e­conservation

the online magazine No. 19, April 2011

OLD INTERVENTIONS
& NEW POSSIBILITIES

Applications of digital technology

in re‐conservation

By Eleni Kotoula

This article examines re‐conservation of archaeological objects and presents the main
problematic aspects involved in such complex projects. Their analysis manifests the
technological needs and raises ethical issues. A methodological direction is proposed,
based on digital technology, which provides solutions to re‐treatment problems and
alternatives to traditional techniques. It does not intent to set principles, but to approach
high‐tech re‐conservation from a different perspective, following contemporary
conservation theory in order to determine the changes introduced to conservation from
the application of digital technologies.
 APPLICATIONS OF DIGITAL TECHNOLOGY IN RE‐CONSERVATION
Introduction
The felicitous remark that a conservation interven‐
tion is an open window to the artefact’s past and
one of the most influential parameters for its fu‐
ture, underlines the necessity to fully understand
every operation as an episode of unique signifi‐
cance during its lifetime [1]. The increasing in‐
terest for earlier conservation treatments and
de‐restoration dilemma are thus justified [2].
Conservation in cooperation with conservation
science is obliged to meet the needs of successful
re‐treatment. Conservation theorists have discussed
the multi‐level relation of science and technology
with conservation. Physical sciences developed
techniques for diagnostic examination, archaeo‐
metry and characterisation of materials and the
application of scientific methodology in conserva‐
tion enforced objectivity. Nevertheless, the rela‐
tively unbalanced contribution of science in ‘resolv‐
ing dramatic conservation problems’ or, in other
words, the tendency to ‘keep away from the dan‐
gerous domain of practical conservation’ was cri‐
ticised in conservation literature, as well as the
damage caused by the unjustified sense of superi‐
ority of technology and, as a result, the ‘modern‐
isation’ of materials and processes without accurate
scientific justification [3]. Practical techniques
that meet the needs of complex treatment dilem‐
mas and bridge the gap between pure scientific
knowledge and useful solutions should be deve‐
loped, achieving high‐tech conservation with high‐
efficiency [4]. Research in the field of digital tech‐
nology is directed towards this approach. For ex‐
ample, at a European level the 3D‐COFORM project
develops 3D documentation and other applications
in cultural heritage professionals’ work [5].
Virtual and physical replication
Examining other methods of interpretation outside
the object offers an opportunity to conservators
e‐conser vation
to ‘understand the object better and to incorporate
a better interpretation of it into the treatment’,
considering that success in decision making de‐
pends on the conservators’ ability to distinguish
the ideal state [1]. Digital technology offers the
tools for the evaluation of such an interpretation.
Virtual and/or physical reconstruction comes in
accordance even with the strictest material fetish‐
ists concepts [6]. There is no doubt that replica‐
tion, either physical or virtual, acts as a preventive
conservation measure and contributes significantly
in education and dissemination. Fragile, special
and rare artefacts sometimes are not allowed to
travel for security and safety reasons, contrary to
physical replicas and virtual artefacts. Worth men‐
tioning is that the visual or written records are
responsible for the preservation of a vast amount
of knowledge from previous generations. Thanks
to replicas of artefacts, information related to
cultural heritage has been saved after natural
disasters or wars. The best approach in cases of
impossible preservation, such as uncontrollable
environmental conditions and extremely bad con‐
servation state, is to record, copy and store se‐
curely the replica or to replace the original with
the replica [7].
Digitisation and virtual reconstruction/restoration
of artefacts for conservation purposes is proposed
in various cases such as extreme dimensions and
weight, as well as in case of extremely fragile and
unstable artefacts [8]. Advanced computational
techniques offer tools for virtual recreation by
means of high‐fidelity ultra‐realistic modelling
of artefacts. The almost limitless possibility for
representation of the ideal state or a series of
preceding or future states, gains value in case of
impracti‐ cable or ethically forbidden operations,
by providing an alternative solution to treatment
dilemmas. Also, virtual artefacts can improve
decision making and enrich or justify treatment
proposals. Virtual reconstruction can restore the
41
ELENI KOTOULA
aesthetic value of archaeological objects and si‐
multaneously enhance investigation and enable
better preservation. Digitisation and virtual re‐
construction of the current and the following state
fulfils documentation requirements and provides
better alternatives to traditional techniques. In
