If you have visited the Museum recently, you may have noticed that The Artifact Lab is now closed. We believe that the Artifact Lab, or the “fishbowl” as the public conservation lab was affectionately called, was a resounding success, as it initially was intended to be a 1 year exhibition (opening in 2012) but was extended for a total run of 11 years! To be sure, there were shifts and changes to the space during that time, but the overall premise of having a space where visitors could come and see our work did not change at all in all that time. In order to prepare for even bigger changes in the Museum, we moved our work to another non-public space in the Museum, and the gallery space that once housed the Artifact Lab will soon have new case installations with more content for Ancient Egypt: from Discovery to Display. So there will soon be new stories to see and objects to enjoy!
Alexis North talks with visitors through the open window
While there is no longer conservation work happening in the public spaces at the museum, all of us in the conservation department are still working away in other lab spaces at the museum and offsite on a variety of treatment projects. We will continue to share that work and our observations in blog posts and on social media, and we are exploring new ways of engaging with the public. But as the post suggests, the way we share that information is changing. So stay tuned! There are still exciting new things happening at the museum!
Many conservators at work in the artifact lab
With that in mind, stay tuned to the Penn Museum’s social media channels in November for Ask a Conservator Week!
On June 4th, 2022, with the help of funding from the Museum Council of Greater Philadelphia, the Conservation and Learning Programs departments hosted “Caring for Culture”, a hands-on introduction to conservation for teens. We had a great time and got some good feedback, and look forward to welcoming another group of teens this year on June 3rd 2023!
(If you’re a teen in the Philly area, you can register here for this year’s workshop)
Last year, 24 students arrived at the museum for a day of activities. The workshop began with introductions and a presentation by Senior Project Conservator Molly Gleeson about the basics of museum conservation. What kind of work does it involve? Why do we do it and what can damage cultural heritage collections?
Molly Gleeson addresses Caring For Culture Participants in Widener Auditorium, and a diagram of the Agents of Deterioration (from A Guide to Risk Management of Cultural Heritage (p. 27), ICCROM, 2016).
Next, participants were led in smaller groups on a tour of the Museum’s conservation lab spaces by Head Conservator Lynn Grant. They got to see the X-Ray room, the photo studio, prep room, and main lab. Lynn and Graduate Intern Nylah Byrd spoke about the different treatments a large wall painting, a cartonnage mask, and a stone sculpture have undergone. These objects will be included in the upcoming reinstallation of the Ancient Egypt and Nubia Galleries and have collectively required different types of imaging, storage mounts, cleaning, and structural and aesthetic fills.
Lynn Grant leads a tour of the conservation labNylah Byrd talks about the treatment of a cartonnage mask
For rest of the morning, the groups were led into the galleries by a member of the conservation department to do some documentation of their own. Each participant chose an object in the galleries to condition report and diagram. Condition reporting is one of the first things you learn as a conservator and is the first important step in assessing an object’s needs before starting treatment. This activity offered opportunities to look for real life examples of condition issues, agents of deterioration, preventative conservation steps, and mountmaking.
Participants observing a strategy for a large fill on an object in the Middle East GalleryCompleting condition report worksheets for an object chosen in the galleries
After a sunny lunch in the Warden Garden, participants came back in for some hands-on activities. Groups rotated between three stations: cleaning, close looking, and ceramic reassembly. These stations introduced some of the beginning skills needed by a conservator in training.
At the cleaning station, teens learned to roll their own cotton swabs to gently remove grime from the surface of a dirty tile. They also applied warm agar gel to learn how we loosen up and remove grime without using too much water on more sensitive objects or more stubborn dirt.
A participant swab cleans a dirty tile
At the close looking station, teens used a Dino-lite digital microscope to get up close and personal with some study objects. A UV light setup showed that the way materials fluoresce differently under Ultra-Violet light can help identify unknown substances.
Conservator Julia Commander guides participants through using a Dino-lite microscope
At the ceramic reassembly station, teams worked to puzzle out the correct location of sherds and reconstruct a ceramic object. Small sandboxes, blue tape, and clamps to hold everything in place are essential tools for gluing a ceramic back together.
Gluing together a ceramic objectA partially reconstructed ceramic dries in a small sandbox
If students tried their hand at each table and still had time to spare, there were also individual activities on color matching and inpainting prepared for some down time.
We were happy to see such enthusiastic attendance of this program last year and hope we get to meet some more future conservators at the workshop next month! If you or someone you know would like to participate, you can find more info and register here for this year’s workshop!
