over time and are different on the U.S. side of the border versus in Canada, whereas for many of these groups their traditional homelands spanned both sides of the border (Phillips 1998). The names used 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, utili-tarian baskets and were traditionally made by men,

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, although in some cases necessary, can lead to distortion, loss of shape, stress caused by the swelling action of some solvents on plant materials, and 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 instead of removing it may redeposit it within the matrix of the basket (Odegaard and Kronkright 1984). The specific risks 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 origi-nated (Kronkright 1997).

Repairs of baskets may be divided into mechan-ical and 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 introduc-tion 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 et al. 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 repair or 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 that used 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) suggested that untwisted Japanese tissue may be used in loss compensation by building up toned paper strips. Tyvek (high-density spun bonded poly-ethylene sheet) has been proposed as a repair material for African plaited baskets and specifically for rein-forced adhesive repairs and loss compensation (Brako

JAIC 51 (2012):123–143

126


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).

JAIC 51 (2012):123–143

127


pattern and form of the bowl shaped basket were 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 nontraditional material discussed later in this article, suggests that a dealer may have supplied the cord and commissioned the basket for the tourist industry. Because the bowl-shaped basket includes a material that was introduced in the 1930s and that had a brief period of use by the Abenaki immediately after its commercial introduc-tion, this basket was probably made in the 1930s.

Images of arm baskets are found in the articles by Pelletier (1982), Handsman and McMullen (1987), and 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 the articles by Pelletier (1982) and Handsman and McMullen (1987) as particular to the Abenaki. When Pelletier inter-viewed basket makers in the 1980s most had never produced this form but recalled that their parents or grandparents had. These responses indicate that this form of basket is older but has declined in popularity (Pelletier 1982). However, this decline in popularity may be true only regionally because a basket of this type made by Christine Nicholas, a contemporary Pennobscot basket maker (Konrad and Nicholas 1987), was found. Pelletier (1982) also observed that over time the construction of baskets shifted toward lighter baskets. Although this was a widely produced and popular form, the heavier basket discussed in this article suggests that this example is an earlier basket when compared with the bowl-shaped basket.

2.1 MATERIALS: PRODUCTION AND APPLICATION

The materials used in the two baskets discussed in this article are consistent with those used by a number of groups on the North Atlantic Coast of North America. The bowl-shaped splint basket was made of several different plant materials: a woody splint material, a grass-like weft material, and a prob-ably 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

whereas 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. Although 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). Features present in the two baskets make their attribution most likely Abenaki, although differentiating among the tribal groups can be challenging (Pelletier 1982). This difficulty is in part because in addition to their shared cultural heritage (all are Algonkian), during the period of high production all 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 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 explana-tions for the decrease in production of fancy basketry by these New England tribes, and a combination of factors may have led to this decline (Pelletier 1982; Lester 1987; Porter 1990; Wiseman 2001). In any case, despite all these noteworthy cultural changes, these types of baskets are still being produced. There are native basket weavers still continuing these tradi-tions today (Konrad and Nicholas 1987; Lester 1987; Anon. 2001). However, the market for these baskets is no longer the same. Today they are purchased by “people who 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). Because the forms, styles, and methods of production have shifted over time as basket weavers responded to changes in consumer taste, identification of materials and production methods of these baskets can be used to estimate when they were produced.

Both baskets in this study were compared with images of Abenaki, Penobscot, Passamaquoddy, and Maliseet basketry 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

JAIC 51 (2012):123–143

128


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 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). Sweet grass was cleaned by combing the grass to remove stiff and dry parts using the 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 Hong Kong cord, 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 nontraditional materials, little information is 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 introduc-tion 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 & Basket 2011).

The two splint baskets examined in this article contain traditional and nontraditional materials. The bowl-shaped basket examined makes use of a

wefts. The materials used in the production of baskets in this region include 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 nontraditional materials.

The Abenaki prepared ash splints using a similar pounding method to that used by the Maliseet, Passamoquoddy, and Penobscot, with one differ-ence in the preparation details. All 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 (Willoughby 1935; Fenn 1980; Pelle-tier 1982; Konrad and Nicholas 1987; Speck 1997; Wiseman 2001). Men typically prepared the splints, and in later periods the splints were purchased premade from dealers. Even pressure is critical in the labor-intensive pounding process, or the layers below the one being pounded break and become unusable for basketry. Unlike other groups, the Abenaki had two men pound a log together using a rhythmic stroke, working each area only 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 tools used to pound the logs varied over time and include 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 sepa-rated 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

JAIC 51 (2012):123–143

129


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 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 solutions was for weavers to intentionally insert a shift every time they circum-scribed the basket. Intentional 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

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 can aid others in identifying the materials and their preparatory techniques in other baskets. Identifying materials can help to distinguish between traditional and intro-duced 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 on comparison of their forms to known examples of Abenaki basketry. Further research demonstrated that the methods used in their construction and the decorative techniques are particularly typical of this basketry tradition.

