2011. reintegración vidrio arqueológico. e-conservation
TRANSCRIPT
8/6/2019 2011. Reintegración vidrio arqueológico. e-conservation
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/2011-reintegracion-vidrio-arqueologico-e-conservation 1/16
the online magazine No. 20, July 2011
8/6/2019 2011. Reintegración vidrio arqueológico. e-conservation
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/2011-reintegracion-vidrio-arqueologico-e-conservation 2/16
REVERSIBILITY AND MINIMAL
INTERVENTION IN THE GAP‐FILLINGPROCESS OF ARCHAEOLOGICAL GLASS
By Betlem Martínez, Trinidad Pasíes
and Maria Amparo Peiró
8/6/2019 2011. Reintegración vidrio arqueológico. e-conservation
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/2011-reintegracion-vidrio-arqueologico-e-conservation 3/16
Introduction
Archaeological glass is an extremely delicate ma‐
terial that requires particular ability and care when
treated by the conservator‐restorer. Glass objects
from archaeological origin are fragile, often very
fragmented, and have very thin walls. Besides, they
have undergone singular alteration processes when
preserved in unsuitable environments (figure 1).
In this article we put forward new proposals that
concern one of the most controversial processes
carried out by conservator‐restorers: the treat‐
ment of the missing areas. We have developed analternative that, while being coherent with re‐
versibility and minimal intervention criteria, a
necessary prerequisite to any restoration inter‐
vention, does not prevent a reconstruction pro‐
cess that facilitates form legibility of the object.
Putting the concepts of reversibility and minimal
intervention into practice: a question of criteria
Traditionally, the gap‐filling has been understood
as a process carried out in order to return form
unity to a piece. The ICOM 2008 resolution defines
it as a regular treatment in a restoration process
that includes “all actions directly applied to a single
and stable item aimed at facilitating its appreci‐
ation, understanding and use. These actions are
only carried out when the item has lost part of its
significance or function through past alteration
or deterioration and are based on respect for the
original material”1. But the dangers involved in
that sort of direct action do not only arise fromlack of manual ability and experience of conser‐
vator‐restorers themselves, they can also be
caused by the historical moment when actions
take place: applied criteria, protocols, and ma‐
terials used have varied with time.
If there is one thing we can currently learn from
our recent past, that is the frequent mistakes made
when, without awareness of negative effects, ex‐cessive intervention on cultural heritage objects
is applied without absolute respect for the minimal
intervention criteria. The damage done by profes‐
sional conservator‐restorer, when they justified
excessive intervention to achieve a supposed im‐
Figure 1. Group of archaeological glass objects. Cycladic
Museum (Athens, Greece).
41e‐conservation
REVERSIBILITY AND MINIMAL INTERVENTION IN ARCHAEOLOGICAL GLASS
In recent research at the Museo de Prehistoria of Valencia (Prehistory Museum of Valencia) and the
Institut Valencià de Conservació i Restauració (Valencian Institute for Conservation and Restoration),
we have developed different methods of reversible filling based on the use of synthetic films such as
polyethylene terephthalate and polypropylene, materials commonly used in the field of document
conservation. These methods have now been applied to a variety of archaeological glass collections. The
results of this research project are set out in detail in this article.
1 Terminology to characterize the conservation of tangible
cultural heritage, Resolution adopted by the ICOM‐CC mem‐
bership at the 15th Triennial Conference, New Delhi, 22‐26 September 2008, available at URL (accessed 20th April
2011)
8/6/2019 2011. Reintegración vidrio arqueológico. e-conservation
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/2011-reintegracion-vidrio-arqueologico-e-conservation 4/16
provement in the underst anding of a piece, is
precisely the reason why we should make the cri‐
teria of minimal intervention a priority, and con‐
sider it not only viable but also the alternative
that is most coherent with strict respect for the
original material conserved.
