8/3/2019 VVAA. Mosaic. Conservation Newsletter GCI. 2006
1/32
Conservat ion
The Getty Conservation Institute
8/3/2019 VVAA. Mosaic. Conservation Newsletter GCI. 2006
2/32
TheJ.PaulGettyTrust
DeborahMarrow Interim President and Chie Executive Ofcer
TheGettyConservationInstitute
TimothyP.Whalen Director
JeanneMarieTeutonico Associate Director, Programs
KathleenGaines Assistant Director, Administration
KristinKelly Assistant Director, Dissemination and Research Resources
GiacomoChiari Chie Scientist
FranoisLeBlanc Head o Field Projects
Conservation, The Getty C onservation Institute Newsletter
JereyLevin Editor
AngelaEscobar Assistant Editor
JoeMolloy Graphic Designer
ColorWestLithographyInc. Lithography
The Getty Conservation Institute (GCI) works internationally to advance
the feld o conservation through scientifc research, feld projects,
education and training, and the dissemination o inormation in
various media. In its programs, the GCI ocuses on the creation and
delivery o knowledge that will beneft the proessionals and organiza-
tions responsible or the conservation o the visual arts.
The GCI is a program o the J. Paul Getty Trust, an international cultural
and philanthropic institution devoted to the visual arts that also
includes the J. Paul Getty Museum, the Getty R esearch Institute, and
the Getty Foundation.
Conservation, The Getty Conservation Institute Newsletter,
is distributed ree o charge three times per year, to proessionals
in conservation and related felds and to members o the public
concerned about conservation. Back issues o the newsletter,
as well as additional inormation regarding the activities o the GCI,
can be ound in the Conservation section o the Gettys Web site.
www.getty.edu
The Getty Conservation Institute
1200 Getty Center Drive, Suite 700
Los Angeles, CA 90049-1684 USATel 310 440 7325
Fax 310 440 7702
2006J.PaulGettyTrust
The GettyConservationInstituteNewsletter
Volume 21, Number 1, 2006
Front cover:Detailoaourth-centuryRomanmosaic,oneoseveraloundintheHouseotheNymphsatNeapolis,nowmodernNabeulinTunisia.ThemosaicdepictsasceneromthestoryotheTrojanWar:Chryses,apriestoApollo,iskneelinginrontoKingAgamemnon,askingthatthekingreleasehiscaptivedaughter,Chryseis.ThemosaicispresentlyhousedintheRegionalArchaeologicalMuseumoNabeul.Photo:BruceWhite.
8/3/2019 VVAA. Mosaic. Conservation Newsletter GCI. 2006
3/32
C
o
nt
ent
sFeature 4 Mosaic Conservation Fity Years o Modern Practice
ByGaldeGuichenandRobertoNardi
The philosophy and approach to the conservation o mosaics underwent signicant change
in the postWorld War ii period, a transormation that is still under way. Where once
mosaics were routinely removed rom archaeological sites, now the trend is to conserve
them in situ when possible.
Dialogue 9 A Need for Strategy A Discussion about Conserving Mosaics in the Arab World
Amr al-Azm o Damascus University, Acha Ben Abed o the Institut National du
Patrimoine o Tunisia, and Isabelle Ska, a private conservator currently consulting or
Lebanons Direction Gnrale des Antiquits, talk with Martha Demas and JeVrey Levin
o the Getty Conservation Institute.
Newsin 16 Assessing the Protective Function of Shelters over Mosaics
Conservation ByJohnD.Stewart,JacquesNeguer,andMarthaDemas
Over the last two years, English Heritage, the Israel Antiquities Authority, and the Getty
Conservation Institute have been pursuing research into the eYcacy o shelters in
protecting in situ mosaics.
20 Lessons Learned A Report on the 2005 ICCM Conerence
ByThomasRoby
In November 2005 in Tunisia, the International Committee or the Conservation
o Mosaics (iccm) held its ninth conerence, which explored what has been accomplished
in the almost thirty years since the iccms ounding. The conerence also drew some
conclusions about where the mosaic conservation eld needs to go.
GCINews 25 Projects, Events, and Publications
Updates on Getty Conservation Institute projects, events, publications, and staV.
8/3/2019 VVAA. Mosaic. Conservation Newsletter GCI. 2006
4/32
Conservation, The GCI Newsletter l Volume 21 , Number 12006l Feature
TheancientRomansiteoThuburboMajusinTunisia,withoormosaicsinsitu.SeenhereistheperistyleotheHouseoNeptune.Photo:ElsaBourguignon.
VisitorsadmiringtheGreatHuntmosaicattheVillaRomanadelCasaleinPiazzaArmerina,Sicily.Thesitesextraordinarymosaics,whichdecoratealmosteveryroom,wereconservedinsituwhenmajorexcavationwascom-pletedatthesiteinthelate1950sanunusualpracticeatthetime.Photo:GuillermoAldana.
8/3/2019 VVAA. Mosaic. Conservation Newsletter GCI. 2006
5/32
Ithere Cesare Brandi introduced the solution o conserving thevillas remarkable mosaics in situand protecting the entire site.
In the 1960s, a dramatic evolution in mosaic conservation
began. Two important proessional gures came to prominence
in this decade: Rol Wihr in Cologne, Germany, and Claude Bassier
in Prigueux, France. Wihr was a conservator-restorer, working at
the Rheinisches Landesmuseum in Trier. Bassier, in private practice,
was called in on rescue excavations when mosaics were discovered.
He was able to arrive within two dayswith trucks, a crate, and
a tent with heating systemsready to work, even in the middle
o winter. In their work, both Wihr and Bassier introduced newapproaches, which included systematic documentation, new
supports (honeycomb aluminum instead o concrete), and new
adhesives (resins instead o glues and cement). They also continued
the established practice o polishing the mosaic suraces.
A third signicant gure who advanced the eld technologi-
cally at an early date was Antonio Cassio o the Istituto Centrale
per il Restauro in Rome. Cassioa mosaicist rom a amily o
mosaicistspreerred a more sensitive and controlled method or
detaching mosaics. He used a system typical o mosaic making
itsel, which permitted the detachment o mosaics in pieces averag-ing twenty-ve square centimeters. This method substantially
reduced cutting stressesand thereore reduced damage to mosaics
being lited.
In the late 1960s, again in Italy, a diVerent eldmural
paintingwas undergoing a theoretical and practical reevaluation,
which would subsequently have a direct and important impact on
mosaic conservation. In 1968iccrom (International Centre or the
Study o the Preservation and Restoration o Cultural Property)
joined with the Istituto Centrale per il Restauro to initiate an annual
our-month course on the conservation o wall paintings. Initially
In some sense, mosaic conservation is a practice as old as themaking o mosaics themselves. Today one can still nd ancient
mosaics with patches that were made as part o maintenance when
the foors were still in use. In more recent centuries, restoration was
widely practiced on objects o antiquity, including mosaics. And
rom the rst decades o the twentieth century, we have ne exam-
ples o restorations.
Prior to the mid-twentieth century, discoveries o mosaics
happened mainly during archaeological excavation o known sites.
The postwar period in Europe was a time o tremendous construc-
tion and reconstruction, and discoveries o mosaics occurred morerequently throughout the continent. That does not mean these arti-
acts were ultimately preserved. According to a 1971 study made by
Claude Bassier, a French engineer, o660 pavements ound in
France and published by archaeologists, at least 92 percent were
abandoned, destroyed, or lost. The remaining oneswhen the sub-
jects were gurative and considered valuablewere, according to
the traditional techniques o the time, systematically removed rom
archaeological sites. Some were re-laid on concrete slabs, while
others were abandoned in storage, where many remain today.
In the early postwar period, strategies or mosaic conservationwere very limiteddetachment was the primary option available.
Interventions were typically undertaken without adequate planning
and with a workorce that consisted mainly o artisans, crats-
persons, or carpenters. Conservation practice was based solely on
empirical knowledge, and the materials used by practitioners were
limited to cement, gypsum, and glues. In addition, documentation
was lacking. Practitioners worked in isolation, without the benet
o proessional associations. An exception to the typical treatment
o excavated mosaics was the completion o the excavation o the
Villa Romana del Casale in Piazza Armerina, Sicily, in the late 1950s;
Conservation, The GCI Newsletter l Volume 21 , Number 1 2006l Feature 5
Theollowingwasadaptedromthekeynoteaddressdeliveredattheninthconerence
otheInternationalCommitteeortheConservationoMosaics,whichtookplace
inNovember2005inTunisia.Thepresentationexploredthethemeotheconerence,
LessonsLearned,lookingbackonthehistoryandpracticeomosaicconservation
andthephilosophythathasguidedit.
MOSAIC CONSERVATION
FIFTYYEARS
OFMODERNPRACTICE ByGaldeGuichenandRobertoNardi
8/3/2019 VVAA. Mosaic. Conservation Newsletter GCI. 2006
6/32
the highlight o the course was the detachment o a wall painting,
but very quickly, in situ consolidation was embraced as a more
appropriate method, as wall paintings came to be considered an
integral part o the buildings to which they belonged. This evolu-
tion in wall paintings conservation led to the publication in 1977 o
Conservation oWall Paintings by Paolo Mora, Laura Mora, and Paul
Philippot, still a undamental book or the proession.