cases of physical reconstructions, the three‐dimen‐
sional model can map the correct position of each
fragment, instead of labelling. Conservation hy‐
pothesis can be tested virtually, avoiding the hand‐
ling required for traditional approaches. Other
promising options to be considered are the pho‐
tography‐based digital imaging techniques, such
as Reflection Transformation Imaging (RTI), be‐
cause they improve the accuracy of digital repres‐
entation and aid conservation [9]. PTM proved to
be a valuable tool and found numerous applica‐
tions in conservation recording and comparison,
analysis, representation and dissemination, in a
variety of material types [10].
Rapid prototyping has found numerous applica‐
tions in the cultural heritage sector [11]. It provides
solutions for documentation, and the condition
monitoring, structural gap filling storage and dis‐
play are superior to traditional moulding and cast‐
ing replication techniques because they do not
require contact with the original material. Previous
research gave encouraging results for gap‐filling
applications [12] while the experimentation for
colour enhancement [13] and control of the age‐
ing properties of rapid prototyping materials [14]
continues.
Documentation can be transferred to a new level
of excellence by means of digital technology. Tra‐
ditional recording or information preservation stra‐
tegies, namely drawing and photography, fail to
depict the amount of detail needed for conserva‐
tion purposes. Drawings and photographs are two‐
dimensional representations of three‐dimensional
objects, but digitisation and 3D modelling over‐
42
come this deficiency. Moreover, drawings depend
on the designer’s judgement. Consequently, the
level of objectivity of such records is questionable.
Non‐photorealistic rendering (NPR) presents a
more accurate record because it is influenced by
known computational limitations and not by un‐
predictable human perception.
Re‐conservation problems & High‐tech
Conservation solutions
Excessive cleaning
Cleaning strategies have changed during the last
decades [15]. In the vast majority of previous
conservation, cleaning altered the appearance
of artefacts significantly by means of subtraction
of encrustations, corrosion layers, dust and other
particles depositions. For some material types,
such as bronze, excessive cleaning proved to be
responsible for severe damage [16]. Simultane‐
ously, deep cleaning destroyed data of great im‐
portance, such as residues of food in vessels, sensi‐
tive organic remains, engravings and inscriptions,
etc. For example, the archaeological evidence is
lost forever when pottery undergoes chemical
cleaning by means of strong acids solutions. Now‐
adays, semi‐, fully or non‐mineralised organic
matter as well as impressions on metals are sub‐
jected to thorough examination. However, Caple
reasonably states that previous generations un‐
derestimated this phenomenon and would have
proceeded to deep cleaning because for them ar‐
chaeological evidence consisted of different ele‐
ments [17]. A problem strongly related to the
change in conservation practice is the presence
of fragments that belong to the same artefacts
in different conservation states [18]. The identi‐
fication of fragments is a long‐lasting problem
in conservation. Sometimes it is impossible to
determine the correct positioning of each frag‐
ment or, even worse, to group some fragments
e‐conser vation
 APPLICATIONS OF DIGITAL TECHNOLOGY IN RE‐CONSERVATION
as parts of the same object. As a result, some frag‐
ments were deeply cleaned while others were left
in museum store‐rooms. Conservators face a prac‐
tical and ethical dilemma: aesthetics and/versus
authenticity and/versus preservation.
Virtual reconstruction offers almost limitless pos‐
sibilities for representation of preceding states,
which is useful in over‐cleaned artefacts and in
de‐conservation dilemmas. The treatment of re‐
cently discovered fragments, which belong to
deeply cleaned artefacts, can be focused on their
long‐term preservation, while the original appear‐
ance of the artefact can be appreciated in its di‐
gital version with respect to the authenticity.
Minimalist and anti‐minimalist opinions [19] co‐
exist, in accordance with ethics and contemporary
conservation theory, because this approach en‐
courages preservation of the original material and
presentation of its authentic appearance without
neglecting the history of the objects, expressed
via its previous restoration.
Extensive restorations:
gap‐filling and retouching
Gap‐filling and retouching are among the most
common examples of extensive restorations, caus‐
ing aesthetic, structural and ethical problems. In
general, the aesthetics of restorations remain a
matter of subjective judgement and debate. Usu‐
ally the aesthetic result of an old restoration is
not satisfactory, not only due to the change in
taste but also to the presence of deficiencies, either
manufacture mistakes or deterioration effects.
Structural problems mainly derive from bad co‐
hesion between the original and the filling ma‐