The Ministry of Culture, through the Instituto del
Patrimonio Cultural de España (Cultural Heritage
Institute of Spain) published ten criteria for res‐
toration2. In relation to minimal intervention, the
document says that “the principle of minimal in‐
tervention is crucial. Any manipulation of a piece
involves risks, therefore we should limit ourselves
to that which is strictly necessary and accept natu‐
ral decay caused by time. Over interventionist
treatments that can damage an object integrity
should be rejected”. These recommendations also
refer to the gap‐filling process that according to
the document should only take place “when it is
necessary for the stability of the piece or for some
of the materials that form part of it”. The contro‐versial but indispensable reversibility criterion is
also mentioned. Any report or publication regard‐
ing restoration must include it, even though its
meaning can often create some misunderstand‐
ings [1]. Products used for the f ill‐in process must
be reversible but reversibility should not be a
traumatic moment for the piece nor for the con‐
servator‐restorers themselves [2, pp. 60‐61].
Nowadays, we have sufficient resources to make
reversibility and minimal intervention criteria fit
perfectly into the fill‐in process. Acting with this
in mind does not mean no intervention or that it
is not possible to find alternatives that combine
both respect for and legibility of the piece [3]. We
have tried to make both concepts compatible in
our research.
Applied alternatives to the casting of missing
areas in archaeological glass
Reconstruction of missing areas is often justified
as a consolidation process of the piece. Its purpose
is to improve the reading of the forms and the
understanding of the piece as a historical docu‐
ment, where a gap is considered an interruption
in the continuity of the form. Intervention might
be necessary or advisable in some cases, especially
when the stability of the piece is at stake. But we
know that this is not always the case and that con‐
servator‐restorers are often subject to impositions
or wrong criteria that find justification in consi‐
dering that an incomplete piece cannot be under‐
stood or lacks aesthetic quality.
It is important to define certain areas before a
process of conservation‐restoration is carriedout. We must know what the final destination of
the piece is: storage, research, temporal or per‐
manent exhibition. Once this has been established,
a decision could be made regarding whether treat‐
ment should be preventive or if there is a need for
a remedial approach. Other fundamental factors
are the preservation state of the material and
some of its characteristics, like glass thickness,
and the size, shape and localization of gaps. Inany case, there comes a moment when the profes‐
sional will have to face the problem of a possible
reconstruction of missing areas. What alternatives
are there for that challenge?
Unanimity of criteria is hard to achieve, above all
regarding the process that conditions the piece
appearance when it is eventually presented. When
we make a diagnosis for an object and establish
the percentage that has been lost, we have to act
responsibly and decide among different proposals
42 e‐conservation
2 Free translation from Spanish from Decálogo de la Res‐tauración ‐ Criterios de Intervención en Bienes Muebles,
available at URL [pdf] (accessed on 20 April 2011)
BETLEM MARTÍNEZ, TRINIDAD PASÍES & M. AMPARO PEIRÓ
8/6/2019 2011. Reintegración vidrio arqueológico. e-conservation
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/2011-reintegracion-vidrio-arqueologico-e-conservation 5/16
that could be considered. The first thing to be
ascertained is whether a casting of the gaps is
really necessary. No intervention could, in fact,
be a good option, especially in those cases where
the piece can be easily read (figure 2).
We may also decide that only a partial interven‐
tion is necessary, with occasional fillings that strengthen strategic areas to give stability to the
piece. Or we may opt for a no integration proposal
and use other means of supporting the piece in‐
stead (figures 3‐5). There are different types of
supports used for glass made of synthetic resins
[4] or with blown glass [5; 6, p. 160]. In some
cases, instead of completing the object form, sup‐
port is minimized and its presence is reduced to
some elements that not only hold the piece but
in some way help to imagine the area of the ob‐
ject that has been lost (figure 6‐7).
43e‐conservation
Figure 2. A piece without casting of missing areas. Casa Romei (Ferrara, Italy).
Figure 3. New support to reconstruct the missing base of the
glass. Casa Romei (Ferrara, Italy).
REVERSIBILITY AND MINIMAL INTERVENTION IN ARCHAEOLOGICAL GLASS
8/6/2019 2011. Reintegración vidrio arqueológico. e-conservation
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/2011-reintegracion-vidrio-arqueologico-e-conservation 6/16
This approach requires a radical change of attitude
not only in the case of conservator‐restorers, who
are the first to be convinced of the many advan‐
tages of that decision, but also on the part of ar‐
cheologists, museum directors and the general
public who must learn to really value this alterna‐
tive and be aware that nowadays it is possible to
create 3D digital reconstructions that can be used
as a complement for a better understanding of
pieces, avoiding thus the need of acting directly
on them.
