Does the ethnographic textile exist? Implications for textile conservation

Does the Ethnographic Textile Exist? Implications for textile conservation

Tracy P. Hudson

ADVANCED CONSERVATION PRACTICES

MSc Conservation Studies, UCL Qatar - 20 November, 2013

2

Table of Contents

INTRODUCTION: CATEGORIZATION OF TEXTILES 3

ETHNOGRAPHIC COLLECTIONS 4

WHAT IS AN ETHNOGRAPHIC TEXTILE? 5

WEALTH OF INFORMATION 6

CONSERVATION OF THE ETHNOGRAPHIC 7

NEGOTIATING DIRT 7 THE ROLE OF INTERPRETIVE DISPLAY 9 WHAT DOES THIS WORD MEAN? 11

CONCLUSION 11

REFERENCES 13

3

Introduction: Categorization of textiles Conservation is a young and self-conscious field, in an almost constant state of self-definition and evaluation (Cane 2009; Eastop 2006; Lennard and Ewer 2010; Muñoz Viñas 2005; Pye 2001). Textile conservation, a small subset of the general field, is also engaged in evaluation and analysis of its own parameters, ethics, and responsibilities. While such intellectual grappling is most obvious in theoretical articles and arguments (Brooks et al. 1996; Eastop 2000; Orlofsky and Trupin 1992), it also becomes apparent in the presentation of practical approaches to textile conservation and reports of case studies. The use of language and terminology in the published writing of textile conservators reveals thought processes and assumptions that may not be theoretically analyzed, or whose implications may not even be realized by the author at the time (Drysdale 1999). At the beginning of The Textile Conservator's Manual, Sheila Landi lists categories into which textiles can conveniently be divided for examination and documentation, in order to determine conservation treatments (Landi 1998, 28-31). These categories are strikingly European in content and emphasis, and if one turns to her preface for an explanation, one finds an admission that she "early abandoned the attempt" to write about things outside her own experience. This experience includes nearly 30 years with the Victoria and Albert Museum, and she explains that this manual will address textiles "that fall under the heading of the decorative arts," including the archaeological, but excluding the ethnographic (Landi 1998, xiv). Given the range of experience and the prominence of Landi's expertise in the development of textile conservation (Eastop 2006, 517), her use of words and categorizations carries authority and sets a standard, particularly as featured in one of the only books published as a 'manual' for textile conservation. As such, this exclusion of textiles 'from ethnography' begs the question of what characterizes such textiles: how are we to recognize them, and what problems might they pose to the conservator that differ from those of other categories? This paper examines the ways in which textiles have been considered 'ethnographic,' and whether this affects their treatment. Since there is very little literature directly addressing the topic of ethnographic textiles, the approach to and definition of ethnographic objects in general is used as an aid in understanding how textiles might be understood as 'ethnographic'. Case studies incorporating this terminology are reviewed, with attention to the use of language, to address the question of whether the designation is an objective, scientific, and practical category with regard to textiles.

4

Ethnographic collections Historically, ethnographic collections are groups of objects assembled in the course of ethnographic study, chosen by an anthropologist or ethnographer working in the field and familiar with the culture under study. The idea is that these objects, collected and studied back in the ethnographer's country of origin, will provide valuable insights into and documentation of the living community from which they were removed (Muñoz Viñas 2005, 61), much as archaeological objects provide information about past communities. There is often a sense of certain objects' requiring collection before they 'disappear', or stop being produced in the same way, due to disruption of the indigenous community's way of life or traditional practices (Clavir 2002, 31; Fowler and Fowler 1996, 130; Pye 1995, 10). Whereas anthropology and ethnology recognize the universality of the field of study, and conduct field research not only in exotic locations but within their own communities and cultures, the habit of using 'ethnographic' as a catch-all category for an ill-defined but distinctly ‘other’ set of material heritage persists among museum and heritage professionals (Giuntini 2010, note 7, 84; Clavir 2011; Clifford 1997). While never explicitly defined, the term carries a load of preconceived meanings. Ethnographic collections and objects are by definition a studied population, and like the Orient of the Orientalists, there is a “distillation of essential ideas” (Said 1979, 205) inherent in the use of the word ethnographic. Since the ideas are informed by imperialism, they include a presumed inferiority of cultural and technological development, an exoticism of beliefs and ritual practices, and a measure of inscrutableness which reinforces the sense of distance between the studied and the scholar. These ideas and the imposed distance are passed on to the viewer who encounters such collections or objects in museum displays (Blakey 1990). The experience of the objects is traditionally detached and scientific, implying that the information presented is “morally neutral and objectively valid.” (Said 1979, 205) Ethnographic collections and museums, while undergoing re-evaluation and changes through increasing knowledge, sensitivity, and the involvement of origin cultures (O'Hanlon and Harris 2013), continue to represent a distinct and separate set of objects, with associated meanings attached to them. The prevalence of ethnographic collection grew out of colonialism and imperial dominance, often driven by an impetus to prove European cultural superiority and justify dominion over colonized people (Blakey 1990, 41; Kreps 2011, 73; Sully 2008, 31). For this reason the designation becomes dubious, particularly with reference to textiles. Knowing that pre-industrial cultures created (and continue to create) intricate, technically masterful textiles from resources that are not understood outside their own culture (Carocci 2010; Fee 2012; Quinzon 1998), it is clearly contradictory to envision such items as demonstration of a more 'primitive' level of development, regardless of the acceptability of such an agenda. On an objective level of technical and material analysis, items such as the 19th century Bagobo three-panel ikat skirt, made from processed abaca fiber (Quinzon 1998) [Fig.1] demonstrate skills unparalleled by post-industrial textile production.