Establishing the ICCM
All this was in the air in 1977 when the rst meeting on mosaic
conservationwith orty-ve participantswas organized in
Rome. At the end o this conerence, ten o the participants decided
to create the International Committee or the Conservation o
Mosaics (iccm) and to act as its rst board. The publication o the
proceedings o the meeting was calledMosaic No. 1: Deterioration
and Conservation, and it was addressed to conservator-restorers,
archaeologists, technicians, administrators, and the public. Another
important result o the meeting was a recommendation to launch
a course on mosaic conservation.
The 1977 meeting in Rome was the starting point or a series
o regular conerences. The ollowing year, the Institut National
du Patrimoine in Tunisia hosted the second conerence and went on
to host subsequent meetings o the iccm board. Other iccm coner-
ences ollowed. The latest conerence, the ninth, took place in
Hammamet, Tunisia, in 2005 (see p. 20). Following each o these
meetings, the proceedings were published. In addition to the
proceedings, twelve newsletters have also been published. These
materials represent or the proession a basic source o inormation
that did not exist ty years ago.
The evolution in the thinking o the iccmand, indirectly,
the trend in its proessional principlesis refected in the themes o
each o those conerences (see sidebar). It is evident rom looking at
those themes that by 1983 the iccm was pointing out the importance
o in situ conservation and encouraging its use whenever possible.
In this way, it mirrored an evolution already ollowed by wall paint-
ings specialists.
Another principle that the iccm has come to strongly support
is the rejection o the use o cement in the conservation and restora-
tion o mosaics. It had been clear or some time that the use o
cement in the conservation o ancient monuments risked an expan-
sion o damage. In response, Italian conservation scientist Giorgio
Torraca launched research in 1980 to replace cement with, paradoxi-
cally, one o the oldest construction materials knownlime-based
mortar. However, even within the iccm, it required almost ten years
o heated debate beore lime-based mortars were generally accepted
and beore they replaced cement applied in direct contact to mosaics.
The use o lime-based mortars has allowed the development o in
situ consolidation and urthered the practice o maintenance in situ
when possible. (Unortunately, despite the abundant evidence o
destruction caused by cement in conservation interventions, this
material is still used on mosaicsand worse, its use is still occasion-
ally taught as a technique in some countries.)
One other important advance that can be credited to
discussion and refection during several iccm conerences was the
acceptance by conservation practitioners o a planned approach to
saeguarding mosaic foors. In 1996 a question-driven fowchart
was developed to help practitioners determine which o several
options would be most appropriate to a particular context and set
o problems. The questions related to risk, visitation, signicance,
available resources, and archaeological investigation, and they led to
6 Conservation, The GCI Newsletter l Volume 21 , Number 12006l Feature
TechniciansstabilizingamosaicpavementwithlimemortaratthesiteoThuburboMajus,Tunisia.Trainingtechniciansinthecareandmaintenanceoinsitumosa-icsenhancestheabilityoculturalauthoritiestopre-servemosaicheritage. Photo:KristinKelly.
Mosaicslitedromtheiroriginalsitesandplacedinstorage.Thereisanurgentneedtoproperlyconservethenumerousmosaicsre-laidonconcreteorconsignedtostor-age.Photo:GaetanoPalumbo.
8/3/2019 VVAA. Mosaic. Conservation Newsletter GCI. 2006
7/32
consideration o a range o options, including backlling, liting and
transerring to a museum, liting and re-laying in situ, and consoli-
dation in situ.
The previous standard practice o leaving a mosaic on site
without protectionor o liting the pavement and abandoning it
in storagewas clearly the result o a lack o planning, as well as
demonstrative o the attitude o some archaeologists, insensitive to
conservation, who elt that their work ended the day they published
their ndings. A systematic analysis o practical conditions can help
determine diVerent and more appropriate approaches or dealing
with an excavated mosaic. With any o these options, serious plan-
ning beore implementation is required.
Ater the three iccm conerences dedicated to in situ conserva-
tion, the our subsequent conerences reerenced in their titles the
issues o public presentation o mosaics. As early as 1977 it was
suggested inMosaic No. 1 to involve the public so that specialists
responsible or conservation receive support rom individuals. It is
the public, ater all, that benets and is served by the world-wide
conservation movement. This statement established in the mosaic
conservation eld the recognition that an objective o the conserva-
tion proession is to present and to interpret or the public the
cultural properties that we are engaged in conserving.
In order to infuence the actual practice o mosaic conserva-
tion, these new ideas and approaches required adequate training at
all levels. Yet the development o training did not happen quickly.
Twelve years passed ater the 1977 recommendation or training
beore the rst course or decision makers was initiated. The one-
month courseorganized by iccrom in 1989 in Romewas
attended primarily by archaeologists. Today some o the partici-
pants o that early course are members o the iccm board.
Conservation, The GCI Newsletter l Volume 21 , Number 1 2006l Feature
AviewosomeothemosaicsinsituandvisitorwalkwaysatthesiteoPaphos,Cyprus.Today,mosaicconservationisnotlimitedtosmallexcavatedareasortoworksinmuseumsbutincludesentirearchitec-turalcomplexesorsiteswiththousandsosquaremetersomosaics.Photo:MarthaDemas.
DetailoamosaicpavementadjacenttoanirrigatedgardenatasiteinIsraelinthelate1990s.Furtherresearchontheprotectionoinsitumosaicsisnecessaryortheirlong-termpreservationandpresentation.Photo:FrancescaPiqu.
8/3/2019 VVAA. Mosaic. Conservation Newsletter GCI. 2006
8/32
Unlike three decades ago, the scope o mosaic conservation is
no longer restricted to a ew square meters o tesserae recently exca-
vated or on exhibit in a museum. Today it has expanded to include
entire architectural complexes or sites where thousands o square
meters o mosaics are in danger. And today the conservator is joined
by other proessional gures in the eld o conservation in address-
ing the problems o mosaic conservation. Among them are conser-
vation scientists who share an interest in nding solutions to mosaic
conservation globallyand not simply through the lens o a micro-
scope. The act that 250 colleagues rom thirty countriesand with
many diVerent backgroundsattended the ninth iccm conerence
indicates that common problems exist and that the interest to solve
them collectively is very high.
At the same time it is evident that there are still issues that
have not been resolved, and a great deal o work remains to be done.
There is an urgent need to properly conserve and store hundreds,
i not thousands, o mosaics previously re-laid on reinorced con-
crete or abandoned in storage. Reburial o mosaics is an importanttool or preserving mosaics, but it requires clear protocols and
a technical and nancial assessment. Further research on the
protection o mosaics rom biological growth would contribute
to mitigating a widespread problem conronting the preservation
and presentation o mosaics. Studies o the cost o maintenance
o mosaics in situ are needed to help promote this approach.
Assessments o training needs or archaeologists, conservator-
restorers, and technicians are essential to ensuring long-term
protection o mosaics. And nally, the publication o a major book
on the conservation and restoration o mosaics is long overdue.The above issues are only some o the challenges aced by the
proessionals charged with the responsibility or conserving and
exhibiting mosaics. There is still a long way to go. Nevertheless,
it is realistic to look to the uture with a eeling o optimism.
With the help o the iccm, the great vitality demonstrated by the
proession has resulted in standards o mosaic conservation practice
today that appeared almost unreachable thirty years ago. Much has
been accomplished, and those accomplishments orm an essential
oundation or the work that lies ahead.
Gal de Guichen is honorary president o the ICCM and ormer program director and
assistant to the director general at ICCROM. Roberto Nardi is vice president o the
ICCM and the ounder o the Centro di Conservazione Archeologica in Italy, a private
company working in the feld o conservation o archaeological sites and monuments.
Conservation, The GCI Newsletter l Volume 21 , Number 12006l Feature
Since that time, several courses at various levels have been
and continue to beorganized. While this activity is generally
welcome, certain doubts exist regarding their eYcacy. Some o these
sessions are too shortlasting a ew weeks at mostor the trainers
lack the teaching abilities required. In some instances, the produc-
tion o new mosaics is taught at the same time as conservation
techniquesa questionable pairing.
An example o training appropriately adapted to the challenge
aced is the technician training program launched by the gci and
Tunisias Institut National du Patrimoine in 1998 (see Conservation,
vol. 17, no. 1). This long-term involvement in training technicians
in the care and maintenance o in situ archaeological mosaics is
attempting to enhance the ability o cultural authorities in Tunisia
to preserve the wealth o mosaic heritage ound in that country.