But among traditional options there is also the
total intervention, the complete reconstruction
of gaps in the object for conservation, aesthetic
or exhibition related reasons. Many different pro‐
44 e‐conservation
Figure 7. An internal support with a re‐creation of the basemade in the Institut Valencià de Conservació i Restauració
(Valencia, Spain). Photography Pascual Mercé.
Figure 6. External support to hold a glass artifact. Hadrian'sLibrary (Athens, Greece).
Figure 4 (above). The original artifact rests on an internal
support system. Corinto (Greece).
Figure 5. Support system made of moulding resin which bears
original fragments. Museo de Valladolid (Spain).
BETLEM MARTÍNEZ, TRINIDAD PASÍES & M. AMPARO PEIRÓ
8/6/2019 2011. Reintegración vidrio arqueológico. e-conservation
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/2011-reintegracion-vidrio-arqueologico-e-conservation 7/16
45e‐conservation
Figure 8. Casting of the missing glass made of plaster. Archaeological Museum of Haniá (Crete, Greece).
REVERSIBILITY AND MINIMAL INTERVENTION IN ARCHAEOLOGICAL GLASS
8/6/2019 2011. Reintegración vidrio arqueológico. e-conservation
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/2011-reintegracion-vidrio-arqueologico-e-conservation 8/16
duct s have been used in the fill‐in process. For
instance, glass from other objects reused for this
purpose, materials traditionally used for ceramics,such as plaster (figure 8), acrylic resins (Technovit
4000, Plastogen G), polyester (GTS from Vossche‐
mie, C‐32 from Canuts), polyurethane (Crystal
Clear 200) or epoxy resins (Ablebond 342‐1, Fyne‐
bond, Araldite 2020, Hxtal NYL‐1, Epotek 301) [6,
pp. 153‐159; 7, pp. 286‐304; 8, pp. 76‐95; 9‐11]
(figures 9‐10). In recent years epoxy resins have
been, without a doubt, the products most fre‐
quently used and research has focused on analyz‐
ing their long term aging [12, 13]. This process
involves making models (generally silicones,
modeling clays, dental waxes or clays) and fur‐
ther work on the resin finishing in contact with
the piece (f igures 11‐12). Proposal for recon‐
struction of large gaps with resin by means of
molds made from the piece have been occasion‐
ally put forward. A replica of the lost area is ob‐
tained, worked on and then adhered to the piece
[14]. S. Koob experimented with detachable fills as
well: “[…] the making an intermediate fill or cast‐
ing with plaster of Paris. The plaster will be re‐
moved from the object and then molded in silicone
rubber, from which an epoxy f ill or replacement
fragment will then be made. This can be joined to
the original object with B‐72” [8, pp. 95‐104].
Figure 9 (above). Fill in resin in archaeological glass. Museu
de Conimbriga (Portugal).
Figure 10. Yellowing process of f illing resin. Museo Arqueológico de Santa Pola (Alicante, Spain).
BETLEM MARTÍNEZ, TRINIDAD PASÍES & M. AMPARO PEIRÓ
46 e‐conservation
8/6/2019 2011. Reintegración vidrio arqueológico. e-conservation
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/2011-reintegracion-vidrio-arqueologico-e-conservation 9/16
Figure 11. Polishing coloured epoxy resin made at the Institut Valencià de Conservació i Restauració (Valencia, Spain).
Figure 12. A casting with coloured epoxy resin made at the Institut Valencià de Conservació i Restauració (Valencia, Spain).