5

Figure 1: Bagobo three panel ikat skirt, Davao District, Philippines

(http://www.penn.museum/collections/object/178640)

What is an ethnographic textile? What, then, constitutes an ethnographic textile? Does the inclusion of a textile in an ethnographic collection somehow differentiate it materially from other textiles of a similar type? Or are there actual factors to consider in the conservation of certain textiles that make them ethnographic and therefore categorically different? Pye asks these question of ceramic objects, and notes that the tendency is to associate the ethnographic designation with 'other' cultures as opposed to 'our' culture (Pye 1995, 10). She further observes that within collections from archaeological excavations, the term 'ethnographic' seems to stick to the objects whose origin is outside Europe, further reinforcing the 'ours' and 'theirs' separation, and leading to an indistinct co-grouping of non-Western artifacts (Pye 1995, 11). This carelessness that develops as a result of the convenience of the ethnographic category is a danger, because it can become an excuse for ignorance and lack of information. Problems of labeling of ethnographic display objects have been well-documented, as has the practice of generalizing or misattributing the group from which an artifact originated (Cruikshank 1995; Handler 1992, 24). The implication is that since this object is from some remote, undeveloped people far away, the lack of information is excusable. In many cases, there is a genuine lack or loss of documentation regarding collected objects (Fowler and Fowler 1996), but the mistakes of the past should not encourage a lack of thoroughness in current practice. The following examples of object descriptions demonstrate that this tendency to generalize the 'ethnographic', however unconsciously, is still at work in the realm of the conservator. Several images of textiles are used to illustrate x-radiography techniques in the book X-Radiography of Textiles, Dress and Related Objects (Brooks and O'Connor 2007). In most cases, the examples are simply demonstrating material aspects of the x-ray imaging process, and descriptions are not given of the objects shown. However, there is a discrepancy even within

6

this minimal presentation of objects. One image is captioned as a "Turkish waist cloth detail," which gives a sense of provenance (Brooks and O'Connor 2007, 59). A waterlogged purse is identified by century and excavation, as well as materials, notably from an excavation in the UK (Brooks and O'Connor 2007, 48). Two more examples are referred to as 'ethnographic,' without further description apart from their materials or technique, a reverse appliqué band and a shell mask (Brooks and O'Connor 2007, 37, 42). The two textiles are easily identifiable by general area of origin and tribal style to someone with experience in non-Western textile traditions. Although this knowledge is specialized, an online search based on simple descriptions demonstrates the accessibility of the information: a Google search of "spiral reverse appliqué" brings up Hmong embroidery as the first result, and a search of "embroidered mask with cowrie shells, mirrors", produces the image below as the first in the selection of images [Fig.2].

Figure 2: LEFT: Hmong reverse appliqué showing paired, mirrored spiral design as in Fig.3.8 of X-Radiography (Brooks and O'Connor 2007, 37) (http://www.lasmanosmagicas.com/textilespics/hmong2.jpg)

RIGHT: Rajastani tribal mask similar to Fig.3.13 of X-Radiography (Brooks and O'Connor 2007, 42) (http://www.etsy.com/listing/129906945/vintage-indian-gypsy-mask-from-rajasthan).