A Maturing of the Profession
For the mosaic conservation eld, the last ty years constitute
a period o great change and maturation. The creation and
development o the iccm have advanced the work begun by the
Association Internationale pour lEtude de la Mosaque Antique
(aiema) and later developed by the Association or the Study and
Preservation o Roman Mosaics (asprom) in Great Britain and the
Associazione Italiana per lo Studio e la Conservazione del Mosaico
(aiscom) in Italy.
ConerencesotheICCM
Rome, Italy 1977 Deterioration and Conservation
Tunis and Carthage, Tunisia 1978 Saeguard
Aquileia, Italy 1983 Conservation In Situ
Soria, Spain 1986 Conservation In Situ
Palencia, Spain 1989 Conservation In Situ
Faro and Conimbriga, Portugal 1992 Conservation, Protection, Presentation
Nicosia, Cyprus 1996 Mosaics Make a Site: The Conservation
In Situ o Mosaics on Archaeological Sites
Saint-Romain-en-Gal
and Arles, France 1999 Mosaics: Conserve to Display?
Thessalonki, Greece 2002 Wall and Floor Mosaics: Conservation,
Maintenance, and Presentation
Hammamet, Tunisia 2005 Lessons Learned: Refecting on the Theory
and Practice o Mosaic Conservation
8/3/2019 VVAA. Mosaic. Conservation Newsletter GCI. 2006
9/32
ANEEDFORSTRATEGY
ADISCUSSIONABOUT
CONSERVINGMOSAICS INTHEARABWORLD
Conservation, The GCI Newsletterl Volume 21 , Number 1 2006l Dialogue 9
JereyLevin:Lets start with the ways that the conservation o
mosaics has evolved in the Mediterranean world over the last ten
to teen years. How would each oyou characterize the changes,
iany?
Amral-Azm:When I took over the conservation and science labs in
Syria, the standard practice or mosaic conservation in Syria was
basically removal. Once the mosaic was removed, it was laid onto
a metal rame with reinorced concrete. You can imagine what a vol-
atile mix that is in terms o mosaic conservation. Oten these pieces
would then be put on display either within museums or outside,
exposed to the rain and other weather processes. Since the year 2000,
Ive banned the use o that technique all over Syria. There is no
more pouring o concrete, and weve now moved on to lightweight
rames, including Aerolam [honeycomb aluminum panels].
Although we have also experimented with cheaper options, none
o our experiments has really provided us with a viable alternative.
I would say that at the moment in storage, awaiting conservation,
are probably about three thousand square meters o mosaics.
MarthaDemas:Amr, youve stopped the policy ore-laying on
cement, but are you still liting mosaics rom their original
contexts?
al-Azm: Yes, we are. The reason or removal is another issue that we
have to deal with. In situ conservation requires not only the Depart-
ment o Antiquities saying, were not going to remove it, but also
coordination with the archaeologists who are uncovering these
mosaics, ensuring that they have suYcient unds to pay or it. You
have to deal with the bureaucracy that has to und employment or
people to protect these mosaics once theyre exposed. There are reg-
ulations preventing an increase in the number o employees within
the public sector. So what choice do I have but to remove? At least
once a mosaics been removed, we can start to provide decent care
or it, rather than allow it to deteriorate in poor storage conditions or
create new problems or it once its been laid on concrete.
How has the conservation omosaics evolved in the Arab
region othe Mediterranean world in recent years? What
are the challenges that these countries conront in develop-
ing strategies to preserve mosaics?Conservationspoke with
three specialists in the eld who have devoted much o theirproessional eVorts to the preservation omosaics.
Amr al-Azm is the ormer director oconservation or the
Directorate General or Antiquities and Museums in Syria.
An archaeologist by training, he is the current head othe
Centre or Archaeological Research and Scientic Labora-
tories at Damascus University.
Acha Ben Abedis director omonuments and sites at the
Institut National du Patrimoine (INP) oTunisia. Former
director othe Bardo Museum in Tunis and curator oseveral international exhibitions, she has managed or the
INP the collaborative project with the GCI to train techni-
cians in the maintenance omosaics in situ. She is the
author oa number opublications on Tunisian mosaics.
Isabelle Ska, a conservator in private practice in Beirut,
is the ormer head othe Conservation Laboratory at the
National Museum oLebanon, where she carried out
recovery operations or the museums collections ollowing
the countrys civil war. She is currently working on archaeo-
logical sites and coordinating conservation projects or
Lebanons Direction Gnrale des Antiquits.
They spoke withMartha Demas, a senior project specialist
with GCI Field Projects, andJerey Levin, editor o
Conservation, The GCI Newsletter.
8/3/2019 VVAA. Mosaic. Conservation Newsletter GCI. 2006
10/32
IsabelleSka:In Lebanon, we inherited the 1950s and 1960s practice
o re-laying mosaics on cement. Many o these re-laid pavements
were moved because their original discovery site was destroyed.
Others, however, remained on their unaVected original site. The
period o the last ten or teen years since the civil war, with inten-
sive reconstruction work done under pressure rom developers, has
consisted largely o emergency excavationespecially in Beirut.
Unortunately, most o the mosaics discovered throughout this
period were removed and stored with little conservation treatment.
The Department o Antiquities now aces the dilemma o what to
do with all these mosaics. In act, the problem is twooldthe older,
cement-backed mosaics and the more recently detached and inad-
equately conserved mosaics.
Demas: You dont see an evolution toward a more acceptable
solution or mosaics?
Ska: People realize that cement is not a viable option anymore,
which is a step orward. Mosaics are systematically lited when a siteis going to be destroyed. To date, there has been no discussion on
a strategy to tackle this problem diVerently in the long term.
AchaBenAbed: The Tunisian experience is a little bit diVerent
rom the others. In the late 1970s and the beginning o the 1980s,
we worked on mosaics in situa Tunisian and American team
with Margaret Alexander, who was president o the iccm
[International Committee or the Conservation o Mosaics] at that
time. We werent happy with what we had been doingliting
mosaics or just cleaning them, taking notes, and documenting them
or the books. We started being sensitive to the disintegration o the
mosaics. Many times we studied one pavement, and when we came
back the next year, nothing was let.
In 1993 I was invited by the gci to join their course in Cyprus
on the conservation o excavated sites, and then I personally started
to realize how important it was to keep mosaics in situ. We started
this process being araid o the idea o liting the mosaics. And then
we decided to start training technicians, because we dont have any
mosaic conservators here in Tunisia. We have conservators, but they
mainly specialize in museum objects. With the Getty, we started to
think in terms o having a training orce or maintenance. We had
eight people in the rst group, and were now working with the third
group. We still have lots o problems, but when I compare what we
have here to what I see elsewhere, Im happy with what we did.
I think the solution can be adapted to what I see in other Arab coun-
tries. This problem o hiring peoplein Tunisia we had the same
problem. We could not hire any new technicians, so we had to deal
with what we hadworkmen or young people, with a minimum
o education. We have tried to adapt the whole process o training
to this prole.
Levin: Does that mean that you rarely do detachment at this point
in time?
BenAbed: Weve had this campaign with all o my colleagues
telling them that i they start doing any detachment or liting,
the whole international community is going to be against us! Still,
with some emergency excavation, we dont have any choice and
we have to detach.
al-Azm: Acha, I understand what you said, and thats all really won-
derul. But who pays or in situ preservation? The Tunisian govern-
ment? Or have you managed to get oreign excavators working in
Tunisia to pay or it?
BenAbed: We have bilateral missions but we do not have so many
maybe less than ten. Its the Tunisian government that pays or the
conservation and maintenance. We include it in the budget. Thats
what Im doing now. I get some money and I put a certain amount
o that money into conservation.
al-Azm: Its wonderul that you have the budget rom the Tunisian
government to do that. One o our problems is long-term sustain-
ability. You might have a site o150 hectares, a site like Apamea,
where you cant have just one or two guards. You need a small army
o peopleespecially i you have mosaics there. So you have to
change peoples perception about why they need to keep these
mosaics in situ and not steal them. I the local population is involvedin the care and maintenance o these mosaics, and through develop-
ment programs they eel the nancial benets o having these mosa-
ics, then they will become guardians o the site. Instead o having to
hire a hundred guards, you have a local community o maybe a thou-
sand who will volunteer to do this. Its a long-term thing, because it
will take a long time or these communities to begin to understand.
In the short term, I need to get oreign missions to start putting
aside parts o their budgets to pay or the in situ preservation, which
they dont do now.
10 Conservation, The GCI Newsletter l Volume 21 , Number 12006l Dialogue
8/3/2019 VVAA. Mosaic. Conservation Newsletter GCI. 2006
11/32
BenAbed: But what about when they leave? The problem is then you
have to pay rom your side. Let me say something about my experi-
ence. Ater some contact with conservators, I came to this idea that
I dont need just guardsI need people working on mosaics. And
once they are on the site and working, o course they will guard it.I dont see the point o having someone standing or hours without
doing anything. So we took some o these people who had been hired
to be guards and we trained them or conservation maintenance.
Ska: In Lebanon, all archaeological assets are government property.
