Talk:Conservation and restoration of bone, horn, and antler objects

[Untitled]
Andrea – I feel that you, like me, also picked a topic that ends up containing a lot of sections. I really like the idea of "display issues" in your outline (so much so, I might steal it). I think it is an important issue when talking about conservation. In researching my topic, I, again like you, came across the Minnesota Historical Society’s conservation essays and I found one on "Quills, Horn, Hair, Feathers, Claws, and Baleen" that I thought might help. In some ways, I think it complicates the issue of actual material, but it introduces other objects that might fit in your category in terms of similar care. I am curious if you’re going to touch upon Ivory (which has an entry already) because, given all the issues surrounding ivory, I was wondering if you shouldn’t also include an “Ethics” section? Or even a “Repatriation” section? I know the idea is to focus on conservation, but those issues do deal with the collection management aspect of museums. So far, I think you’re totally on track with your outline and I can’t wait to see your final page. Here’s the Minnesota Historical Society Paper - http://www.mnhs.org/preserve/conservation/connectingmn/docs_pdfs/repurposedbook-quills_000.pdf - Kim

Hi Andrea! What a challenging topic to take on. I have never worked with bone, and am very interested in the types of conservation methods that would be utilized on organic animal materials. Your outline is very thorough; I love that you included bullet points with the specifics you would like to pursue for each subject line. The only concern I have is that you are taking on a lot of information to research in such a short period of time, I may even trim down the outline a bit and focus more on the conservation than the identification of each type of material? As for references, it looks like you have a decent start, I would recommend perusing jstor, I searched for conservation of bone and found at least two usable articles and case studies there, and we get free access through jhu:

Johnson, J. S.. (1994). Consolidation of Archaeological Bone: A Conservation Perspective.Journal of Field Archaeology, 21(2), 221–233. http://doi.org/10.2307/529866

Johnson, J. S.. (1994). Consolidation of Archaeological Bone: A Conservation Perspective.Journal of Field Archaeology, 21(2), 221–233. http://doi.org/10.2307/529866 BISULCA, C., ELKIN, L. K., & DAVIDSON, A.. (2009). CONSOLIDATION OF FRAGILE FOSSIL BONE FROM UKHAA TOLGOD, MONGOLIA (LATE CRETACEOUS) WITH CONSERVARE OH100. Journal of the American Institute for Conservation, 48(1), 37–50. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/27784651 …and more! I am excited to read your finished article!! - Kendall — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ktrotter88 (talk • contribs) 22:38, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Structure
Hi all! I would like to start by saying that I agree that this was a very difficult topic to take on with so many issues to cover. I thought it was well laid out and obviously showed a lot of care. I have a few suggestions to make that I hope will help. First, I think it would be worth including another section for materials relating to bone, horn, and antler objects. For example, Ivory which is similar in composition to bone, and Keratinous Materials where you could address other smaller materials such as baleen, claws, hooves, and tortoiseshells very briefly. After all, horn is a keratinous material as well! Second, I wanted to suggest adding a brief introductory explanation to the Preventive Conservation section (as there is under Interventive Conservation) explaining what it is and why it is so important and effective, as well as adding a few subheadings under this section such as: Using Protective Enclosures Appropriate, Humidity Levels Avoid, Excessive Heat, Atmospheric Pollutants, Integrated Pest Management, Proper Storage and Handling. I know some of these topics are addressed throughout the article but I think they will make more sense here. Here is a source for the introductory statement for this suggested edit, from the National Park Service, which discusses preventive conservation methods for organic objects:https://www.nps.gov/museum/publications/conserveogram/01-03.pdf Thank you and I look forward to hearing your feedback. Allissimon (talk) 17:21, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

I agree the Agents of Deteriorations should be clustered together in one section. We could add a section on conservation science. Conservation is more than saving stuff; it’s investigating the object too (like the age and authenticity). I’d like to add information regarding restoration techniques… more importantly why it is wiser to not restore but to stabilize the object. This may fall under conservation science too, or treatment. Treatment is a better term than restoration techniques since the point is to generally talk about the topic, not a “how-to”, since “how-to” will evolve faster than this article. What do you think? Mattedfur (talk) 00:37, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi! I agree that adding information on restoration techniques, especially regarding stabilization would be a good idea. Thank you for the suggestion! This could fall under Conservation Science as you mentioned, or treatment. I think based on structure I lean more towards treatment? Let me know your thoughts? I would like to see treatment expanded on as a whole, as well, and I think you make a great argument for where to start by addressing individual techniques yes, but more than that the topic itself. That is another simple suggestion I would like to make, that we lead into the topics more (headings and subheadings) so that people who have no experience with the subject matter will have that starting point. For example, describing what agents of deterioration are, and why they pose risks to the collection, particularly organic objects, before listing the agents that affect those objects. Similar to what you are recommending with restoration-treatment. Thanks! Allissimon (talk) 01:47, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi! I agree that Agents of Deterioration should definitely be clustered together. It could be good in a section on conservation science to cover radiocarbon dating, relative dating, and other geochrometers. I think this is also where we may want to include field methods of determining bone from stone (licking the bone, etc.) and the pitfalls therein. Also, I think that the "processing" section is extraneous and could be removed. Additionally, I'd like to include more case studies--perhaps the conservation of human bone? I think it's fairly rarely found having been worked into a tool/object, but archaeologists/paleoanthropologists do obviously find bones from australopithecines and members of genus Homo, which are studied and preserved. Finally, I'd like to change the wording of the opening paragraph of the "basic cleaning" section to something with more elaboration. At the moment, "basic cleaning" feels very basic. Thanks! KaitlynWhite (talk) 03:12, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Case studies are a great idea, and a good way to end the article. I have found a study of fixing a 19th-century giant deer that can start off this section. Mattedfur (talk) 16:09, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Hey! I like your suggestion to add a field for Conservation Science and cover radiocarbon dating and other methods, I think that will help support the conservation piece of the article since at present preventive and interventive conservation are the only sections that discuss conservation methods. I like the idea of including human bone, mainly because the article only mentions mammals, birds, and fish. A case study may be a good way to do that. Where do you recommend we include the case study? At the end as Mattedfur suggests? Renaming Basic Cleaning might be a good idea, I also like the idea of moving this section next to intensive cleaning under Interventive Conservation. I think they make more sense together. Perhaps something like, "Fundamental Cleaning Methods" or a similar vein. Thanks! Allissimon (talk) 19:04, 25 April 2021 (UTC)