Thus, the information regarding these types of textiles, which are still being created in certain parts of the world, is not obscure, but rather readily available to those who look for it. This exercise is not a criticism of the authors of the book, but serves to highlight the prevailing mentality that has allowed textile conservators as a group to overlook details of a wide-ranging selection of objects. Landi's sense of permission to exclude ethnographic textiles also bears witness to this mentality (Landi 1998, xiv). It has become acceptable not only to categorize objects as 'ethnographic', but also to remain uninformed about them, even when one is otherwise an expert in the field. The irony of this phenomenon lies in the very origins of ethnographic collections, which were made in order to be studied and preserve cultural information (Fowler and Fowler 1996; Muñoz Viñas 2005, 61).

Wealth of information There is a danger in this dismissal of unfamiliar textiles, the danger of losing the very information they offer. Pre-industrial techniques, rarely encountered in intact European textiles (Eastop and Dew 2006), are represented by textiles that are still in decent condition from other cultures. A respectful study of such objects can produce a great deal of technical information that may otherwise be considered 'lost.' The abaca fiber skirt in figure 1, for

7

example, retains a treasury of technical detail regarding fiber preparation, dyeing technique, weaving method, patterning, and finishing processes, not to mention the historical and cultural implications of its creation and collection (Quinzon 1998). Much has been written about textiles as documents, the evidence they contain, and the conservator's ethical responsibility to address all aspects of this evidence (Jedrzejewska 2011 (1980); Eastop and Brooks 1996; Pye 1995, 12). The relegation of information-rich textiles to the generalized, overlooked category of 'ethnographic' contradicts the stated priorities of textile conservation, and risks a continuation of the Eurocentric myopia of colonialism, depriving the field of potential knowledge enhancement.

Conservation of the ethnographic In order to understand how this terminology might practically apply to textile conservation, it is necessary to refer to conservators' case studies and published treatment reports. While there are very few published articles referring explicitly to ethnographic textiles, the articles examined here address the perceived differences in treatment approach for ethnographic objects, textiles or otherwise. The x-radiography book mentioned above includes a chapter highlighting ethnographic objects (Bacon 2007), which lists the characteristics of such objects that present particular conservation problems. These include: a complex three-dimensional structure, a wide variety of organic and inorganic materials, the "composite and ephemeral nature" of some objects, textile elements that may obscure other structural information, and the potential ritual or spiritual significance of the objects (Bacon 2007, 308, 311) While it is helpful to have a description of the considerations raised by objects considered ethnographic, it is worth noting that a number of objects categorically not considered ethnographic may also fulfill some or all of those considerations [Fig.3]. If we were to take the above list of characteristics as definitive for objects categorized as ethnographic, then the 18th century wedding wreath in figure 3 would more easily fall into this category than the Hmong reverse appliqué in figure 2. It is clear that although experienced conservators have a checklist of considerations that are familiar to them from working with objects from ethnographic collections, it is not possible to apply this in a definitive manner, especially when considering textiles in themselves. Pye characterizes the ethnographic object as a 'document' potentially containing important evidence. She also emphasizes collaboration with the curator to develop an understanding of the object in context (Pye 1995). This collaboration, or in some cases negotiation, between conservator and curator is the focus of two different papers discussing conservation of ethnographic objects.

Negotiating dirt The question of dirt is the theme in the case studies outlined by Greene, in "Using Case Studies to Examine the Decision Making Process for Cleaning Ethnographic Objects" (Greene 2006). For each of the cases in question, there was an issue of dirt, how much should be removed, and from where. The case studies are used to illustrate the subtlety of decision making, and to discount the oversimplified idea that post-collection dirt should be removed, while so-called 'ethnographic dirt' should remain (Greene 2006, 183). Each case

8

indeed presents an intricate negotiation between conservator's and curator's opinions, most of which are compromised in favor of the curator. The prevailing force in each of these cases seems to be the curator's opinions, desires, and approval. The curator decides how the object would have originally looked, what constitutes "culturally inappropriate appearance," and whether cleaning will remove important information (Greene 2006, 188, 192). Since the curator has cultural insight into the object and its history, each case is decided based on a balancing of the value of cleanliness versus the value of soiling.