However, the relevant public authorities do not have the nancial or
human resources to deal with the huge conservation problems that
ace the countrys cultural heritage. Ideally these responsibilities
would be shared between them and other local organizations, such
as local municipalities and nongovernmental associations. However,
or reasons pertaining to the legalities involved in ownership, they
are reluctant to do so. One approach would be to develop new part-
nership policies in which public authorities share nancial responsi-
bility, within a legal ramework, with these other organizations.
BenAbed:I dont agree with you. I think we are mixing two things.
Heritageand its the case everywhere, as ar as I knowshould be
the responsibility o the government. I dont think individual or
private groups can really take care o the heritage. They will not give
money because they think the heritage is something goodthey will
give money to get something in return. It should be under the con-trol o the government. What is important is to get more expertise
rom outside the government. Push people to be trained in the area
o heritage. But I dont think that responsibility or the heritage
should be given to anyone else.
Ska: I didnt say given. I said shared.
al-Azm:The idea o sharing or not sharing is critical. But its not just
about sharing in the sense o, we can get an NGO in or only the
government can deal with the problem. Its an issue o strategy.
This is the core o the problem, at least in Syria. We have a very, very
rich archaeological heritage. And we have more and more joint
or bilateral, as you saidexcavations coming in. Sites are being
opened up and materials are being brought to light. But while its
good to have great discoveries, its a problem i you dont put inplace a strategywhich is what the government has to do. In the old
days, you brought all sorts o stuVout and then cherry-picked the
bits you wanted and you threw away the rest. There was no such
thing as cultural heritage management. Today this is unacceptable.
There has to be a coherent strategy. And only the government is
going to be able to do thatimpose rules and conditions. I you
excavate a site and you nd a mosaic, youre going to have to nd the
money to pay or the maintenance o this mosaic. And this is what
we have been pushing or in Syria. Otherwise, we might as well leave
the stuVin the ground.
Demas: What do you think is the main motivating actor or all
othis excavation? Is it really research oriented, or is it oriented
toward exposing sites or tourism?
al-Azm: The driving orce in Syriaapart rom rescue excavations
where you build a road, or something like thatis that every aca-
demic institution wants a piece o the pie. We give out more permits
or excavations than we can manage in terms o the amount o mate-
rial. There are hundreds o mosaics coming out o the ground, and
there has to be a strategy or handling this material. We need tomake sure we have enough storerooms to store the stuVcoming out.
We have to make sure theres nancing available or protecting the
structures that are being excavated that we wish to preserve.
We have to make sure that there is money, personnel, and support
or mosaic foors that are going to come out. Are we going to build
a shelter over them? Are we going to remove them? Are we going
to preserve them in situ? I we preserve them in situ, who is going
to do the preservation? Do we have enough trained staVto do this?
Beore we go out and open up new sites in the name o new
Photo:CourtesyAmral-Azm
Conservation, The GCI Newsletterl Volume21 , Number 1 2006 l Dialogue 11
I the local population is involved
in the care and maintenance o these mosaics,
and through development programs
they eel the fnancial benefts o having these mosaics,
then they will become guardians o the site.Amr al-Azm
8/3/2019 VVAA. Mosaic. Conservation Newsletter GCI. 2006
12/32
discoveries, lets clear up the mess we have. And i we are going to
open up new sites, maybe we should think about sites that will have
some sort o return in terms o tourism.
Ska: This would be in an ideal situation. However, departments
o antiquities come under a great deal o pressure to grant excava-
tion rights to various universities and research institutions.
Although these can be limited by the department in terms o num-
ber and/or time, the complexity o problems involvedadministra-
tive and nancialhampers long-term conservation decisions.
BenAbed: For Tunisia, the process started maybe ten or teen years
ago, when we decided to come down on this business o excavation.
Except or emergency excavation, you should have only two or three
excavations, maximum. We have lots o students, but we just give
them already excavated study materials. Nobody is complainingabout this.
al-Azm: We have 130 oreign excavations working here every year.
Ska: Lebanon currently has only ten or twelve ongoing excavations.
Emergency excavations are a diVerent problem. I dont think stop-
ping excavations is viable. One could suspend them or one or two
years, but not indenitely. Long-term solutions or the conservation
o archaeological sites, and most particularly or the conservation
o mosaics, must be ound.
BenAbed: Isabelle, what i you limited excavations to one or two
a year, and not ten or twelve?
Ska: Excavations are already limited in Lebanon. You need, how-
ever, to establish a conservation strategy, whether you have excava-
tions or not.
Levin: Isabelle, with regard to nonemergency excavations in
Lebanon, is there any sort orequirement that excavation teams
have some strategy and some resources set aside or long-term
maintenance othe sites?
Ska: No. This is why I mention the idea o sharing responsibility.
At the moment, the current pattern is that archaeological teams
undertake the excavation, and once the dig comes to an end the
Department o Antiquities resumes ull responsibility or the sites.
Unortunately, due to a lack o unds, they are not always able tomaintain them. Reburial options are being considered now in order
to reduce maintenance costs.
Demas: What are the main impediments to achieving that type
ostrategy at a nationwide level?
al-Azm: In Syria weve already started doing it. When a lot o excava-
tors reapply or their permit, they are told, no, you cannot continue
until you restore what youve already excavated. This policy, which
has been coming in over the last six or seven years, has caused a lot
o riction between the archaeological missions and the dgam[Directorate General or Antiquities and Museums]. Its been
a struggle orcing heads o excavations to nd additional unds and
resources to maintain the structures that they have excavated.
The problem with mosaics is that they are more intensive in terms
o the attention required, because youre preserving an object in situ.
Demas: Its one thing to have a policy or oreign excavations, but
what about a policy or decision making about what we excavate
and how we care or the mosaics that we already have? Where do
you see the impediments o implementing that kind opolicy?
BenAbed: For many years, in the agreements that were signed
between the National Tunisian Institute o Archaeology and oreign
universities, we had a provision saying that some o the budget
should be given to restoration. And some o these teams did great
jobs. But what happened is people would leave ater ve, ten, or
teen years, and we didnt have anyone in the country that could do
the conservation. Thats why we decided to ace the problem and
make the business o conservation our problem. We still now ask
that a third, I think, o the budget o the oreign excavation team
Long-term solutionsor the conservation o archaeological sites,
and most particularlyor the conservation o mosaics,
must be ound. Isabelle SkafPhoto:CourtesyIsabelleSkaf
12 Conservation, The GCI Newsletter l Volume 21 , Number 12006l Dialogue
8/3/2019 VVAA. Mosaic. Conservation Newsletter GCI. 2006
13/32
should be dedicated to conservation and restoration. But we had
to be able to take over with conservation and maintenance. That is
one o the main problems. You have to think about whats ater the
excavation.
Demas: Thats what I was interested in getting at. What happens
in the longer term? Its a sustainability question.
Ska: In Lebanon, the reason there is no strategy is that you dont
have the tools to implement it. Obsolete 1933 legislation dating back
to the French Mandate, combined with inherited administrative
procedures instituted under the Ottomans, make or a poor environ-
ment in which to encourage better managerial know-how. On top
o all this is a lack o unds. It can be quite discouraging and rus-
trating trying to move orward in an environment so complicated
and diYcult.
al-Azm: Pretty much the same would apply here, but I would add the
lack o trained personnel. What trained personnel we have are too
ew, and quite oten their training tends to be incomplete. When
I think o well-trained personnel, I think o someone like Isabelle,
who studied in an academic school or conservation. We dont have
that yet, but the decision makers in Syria have come to realize that
this is a problem, and they are now sending out graduatestwenty
to thirty graduates at last countto get this kind o education.
It will take them three to our years o study, and then they will
come back and hopeully begin to implement these practices.
Demas: Both Amr and Isabelle have mentioned the need or train-
ing, and Acha has talked about the importance otraining in
Tunisias strategy. Where would each oyou see the priorities in
training in your countries or mosaic conservation?
Ska: We need to train at all levels. We need to train conservators, we
need to train technicians, and we even need administrative training.
Trained technicians cannot unction without the logistics o a well-
organized environment. A holistic approach to the problem rather
than a single-aspect solution would be the most eVective option.
BenAbed: Thats or sure. But who is going to do this? Do you think
its the agency or the head o whatever institution you have?
Ska: The situations in Tunisia and in Lebanon are very diVerent.
In Tunisia, a well-established government administration has pro-
vided good results. As Ive said, Lebanese authorities dont have the
unding, and the preservation o the countrys cultural heritage is
not a top priority. An awareness campaign involving the public,
ngos, and the press could be a good place to start, in parallel with
the training o technicians. Because the private sector is very strong
and dynamic in Lebanon, it could play a positive role in partnership
with the government, and without many o its restraints.
Demas: Is the situation also dierent in terms opolitics? Is a
peaceul political context important or being able to implement
these strategies?