Because 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 North-eastern 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

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.

JAIC 51 (2012):123–143

130


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 decora-tive technique in fancy basketry. In examining baskets known to have been made by the Abenaki, Pelletier (1982) and Swauger (1966) found that they rarely used cowwiss as a decorative technique and tended to favor the simple cowwiss designs when they did. Evidence indicates that the Abenaki in Vermont produced types of fancy baskets using a range of cowwiss weaving patterns (Wiseman 2001). Neither of the two baskets described in this article includes cowwiss decorative elements, further suggesting their attribution to the Abenaki.

The two baskets present features in the methods of decoration, their starts, and the finishing tech-niques 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), whereas the arm basket’s form and heavier interior support are more indicative of an earlier period of construction.

is used to secure on 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 cut off flush with the rim splints or folded over the interior splint. The interior hoop on both baskets is a rounded wooden element, whereas 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 on the North Atlantic Coast of North America, but because of increased production to meet the trade demands in the 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).

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.

JAIC 51 (2012):123–143

131


from the objects. In addition, 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 sectional and longitudinal views. The grass fiber from the bowl-shaped basket was difficult to interpret because of its processed, aged, and degraded structure (fig. 6). The large cells in the cross section (fig. 6A) are vessel elements in the xylem that help to move water (Benham 2010). Also visible in the cross section are phloem (fig. 6B), a row of vascular bundle cells that form a sheath around the bundle (fig. 6C), guard cells for a stoma (fig. 6D), and spongy mesophyll (fig. 6E). Although the reference sample shows the complete leaf section with epidermal cells on both outer surfaces, the basket sample is a partial cross section due to processing or sampling.

However, the samples from the arm basket are less ambiguous and 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

2.3 MICROSCOPIC EXAMINATION OF THE MATERIALS

To assist in clarifying cultural attributions and to contribute reference plant sections to the conserva-tion literature, samples were taken from both baskets and compared with reference samples and examples in the literature. The materials were found to be consistent with the materials used by the Abenaki. Microscopic samples were removed from the splints of both baskets, and cross sections and tangential sections were prepared in water. These prepared sections were then examined under magnification and compared with known examples of black ash. The cross sectional samples from both baskets exhib-ited pores, a feature consistent with hardwoods such as black ash. The pores in the late wood of black ash occur as solitary pores or in multiples of two or three (Hoadley 1990). Because of the processing performed to create the splints, the distribution of the pores between the rings is difficult to determine because only a small fragment of the cross section is retained in a single splint. Black ash rays are typi-cally uniseriate to triseriate (Hoadley 1990), which is consistent with the tangential sections of the samples

Fig. 5. Detail image of the interior of the lid of the arm basket, showing the areas of plain weave and concentric wefts.

JAIC 51 (2012):123–143

132


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

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 to 11 cm have occurred in all three elements of the rim. These losses expose the ends of four of the warp elements. Because of 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. The materials throughout the basket have other minor splits. As expected for a basket from the begin-ning 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 because of 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 poly-ethylene) painted to match the color of the basket (fig. 9) (Horelick 2008). The Tyvek was folded in thirds to be a width similar to 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 sympa-thetic to the basket’s construction. Although 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.

described, the cross section shows that the grass has been 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 split 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 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 consis-tent with the expected materials based on the

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).

JAIC 51 (2012):123–143

133


from plant materials. Both the black ash splints and the unprocessed sweet grass, which do not have a protective cuticle, would readily absorb solvents or adhesives applied to them. As discussed in the “Intro-duction,” the solvents necessary for most adhesive repairs can also be problematic because of risks of distortion, loss of shape, stress caused by the swelling action of some solvents on plant materials, dissolu-tion 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,

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 handled. 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 made without the use of adhesive, which can cause staining and be difficult to remove

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

JAIC 51 (2012):123–143

134


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 (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.

JAIC 51 (2012):123–143

135


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 mate-rial 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 et al. 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, which 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 reevalu-ated, and wheat starch paste was introduced between the curled Tyvek element and the other Tyvek repair splints to better stabilize the curled element.

blotter paper, and smooth Tyvek (also called hard structure Tyvek). 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 because of concerns that the blotter paper might lose its curved shape and exert strain on the basket if placed in a humid environment.