Figure 3: Which of these is ethnographic? Nkisi figure from D.R. Congo, left, made of wood, metal, glass, ceramic, hide, feathers (http://www.studyblue.com/notes/note/n/5-2-african/deck/2860122); Wedding wreath from UK, right, made of silk, metal, dyed feathers (http://collections.vam.ac.uk/item/O146199/wedding-wreath-unknown/)

Regarding the question of dirt, it is difficult to see how the treatment approach applies differently to ethnographic objects. There is dirt and soiling on European items, too. Historical clothing, furniture, and bedding all have stains and signs of use, which might be termed ‘ethnographic dirt’ were they not coming from European locations. Why is the preservation of ‘ethnographic dirt’ any different from the preservation of mud on a WWI uniform, or blood on a British general’s jacket? If there is no other evidence of the role the object played in the previous, owned and used situation, then the justification is made to keep the dirt for its historic value (Eastop and Brooks 1996; Eastop and Dew 2006). This judgment can be applied to objects from non-European contexts as well as European historical objects, and there is no apparent reason for distinguishing between the two. Based on curator's knowledge and conservator's input, cleaning decisions can be made in a consistent manner, taking both historical and aesthetic concerns into account.

9

The role of interpretive display The evolution of curatorial interpretation informs the conservator's work in terms of mounting and display as much as with cleaning decisions shown above (Giuntini 2010, 85). The curator's understanding of context and desire to depict it effectively have developed over recent decades, as shown by the case studies discussed by Giuntini (2010). Most striking is the comparison of two dance costumes from Cameroon, collected in the same year and used for the same cultural purpose. In the early 1980's, one of these garments was mounted and displayed as a flat piece, congruent with the abstract, de-contextualized aesthetic of the time. But by 1995, it becomes important to display the same type of textile (this time more complete as a costume, with mask and leg rattles,) as an embodied form, suggesting motion. The cultural origin of the costume has become a focus, partly due to increased information, and partly to a change in museum attitude (Giuntini 2010, 90). This increased attention to the 'form' a textile takes in its culture of origin is addressed in a literal manner with Native North American worn blankets as well. Mounts are created that mimic the human body sufficiently to display blankets as worn, rather than as abstract two-dimensional works. This shift is significant in that it privileges the values of the culture of origin, rather than merely co-opting the products of that culture for aesthetic appreciation on European museum terms (Giuntini 2010, 89). However, from the conservator's perspective, this is an exercise in communicating with the curator, determining the best way to care for the object based on the display parameters, and while the changes in approach are certainly telling from a cultural perspective, they do not create a compelling justification for the separation of the ethnographic from the bulk of textile conservation. After reviewing five case studies, Giuntini concludes that display of ethnographic textiles involves factors such as condition of the textile, length of the exhibit, and museum environment (Giuntini 2010, 91). Are these considerations any different from those of all textiles? The re-evaluation of the cultural accuracy of a costume is not restricted to collected items from outside Europe. There are several examples of European historical costumes being reinterpreted according to new information discovered through detailed scrutiny of the construction, or through increased research, or both (Kite and Cogram 2006; Landi 1998, 232; Malkogeorgou 2011; Textile Conservation 2013)[fig.4]. A Victorian wedding dress is given a completely different inner support and display mount in order to show its correct original shape in accordance with the fashion of the era (Textile Conservation 2013), and the curatorial motivation is quite similar to the wish to represent the Cameroon dance costume as worn, based on an original field photograph (Giuntini 2010, 91)[fig.5].

10

Figure 4: 18th Century mantua after 2001 conservation treatment. © Victoria & Albert Museum (http://www.vam.ac.uk/content/articles/i/introduction-to-18th-century-fashion/)

Figure 5: Likishi Dance Costume, after 1995 display treatment. ©Brooklyn Museum (http://www.brooklynmuseum.org/opencollection/objects/46515/Likishi_Dance_Costume_Shirt_and_Head_Cover_with_Pwo_Mask)