Ska: Its very important. Certainly the country has suVered rom
political uncertainty in recent years, urther relocating cultural heri-
tage to the bottom o government priorities.
al-Azm: In Syria we have winds o change blowing, with the uncer-
tainties that winds o change bring. But they also bring new oppor-
tunities, because we are now being encouraged to change the ways
we do things. Although Im not part o the decision-making process
anymore, I have colleagues who are, and I know or a act that they
are being asked to look at logistical changes, administrative changes,
and changes in the ways things are generally done. With the existing
sets o laws and administrative hierarchies, its going to be diYcult.
But i people are willing to make changes at all these diVerent levels,
and i, as Isabelle said, we take a holistic view, then I think we have
a chance o improving. Its not just about training people.
We are training a lot o people at the moment. The Italian gov-
ernment, or example, has just given Syria something like 12.2 mil-
lion euros or cultural heritage-based projects, and a sizable chunk
o that is or mosaics. Were setting up a new mosaic workshop and
training twenty mosaic conservators and technicians over a two-year
program. Theyre not going to come out being ully fedged experts,
but theyre going to get intensive training in how to conserve mosa-
ics and stone. At the same time, once these people are trained, they
have to be allowed to implement their training and use the new
materials that theyve learned about.
Demas: And, ocourse, they have to be hired aterward. You need
that commitment rom the government.
al-Azm: The Italians gave the money on the condition that they are
hired at the end o it. There is that kind o commitment.
Conservation, The GCI Newsletterl Volume21 , Number 1 2006 l Dialogue 13
8/3/2019 VVAA. Mosaic. Conservation Newsletter GCI. 2006
14/32
Demas: What about tourism as a actor in motivating governments
to preserve sites or the public?
Ska: In Lebanon, tourism is a great motivator. The problem is that
the organizations responsible or promoting tourism are in competi-
tion with those responsible or the conservation o heritage sites,
and there is no consultation or coordination between the two, which
hinders both sides. The nature o the tourism also plays a part. I
you look at the gures or tourists in Lebanon, hal come rom Arab
countries, and in general they are not really interested in archaeo-
logical sites. This is not a criticism, merely a actthey preer other
kinds o recreational activities. I dont know how much motivation
there is to invest in an archaeological site when there could be much
more economic benet by investing in other tourist activities.
al-Azm: In Syria, positions are polarized. You have conservators andarchaeologists on one end, and the Ministry o Tourism on the
other, and every once in a while, they happen to meet in the middle
over a particular issue. But its always tense, and everybody is eye-
balling the other side with great suspicion. A tourism ministrys
prime objective is to get as many tourists in as possible. The danger
is that you end up with overexploitation o a site, leading to its dete-
rioration. Archaeologists, on the other hand, would like to preserve
everything completely pristine and not have anybody go near it
except in extreme circumstances. This is where you need what
might be called cultural heritage managers who can look at theissues that are dear to the hearts o the people in tourism and look at
the needs and requirements o those in archaeology and bridge the
gap between the two. We need people who are trained to do that
kind o work.
BenAbed: I have this project at Dougga, one o the big Roman sites
in Tunisia. The aim o the project is to get more tourists. I am the
head o the project, so the head o the project is a heritage proes-
sional, not a tourism proessional. The project had problems. They
had thought about everythinghotels, restaurants, libraries,
trainsbut nobody talked about the site and its conservation.
I stopped everything in the rst phase o the project and said,
Well, now, rst lets look at the site, and see what we can do in terms
o conservation. I dont nd any problem in talking about
conservation with tourism people. You just have to explain. Itsmatter o dialogue and o give-and-take. Let them be a part o this
process o conservation and explain to them that i they want to
keep the site, they have to go through the conservation. Otherwise
the site disappears.
Demas: But youre not getting mass tourism, are you, in Tunisia?
BenAbed: We have had all these European tourists coming or the
beach. But now the government wants another kind o tourist, a bet-
ter quality tourist coming or the sites and the cultural heritage.
Which is a good thing, I think.
Demas: This tourism comes mainly rom outside. To what extent is
there interest among Tunisians in their cultural heritage?
BenAbed: They did start a ew years ago with the schools and stu-
dents. There is a program at the high schools where students have to
go at least once a year to visit a site, a museum, and things like that.
The idea is good, but the way its done is not good at all, and we are
evaluating this program and thinking about doing it another way.
And at the same time, I think you have 10 percent o tourists rom
Tunisianot so many. The locals are willing to come, but you haveto attract them, you have to have educational programs and night
programs, which is not done yet. We are ar rom this when I com-
pare what we have to European countries. But I hope we can start
seriously with this Dougga project.
Levin: Acha, early in this conversation you made reerence to the
act that you had spoken to some oyour colleagues regarding the
disapproval ointernational organizations toward the detach-
ment omosaics. My question or Amr and Isabelle is how much
Photo:KathleenLouw
We are talkingabout conservation,
and that means training,that means strategy,
that means management.Acha Ben Abed
1 Conservation, The GCI Newsletter l Volume 21 , Number 12006l Dialogue
8/3/2019 VVAA. Mosaic. Conservation Newsletter GCI. 2006
15/32
infuence, iany, do international organizations ocused on con-
servation have on thinking and practice in Syria and Lebanon?
al-Azm: In some cases, quite a lot o infuence. I can cite one example.
Twelve months ago there was an illegal building erected in Palmyra,
and the issue was taken on by unesco, which sent a letter to the
dgam saying that i you allow this particular activity to go on, then
you are endangering the status o Palmyra as a World Heritage Site.
The dgam had tried or a year to get this building torn down, and it
was meeting resistance rom various interested parties. But as soon
as this letter became publicly known in the power circles, orders
came right rom the top that the building was to be removed right
nowand it was literally bulldozed within two or three days. World
organizations can have a lot o impact.
Ska: International organizations have some infuence by virtue otheir well-known prestige. What they sayespecially when it comes
to a World Heritage Sitehas some importance. Sometimes gov-
ernment policy can be aVected by this prestige. For instance, there is
currently a project or the World Bank to sponsor the presentation,
interpretation, and conservation o two sitesBaalbek and Tyre.
The World Bank has stipulated certain conditions in terms o capac-
ity building and conservation requirements. So yes, international
organizations certainly do have a positive role to play.
Demas: How do you all eel about the need or specialization in
conservation omosaics? Are we specializing too much here?
Is this not part othe bigger issue oarchaeological sites? Is there
a need to have an international organization, such as the ICCM,
that looks specically at mosaics?
Ska: Its certainly useul to have an organization like the iccm or
mosaics, rom a technical point o view. However, since anyone who
works in this eld will almost certainly be aware o the need to be
inormed o the broader issues, I dont eel there is a problem with
specialization.
al-Azm: Id agree with Isabelle entirely.
Demas: Speaking othe ICCM, the theme othe recent conerence
was Lessons Learned (see p.20). Im wondering iyou came
away with any particular lessons in mind that you elt emerged
out othat conerence most orceully.
Ska: I think the management aspect was an important topic at this
conerence, especially the type o management problems that
directly aVect conservation decisions.
al-Azm: In addition to what Isabelle mentioned, I would say the need
to be inormed and to kept abreast o what people are doing in terms
o how theyre managing their problemsthe solutions coming out
on a regional level. It was interesting to see how a lot o us were ac-
ing similar problems. In addition to our own unique problems, we
have many similar problems, and no one was really talking to anyone
else. All these people were trying to do the same thing in some way,
and yet nobody had really discussed that until we met at the iccm
and started listening to each others lectures or started meeting each
other or looking at the posters.
BenAbed: Thats the eeling I had. Everyone has his own little expe-
rience and is thinking he will nd the solution or everything. Then
you nd somebody else doing the same thing. Everything is the
sameand at the same time, its diVerent. Lots o people have been
saying, training technicians on in situ mosaic conservation, that is
what we are doing, and I have the eeling we are not really talking
about the same concept. It is important that Arab countries that
share the same problems, the same kind o heritage, the same men-tality, build something together, because Im sure we can understand
each other. We are talking about conservation, and that means train-
ing, that means strategy, that means management.
al-Azm: Tunisia has had a much longer experience in managing its
mosaics than anyone else. Yet only very recently have I been enlight-
ened by what theyve done. I only wish that I had been more aware
o their experience earlier and had been able to learn rom itand
perhaps that people beore me had done the same, as well. And that
people ater me will learn rom other peoples experience. That is
what its all about. Learning rom other peoples experiences
rather than reinventing the wheel again and again and again.
Conservation, The GCI Newsletterl Volume21 , Number 1 2006 l Dialogue 15
8/3/2019 VVAA. Mosaic. Conservation Newsletter GCI. 2006
16/32
on as well by growing pressures to develop archaeological sites or
tourism, or which shelters are oten constructed to serve visitor
comort and interpretation. While the two aims o conservation and
visitation are not necessarily incompatible, too oten the protective
unction o the shelter design is secondary to, or eclipsed altogether,
by the architects vision o how a shelter might meet a museological
objective and enhance visitor experience. From a conservation
perspective, the design o shelters should involve a clear decision-making process and address criteria aimed at protecting the archaeo-
logical remains. Even so, such critical inormation is oten provided
in only the most general terms, without reerence to the condition
o mosaics and associated risks. Also, there is oten a lack o techni-
cal specications that would allow the architect or engineer to build
a shelter that will mitigate or prevent uture deterioration.