The smooth Tyvek was tested 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 another technique, three separate Tyvek strips were inserted behind the existing rim elements. The first Tyvek strip was placed on the exterior of the rim, the second was placed on the interior, and a third was interwoven with the warp elements by approxi-mately 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

Fig. 10. Images of the trial unpainted Tyvek repairs: a) the unpainted white strips of Tyvek woven in the same manner as the original materials, and b) a bifolded piece of Tyvek.

JAIC 51 (2012):123–143

136


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 CONDITIONThe arm basket has numerous breaks with associ-

ated 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, two large breaks were found 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). These stepped breaks likely led to the associated loss of the wefts in this area because they were exposed to additional friction and wear.

4.2 ARM BASKET TREATMENTThe goals of the treatment of the body of the

lidded basket were to restore the alignment of the warps, redistribute the tension of the wefts, and reduce the risk of further loss of the wefts. Although a number of risks and concerns are associated with adhesive repairs, in this case additional strength and force were needed to accomplish the alignment of the warps and an adhesive repair was deemed neces-sary. Furthermore, because 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) to remain consistent

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

JAIC 51 (2012):123–143

137


throughout and because the previous repairs matched the appearance of the original materials. In addition, these repairs were visible when the basket was exam-ined under UV-induced visible fluorescence. This final feature allows for extremely close color matching because repairs will still be identifiable using standard conservation examination techniques.

Wheat starch paste was selected for this repair because of its working properties and 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 compar-ison with the basketry materials (if there is 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 deliv-ering 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 et al. (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 pres-sure 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 around the rim of the basket (fig. 13). Because one side of the repair elements was left unpainted, the 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. Even after treatment some of the break edges could not be perfectly aligned, possibly because of the splints having warped at some point before treatment.

The weft losses associated with the breaks were compensated using bundles of unwaxed dental floss, which were pretoned 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).

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

JAIC 51 (2012):123–143

138


5. DISCUSSION

Both case studies relied on an evaluation and advancement of previous treatment solutions. In the case of the bowl-shaped basket, the previous treat-ment 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 configu-ration but had slightly buckled and bowed (fig. 15). Because 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 marked changes in relative humidity (RH) that can occur

during a short period 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. 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 mate-rials 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 discernible change was noticed. However, reviewing the treat-ment again brought attention to the areas where full

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

JAIC 51 (2012):123–143

139


Fig. 15. Image of bowl-shaped basket showing the Tyvek repair out of alignment 1 year after treatment. The white arrows indicate possible areas of applying adhesive between pieces of Tyvek to maintain better alignment.

Fig. 14. Images of the arm basket after treatment under normal light (lid-left upper and body-left lower) and UV radiation (lid-right upper and body-right lower).

JAIC 51 (2012):123–143

140


realignment of the join had not been possible. 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) suggested the use of small magnets to main-tain 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 and environmental conditions. In this case, neither object was handled significantly after treatment; however, the RH in the storage area fluctuated throughout the year. There-fore, 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 article, 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 the baskets supported the identification of sweet grass, black ash, and Hong Kong cord. The condition of the baskets is summarized, and the treat-ment approaches taken to address condition issues are discussed. The treatment methods described include reweaving with smooth Tyvek and dental floss with and without adhesive. The previous treatment and 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 the baskets.

The research into the history of basketry produc-tion provided a timeline for the introduction of certain types of materials and construction methods, which aided in providing manufacture dates before 1940 for both 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 infor-mation about material properties. Despite similarities in construction methods and in materials used in these baskets, the location of their breaks and losses resulted in different treatment goals and consider-ations. The treatments achieved stabilization and visual integration while avoiding extensive adhesive use and the inherent risks of solvent exposure. These two treatments reveal different approaches to these considerations because each basket has a different type of damage. Therefore, these case studies demon-strate different solution possibilities that can be used to achieve similar goals.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

We thank Ioanna Kakoulli and David Scott for their encouragement and Vanessa Muros for her frequent and instructive assistance. In addition, we thank our classmates, Lily Doan, Elizabeth Drolet, Nicole Ledoux, Dawn Lohnas, and Cindy Lee Scott. Finally, this article 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. Tessa de Alarcón and Robin O’Hern contributed equally to this work.

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).

Anon. 2001. An interview with a traditional basket-maker. 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. Ottawa: Canadian Conservation Institute.

JAIC 51 (2012):123–143

141


Horelick, L. 2008. Treatment Report. Los Angeles: UCLA/Getty Program for the Conservation of Archaeological and Ethnographic Materials.