REVERSIBILITY AND MINIMAL INTERVENTION IN ARCHAEOLOGICAL GLASS
47e‐conservation
8/6/2019 2011. Reintegración vidrio arqueológico. e-conservation
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/2011-reintegracion-vidrio-arqueologico-e-conservation 10/16
But there are other less technical aspects that,
unfortunately, are sometimes forgotten such as
the high financial cost of many of those products,
their short life, toxicity and questionable rever‐
sibility. In general, these products are not rever‐
sible; therefore we believe that the use of a primer
between the original piece and the new material,
in order to make removal easier, should be not
just necessary but compulsory.
Besides, we should not forget the technical com‐
plexity of the fill‐in process; mistakes can easily
occur. The process requires extreme precision, not
just for the preparation stages (making the mold)
but also when pouring the resin and in the polish‐
ing that later takes place. These are all risky ac‐
tions when they are performed on an archaeo‐
logical object of extreme fragility.
Conscious of the problems involved in the applica‐
tion of these reconstruction methods, which use
traditional materials, we are researching in ourlaboratories, a proposal that might solve the ques‐
tion of reconstruction and conform to reversib‐
ility and minimal technical diff iculty requisites.
A reversible fill‐in method: detachable films
The market offers a great deal of synthetic com‐
pounds made for industries whose activities dif‐
fer a lot from those normally carried out in thearea of cultural heritage. Conservators have gradu‐
ally been getting materials that had originally been
created for other purposes. Therefore, each new
product incorporated to our resources requires a
number of studies that make sure that is not dam‐
aging for the materials it might be in contact with,
and to judge the suitability of new ideas.
The use of detachable films in this proposal is not
new (figure 13), but it has not been sufficiently
studied to be considered a generalized practice.
In some areas of conservation, acrylic resin sheets
have been made using products such as Paraloid
B‐72, Technovit 4004A [15, 16] or slow harden‐
ing epoxies (AY 103, Araldite 2020, Hxtal NYL‐1,
Epotek 301) [17‐ 19]. These can be modeled while
they are becoming hard, in order to give them the
shape of the gap and then stick them to the piece
as if they were fragments [7, pp. 304‐306; 8, pp.
104‐106].
There are publications that have mentioned the
much less researched alternative of making de‐
tachable films with acrylic sheet precast (Perspex,
Plexiglass). Some authors define these materials
as less manageable than others and not very suit‐
able for aesthetic reasons [6, p. 161; 7, p. 304; 8,
p. 104; 20]. Although it is true that the use of
detachable films has its limitations, we have in‐
vestigated it as a proposal in relation to reversi‐
bility and minimal intervention requisites. We
have used particular materials and methods and
we outline the results we have obtained below.
There are many comparative studies for the gap‐
filling resins used for interventions on glass, for
their virtues and qualities. But we cannot f ind
contrasted analyses for different type of sheets,
results, possibilities, or the limitations in their
use, even in the cases when they are presented
as an alternative. Therefore, we have based our
Figure 13. A detachable film solution. British Museum
(London, UK).
BETLEM MARTÍNEZ, TRINIDAD PASÍES & M. AMPARO PEIRÓ
48 e‐conservation
8/6/2019 2011. Reintegración vidrio arqueológico. e-conservation
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/2011-reintegracion-vidrio-arqueologico-e-conservation 11/16
selection of the laminated products that we have
used on analyses focused on other applications
and materials within the field of conservation.
Research on the causes for glass deterioration
has found evidence of an acceleration process
related to environment acidity [21, pp 79‐80; 22].
Other objects of a different nature such as paper
and metal, share that sensibility but with some
differences concerning direct effects. We have
found detachable films of various types that have
been used, and analyzed, for application in those
specializations for more than fifty years. In our
proposal, we are putting forward incorporating
some of the results obtained in analyses origin‐
ally focused on, among other things, applications
of lamination treatment for paper or for storage
systems for metals, to the area of glass materials.
Some compounds, for instance, those derived
from polyvinyl acetate (PVA), polyvinyl chloride
(PVC) and cellulose acetate (CA), turned out tobe suitable from the aesthetic and morphologic
point of view, and for their malleability and the
fact that they are easy to handle. But they have
all been rejected because of the damage they can
cause to glass surfaces. Plasticizing elements
used in the manufacturing process are the main
agents for acid vapor emissions that make them
brittle and tacky [23, p. 15].