“Technical analysis” is a term frequently used in the conservation field to describe the use of specialized techniques to examine objects. Those techniques can include using scientific instruments, special cameras, and lots of other equipment. Maybe that term sounds boring, but in addition to telling you a lot about an object, you can also sometimes find fun surprises.
This was certainly the case when I began some preliminary analysis on an alabaster bowl for the reinstallation of the Egyptian and Nubian galleries. The bowl dates from the Egyptian Early Dynastic period, from roughly 3000-2800 BCE.
Alabaster bowl, E14243
Before starting what was seemingly a simple treatment of retouching/repainting some old fills, I assessed it under ultraviolet (UV) light in a dark room. My goal was to take a look at the fills and adhesives, hoping that UV would give me some information about the materials used. When I turned off the UV light, I noticed a faint greenish glow coming from the bowl. It looked like a glow-in-the-dark sticker.
Phosphorescence from alabaster.
Trying this a few more times verified that I wasn’t imagining things, and the light was coming from the alabaster bowl itself. For a second or two after I turned off the UV light, the alabaster would glow. A bit of quick research taught me that this phenomenon is called phosphorescence, and does, indeed, occur in alabaster.
Phosphorescence is a type of photoluminescence; the higher energy UV light is absorbed by the material and emitted at a lower energy (in the visible range). Unlike fluorescence, which occurs only while the light is applied, phosphorescence continues for a longer period of time, from a few microseconds to even hours.
This glow-in-the-dark quality is usually not noticeable because even if there is enough UV to cause phosphorescence, the result is so dim that it gets easily overpowered in the presence of visible light.
What does this finding have to do with planning my simple inpainting treatment? Absolutely nothing, but those are often the most interesting finds. While the inpainting treatment did not specifically benefit from this find, this knowledge can be applied in other ways, like identifying alabaster before turning to more intensive methods. Discovering phosphorescence in alabaster artifacts is a reminder of the many surprises that can be uncovered through the process of technical analysis–and that technical analysis, which might sound dry, is often how we find the most interesting things.
We’ve had a few posts (this one by Chelsea Kim and this one by Christy Ching) on creating 3D models using photogrammetry, and I thought I’d give some examples of what we are doing with that data once it’s collected. For some objects we are creating ortho-mosaics and these 2D images are going into reports as after treatment images as well as going into the catalogue model as record photography that also shows up in the online collection database. This wooden coffin 2017-20-1.3 is an example of this type of imaging.
2017-20-1.3 after treatment photos created using ortho mosaics generated from a 3D model created using photogrammetry.
For other objects we are also producing ortho-mosaics, but they are before treatment images. For example with E641 a wall painting that was previously on display.
E641 when it was on display
The wall painting is currently in two sections and each one has been imaged separately. These before treatment images have been used to create condition maps.
Before treatment ortho mosaics of E641 created with photogrammetry
The maps go into our reports and help provide visual documentation to support our written reports. For large objects, these kinds of condition maps are often easier to understand than written descriptions and can provide more precise information on the location of specific condition issues. Here you can see the condition map for E641. The map is not yet complete, I am still working on documenting one of the sections but I have combined the two maps into one image so you can see what that process looks like.
E641 condition map. The map for the section on the left is complete while the mapping on the section on the right is still in progress
The models can also be used to show surface distortion, so here in this screen shot of the 3D model of E641 you can see planar distortions in the wall painting where the fragments are not aligned. There may be a variety of causes leading to this distortion including poor alignment during the previous reconstruction or they may be the result of lifting/separation of the original material from its current modern backing.
Detail of E641. One the left is a mesh without the color added to the 3D mesh-model and on the right is the same area with the color and surface texture added to the model. The image on the left you can easily see the fragments and how they are misaligned in some areas.
I am currently working on learning how to create a 2D false color image where the colors reflect depth, so that we can have these planar distortions documented in 2D as well as being able to see them in the model.
So all together, this data is being used to document both the final condition of objects after treatment, as well as to document them before treatment. The models are also useful tools to assess complex condition issues and are valuable for evaluating next steps. For example, our current plan is to remove the wall painting from it’s current modern backing and put it on a new one. Our hope is to correct some of these planar distortions as a part of that process, and this model as well as one we make after treatment will be useful for evaluating the efficacy of the treatment and provide a base line for assessing its condition in the future.