11

What does this word mean? The unexamined use of 'ethnographic' as an adjective is even more revealing in Greene's description of the context of a particular costume. She explains that "during ethnographic use" the headdress would have been protectively stored when it was not being worn, maintaining a clean condition (Greene 2006, 190). The phrase 'during ethnographic use' refers to the object in its original place and use within the culture of origin. The term 'ethnographic' is describing the actual life of the people who made and used this object. This demonstrates the extent to which 'ethnographic' has come to represent the real, as it applies to 'other' cultures and peoples. What the author means to refer to is ethnographic documentation of traditional use, because that is the source of information on how the object was cared for within the original culture, yet this is condensed to 'ethnographic use.' This semantic choice reveals that the term has become shorthand for original, living cultures, action, or creation embedded within an unfamiliar, non-European society. As such, it does not designate specific treatment considerations or conservation needs, as distinct from objects of European origin. The distinction is a legacy of museum collecting processes, and may never have been appropriate as a way of grouping or defining textiles for conservation purposes.

Conclusion The categorization or description of a textile as an ethnographic textile requires that the category have some distinctive meaning in itself. For the textile conservator, the purpose of creating a category is to distinguish material characteristics or other features that commonly affect the conservation needs or treatment options of the items belonging to that category. If it is not possible to find characteristics that set ethnographic textiles apart from other textiles based on this type of assessment, it may be necessary to acknowledge, along with Appelbaum, "the fundamental senselessness of the category" (Appelbaum 2010) in providing any scholarly, scientific (Landi 1998, 6), or above all practical benefit. Whether a textile is part of an ethnographic collection does not inform the conservator regarding its care. Decisions will be made to clean or preserve soiling based on the significance of that soiling, in consultation with the curator. As with any collection, the object's role and the priorities of assessing significance will be considered according to the purposes of keeping or displaying the collection. Likewise, display decisions will reflect the intended message of the exhibition and the prevailing style or philosophy of presentation. The conservator's concern is with the materiality of the textile, and the condition assessment will proceed according to the conservator's expertise in observing the material state of the object with its various components. If the material components of a group of textiles are fundamentally distinctive, such as composite textiles made with a variety of materials, then it is practical and helpful to consider them together as a category. In the way 'ethnographic' has been used, it is a categorization not of technique or material but of generic culture of origin, and as such is unhelpful, because it refers to textiles from traditions of the ‘other’, presuming a perspective grounded in European culture and historical notions. Use of the term becomes a means of excusing oneself, as a Western educated conservator, of responsibility for knowing the details of a textile’s origin. Given that conservation is meant to proceed scientifically, based on knowledgeable observation of materials, the conservator is better served by technically specific designations and thorough descriptions than generic terminology that has lost its meaning.

12

13

References Appelbaum B. 2010 Conservation Treatment Methodology: CreateSpace Independent Publishing

Platform. Bacon L. 2007 X-radiography of ethnographic objects at the Horniman Museum. In: Brooks

M and O'Connor S (eds) X-Radiography of Textiles, Dress, and Related Objects. London and New York: Butterworth Heinemann, 307-313.

Blakey ML. 1990 American nationality and ethnicity in the depicted past. In: Gathercole P and Lowenthal D (eds) The Politics of the Past. London and New York: Routledge.

Brooks M, Lister A, Eastop D and Bennett T. 1996 Artefact or Information? Articulating the Conflicts in Conserving Archaeological Textiles. In: Roy A and Smith P (eds) Archaeological Conservation and its Consequences: IIC 1996 Copenhagen Congress. London: IIC, 16-19.

Brooks M and O'Connor S. 2007 X-Radiography of Textiles, Dress, and Related Objects, London and New York: Butterworth Heinemann.

Cane S. 2009 Why Do We Conserve? Developing Understanding of Conservation as a Cultural Construct. In: Richmond A and Bracker A (eds) Conservation: Principles, Dilemmas and Uncomfortable Truths. London and New York: Routledge.

Carocci M. 2010 Clad with the 'Hair of Trees': A History of Native American Spanish Moss Textile Industries. Textile History 41: 3-27.

Clavir M. 2002 Preserving what is valued : museums, conservation, and First Nations, Vancouver: UBC Press.

Clavir M. 2011 Preserving Conceptual Integrity: ethics and theory in preventive conservation. In: Caple C (ed) Preventive Conservation in Museums. London and New York: Routledge, 435-444.

Clifford J. 1997 Museums as Contact Zones. Routes: Travel and Translation in the Twentieth Century. Cambridge, MA and London: Harvard Univeersity Press, 188-219.

Cruikshank J. 1995 Imperfect Translations: Rethinking objects of ethnographic collection. Museum Anthropology 19: 25.

