A fantastic resource to support physical preservation was produced by the staff at Indiana University's E. Lingle Craig Preservation Laboratory and is freely available to the public online: "The E. Lingle Craig Preservation Laboratory Repair and Enclosure Treatment Manual" (text and images by Garry Harrison, Head of Circulating Collections Conservation, and slide show design by Jacob Nadal, former Head of the Preservation Department). One attendant at the recent SAA-SC Conference for Graduate Students and Beginning Professionals came to Bloomington chiefly to attend the Paper Conservation workshop at the Preservation Laboratory because she regularly uses the manual as a reference at her home repository. I suspect that I too may refer back to it when assessing options to resolve my own preservation issues in the workplace. The manual is easy to navigate, contains a wealth of information, and makes many treatments accessible for real-world application. Even if one does not go so far as to independently perform preservation treatments, repairs, or build protective enclosures, the manual may serve as a guide for what preservation actions are possible and what resources are required.
The manual opens into a handy and straightforward table of contents. The first two categories on the table are "repair treatments" and "enclosure treatments". Each selection under these categories (e.g. cut pages, tape removal, mylar encapsulation, phase box, etc.) includes a step-by-step slideshow detailing the entire treatment, textual treatment criteria, tools/materials used for treatment, instructions for using the manual, and a map image of a generic slideshow, which walks the user through its navigation. Surely not all of the treatments included will be relevant to archivists, as many are in relation to book repairs, but there is surely still a wealth of information in many of the treatment descriptions.
For example, use of tape for paper mending in years past is something that an archivist is highly likely to encounter. Under the Tape Removal heading, the manual explains that adhesives may discolor paper, interfere with text legibility, and plastic film may shift leading to exposed adhesive residue that may adhere to and damage neighboring documents. Rather than merely explain how to remove tape, the "treatment criteria" section explains when and why this procedure should be executed, urging practical choices. Relatively few tools are involved in this treatment, including a heated microspatula, fume hood, small rush, solvent, and paper towels. If I were an archivist at a small repository without a preservation department or workspace, the requirement of a fume hood may mean that this is not a feasible treatment to pursue on sight. Furthermore, after reading through the slide show for tape removal, it comes to my attention that the procedure is delicate and required the confidence and competence of an experienced individual. Without further training, I don't know that I would feel confident pursuing treatment even with a fully supportive tool supply. Still, I believe it is helpful to know that this procedure is certainly possible if performed by a preservation professional. Practically speaking, if tape removal would improve the lifespan and use of a valuable physical object, it may be worth pursuing by an institution's preservation department or contract preservation facility.
Aside from detailed preservation treatment instructions, the manual also includes sections on the table of contents for "hand tools" (weights, bone folders, tweezers), "shop tools" (deacidification system, freezer/dryer, press boards), and "supplies and materials" (adhesive types, tapes, paper, pamphlets/envelopes). I found all of these quite helpful in understanding what various tools and materials may be used for archival quality treatments and how to visually identify them as such. Personally, when I open up a Hollinger catalog (which started showing up in my mailbox as soon as I registered with SAA; is it strange that I get almost as excited about sale priced acid free folders as I do about good Groupons or discounts at my favorite clothing store?), I feel a bit overwhelmed by the various options. Sometimes the mere volume of choices makes understanding for what each item is intended and why that much more difficult. The straightforward explanations and photographs on the preservation manual are a great reference--I just wish there were more! Perhaps someday I can make a visual dictionary of archival supplies my own project.
The Preservation Manual contains one more section on the table of contents: Glossary and Appendices, perhaps my favorite section. Here users find a glossary of terms (some of which point to hyperlinks connected to further explanations and images), though it is primarily in relation to book terminology. The appendix also includes easy to follow instructions for making a casebound book from scratch (something I did last summer during a Conservation Workshop course), dealing with mold, attaching book plates, and a special projects section. The final section in the manual's glossary, Special Projects, includes several preservation procedural examples which likely have value to archives professionals: creation of an analog disc sleeves, paper deodorization, Sanborn Maps, and giant encapsulation. I will keep all of these in mind for the future.
The portion on mold is fascinating and, I imagine, extremely helpful in orienting ones own mold problems in relation to preservation decisions made in the example cases entailed in the manual. The examples are oriented toward real-world mold cases encountered by the IU preservation staff, all of which deal with books. However, treatment decisions and options are similar for archival materials, especially those used in the example "Mold, decision to restore (example 1)". The delicate and laborious treatment used to salvage a bound book of newspapers from the 1940s is a true testament to the laudable skills of preservation professionals. I may be on the verge of waxing poetically here, but it really is amazing that mold-ridden materials are, in some cases, able to be restored and remain usable for patrons. On the other hand, if moldy materials are encountered at present or several years in the future, I am inclined to believe that digitization for preservation may be an easier, more cost effective mode of information preservation. In the case of a small portion of Sermons I encountered while processing Claxon mss. II, I detected a musty, possibly modly smell. The tactile quality of the paper was also somehow "off". Following a materials assessment by Doug Sanders of the IU Preservation Department, it was decided to use the lab's deacidification system to treat the papers. Though deacidification isn't necessarily a thrifty procedure, the unique quality of the materials merited preservation action. This procedure is much less involved than those detailed in the manual, which helps me put its condition into perspective.
In reading through the Preservation Manual, it is clear to me that no treatment decision is black and white; every action depends on a repositories unique collections, resources, objectives, and values. The manual elucidates the decision process as executed by staff at Indiana University, gives real-world examples, and makes clear that there isn't necessarily a right or wrong decision for all preservation cases. In the case of several mold treatment examples, the Harrison (the manual's author) admits that his own treatment decisions were a bit experimental. Choices were made based on experience, knowledge of past treatments, available resources, and physical artifactual value.
Overall, the E. Lingle Craig Preservation Repair
Publish Post
No comments:
Post a Comment