Typically, at the Penn Museum when we are working on objects, even for display, we prioritize stability over aesthetics. This means that we are often do less cosmetic work than would be done at an art museum when it comes to putting in fills and toning out areas of loss. However, I recently undertook a project where I went further than I usually do to recreate lost material. This blog post is going to walk through why that decision was made in this case as well as some of the mysteries that I found along the way
E1019 Before treatment. At this point the object was being tracked as E17632
The object in this case is an Egyptian cartonnage mask E1019. When it entered the lab it had a lot of condition issues, including the top of the head was partially crushed, it had been heavily treated before, and it was missing the inlays for its eyes and eyebrows. The missing eye inlays had been giving many visitors to the lab the creeps as the mask appeared to have dark empty eye sockets. Because of this, from the start I had been polling to my colleagues about what level of repair I should do to reduce the distraction of the missing inlays. I was not at this point considering replacing them, but was instead thinking about maybe toning out some of the other losses on the cheek to draw less attention to the eyes.
E1019 before treatment, a detail of the face and eyes.
When it first entered the lab the mask was being tracked as E17632 but over the course of the treatment, I found a different accession number on the interior, E1019. With the help of our curators, we were able to piece together that E1019 was the original accession number, and E17632 had been assigned to it later. When I looked up the record for E1019 in the museum collection database, I found the record included two eye inlays! I was so hopeful that this would mean that I could reintegrate two inlays, one into each eye. However, when I reached out to the curators to get more information, I found out that they are two parts of the same eye, the white part of the eye and a pupil/iris.
Eye inlays E1019.1, and E1019.2 before treatment
Well, this left a new set of problems. Especially since you can see here, the white part of the eye was not very white anymore since it was covered with a dark brown substance. I was left with a lot of options, leave the eye inlays out, reintegrate them as they are, or clean them and reintegrate them, and if I reintegrated them should I then also create a replica set for the other eye?
Before making any decisions, I checked to see if they inlays fit the eye sockets in the mask, which they did. The inlays turned out to be for the masks right eye. After that, I spent some time characterizing the dark coating on the white part of the eye inlay. This included UV examination and comparing how the coating fluoresced with the brown modern materials I found on the interior of the mask from previous treatments. The results were not as clear cut as I was hoping. It seems that there is more than one brown substance on the inlay based on the UV examination. With this data in hand, I reached out again to the curators with the options of leaving the eyes out, reintegrating them as is, or cleaning and reintegrating. The curators indicated that they wanted the inlay reintegrated, and that they would like a replica for the missing inlay as well so that she looked even as one eye seemed worse than no eyes. Together we decided to clean the eye inlay, but to keep samples of the substances on the inlay for future analysis.
E1019.1 white part of the eye inlay in visible light (top) and under 368nm UV radiation (bottom). The rectangular material is a piece of acidic board with brown residues on it that had been used on the interior of the mask as part of a modern restoration. The fluorescence on the front of the eye inlay under UV is similar though not as bright as the modern brown residues but the back of the eye the brown residues do not fluoresce.
Once clean, I set about making a copy for the masks left eye to be a close but not identical match. Based on previous experience I decided to make the new inlay set out of a two-part light weight epoxy called Wood Epox as it is easy to shape and can be sanded and carved. To start, I made a paper template of the shape of each inlay. I made sure to mark what I wanted to be the front of each so that the shape would be a mirror image of the original inlay. The white inlay is slightly curved, so I also created a form that would have the same curvature using foam.
The inlay, E1019.1 after cleaning (left), the paper template of the inlays (center) and the foam support mimicking the curvature of the inlay with the inlay in place during a test fit (right).
Next, I rolled out some sheets of wood epox, and using the paper template trimmed out the shape I needed for both parts of the eye. The pupil/iris part I let set flat, what let the one fore the white of the eye set in the form I had made so that it would have the same curvature as the original. Once cured I sanded them to finish, with the final stages being wet sanding so that the replica inlays would also have a natural gloss.
The inlays replicas curing with the white part in the curved support (left) and the original inlays (E1019.1, and E1019.2) laid out above the shaped and sanded replicas (right)
The final step before assembly and placement in the mask was the paint them to resemble but not exactly match the originals. I used gloss medium for the pupil/iris as this inlay was especially glossy and I could not get that level of gloss with polishing and painting alone.