terial, mainly caused by dimensional changes of
the filler, accompanied by cracks on the restored
gap. Consequently, there is a high possibility of
fracture and loss of original material. At the same
time, de‐restoration is a risky operation due to
e‐conser vation
the application of physical forces and the use of
solvents. Moreover, even after removal of the pre‐
vious restoration, the artefact will have to face
another cycle of operations for gap‐filling purposes,
once again under physical and chemical pressure.
Traditional methods based on moulding and cast‐
ing techniques, require contact with the original
material endangering its safety. As a result, they
are not applicable in most fragile artefacts. Fur‐
thermore, extensive restoration raises ethical is‐
sues. Sometimes the filling hides original material,
which is not acceptable according to conservation
ethics. Another interesting case is the discovery
of fragments that belong to already filled areas
of artefacts [20]. The risk of the removal of the
restoration and the potential benefit of re‐treat‐
ment should be taken under consideration without
underestimating the significance of the previous
restoration for the object’s biography, even if it is
not appropriate by contemporary museum standards.
In artefacts with extensive gap filling and retouch‐
ing, virtual reconstruction restores the historical
truth. Advanced techniques, such as CAT (Com‐
puterized Axial Tomography) scanning, can be
used to reveal details of the original object, hid‐
den under the restoration, and as a result to rep‐
resent a state closer to the pre‐treatment one.
Computer‐aided fragment matching is useful for
decision making in case of de‐conservation oper‐
ations, where manual match testing is impossible.
In a recent article, matching of fragments based
on colour, shape and surface normal characteristics
leads to better results for deteriorated artefacts
than other computational approaches [21].
The virtual artefact overcomes aesthetic problems
of previous repairs, without exposing the original
artefact to risks of removal of old conservation
materials. In general, the debate about the aes‐
thetics of restorations and the de‐conservation
dilemma can be re‐examined virtually, enabling
43
ELENI KOTOULA
more objective decision making. If the structural
stability of the object is in danger, 3D modelling
and rapid prototyping can lead to the manufac‐
turing of a gap‐filling, without contact with the
object, reducing re‐restoration risks.
Inappropriate materials and treatment
methodology
Collections condition surveys reveal failure of a
long list of conservation materials and techniques
widely used in the past as well as modern ones.
Joining problems, one of the most typical opera‐
tion applied in a large variety of material, demon‐
strates perfectly the negative effects of recon‐
struction failure. Even modern products’ deteri‐
oration, such as acrylic and vinyl adhesives, leads
to discoloration (yellowing), white blooming,
changes in volatility, solubility, tensile strength
and pH, decay and distress [22]. Finally, the ob‐
ject collapses, usually accompanied by loss of ori‐
ginal material and alteration of the fragments’
outline. The fracturing separates minor or small
parts of the fragment, adhered to the damaged
adhesive. This action signals an irreversible alter‐
ation, once it is impossible to remove adhesives
totally [23]. Whether this alteration threatens the
re‐treatability of the object depends on the extent
of lost material, considering that joining minor
pieces is impracticable. Virtual reconstruction of
artefacts and advanced preservation of archae‐
ological evidence can limit the use of chemicals,
such as adhesives, and, as a result, the amount
of reconstruction failure.
Fracture depends also on the insufficient support
provided to the material through direct and in‐
direct operations. Due to the lack of preventive
conservation measures (indirect actions) artefacts
excavated and conserved in the past followed a
considerably rapid aging. Mishandling and inap‐
propriate storage and display are factors of long‐
44
term deterioration, responsible for the vast ma‐
jority of damages after excavation. Apart from
the control of environmental conditions, appro‐
priate packaging is necessary in order to prevent
further deterioration. Artefacts found complete
and in good conservation state can suffer irre‐
versible damage due to bad environmental con‐
ditions and packaging materials. Inadequate cush‐
ioning introduces physical forces and can damage
objects. Fragments stored without special care are
usually found disintegrated after some years. Fresh
breaks appear and the outline of the fragments
changes due to loss of material. Virtual reconstruc‐
tion can limit the amount of handling and pace
the rate of deterioration. Rapid prototyping can
provide a packaging solution and consequently
can enhance preventive conservation measures.
Restoration such as gab‐filling falls in the category
of direct operations, which influence reconstruc‐
