Papyrus Project
Hello, my name is Melody Chen and I am the Project Conservator for the Papyrus Conservation Project. It is a treat to work with this diverse collection of papyri, and to share our progress with thee curious readers of the NYU Preservation blog!
Continuing the extensive work carried out by Claire Kenny (thanks Claire!), we have now finished the survey phase of the project. In total we surveyed 997 fragments from the Karanis collection and a whopping 1,261 from Cairo! The goals of this survey were to: provide/confirm inventory numbers for all papyri fragments, and document their physical condition, size and current housing. Each fragment was given a condition rating number: 1 (Good), 2 (Fair) and 3 (Poor). After photodocumentation, fragments in good condition will be immediately rehoused, fair will be set aside for eventual treatment, and poor condition fragments will undergo immediate treatment and stabilization.
I. Survey and APIS overview
Karanis
All fragments in the Karanis collection were housed between glass, mylar folders or mylar mats, with approximately half previously cataloged in the Advanced Papyrological Information System (APIS). This allowed us to properly assign inventory numbers to fragments whose supplemental information (such as date, language, number of lines, and text description) were already documented in APIS. Additionally, we will be able to quickly match up these APIS entries with the photographs and condition reports we create in the next phase of this project.
Cairo
Unlike the Karanis fragments, the majority of the approximately 1,200 Cairo fragments were loosely housed together in tissue paper sleeves. Only 122 fragments, that had been previously sorted and placed in mylar sleeves, had inventory numbers that corresponded with APIS entries. Therefore, the remaining fragments were given new inventory numbers and put in individual paper sleeves.
For fragments not previously cataloged in APIS, this project will provide new digital visual access to many never-before seen fragments for research and scholarship.
II. Discussion: Overall condition and housing
Of the 997 Karanis fragments surveyed, 777 (78%) were in good condition, and 216 (22%) noted as fair. The remaining 4 fragments were in poor condition. A larger fraction (30%) of the fragments in mylar mats, as compared to the 19% housed in glass, were in fair condition.
Of the 1261 Cairo fragments surveyed, 897 (71%) were in good condition, and 286 (23%) noted as fair. 78 fragments (6%) were in poor condition. As an overall percentage, a greater number of Cairo fragments were in poor condition, a fact that may be attributed to a majority of fragments being loosely housed together in folders.
The majority of the collection was in good condition, but the greatest condition problem for both the Cairo and Karanis collections was dirt. The Cairo collection also greatly suffered from folds, misaligned fragments and pest damage. The Karanis collection, having been previously treated and housed in glass, mylar mats and folders, had greater numbers of yellowed glassine tape mends, splits and fragments slipped in glass.
Fragment in poor condition suffering from folds, misalignment, detached fragments, fibrous and frayed edges, and vulnerable to damage
Glassine tape mends
Salt shadowing along perimeter of fragment in glass enclosure
Fragment in glass enclosure sealed with poor quality tape
Loose fragments have slipped in glass and possible adhered to the tape
Polychrome fragment housed in mylar mat
Glare is a common problem with mylar mats
Previous papyri conservation treatments have offered a variety of housing options including mounting between glass or Plexiglas, Stabiltex slings, mylar mats, or paper folders. Although each of these methods have their merits, Plexiglas and mylar pose structural problems because of their inherent static charge. This static charge pulls pigment away from the papyrus support, and also induces delamination of the two layers of the papyri fibers in weaker structures. Glass is an ideal option because of its rigidity and transparency, allowing for easy visual access to both recto and verso. However, it is unfeasible for NYU’s large research-based collection to be entirely housed in glass due to its weight and space requirements. Unless their condition requires housing between glass, the majority of our fragments will be housed in custom folders made from 20pt archival board lined with thin blotter on one side. The blotting paper provides a gentle nap so that the fragments do not slide around in the folders, while making them fully accessible for research purposes.
III. What’s next?
Our next step will be to photodocument all 2,000 fragments, prepare custom folders, and rehouse them in appropriate folders or glass mounts. Photodocumentation will follow AIC examination and documentation standards. Photodocumentation is important not only for providing digital access to the fragments, but also to ensure correlation between physical fragments and their associated scholarly information.
One major consideration in photodocumentation is to ensure the fragments are photographed in their proper orientation for reading. Fragments that had been previously mounted or housed had already been oriented in the proper orientation or have clues that can assist us (salt shadowing), but for the rest of the fragments we will need to have a basic recognition of the languages represented in the papyri: Greek, Demonic, Coptic and Arabic.
[permalink]