The original inlays (E1019.1 and E1019.2) laid out above the replicas after the replicas have been toned to be similar thought not identical to the originals
Finally, here you can see the end results after treatment. You will see though, that I have not attempted to recreate the inlays for the eyebrows. Because we had the one set of eye inlays, I had something to reference for making the replica set of inlays, however, there are still pieces missing which I had no frame of reference for. There were also likely inlays that went around the outside of the eye as well. These and the brows might have been made out of a variety of materials and without the originals for reference, there is no way to be certain about what their color and appearance would have been.
E1019 after treatment. The original inlays are in the masks right eye and the replicas are in the masks left eye.
This ancient Egyptian cartonnage funerary mask (L-55-289*) from the late Roman Period came into the conservation lab for treatment as part of the 2021-2022 curriculum internship in the conservation lab. It arrived on a backing board that was not adequately supporting the three-dimensional shape of the piece. The back of the head was the most damaged, and where I did most of the treatment work. I began the treatment by building a mount to support the mask from the front so I could remove the backing board and perform most of the treatment from behind.
*L-55-289 is a loan object from the Philadelphia Museum of Art
Before treatment image of the front of the mask. Photo credit Alexis North.
Before treatment image of the top of the mask. Photo credit Alexis North.
I toned Japanese paper using Golden Fluid Acrylics for mending the piece. I applied this paper across almost the entirety of the back of the head using 5% methylcellulose as an adhesive. The mends were applied in pieces: first to re-enforce the linen that remained attached to the mask, then to re-attach fragments back onto the mask. I used Volara and soft tipped clamps to support and maintain the shape as the piece dried.
Progress (from left to right) mending the back of the mask.
Once the mask re-gained dimensionality in the back, a new mount was required to adequately support it. I sculped a new mount in two pieces so it could be removed from the object if necessary. The two-piece mount is made of WoodEpoxand Ethafoam with wooden skewers to hold the pieces together.
Permanent mount to support the mask before (left) and after (right) the Ethafoam blocks are attached.
Furthermore, this new storage mount was necessary to hold the piece upright. The piece looks so much better now that the head has been re-formed.
L-55-289 after treatment front, proper right, and back views respectively.
As an intern working with the conservation department, I have received the opportunity to work on many projects and experience things I never thought I would. Recently I have been working on this software called Reality Capture using photogrammetry. Photogrammetry is a process that uses an abundance of photographs to create a 3D model without any distortion from many overlapping images stitched together to form a detailed and geometrically corrected image called an orthomosaic. This process is usually used on larger objects, and this is because it’s too big to be in frame when taking pictures and has a lower quality with distortion which is far from perfect, and Christy Ching explains more in depth about this in her previous blog post.
I want to show how to create a digital three-dimensional model using the software, Reality Capture, and I’ll demonstrate with an example of the after-treatment photos of an Egyptian coffin.
To start off with, having pictures of the object is a must. For this example, they were already taken and edited in Photoshop, to adjust the white balance using adobe bridge ahead of time. Then I begin by opening the software and then under workflow at the top left corner, I select “inputs.”
Screenshot of the software highlighting where to click “Inputs” which is above “1. Add Imagery”
Then I select all the images making sure that they were a .jpeg file and then I click on “Align Images” as highlighted above. After the images are aligned, a transparent box surrounding the coffin appears. I adjust the box by dragging the control points around to make it as small as possible without cutting off any part of the coffin. As you can see in the image below, using E883C, the box is close to the coffin but does not intercept the coffin itself.
Screenshot of the Egyptian coffin E883C after the images were aligned with the transparent box adjusted to tightly around it.
Now for the fun part to see the coffin take shape, I click next to “Calculate Model” to select “Preview Quality” as highlighted below. Then I go to the tools bar to use the lasso option to erase all the unnecessary space around the coffin. Then after being satisfied with selected area, I click on “Filter Selection,” which turns the selected areas from orange to dark blue showing that it worked.
Screenshot of the coffin after selecting “Preview Quality.”
Finally, I go back to the Workflow bar to select “Texture” which is highlighted below and then it shows all the details of the 3D model without any distortion in high detail and quality.
by Tessa de Alarcon with images by Alexis North, Molly Gleeson, and Christy Ching
We recently de-installed two stone sarcophagi from Egypt from the upper Egypt gallery at the Museum: E15415 and E16133. These pieces are slated for reinstall in the new Egyptian and Nubia Galleries and will likely need extensive treatment before they go back on display. This is why they have come off display, so that we can assess their condition and evaluate what needs to be done for the new gallery. For both pieces, we need to check the stability of the previous treatments. Both have previous joins and fills that were done before the formation of the conservation department. This means that we have no records for when these treatments were done or the materials that were used to reconstruct the stone and fill the losses.