Eventually we considered two compounds as the
most tested and verified as harmless for our work:
polyethylene terephthalate (PET) and polypropy‐
lene (PP). PET has been used since the mid‐20 th
century and has been the object of several studies
related to the multiple applications it has had,
due to its optimal results. In the conservation
world, the use of PET is fundamentally associated
with archival work and graphic document treat‐
ment. Acceptance of this product in these fields
shows it is the most suitable amongst those we
know. This is, to a great extent, due to the absence
of plasticizing elements in its manufacturing
process which avoids later emissions because
“the semicrystalline nature is the basis for the
excellent resistance to chemicals” [24, p. 68].
We have found that PET made in an uncoated, bi‐
axially oriented, and polished form presents the
best and more secure results within the different
varieties. This is the case of Melinex, the product
we use. Melinex shape and surface does not alter
at least until 120 ºC and does not change its tacki‐
ness for forty days at 37’7º C [25, Tables 1‐2].
PP responded to tasting in a less conclusive way
than PET. Therefore, it is considered an acceptabl e
compound to be used in conservation but that
should be tested further in order to confirm the
results. It is a chemically inert material and it is
not toxic, but it is vulnerable to sun light effects.
PP is considered acceptable, provided that ismanufactured, as in the case of PET, without
plasticizing additives. PP is easy to manipulate
and to work with and can have a hazy and matt
finish, characteristics that in some cases turn
out to be an advantage for gap‐filling in archae‐
ological glass that has partly lost transparency.
We have carried out tests with these two mate‐
rials, both at the Institut Valencià de Conservació i Restauració and the Museo de Prehistoria of
Valencia. The tests concern the application of the
materials as sheets in the fill‐in process of glass
from archaeological origin. We have opted for
PET (Melinex) in the case of an islamic lamp
(figure 14). We have placed the sheet to support
a group of fragments that were poorly supported
by the base. PP (Plakene) was used for the loss
compensation of a medieval chalice that had partly
lost its transparency and that had several small
gaps (figure 15).
REVERSIBILITY AND MINIMAL INTERVENTION IN ARCHAEOLOGICAL GLASS
49e‐conservation
8/6/2019 2011. Reintegración vidrio arqueológico. e-conservation
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/2011-reintegracion-vidrio-arqueologico-e-conservation 12/16
The sheet is made without having any contact
whatsoever with the piece. This avoids excessive
manipulation. Besides, it means that we do not
have to be over concerned with the possibility of
mistakes and with the possibility of having to
repeat the process. In the first place, we should
choose the material best suited to the piece (fig‐
ure 16), and then decide about the sheet thick‐
ness (figure 17). There are different options for
each of the products: 75 to 175 microns for PET
and 300 to 1,200 microns for PP. We have also
made colour tests for these materials. It might
be interesting to colour them slightly in order to
harmonize the materials with the treated piece.
The application of a mix of pigments and Paraloid
B‐72 in ethyl acetate has been successful and we
can give the material an aesthetic finish closer to
the original if we wish to do so. This might depend
on characteristics of the piece and the differenti‐
ation criterion we choose to apply. But being a
totally reversible system, we can eliminate the
application with no complication if we decide todo so. In fact, the main advantages of these sys‐
tems are the possibility of changing and elimina‐
ting sheets and the reduction to a minimum of
the risks involved in changes.
The first step in the process of making a sheet for
gap‐filling is to obtain the gap profile. We place
a thin acetate sheet on the original piece and
faithfully mark on it the gap contour with a per‐manent marker. This acetate sheet will be used
as a pattern to cut the PET or PP sheet later as
accurately as possible; but mistakes can always
be rectified. In order to adapt the material to the
curve shape of a gap, we can heat the sheet by
Figure 14 (above). PET detachable film as a support in an
islamic lamp. Institut Valencià de Conservació i Restauració
(Valencia, Spain). Photography Pascual Mercé.
Figure 15 (above right). Chalice with PP detachable film. SIP
Archive of the Museo de Prehistoria of Valencia (Spain).
Figure 16 (right). Preparations to make detachable f ilms.