Recent initiatives are beginning to address the need or
perormance evaluation and conservation criteria or shelter design.
Specialized conerences on shelters in Bologna (2000), Arizona
(2001), and Sicily (2003), and shelter initiatives o the IstitutoCentrale per il Restauro in Rome, all attest to the current interest in
protective shelters. These eVorts have been notable or the emphasis
on clear criteria and a multidisciplinary approach to planning or
and designing a shelter. Assessments and evaluations o existing
shelters are also increasing. Environmental monitoring is being used
to assess perormance o a shelter or, in advance o shelter construc-
tion, to inorm the design. Modeling o shelter environments is also
practiced. Numerous historical overviews and critical assessments
o well-known shelters have also emerged in recent years.
Impact of Shelters on In Situ Mosaics
Despite these indicators o a more rigorous and sophisticated
approach to the evaluation and design o shelters, we remain
severely hampered by an incomplete understanding o causes o
deterioration o mosaics and thereore an inability to provide
architects with a specic conservation brie or the protection o the
site. Although they are still oten ignored, general criteria or pro-
tective shelters have long been understoodincluding the need to
provide eVective drainage, inhibit birds, mitigate environmental
16 Conservation, The GCI Newsletter l Volume 21 , Number 12006l News in Conservation
Hundreds of archaeological sites worldwide are covered
by modern constructions that provide shelter rom the sun, rain,
wind, and snow or excavated remains and or visitors. These
sheltersas they are commonly calledcome in a variety o shapes,
sizes, and materials, ranging rom primitive wooden huts and deli-
cate, decorative nineteenth-century metal pavilions to heavy slabs o
concrete and high-tech designs, such as space rames or membrane
structures. Although there are notable examples o nineteenth-century and early twentieth-century sheltering, such as those at
Pompeii and Herculaneum or over mosaic sites in England, the
majority o shelters date rom the 1960s onward.
The types o archaeological remains protected by shelters
are equally varied, ranging rom Paleolithic tool assemblages to
Byzantine churches and Maya pyramids. Among these, ancient
mosaic pavements are especially prevalent. Mosaic pavements were
a common eature o private houses and villas, public buildings and
porticoes, and basilicas and churches in the Hellenistic, Roman,
and Byzantine periods, and they are thereore to be ound through-out the Mediterranean and much o Europe and the Middle East.
Beginning in the 1980s and gaining momentum in the 1990s,
a distinct trend in the conservation o mosaics has been toward
preservation in situ, rather than removal to a museum or to storage,
which was previously standard practice, especially or gural
mosaics. This shit to in situ conservation refects, in part, a change
in how we value mosaics. Artistic or aesthetic considerations
refecting a view o mosaics principally as artistic creationswere
uppermost in the decision to remove them to museums. In contrast,
in situ preservation recognizes the historic and scientic values o
context(the architectural ensemble or which they were created),
technology (the inormation that resides in the stratigraphy), and
authenticity (the excavated mosaic as a testament to its physical
history, with all its marks and scars o age).
In response to this shit in approach, there has been a corre-
sponding growth o interest within the conservation eld in treat-
ments and methods o protecting mosaics in situ, including a
marked acceleration in the construction o shelters over mosaics.
It would, however, be misleading to suggest that shelter construc-
tion is driven primarily by conservation needs. It has been spurred
ASSESSINGTHEPROTECTIVEFUNCTION
OFSHELTERSOVER MOSAICS
ByJohnD.Stewart,JacquesNeguer,andMarthaDemas
TheollowingwasadaptedrompresentationsgivenattheninthconerenceotheInternationalCommittee
ortheConservationoMosaics,heldinTunisia,November2005.
8/3/2019 VVAA. Mosaic. Conservation Newsletter GCI. 2006
17/32
8/3/2019 VVAA. Mosaic. Conservation Newsletter GCI. 2006
18/32
had conducted previous research and design initiatives related to
shelters and is currently working on a mosaics projectwas inter-
ested in increasing its understanding o the impact o shelters on
mosaic sites. Recognizing this shared interest, the three organiza-
tions agreed to collaborate on a shelter evaluation project.
Considering existing sheltered sites, the evaluation seeks to
understand the relationship between the condition o a mosaic
pavement and the environment created by the design o its shelter.
The ultimate aim is to dene improved criteria or shelters over
mosaics in diVerent environments. This is a complex undertaking,
since there are many variables to consider, such as the original mate-
rials and techniques o mosaic construction, the mosaics setting and
environment, the materials and design o the shelter, and whether
the mosaic is re-laid on a new support (oten cement) or rests on its
original lime-based support.
The methodology that has been developed by the three part-
ners entails two phases: survey o shelter design and mosaic condi-
tion, and in-depth site-specic investigation and monitoring.The rst phase involves a rapid countrywide-level survey o the
design o shelters and the condition o the mosaics that they protect.
From this rapid assessment, we hope to understand general trends
and determine i a basic correlation between mosaic condition and
shelter construction can be established. It is especially important to
learn i the mosaic is showing active (that is, ongoing) deteriora-
tionan indication that the mosaics environment is not conducive
to long-term preservation. Excluded rom the assessment are
aspects o shelter construction and mosaic condition that have no
direct bearing on active deterioration, such as visitor-relatedeatures (e.g., walkways) or damage (e.g., graYti). These aspects are
not excluded because o their lack o importance, but simply
because these are problems we understand and know how to address.
What we do not understand is the relationship between shelter
design and deterioration, such that we can speciy the type o envi-
ronment a shelter should create and ways to avoid creating condi-
tions that will promote active decay.
Prior to the on-site survey, existing written, photographic, and
graphic records o the shelter and environmental data are compiled,
as the basis or understanding change over time and or determiningthe presence o active deterioration. Good archival records are criti-
cal to understanding whether deterioration is ongoing and to assess-
ing the rate o change over time. One o the main challenges and
weaknesses o the survey has been the lack o available records, o
quality inormation, and o rationales behind treatment decisions,
especially liting and re-laying. Nevertheless, the compilation o
existing data constitutes a basis or uture monitoring and recording.
The on-site survey is based on empirical observation. Intended to be
undertaken in one day, it records mosaic materials, deterioration
phenomena, site environment, and aspects o shelter construction,
with emphasis on eatures related to drainage and ventilation.
Conditions are numerically graded by their extent and severity.
The strength o the survey lies in its collection o site-specic data
in a systematic manner across a broad spectrum that allows or
comparability among sites and regions and has the potential or
revealing patterns o deterioration.
Assessment in England and Israel
Rapid assessment has now been conducted on all sheltered mosaics
in England and Israel, but the process o collating and synthesizing
the data has only just begun. Apart rom environment, a major
distinction between mosaic sites in England and Israel is the date o
excavation and shelter construction and the accuracy o associated
archival material. Hal o the English sites were excavated and pre-
sented under shelters in the nineteenth century, and some o these
mosaics were not re-laid until a century later.
Preliminary results rom England suggest that most mosaicsprotected by enclosed traditional structuresmany or well over a
hundred yearsare in reasonably good condition, although hal o
these mosaics have been re-laid on new supports. The shelter survey
points to site hydrology and internal environment as key elements to
control, especially where aggressive soluble salts are present. Active
deterioration o mosaics on the English sites always seems to be
associated with such salts, and survey results indicate they may be
exacerbated by shelter design, such as signicant heat gained rom
solar exposure (i.e., solar gain).
In Israel, most sites were excavated and sheltered in the latetwentieth century. Mosaics in enclosed shelters were, on the whole,
ound to be better preserved than those in open shelters, but most o
these were re-laid. In cases o re-laying, it is diYcult to distinguish
whether benecial or negative impacts on a mosaic derive rom the
shelter or rom re-laying on a new support. Where mosaics are
re-laid on a support o cement with iron rebars, results suggest that
sheltering (both open and closed) provides suYcient protection to
slow deterioration when compared with similar mosaics let exposed
to the environment. The main threats to sheltered mosaics were
identied as lack o regular monitoring and maintenance o themosaics and the shelter, as well as inadequate site drainage. In some
cases, bulging o the mosaic may actually have occurred as a result
o the environmental conditions created by a shelterespecially
when those conditions involved changes in relative humidity and
moisture content, leading to crystallization o soluble salts and/or
soil expansion and contraction.
We anticipate that the results o the rapid surveys will clariy
the areas o greatest danger in designing shelters or mosaics under
diVerent environmental conditions. But the inormation provided
by the surveys can only point to general trends o preservation and
1 Conservation, The GCI Newsletter l Volume 21 , Number 12006l News in Conservation
8/3/2019 VVAA. Mosaic. Conservation Newsletter GCI. 2006
19/32
patterns o deterioration. To go beyond such generalizations will
require in-depth site-specic investigation and monitoring o
selected sites in the second phase o the project. This step will likely
involve testing a hypothesis or deterioration by monitoring ambient
and subsurace environments over several seasonal cycles.