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, L.-A., and C. 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, eds. M. Florian, D. Kronkright, and R. Norton. Los Angeles: Getty Publications. 287–292.

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, eds. 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, eds. 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, eds. A. McMullen and R. G. Handsman. Washington, CT: American Indian Archaeological Institute. 170–171.

Morris, S. 2008. “Arm basket”: twined container. Los Angeles: UCLA/Getty Program for the Conservation of Archaeological and Ethnographic Materials.

Norton, R. E. 1997. Conservation of artifacts made from plant materials. In The conservation of artifacts made from plant materials, eds. 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.

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 the 18th Annual Meeting of the American Institute for Conservation in Richmond, Virginia.

Cane & Basket. 2011. Hong Kong Seagrass 1lb Coil. www.caneandbasket.com (accessed 23/10/11).

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, eds. 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, eds. 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, vol. 2, Peobody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology. 2nd ed. Cambridge: Harvard University.

Hoadley, R. B. 1990. Identifying wood: accurate results with simple tools. Newton, CT: The Taunton Press, Inc.

JAIC 51 (2012):123–143

142


Pelletier, G. 1982. Canadian ethnology service: paper No. 8: Abenaki basketry, National Museum of Man Mercury Series. Ottowa: National Museums of Canada.

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. In Carnegie Museum Annals. Pittsburgh: Carnegie Museum.

Turnbaugh, S. P., and W. A. Turnbaugh. 1997. Indian baskets. West Chester, PA: Schiffer Publishing Ltd.

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.

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, F. M. 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: hand pounded black ashBA-LSR18 ASH SPLINT 1/8 LASHER, BasketWeavingSupplies.com Basketry Studio11 Baywoods Dr.Shirley, MA 01464(866) 928-5430www.basketweavingsupplies.com

Liquitex Acrylic PaintLiquitexPO Box 246Piscataway, NJ 08855(888) 422-7951www.liquitex.com

Methylcellulose (TAD016004)5 Mil Polyester Mylar D, 2MIL (TFM001010)Tyvek Soft Structure high-density spun bonded polyethylene sheet (TNW001002)Talas330 Morgan Ave.Brooklyn, NY 11211 (212) 219-0770 Fax: (212) 219-0735www.talasonline.com

Parafilm M, hydrocarbon wax filmSPI Supplies/Structure Probe, Inc.569 East Gay Street West Chester, PA 19380(800) 242-4774Fax: (610) 436-5755www.2spi.com

Sweet grassStarwest Botanicals11253 Trade Center Dr. Rancho Cordova, CA 95742(800) 800-4372 www.starwest-botanicals.com

Wheat starch pasteMuseum Services Corporation385 Bridgepoint WaySouth Saint Paul, MN 55075 (651) 450-8954www.museumservicescorporation.com

JAIC 51 (2012):123–143

143


AUTHOR BIOGRAPHIES

TESSA DE ALARCÓN is currently a postgraduate fellow at the University of Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology. She graduated from the UCLA/Getty program for the Conserva-tion 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 preprogram 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, Conservation Program, Cotsen Institute of Archae-ology, 308 Charles E. Young Dr. North, 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 interned at the Agora Excavations of the American School for Classical Studies at Athens, the American Museum of Natural History, the Pitt Rivers Museum, and the Corning Museum of Glass. She received a master’s degree in theological studies from Harvard Divinity School, where she studied religion and material culture. Before attending 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 Alarcón; [email protected].

ELLEN PEARLSTEIN is an associate professor in the UCLA/Getty program for the Conservation of Archaeological and Ethnographic Materials and in information studies. She has a master’s degree in art history and archaeology from Columbia University and an advanced certificate in conserva-tion from the Conservation Center of the Institute of Fine Arts, New York University, specializing in archaeological and ethnographic objects. Ellen was the first L.W. Fröhlich Fellow in objects conserva-tion, 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. She teaches conservation classes in the United States and abroad, including locations such as Egypt and the Netherlands. Ellen is a fellow in the American Insti-tute 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, intro-ducing context into cultural materials’ conservation education, and curriculum development. Address: as for de Alarcón; [email protected].

This article is an exerpt from The Journal of the American Institute for Conservation,

Fall/Winter 2012, Volume 51, Number 2,

Copyright 2012. Published by the

American Institute for Conservation of Historic & Artistic Works,

1156 15th Street, NW, Suite 320, Washington, DC 20005

All rights reserved. ISSN 0197-1360.

www.conservation-us.org

Case Studies in Basketry Repair: Two Abenaki Splint Baskets

Documents