SIP Archive of the Museo de Prehistoria of Valencia (Spain).
BETLEM MARTÍNEZ, TRINIDAD PASÍES & M. AMPARO PEIRÓ
50 e‐conservation
8/6/2019 2011. Reintegración vidrio arqueológico. e-conservation
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/2011-reintegracion-vidrio-arqueologico-e-conservation 13/16
means of a hot air blower at low temperature. This
will work provided that the curvature is not toopronounced.
Once we have checked that the fitting of the sheet
is optimal, we only have to fix it in the gap, ad‐
hering the fragment to the glass walls with resin
(figures 18‐19). Following our reversible material
criterion we chose to use as adhesives Paraloid
B‐72 or Mowital B60HH at 20 %; we have obtained
excellent results with both of them.
Conclusion
Nowadays we have sufficient resources to make
reversibility and minimal intervention criteria fit
perfectly into the fill‐in process. This can be done
using materials that are harmless and stable in
the long term. Acting with this in mind does not
mean no intervention or that it is not possible to
find alternatives that combine respect for and
legibility of the piece. In our research into the
Figure 17. Selection of the PP detachable film and its colour in connection with the original. SIP Archive of the Museo de
Prehistoria of Valencia (Spain).
Figures 18 and 19. Above: Adhesion of one PP detachable film
once coloured and cut. Below: The scalpel indicates one of the
missing areas made with PP detachable film. SIP Archive of the
Museo de Prehistoria of Valencia (Spain).
REVERSIBILITY AND MINIMAL INTERVENTION IN ARCHAEOLOGICAL GLASS
51e‐conservation
8/6/2019 2011. Reintegración vidrio arqueológico. e-conservation
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/2011-reintegracion-vidrio-arqueologico-e-conservation 14/16
8/6/2019 2011. Reintegración vidrio arqueológico. e-conservation
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/2011-reintegracion-vidrio-arqueologico-e-conservation 15/16
ent PVC mould used in the process of replacing
missing pieces on hollow glass objects”, Diana 10,
Department for Preventive Conservation, National
Museum Belgrade, 2004‐2005, pp. 154‐159
[10] L. Fernández, L. Schönherr, M. Pugès, “Pro‐
ductes i tècniques per la reconstrucció de vidre
arqueològic”, Quaderns tècnics de l’MHCB: Con‐
servació i Restauració 2, 2007, pp. 63‐79
[11] B. Martínez Pla, “Restauración de alzata de
vidrio y cobre dorado perteneciente a un juego
litúrgico del Real Colegio Seminario del Corpus
Christi del Patriarca (Valencia)”, Preprints of the
17 th International Meeting on Heritage Conservation,
Fundación La Llum de les Imatges, Conselleria de
Cultura i Esport, 2008, pp. 501‐504
[12] N. Tennent, “Clear and pigmented epoxy res‐
ins for stained glass conservation: light ageing
studies”, Studies in Conservation 24(1), 1979, pp.
153‐164
[13] J. L. Down, “The Yellowing of Epoxy Resin
Adhesives: Report on High‐Intensity Light Aging”,
Studies in Conservation31(4), 1986, pp. 159‐170
[14] E. Risser, “A new technique for the casting
of missing areas in glass restoration”, Journal of
Conservation & Museum Studies 3, 1997, DOI:10.
5334/jcms.3973, URL
[15] R. F. Erret, “The repair and restoration of
glass objects”, IIC Bulletin of the American Group
12, International Institute for Conservation, 1972,
pp. 48‐49
[16] P. Jackson, “Restoration of an Italic glass
oinchoe with Technovit 4004A”, Conservator 7 ,
1983, pp. 44‐47
[17] L. Hogan, “An improved method of making
supportive resin fills for glass”, Conservation
News 50, London, 1993, pp. 29‐30
[18] D. Ling, “Conservación de vidrio hueco en el
British Museum de Londres”, Jornadas Nacionales
sobre Restauración y Conservación de Vidrios,
Fundación Centro Nacional del Vidrio, 2000, pp.
135‐143
[19] S. Davison, “Reversible fills for transparent
and translucent materials”, Journal of the Amer‐
ican Institute for Conservation 37 (1), 1998, pp.