Combined with other long-term monitoring being conducted at
sites such as Chedworth in England and Orbe in Switzerland, it is
hoped that results can orm the basis or more inormed decisions in
designing shelters to protect mosaic sites.
Conservation, The GCI NewsletterlVolume21 , Number 1 2006 lNews in Conservation 19
InIsraeltherearesome36sheltersover
105mosaics.Mosaicsitesaredistributed
throughoutthecountryinvariedclimatic
conditions,rangingrommaritimeenviron-
mentswithhighrelativehumidityand
aerosolstodesertclimateswithextreme
temperatureuctuations.Thefrstprotec-
tiveshelterswerebuiltinthe1930s,butthe
majoritywereconstructedinthe1990s,
whendevelopmentoarchaeologicalsites
ortourismbecameanationalpriority,and
large-scaleprojectswerecarriedoutatthe
sitesoCaesarea,Zippori,andBeitShean.
Thereisaullspectrumosheltertypes
coveringmosaics,rangingromsimple
shedconstructionstoullenclosureswith
controlledenvironments. Photos:Nicky
Davidov,IsraelAntiquitiesAuthority(unless
otherwisenoted).
Locatedinanareaoextremeheatand
aridityneartheDeadSea,thedramaticopen
tensilestructureprovidesthethird-century
mosaicsoEinGediwithprotectionrom
solarradiationandthusromextremeuc-
tuationsotemperature.
AtthesiteoCaesarea,whichislocated
onthecoast,whererelativehumidityisvery
high,asimpletimbershelterconstructed
inanexperimentalcontextlackedsufcient
ventilation.Theresultwascondensation
problems,whichledtosaltcrystallization,
bulging,anddetachmentothemosaic.
TelItztabaisthesiteoaByzantinebasilica
withseveralgeometricmosaics,locatedin
theJordanValley,southotheSeaoGalilee.
Asimpleopenshelterthatwasconstructed
in1996overoneothemosaicshas
preventedintensivegrowthovegetation,
whichdamagedtheotherexposedmosaics
inthecomplex.
Theclosedshelteroverthesynagogueat
Zipporiincorporatestwotransparentwalls,
air-conditioning,andlighting.Sinceitscom-
pletionin2002,theshelterhasprovided
goodprotectionorthere-laidmosaic.
Thetransparentwallsaresetsufciently
backromthemosaictoavoidthecommon
problemoextremeheatandtemperature
uctuations.
Overviewotheshelter. Mosaicpavement.
Thesynagogueshelterexterior. Thesynagogueshelterinterior.
Viewotheshelterandexposedmosaic. Detailoexposedmosaicwithvegetation
growth.
ShelterovertheNNtestarea. Detailomosaicromtestarea.Photo:BettinaLucherini.
Ein Gedi Synagogue
Caesarea, NN4 Site
Beit Shean, Tel Itztaba
Zippori, The Synagogue
John D. Stewart is a senior architectural conservator with English Heritage. Jacques
Neguer is the head conservator with the Israel Antiquities Authority. Martha Demas is
a senior project specialist with GCI Field Projects.
ShelteredMosaicsinIsrael
8/3/2019 VVAA. Mosaic. Conservation Newsletter GCI. 2006
20/32
I
LESSONSLEARNED
Two members rom Arab countries were elected to the iccm board
at the end o the conerencea signicant widening o the boards
geographical representation.
The our days o conerence papers were organized into
diVerent sessions with their own themes: evaluating mosaic practice,
caring or mosaics in museums, documenting and assessing sites at
risk, managing sites with mosaics, sheltering mosaics, and trainingconservation practitioners. In addition, there was a session on case
studies in which papers illustrating recent conservation projects
were grouped. Conclusions drawn rom the various sessions were
summarized at the end o the conerence (see sidebar). Publication
o the proceedings will be undertaken by thegci.
In the closing session o the conerence, the iccm board put
orth two general recommendations:
1. Taking into consideration the great need or the mainte-
nance o mosaics let in situ in the open air or under shelters, the
iccm encourages the managers o archaeological sites to systemati-
cally measure during the next three years the cost to maintain the
mosaics in good condition while presenting them to the public.
2. Recognizing that numerous training programs, without any
connection between them, have been launched in various countries
during the last years, the iccm encourages the undertaking o an
assessment o needs or training in Mediterranean countries in
order to eventually launch a coordinated eVort to improve the level
o knowledge and intervention o the proessional staVo these
countries.
20 Conservation, The GCI Newsletter l Volume 21 , Number 12006l News in Conservation
In November 2005 in Hammamet, Tunisia, the International
Committee or the Conservation o Mosaics (iccm) held its ninth
conerence since its ounding in 1977. The iccm has its roots in the
Association Internationale pour lEtude de la Mosaque Antique
(aiema), which has ocused on the study and understanding o
mosaicsrather than on their conservationsince its inception in
1963. The 1977 meeting, which gave birth to the iccm, was orga-nized by iccrom and included members oaiema. That meeting in
Rome was a signicant example o collaboration between archaeolo-
gists and conservation proessionals concerned about the deteriora-
tion and loss o mosaics on archaeological sites.
The latest iccm conerence was a collaborative eVort hosted by
the Institut National du Patrimoine (inp) o Tunisia and its director
o sites and monuments, Acha Ben Abed, with the proessional and
organizational support o the Getty Conservation Institute and
under the guidance o the iccm boardparticularly its president,
Demetrios Michaelides. The theme o the conerence was Lessons
Learned: Refecting on the Theory and Practice o Mosaic Conser-
vation. It seemed appropriate that ater almost thirty years oiccm
conerences, the mosaic conservation eld should look back on its
experiences and draw conclusions about what has been accom-
plished and where the eld needs to go. The location o the 2005
conerence provided an opportunity to attract participants rom
Arab countries and rom Turkey, which are usually poorly repre-
sented at iccm conerences. To capitalize on this opportunity, the
Getty Foundation provided a grant that enabled the participation
o orty-nine proessionals rom ten Arab countries and Turkey.
AREPORT
ONTHE2005
ICCM
CONFERENCEByThomasRoby
8/3/2019 VVAA. Mosaic. Conservation Newsletter GCI. 2006
21/32
SiteVisitsinTunisia
TheICCMconerenceincludedvisitstotheancientsiteso
ThuburboMajus,JebelOust,Neapolis(Nabeul),andCarthage,
aswellasavisittotheBardoMuseuminTunis,whichhouses
theworldslargestcollectionoancientmosaics.Thevisits
toThuburboMajusandJebelOustprovidedtheopportunitynot
onlytoseetheextensivemosaicsothosesitesbutalsoto
meetandtoviewtheworkothemosaicmaintenancetechni-
cians.Duringthreedierentrecentourteen-weekcourses,
theseINPtechniciansweretrainedorthemaintenance
oinsitumosaicsbyateamoGCIstaandconsultants.
Themaintenancetechnicianshavealreadyhadadramatic
eectonanumberositeswithmosaics.Buttheyneedthe
supervisionoTunisianconservators(whichdonotyetexist),
aswellasositemanagers,tosupportanddirecttheirwork.
TheINPisworkingtodevelopthesenewsitepersonnel
profles,withtheassistanceotheGCI.AtNeapolis,asite
newlyopenedtothepublic,theinsitumosaicsotheHouse
otheNymphswerevisited,andtheregionalarcheaological
museuminthemoderntownoeredtheopportunitytoview
thefgurativemosaicsothehouse,whichhadbeenremoved
romthenearbysitemanyyearsago,ollowingitsexcavation .
Conservation, The GCI Newsletterl Volume21 , Number 1 2006 l News in Conservation 21
SitevisittoThuburboMajus.Photo:KathleenLouw.
MosaicmaintenancetechniciansworkingatJebelOust.Photo:ElsaBourguignon.
AmosaicpavementatthesiteoNeapolis,withthefgurativeportionothemosaicremoved. Photo:SibyllaTringham.
8/3/2019 VVAA. Mosaic. Conservation Newsletter GCI. 2006
22/32
22 Conservation, The GCI Newsletter l Volume 21 , Number 12006l News in Conservation
SiteVisitsinLibya
TheICCMconerenceendedwithanoptionalthree-daypost-
conerencetourtoLibya,whichincludedvisitstotheArchaeo-
logicalMuseuminTripoliandtotheancientcitiesoSabrata
andLeptisMagna,aswellastoVillaSileneandseveralother
smallersitesnormallyclosedtothepublic.Atthesiteso
SabrataandLeptisMagna,inparticular,onecouldsee
beyondthescaleandextraordinaryartisticandhistoric
signifcanceotheirarchitecturalremainsthelong-term
eectsoinsufcientsitemaintenanceandmanagement.