E15415 at the top and E16133 on the bottom
In the case of E15415, this meant we needed to see the underside. We brought in Harry Gordon, a sculptor and professional rigger, to build a wooden cradle or cribbing and then lift the piece and flip it so we could see the joins and fills from the other side.
E15415 as it was on display in it’s vitrine (top) and images from the process of cribbing and flipping the object so we could examine the bottom (bottom right and bottom left).
When we flipped the object over and took the plinth it had been sitting on off, we found an additional puzzle. The piece has had a plexiglass vitrine over it for quite many years to protect it while on display. However, that has not always been the case, it used to be uncovered in the gallery. It seems that prior to the placement of the vitrine some visitors took advantage of the small gap between the stone and the wooden plinth below it to slide things under the object.
E15415 after we flipped it over and lifted off the plinth that had been underneath it (left) and a detail of the interior as we sorted through the items that we found that had been underneath the sarcophagus
In a way, this has made this object a sort of time capsule. We found a number of things that had been hidden under the sarcophagus including a coupon for Secret deodorant (worth 5 cents), a program for the Graduation Exercises for the University of Pennsylvania Oral Hygiene Class of 1967, a museum map from the when the museum was called The University Museum, a votive candle donation envelope for the church of St. John the Evangelist Sacred Heart Shrine, a scrap of paper with dishes on it, and two black and white photographs. While some of these things are easily identifiable, like the program and the coupon others are more of a mystery.
The paper items that we found underneath the E15415
I personally find the photos the most interesting. They look like shots perhaps from a photo booth. This is based on their size and format and that each has a torn edge (one at the top and the other at the bottom) suggesting that they may have been part of a longer whole or strip of images. Who is the subject in each image? Were the photos discarded because the owner or owners didn’t like them? Were they taken at an event or party at the Museum? Were the photos captured at the same event or in the same photo booth (if they are indeed from a photo booth)? They are similar in size and format, but that doesn’t mean they relate to one another. Were they taken somewhere else and discarded during a visit to the Museum? I have only questions and no answers, but my hope is that by sharing these images maybe someone reading this will know or recognize them and be willing to tell us more.
Photographs found underneath E15415. The image on the left is torn at the bottom while the one on the right has a torn edge at the top.
In preparation for the new Ancient Egypt and Nubia galleries the conservation department began a survey of the current Upper Egypt gallery to understand the condition of the objects and anticipate treatment time. Part of this survey includes performing archival research on the excavation and exhibition history of the monumental pieces in the gallery. This research will help us better understand previous treatment and display decisions to inform future treatment decisions.
One of the monumental pieces is the “Triumphal Stela” (29-107-958) from the Bet Sh’ean expedition directed by Clarence S. Fisher, Curator of the Egyptian Section at the time. The Penn Museum Archives contain records from the expedition, including Fisher’s field diaries handwritten in cursive. I was able to locate the diary entries from when the stela was found and transcribed them to the best of my ability for easier reference later. Called the “Ramses II stela” during excavation, this rounded top stone pillar was found toppled, underneath the “Seti I stela” on May 31st, 1923.
“The discovery of a second Egyptian stele at Beisan and one with such a nicely cut and clear inscription is of immense importance and we all eagerly await the turning over of the stones” – Page 167 Fisher Diary
The excitement of the find is clear in Fisher’s journal entries. He asserts that the stelas were toppled purposefully as they once stood on stone bases next to each other. The Ramses II stela was found in two pieces. Alan Rowe completed a drawing of the bottom portion of the stela, and a close-up image was taken of the top portion.
The stela was recently de-installed from the current Upper Egypt gallery and will be on view in the Eastern Mediterranean galleries (opening at the end of this year) before being installed in our new Ancient Egypt and Nubia galleries.
Pencil reads “The Seti I stela and/ Ramses II stela as found/ 229/ 31 May 1923“Ramses II Stela top”Alan Rowe’s drawing of the bottom portion of the stela
The conservation department recently acquired a new light for multi-modal imaging – an ADJMEGA PAR Profile Plus (one for use at the conservation lab annex and one for the museum main lab). The MEGA PAR is a tunable LED light source, with 64 different color channels. While not designed for analytical imaging, it provides a bright and large spot size that we can use for visible induced infrared luminescence (VIL) imaging of Egyptian blue. It will also be something we can use to test out other imaging methods in the future. Taking VIL images is not new to the lab, but the light source we had been using stopped working and we needed to replace it. We are grateful to Bryan Harris for making the purchase of the new equipment possible.