tion failure. The expansion of the ideas of minimum
intervention in the previous decades found fanatic
supporters and influenced everyday conservation
practice dramatically. Gap‐filling operations are
blamed as unnecessary interventions, which threat‐
en the authenticity. But the replacement of lost
material is crucial because it restores the object’s
aesthetic integrity in addition to its structural
strength [24]. The significance of the later was
ignored and limited structural support was provided
to incomplete artefacts or joined fragments res‐
ulting in fracturing, usually followed by further
damage. The successful implementation of adapt‐
able gap‐fillings, without affecting the material
integrity, will provide improved structural support
to fragile artefacts and, as a result, will limit sig‐
nificantly the amount of fracturing.
Discussion
The contemporary ideas of ‘minimal loss of poten‐
tial meanings’ [25] or ‘post‐minimal intervention’
e‐conser vation
 APPLICATIONS OF DIGITAL TECHNOLOGY IN RE‐CONSERVATION
[26] are embodied in the proposed re‐treatment
approach. The potential negative consequences
of conservation treatment, related both to the
material and to the non‐material aspect of arte‐
facts, are minimized. The interaction of the con‐
servator with the original physical artefact is lim‐
ited, reducing risks and potential damage. Worth
mentioning is that the human‐object interaction
follows decreasing rates in the last decades [27]
and was considered a characteristic feature of the
future conservator [3]. Virtual models of artefacts
enable better preservation and improve the re‐
treatability of original artefacts considerably. The
remedial operations on the authentic materials
are limited once revelation activities are mainly
executed virtually. The value of the object, its
intellectual meaning, is more protected and has
higher chances of correct interpretation because
the examination of the physical signs is enhanced
thanks to advances in digital tools. Thus, the origi‐
nal material is preserved in the most objective way
without being affected by subjective judgement.
Although the virtual artefact can be analysed and
interesting conclusions be reached, it fails to pre‐
serve the physical evidence of past civilisations [17].
Nevertheless, it also contributes in present and
future re‐investigation indirectly. The original
artefact is neither contaminated by chemicals
nor further deteriorated, so it is transferred in
an advanced re‐examinable state for future sci‐
entists. The potential benefit for material culture
specialists to study the virtual model offers the
opportunity for improved research, both qualit‐
atively and quantitatively.
The debate over the virtual versus the real expe‐
rience [28] is not synonymous to the debate over
the virtual versus the real artefact. The statement
that, by means of informational preservation, the
original object can become more dispensable for
some people [4] does not necessarily mean that
e‐conser vation
the original will be transformed to a less favour‐
able state. The virtual and the real are created to
fulfil different goals in different historical times
and under different circumstances, so their co‐
existence is necessary.
Conclusion
Digital technologies have vast potential in con‐
servation examination, analysis, interpretation,
treatment, documentation, presentation and dis‐
semination. Their application in re‐conservation
projects can be considered among the most in‐
teresting. The alternative methodology towards
re‐treatment presented in this article is strongly
influenced by recent developments in computer
science, but does not distance itself from conser‐
vation ethics. Not only it overcomes conservation
problems by providing alternative solutions, but
also addresses issues of interdisciplinary research.
This cooperative approach guides conservators to
problem solving and computer scientists to the
enhancement of digital technologies.
Acknowledgments
I am grateful to Dr. D. Ignatiadou, A. Kapizioni,
S. Athanasiadou and V. Michalopoulou of the Ar‐
chaeological Museum of Thessaloniki and to Dr.
G. Earl of the Archaeological Computing Research
Group of the University of Southampton.
References
[1] B. Appelbaum, Conservation Treatment Metho‐
dology, Butterworth‐Heinemann, Amsterdam/
Boston, 2007
[2] E. Pye, “Archaeological Conservation: Scientific
Practice or Social Process", in Conservation Prin‐
45
ELENI KOTOULA
ciples, Dilemmas and Uncomfortable Truths,
Butterworth‐Heinemann, Oxford, 2009, pp.
129‐138
[3] A. Melucco Vaccaro, P. Coremans, G. Torraca,
and G. Urbani, “The Role of Science and Techno‐
logy”, in Historical and Philosophical Issues in
the Conservation of Cultural Heritage, Getty
Conservation Institute, Los Angeles, 1996, pp.
424‐450
[4] S. Muñoz‐Viñas, Contemporary Theory of
Conservation, Butterworth‐Heinemann, Oxford,
2005
[5] D. Arnold, “3D‐COFORM: Tools and Expertise
for 3D Collection Formation”, in EVA 2009, 2009,
pp. 94‐99, available at URL [pdf]
[6] J. Ree, “Auto‐Icons”, in Conservation Princi‐
ples, Dilemmas and Uncomfortable Truths, But‐