ThetourincludedvisitstothesitemuseumsoSabrataand
LeptisMagna,wherethemajorRomanandByzantinemosaic
discoveriesromthepastcenturycouldbeviewed,including
thespectaculargladiatorscenesromarecentlyexcavated
villaoutsideLeptisMagna.Photos:ElsaBourguignon.
AnapsidalwallmosaicatVillaSilene. DetailoamosaicattheSabrataMuseum.
AmosaicinsituatSabrata.
LeptisMagna.
8/3/2019 VVAA. Mosaic. Conservation Newsletter GCI. 2006
23/32
Another issue raised was mosaic reburial. At least one
participant was convinced that this was not an eVective technique
or preserving mosaics in the long term, while others avored it. At
past conerences as well, papers that addressed the reburial o mosa-
ics sometimes provoked divergent opinions. During the 2005 con-
erence, it was proposed that reburial be a session topic at the next
iccm conerence, as a way o achieving more inormed opinions and
consensus about this important mosaic and site conservation option.
This conerence, which invited participants to refect on the
history o the mosaic conservation eld, did not always reach the
hoped-or level o sel-analysis, but it did lead to the realization
among many that a fexible approach to mosaic conservation is
needed. At past iccm conerences there was a greater division, i not
antagonism, between those who practiced conservation through the
liting o mosaics and those who practiced in situ conservation.
At the Tunisia conerence, various participants acknowledged that
liting should happen much less oten than it still does, but that in
certain instances it is the last and only option or the conservationo a mosaic.
A common opinion expressed at the conerence was that the
eld needs to take a much broader view o mosaic conservation and
address it as an element o overall site management, while also
taking a long-term approach, which requires maintenance and mon-
itoring to ensure the sustainability o conservation interventions.
However, or this approach to be successul, the development o new
categories o staYng and a greater nancial commitment o govern-
ments responsible or sites are required.
The next iccm conerence will take place in Palermo in 2008;it will be hosted by the Sicilian Regional Center or Conservation
(Centro Regionale per la Progettazione e il Restauro). This event
promises to showcase the eVorts o Sicilian authorities to take a
broader, long-term approach to mosaic conservation at its sites,
including the amous Villa Romana del Casale at Piazza Armerina
just as Tunisia has begun to do by training conservation technicians,
as well as uture conservators and site managers.
Thomas Roby is a senior project specialist with GCI Field Projects and manager o the
Institutes collaborative project with the Institut National du Patrimoine in Tunisia that
is providing training in the care and maintenance o in situ archaeological mosaics.
For additional inormation regarding the ICCM, please visit its Web site
at www.iccm.pro.cy.
Conservation, The GCI Newsletterl Volume21 , Number 1 2006 l News in Conservation 23
It is interesting to compare these recommendations with those
that came out o the 1977 meeting. Both meetings addressed the
need or training in mosaic conservation, although more training
initiatives have been organized in the nearly three decades since
1977. The ocus now is more on the quality and sustainability o the
training than on making it available. Whereas in 1977 the concern
was or the loss o inormation resulting rom the detachment or
other interventions on mosaics, now that in situ conservation is
more commonly practiced, there is a need or documentation
regarding the costs o in situ conservation, so that mosaics, along
with the rest o the site, can be better managed.
The recommendations o previous iccm conerences called
or the conservation in situ o mosaics through protection or
reburial and through maintenancewith detachment considered an
intervention o last resort. They also called or research by scientists,
conservators, and archaeologists to improve the methods o preserv-
ing and maintaining mosaics (1986). Past conerences have speci-
cally recommended the use o conservation materials compatiblewith the original lime-based materials o mosaics (i.e., not cement),
and the provision by site directors o the nancial resources neces-
sary or in situ mosaic conservation (1996). More recently the iccm
has advocated that programs or conserving and presenting mosaics
should be part o an overall site conservation plan that is based on
the collaboration o archaeologists, conservators, architects, admin-
istrators, and the general public (1999). The importance o the
public in the conservation o mosaics and in issues o presentation
has been increasingly recognized at iccm conerences.
Over the past thirty years, iccm conerences have managed toeVect a shit rom the detachment o mosaics to their conservation
in situ. These conerences have also increased the awareness
o those in the mosaic conservation eld regarding the essential role
o preventive conservation, as well as the importance o monitoring
and maintenance or successul in situ conservation. But how much
o this message is reaching archaeologists and site directors who do
not have a specialist interest in mosaics? Discussion at the coner-
ence suggested that it was very diYcult to nd iccm conerence
proceedings in libraries. Relatively ew copies o the proceedings are
printed, and little eVort is made to distribute them to major libraries.To reach more people outside the eld, the director oiccrom at the
time o the conerence, Nicholas Stanley-Price, proposed the
production o a short publication o principles and guidelines or
mosaic conservation or nonconservation audiences. While this
would be outside the usual activities o the iccm, such initiatives
could help improve the level o collaboration between it and archae-
ological organizations such as aiema, thereby advancing the practice
o mosaic conservation.
8/3/2019 VVAA. Mosaic. Conservation Newsletter GCI. 2006
24/32
2 Conservation, The GCI Newsletter l Volume 21 , Number 12006l News in Conservation
2005 iccm
Conerence
Session
Conclusions
On the nal aternoon othe
2005ICCM Conerence, an over-
view was presented othe main
messages that emerged during the
thematic sessions. This overview
was based on summary points
reproduced herewhich were
distilled rom each session by
conerence rapporteurs.
Evaluating Mosaic Practice
Evaluation o past interventions
and practices is essential to
improving current and uture
practices but is largely depen-dent on accurate and accessible
documentation.
The practice o mosaic conserva-
tion has evolved rom one o lim-
ited options (detachment), mate-
rials (cement), values (aesthetic),
and stakeholders (proessionals),
to one involving complex decision
making and planning with a
range o viable in situ options
(both temporary and long term),
the use o scientifc methods and
compatible materials, and the
recognition o multiple values
and varied stakeholders.
Conservation interventions are
sustainable only when there is a
clear vision, an eective
management structure and
planning process in place,
trained personnel, and regular
maintenance and monitoring.
Decisions about how to treat a
mosaic must be made on a case-
by-case basis (there is no single
ormula that can be applied to all
mosaics on a site). They are the
result o thorough assessment
and need to be based on defnedcriteria and guidelines.
An understanding o causes o
deterioration to in situ mosaics
requires recognition o unsolved
problems, implementation o
long-term and in-depth investiga-
tions, and wide dissemination o
their results.
Caring for Mosaics in Museums
Decisions need to be shared by
curators and conservators in
order to achieve successul
and sustainable conservation
solutions.
Previous conservation interven-
tions can sometimes be detri-
mental to the condition o
mosaics in museums; negative
eects o past treatments (suchas embedded iron rods) can oten
be mitigated or slowed through
preventive conservation
measures, such as the control
o temperature and relative
humidity in both gallery and
storage conditions.
It is important to consider both
the objects and the building
envelope in making conservation
decisions about mosaics dis-
played in museums; poor storage
conditions is a subject o increas-
ing concern.
Where adequate documentationdoes not exist, analysis o past
treatments and treatment materi-
als may be necessary in order to
develop appropriate conservation
measures; historic photographs
can also be useul in understand-
ing the change in an objects
condition over time.
In some cases, past interven-
tions have become important
to the history o the object
and merit conservation in their
own right.
Interpretation and presentation
to the public are important
values in museum conservation;
treatments carried out in ull
view o the public can be useul
in increasing understanding o
and support or conservation.
Documenting and Assessing
Sites at Risk
Mosaic corpora that include
conservation inormation and
risk assessment strategies under-
taken at national or regional lev-
els can be signifcant tools or the
conservation and management othe mosaic heritage.
It is important to establish
systematic documentation stan-
dards and protocols to acilitate
decision making and to improve
practice.
Attention should be given to
the development o documenta-
tion strategies that permit
improved sharing o inormation,
perhaps through more eective
use o digital technologies and
the Web.
Archaeologists and conservators
must work together eectively on
rescue excavations to ensure that
decisions made are those that are
best or the heritage at risk.
Managing Sites with Mosaics
There is a clear trend emerging
to look at sites holistically and to
undertake more systematic
assessment and planning beorearriving at decisions regarding
conservation and management
o sites.
Stakeholder participation is
crucial in gaining support or in
situ preservation and in the pre-
vention o looting.
Techniques like geographic
inormation systems (GISs) may
be useul in documenting, moni-
toring, and managing the mosaic
heritage.
There are multiple options or
mosaic conservation that include
conservation in situ, detachmentand replacement in situ, detach-
ment and replacement in a
museum, and reburial. These
choices should be made through
a systematic study o the entire
site that considers the condition
o each mosaic and its treatment
history, the environment, the
desirability o presentation to the
public, and the cost.
Better and more comparable
inormation is needed regarding
the relative costs o various types
o treatment in order to make
inormed decisions regarding site
conservation.
Further research may be required
regarding reburial methods
and the nature o the reburial
environment.
Sheltering Mosaics
The assessment o existing
shelters, with regard to protec-
tion,