The spectralon and the new MEGA PAR Profile Plus light (right) and the new equipment in use (left)
Along with the new light, we also acquired a new reference standard, a 99% reflectance spectralon. This standard is critical for developing methods and standard procedures for imaging in the lab. In this post I am going to show an example of how this standard can be used and how I developed a protocol for VIL imaging with the MEGA PAR light.
Set up for round one testing: Egyptian green (left pigment sample) Egyptian blue (right pigment sample) and a V4 QP grey scale card.
Since the MEGA PAR light is new, one of the first things I did when it arrived (after unpacking it and reading the instructions of course) was run a variety of tests on known reference materials to see what settings might work for creating visible induced infrared luminescence images of Egyptian blue. As part of that process, I set up a grey scale card (QP card V4) and two reference pigment samples, Egyptian blue and Egyptian green (both from Kremer pigments). I chose these so I would have a known pigment that should luminesce, the Egyptian blue, and one that should not, the Egyptian green. Using the department modified full spectrum camera, I took a visible reference image of the known pigments and the QP card using our regular fluorescent photo lights and a visible bandpass filter over the camera lens so that I could have a normal color image.
Screen shot of thumbnail images of the round 1 testing
Then I captured a series of images using the same set up but replacing the visible band pass filter with an 830nm long pass infrared filter so that I could capture images in the infra-red, with the fluorescent light turned off and the MEG PAR turned on. Each of the images I captured were with the same settings on the camera and with the MEGA PAR light in the same position, just going through each of the 64 color channel options.
Screen shot of Adobe Camera RAW showing the process for evaluating the response of Egyptian blue to each setting
I converted the images to grey scale adobe camera RAW by sliding the saturation level from 0 to -100, so that the red, green, and blue values (RGB) would each be the same. I then used the dropper tool to take a reading over where the Egyptian blue standard is in each image and recorded the number. The higher the number, the brighter the luminescence.
Set up for round 2 testing with the Egyptian blue pigment sample (top left), the Egyptian green pigment sample (below the Egyptian blue), the 99% reflectance spectralon standard (right), and a V4 QP grey scale card (bottom).
After doing that I had a reduced set of options that produced good luminescence in the Egyptian blue for a second round of testing. For round two I did the same thing with the more promising group, but also included in my images the 99% reflectance spectralon standard so that I could check and verify that the light is not producing infra-red radiation. If there is any infra-red, than the 99% reflectance standard should be visible. None of the second round of options showed any infra-red. While any of them can be used for VIL, CL08 gave the strongest response.
Screen shot of round 2 testing evaluation
After developing a working set-up, I did a test in the photo studio using an object that I knew had Egyptian blue, and the standards. I captured a visible image with the modified camera with the visible band pass filter and the fluorescent photo lights, and a VIL image with the 830nm long pass filter and the CL08 setting on the MEGA PAR. The false color image was created by splitting the color channels on the visible image in photoshop, discarding the blue data, and putting the VIL data in the red channel, the red visible data in the green channel, and the green visible data in the blue channel. As you can see the spectralon is not visible in the VIL image meaning there is no IR radiation being produced by the MEGA PAR light.
Images of E12974 with a visible image (left), a visible induced infrared luminescence image in the center showing Egyptian blue in white (center), and a false color image showing Egyptian blue in red (right).
After all this work, I had an opportunity to see how the new light would perform in less than ideal settings. I have been working on a study of one of the coffins in the collection, 2017-20-1.3, to examine the coatings and pigments. VIL is the perfect method of identifying blue areas on the coffin but the coffin is too big to fit in the department photo studio. The set of images below were taken in the Artifact Lab (our public lab in a gallery space) where there is IR from the windows (daylight) as well as from the gallery lights. I hoped that a short exposure with the new very bright MEGA PAR would reduce the effects of IR in the image. As you can see in these photos below, the 99% reflectance spectralon is slightly visible but not as clearly as the Egyptian blue on the coffin. These results are much better than what we used to get in the Artifact Lab using our old light, so I am very happy with these results.
Detail from the coffin 2017-20-1.3 with a visible reference image (left) a VIL image with Egyptian blue in bright white (center) and a false color image created by combining channels from the visible reference image with data from the VIL image resulting in the Egyptian blue showing up as red (right).