terworth‐Heinemann, Oxford, 2009, pp. 1‐5
[7] C. Caple, Conservation Skills Judgement,
Method and Decision Making, Routledge, Lon‐
don, 2000
[8] A. Geary and E. Howe, “Three‐dimensional
documentation and virtual restoration of the
Lichfield Angel”, Journal for the Institute of
Conservation 32 (2) 2009, pp. 165‐179, doi:
10.1080/19455220903059875
[9] M. Mudge, C. Schroer, G. Earl, K. Martinez, H.
Pagi, C. Toler‐Franklin, S. Rusinkiewicz, G. Alma,
M. Wachowiak, M. Ashley, N. Matthews, T. Noble
and M. Dellepiane, “Principles and Practices of
Robust, Photography‐based Digital Imaging
Techniques for Museums”, The 11th International
Symposium on Virtual Reality, Archaeology and
Cultural Heritage VAST, The Louvre, Paris, 2010,
available at URL
46
[10] G. Earl, K. Martinez, T. Malzbender, “Archae‐
ological applications of polynomial texture map‐
ping: analysis, conservation and representation”,
Journal of Archaeological Science 2010, 37, 8,
pp. 2040‐2050, doi:10.1016/j.jas.2010.03.009,
available at URL
[11] J. A. Logan, R. L.Barclay, P. Bloskie, C. Newton,
and L. Selwyn, “Saving the Ferryland Cross: 3D
Scanning, Replication, and Anoxic Storage”, in
E. Williams and C. Peachey (ed.), The Conser‐
vation of Archaeological Materials: Current
Trends and Future Directions, BAR International
Series 2116, Archaeopresss, Oxford, 2010, pp.
127‐134
[12] M. Fantini, F. Crescenzio, F. Persiani, S. Benazzi,
and G. Gruppioni, “3D restituition, restoration
and prototyping of a medieval damaged skull”,
Rapid Prototyping Journal 14(5), 2008, pp. 318‐
324
[13] R. Scopigno, R. Pintus, E. Gobbetti, and P.
Cignoni, “Color Enhancement for Rapid Proto‐
typing”, The 9th International Symposium on
Virtual Reality, Archaeology and Cultural Herit‐
age, Eurographics, 2008, pp. 9‐16, available at
URL [pdf]
[14] C. Tröger, A.T. Bens, G. Bermes, R. Klemmer,
Ricarda, J.Lenz, and S. Irsen, “Ageing of acrylate‐
based resins for stereolithography: thermal and
humidity ageing behaviour studies”, Rapid Proto‐
typing 14(5), 2008, pp. 305‐317
[15] A. Oddy, “The Philosophy of Restoration:
New for Old”, Conserving Textiles: Studies in the
Honour of Agnes Timar‐Balazsy, ICCROM, 2009,
pp. 117‐123
[16] J. Basset and W.T. Chase, “Considerations in
the Cleaning of Ancient Chinese Bronze Vessels”,
e‐conser vation
 APPLICATIONS OF DIGITAL TECHNOLOGY IN RE‐CONSERVATION
Ancient & Historic Metals: Conservation and
Scientific Research, The J. Paul Getty Trust,
1994, pp. 63‐74
[17] C. Caple, “The Aims of Conservation”, in
Conservation Principles, Dilemmas and Uncom‐
fortable Truths, Butterworth‐Heinemann, Oxford,
2009, pp. 25‐31
[18] D. Ignatiadou, personal communication,
2010
[19] E. Wetering, The surface of objects and mu‐
seum style, Getty Conservation Institute, Los
Angeles, 1981)
[20] D. Ignatiadou, “Two cast glass vessels from
Derveni”, Sti mnimi Manoli Adronikou Etaireia
Makedonikon Spoudon, 1997, pp. 105‐114
[21] C. Toler‐Franklin, S. Rusinkiewicz, T. Funk‐
houser, T. Weyrich and B. Brown, “Multi‐Feature
Matching of Fresco Fragments”, ACM Transactions
on Graphics (Proc. SIGGRAPH Asia), 2010, avail‐
able at URL [pdf]
[22] C. V.Horie, Materials for conservation: or‐
ganic consolidants, adhesives, and coatings,
Butterworths, London, 1987
[23] S.P. Koob, "Poly (vinyl acetate) and acrylic
adhesives: a research update", in Holding it all
together ancient and modern approaches to join‐
ing, repair and consolidation, Archetype, London,
2009, pp. 113‐119
[24] S. Buys and V. Oakley, The Conservation and
Restoration of Ceramics, Butterworth‐Heinemann,
Oxford, 1993
[25] S. Muñoz‐Viñas, “Minimal Intervention Re‐
e‐conser vation
visited”, in Conservation principles, dilemmas
and uncomfortable truths, Butterworth‐Heine‐
mann, Oxford, 2009, pp. 47‐59
[26] C. Villers, “Post minimal intervention”, The
Conservator 28(1), 2004, pp. 3‐10
[27] J. Ashley‐Smith, “The Basis of Conservation
Ethics”, in Conservation principles, dilemmas and
uncomfortable truths, Butterworth‐Heinemann,
Oxford, 2009, pp. 6‐23
[28] M. Cassar, Value of preventive conservation,
Centre for Sustainable Heritage, 2006
ELENI KOTOULA
Conservator‐restorer
Contact: e.t.kotoula@hotmail.com
Eleni Kotoula earned her BSc in Conservation
from the Technological Educational Institution of
Athens, Greece in 2007, her MSc in Archaeological
Computing (Virtual Pasts) from the University of
Southampton, UK in 2009. Her master thesis was
focused on virtual reconstruction and ageing ana‐
lysis of a glass, an enamelled metal and a painted
ceramic from the collection of the Archaeological
Museum of Southampton. She has worked as mu‐
seum conservator (painted surfaces, wood, bone,
textile, metal, glass, stone, ceramic), in monu‐
ments‐archaeological sites (wall painting, mor‐
tar, stone) and participated in research projects.
Her PhD examines the application of advanced
computational techniques for conservation docu‐
mentation, analysis, examination and presenta‐
tion of artefacts derived from the Derveni cemetery,
located in the Archaeological Museum of Thessa‐
loniki, Greece.
47
 No. 19, April 2011 LICENCE