Drysdale L. 1999 The language of conservation: Applying critical linguistic analysis to three conservation papers. In: Bridgland J (ed) Preprints, ICOM-CC Lyon. London: James & James, 161-165.

Eastop D. 2000 Textiles as Multiple and Competing Histories. In: Brooks M (ed) Textiles Revealed: Object Lessons in Historic Textile and Costume Research. London: Archetype Publications, 17-28.

Eastop D. 2006 Conservation as Material Culture. In: Tilley C (ed) Handbook of Material Culture. London: Sage Publications, 516-533.

Eastop D and Brooks M. 1996 To clean or not to clean: the value of soils and creases. In: Bridgland J (ed) Preprints of the 11th Triennial Meeting of the ICOM-CC, Edinburgh. London: James & James.

Eastop D and Dew C. 2006 Context and Meaning Generation: the Conservation of Garments Deliberately Concealed within Buildings. IIC Munich.

Fee S. 2012 Historic Handweaving in Highland Madagascar: New Insights from a Vernacular Text Attributed to a Royal Diviner-Healer, c.1870. Textile History 43: 61-82.

Fowler CS and Fowler DD. 1996 Formation Processes of Ethnographic Collections: Examples from the Great Basin of Western North America. In: Kingery WD (ed)

14

Learning from Things: Method and Theory of Material Culture Studies. Washington and London: Smithsonian Institute Press.

Giuntini C. 2010 Ethnographic garments: Evolution of exhibition display in response to curatorial interpretation. In: Lennard F and Ewer P (eds) Textile Conservation: Advances in Practice. Oxford: Butterworth Heinemann, 84-92.

Greene V. 2006 Using Case studies to Examine the Decision-Making Process for Cleaning Ethnographic Objects. Journal of the American Institute for Conservation 45: 183-199.

Handler R. 1992 On the Valuing of Museum Objects. Museum Anthropology 16: 21-28. Jedrzejewska H. 2011 (1980) Problems of ethics in the conservation of textiles. In: Brooks M

and Eastop D (eds) Changing Views of Textile Conservation. Los Angeles: Getty Conservation Institute, 102-110.

Kite M and Cogram A. 2006 Re-evaluation and retreatment: The reconservation and remounting of an English court Mantua. Studies in Conservation: 111-122.

Kreps C. 2011 Changing the rules of the road: Post-colonialism and the new ethics of museum anthropology. In: Marstine J (ed) The Routledge Companion to Museum Ethics. London and New York: Routledge, 70-84.

Landi S. 1998 The Textile Conservator's Manual, London and New York: Routledge. Lennard F and Ewer P. 2010 Treatment Options - what are we conserving? In: Lennard F

and Ewer P (eds) Textile Conservation: Advances in Practice. Oxford: Butterworth Heinemann, 55-61.

Malkogeorgou T. 2011 Folding, stitching, turning: putting conservation into perspective. Journal of Material Culture 16: 441-455.

Muñoz Viñas S. 2005 Contemporary Theory of Conservation, Oxford: Elsevier Butterworth Heinemann.

O'Hanlon M and Harris C. 2013 Conference Outline: The Future of Ethnographic Museums. Anthropology Today 29: 8-12.

Orlofsky P and Trupin DL. 1992 The Role of Connoisseurship in Determining the Textile Conservator's Treatment Options. Journal of the American Institute for Conservation 32: 109-118.

Pye E. 1995 Pottery - what makes ceramics ethnographic? In: Hill L and Giles S (eds) Museum Ethnographers Group Occasional Papers. Hull: Museum Ethnographers Group, 10-18.

Pye E. 2001 Caring for the Past: Issues in Conservation for Archaeology and Museums, London: James and James.

Quinzon CA. 1998 Between the field and the museum: the Benedict Collection of Bagobo abaca ikat textiles. Textile Society of America Proceedings. http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/tsaconf: DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln.

Said EW. 1979 Orientalism, New York: Random House. Sully D. 2008 Decolonizing Conservation: Caring for Maori Meeting Houses Outside New Zealand,

Mountain View, CA: Left Coast Press. Textile Conservation VA. 2013 Conservation of a Victorian Wedding Dress. V&A website

http://www.vam.ac.uk/content/articles/c/conservation-victorian-wedding-dress/.