35‐47, available at URL
[20] I. Gedye, “Pottery and glass: the conserva‐
tion of cultural property”, Museums and Monu‐
ments 11, UNESCO, Paris, 1968, pp. 109‐113
[21] L. Osete, Estudios de procesos de corrosión
de vidrio y vidriados arqueológicos y caracteriza‐
ción de sustancias filmógenas tradicionalmente
utilizadas en su restauración, Facultad de Quím‐icas, Universidad de Valencia, 2005
[22] J. M. Fernández Navarro, El vidrio, Consejo
Superior de Investigaciones Científicas, Madrid,
2003
[23] B. Cope, “Transparent plastic film materials
for document conservation”, Paper Conservation
News 93, Institute of Paper Conservation, 2000,pp. 14‐15
[24] L. Bottenbruch (ed.), Engineering Thermo‐
plastics. Polycarbonates, polyacetals, polyesters,
cellulose esters, Hanser Gardner Publications,
Munich, Vienna, New York, 1996
[25] T. O. Taylor, “The use and identif ication of
plastic packaging films for conservation”, The
Book and Paper Group Annual 4, The American In‐
stitute for Conservation, 1985, available at URL
REVERSIBILITY AND MINIMAL INTERVENTION IN ARCHAEOLOGICAL GLASS
53e‐conservation
8/6/2019 2011. Reintegración vidrio arqueológico. e-conservation
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/2011-reintegracion-vidrio-arqueologico-e-conservation 16/16
BETLEM MARTÍNEZConservator‐restorer
Contact: [email protected]
Betlem Martínez graduated from the Department of
Fine Arts, Universidad Politécnica de Valencia, spe‐
cializing in conservation in 1997. She has expanded
her knowledge through a number of courses since
1995; she has taken the Máster Oficial en Conser‐
vación y Restauración de Bienes Culturales ‐ at the
Universidad Politécnica de Valencia specializing
in archaeological materials in 2010. She has been
working in public and private projects related to
her specialization since 1998 both as part of a
private enterprise working in restoration of ar‐chaeological materials and, since 2006, at the
Conservation and Restoration Service of Diputa‐
ción de Castellón and the Institut Valencià de Con‐
servació i Restauració de Bens Culturals.
TRINIDAD PASÍESConservator‐restorer
Contact: [email protected]
Trinidad Pasíes (PhD) is a restorer at the Museo de
Prehistoria of Valencia. She graduated in Fine Arts
in 1992, specializing in restoration. Since then she
has been expanding her knowledge of archaeolo‐
gical material treatment doing research and work‐
ing at different international centres such as the
Atelier de restauration de mosaiques (France);
Opificio Delle Pietre Dure and ICCROM (Italy);
Parque de Tikal (Guatemala); Ministry of Culture
(Greece). She has directed a large number of ar‐
chaeological conservation and restoration inter‐
ventions at national level. She has been working
as a teacher since 1996. In 2007 Dr. Pasíes com‐
pleted the Máster Oficial en Conservación y Res‐
tauración de Bienes Culturales at the Universidad
Politécnica de Valencia. She has participated as a
researcher in Research, Development and Innova‐
tion projects and her work has appeared in several
national and international publications.
MARIA AMPARO PEIRÓConservator‐restorer
Contact: [email protected]
M. Amparo Peiró graduated from the Department
of Fine Arts, Universidad Politécnica de Valencia
in 1999, specializing in restoration. Since then she
has expanded her knowledge and experience inthe field by means of grants and projects in Italy.
Since 2002 her work is mostly focused on archae‐
ology. She collaborates in projects with Museo de
Prehistoria of Valencia. In 2010 she continued her
professional trainning with the Máster Oficial en
Conservación y Restauración de Bienes Culturales,
with a final project on archaeological lead. She
currently combines her work at Museo Arqueoló‐
gico of Burriana and teaching activity with various
restoration projects of archaeological material for
private and public enterprises.
BETLEM MARTÍNEZ, TRINIDAD PASÍES & M. AMPARO PEIRÓ
54 e‐conservation