ISSN: 1646‐9283

Registration Number Attribution‐Noncommercial‐No Derivative Works 2.5

125248 Portugal
Entidade Reguladora
para a Comunicação Social You are free:
to Share — to copy, distribute and transmit this work
Property
e‐conservationline, Teodora Poiata

Periodicity
Bimonthly
Under the following conditions:
Cover
Detail of a leather binding
Private collection Attribution. You must attribute the work in the manner specified
by our licence, best by linking to CC website.
Executive Editor
Rui Bordalo

Editors
Teodora Poiata, Anca Nicolaescu
Noncommercial. You may not use this work for commercial
Collaborators purposes.
Ana Bidarra
Daniel Cull

Graphic Design and Photography

Anca Poiata, Radu Matase
No Derivative Works. You may not alter, transform, or build
Execution upon this work.
Teodora Poiata

Address
Rua de Santa Catarina, nº 467, 4D
4480‐779 Vila do Conde, Portugal

e‐conservationline informs that the published information is

www.e‐conservationline.com believed to be true and accurate but can not accept any legal
responsibility for any errors or omissions that may occur or
All correspondence to: make any warranty for the published material, which is solely
general@e‐conservationline.com the responsability of their authors.

e‐conser vation 79
e­conservation magazine is published and distributed under the
Creative Commons Licence
Attribution ­ Noncommercial ­ No Derivative Works.