Inside the Museum of London

Thanks to everyone who entered our Collections Online Caption Competition last week. We asked you to think of a witty caption for this image from our archive.

Penguins at London Zoo © Henry Grant

We had so many fantastic entries and it was a tough task for our Digital Curator, Ellie Miles to pick a winner. In the end, the winning tickets will be sent to @mindthepuddle for this brilliant caption:

“…apparently they’re called giraffes”

Look out for this week’s caption competition tomorrow…

Thanks to everyone who entered our Collections Online Caption Competition last week. We asked you to think of a witty caption for this image from our archive.

A City Shower: 18th century © Museum of London

Collections Online Project Assistant Ellie Miles judged the entries. The winning caption is:

“WHOA! I mean no… no it doesn’t look big…”

Well done to @jon_shimmin. Look out for this week’s caption competition today.

Following on from Jill Saunders’ recent blog, The main event, the closing post in the series on the conservation of the iron coffin from St Bride’s looks at fixing the final problem of supporting the coffin base. Come and see the coffin for yourself in our Doctors, Dissection and Resurrection Men exhibition opening on 19 October.

Figs. 1 & 2 An example of where the base is detached from the walls of the coffin.

Figs. 1 & 2 An example of where the base is detached from the walls of the coffin.

Our work on the coffin was nearly complete and we had stabilised a great deal of valuable material and discovered many things along the way. However, the object presented one final major problem to us in the heavy bottom sheet of the main coffin, which was only partly attached to the walls. This meant that whenever the object was lifted, the weight of this base was unsupported and pulled heavily on the attached regions. We felt this could eventually lead to the whole base falling out – which we obviously wanted to prevent. There were two main courses of actions to limit the risk of this undesirable occurrence; either we could find some way to adhere the base along the edges from which it had become detached (the suggested material was EPOPAST), or we could provide a simple base which the object would sit in (though not be permanently attached to) and upon which it could always be lifted. As is usually the case in conservation, there were interesting and worthy arguments for and against both treatment courses:

1. Adhering the base to the walls

Pros

• Could secure the base indefinitely
• Could be reversible if a release coating was applied first
• Would make the object as robust as possible in preparation for its future life of manoeuvring outside of museum conditions.

Cons

• Quite an interventive procedure, which could have issues with reversibility
• Practitioner inexperience in the proposed material raised competency issues. Limited time to complete treatment exasperated this issue
• If quite a large amount of fill/adhesion material was needed it could cause aesthetic disturbance.

2. Providing a carrying base (unattached)

Pros

• Would uphold the popular professional concept of ‘minimum intervention’
• Would support the base adequately if used properly
• Would prevent contact handling of the object.

Cons

• Could easily be separated from the object in the future or misused
• May interfere with future display requirements if secured and if unsecured the base would then be unsupported
• If secured, could cause damage where attached
• Would require further input from the technicians who we would depend upon to make it.

Unable to reach a decision, we decided that the best thing to do was to practice using the proposed material to test its manageability and properties (e.g. strength, adhesion, working time) and our ability to use it. The quantity needed would be key to our decision. We found some scrap modern iron which would provide a good test as its surface would be harder for the material to adhere to than our object. If it managed this we would be confident it could work. We had the iron cut into four pieces by our technicians so that we could test joining lacquered and un-lacquered pieces to test the release properties of the coating we had used i.e. if it had a detrimental effect on adhesion or if we would need to add more to ensure reversibility. We had to ‘double glove’ when mixing the two components of the material because of all the glass fibres it contains. The material comes in two components, one a putty and one more liquid which have to be mixed according to a specific ratio measured by weight. The hardening depends upon a reaction between the two components.

• We arranged two sets of iron sheets at c. 90° to one another with a gap in between in order to mimic the base and wall:

Fig. 3 The ‘wall’ pieces are clamped in position. The surfaces of the set on the left are unprepared and those of the right set are lacquered

• After the two components of the material had been thoroughly mixed we filled the gaps and spread out a small amount on each ‘base’ piece to provide additional test information about adherence to the untreated and lacquered surfaces:

Fig. 4 The test sets are filled with Epopast

• We were pleasantly surprised to witness the strength of the material in the morning which had both good adhesion to the surface and easily carried the weight of the attached piece. We also felt that we could use even less than we had in our experiment to secure the base, limiting the aesthetic disturbance.

Fig. 5 & 6 The Epopast has cured (hardened) and formed an effective join between the two pieces

Fig. 5 & 6 The Epopast has cured (hardened) and formed an effective join between the two pieces

We proceeded to mix up a fresh batch to use on the object, this time adding powder pigment to help the material blend in (the green colour is the natural appearance of the product). As the base and walls had now been lacquered three times we did not need to add an additional release layer. We filled along the gaps and when the material had hardened we used a stiff brush to remove any glass fibres which were sticking out. We lacquered the filled areas to seal in any remaining loose fibres and reduce aesthetic contrasted with the object but decided not to blend them in any further (using paints) as it is commonly considered mote ethical in conservation not to completely hide new material.

Fig. 7 The EPOPAST in place, filling the gap between the coffin base and walls.

By Geoffrey Harrison, artist-in-residence at St Bartholomew’s Hospital Pathology Museum and Galleries

I’ve been influenced by medicine and anatomy all my life. Both my parents were medical illustrators and my childhood was spent surrounded by specimens of one sort or another.

I’m really lucky to have been able to access the collection at St Bart’s Pathology Museum and have spent many happy hours drawing there. While it began as an important teaching resource, the museum collection is now an artifact documenting medical and pathological procedure, and also, since many of the specimens were collected locally, provides an important social record.

The series of drawings and paintings I’ve been working on is inspired by the anatomical drawings and practice of historical artists who investigated the structural support of the human body, from Leonardo Da Vinci through to Thomas Godart, (whose illustration can be seen at the Pathology Museum).

I’m really interested in the idea that an organism can be self-reflecting or self-creating and so I draw organs or body parts that connect in unexpected ways, or loop back on themselves like a Möbius strip. I happened upon the term ‘Autopoiesis’ meaning ‘self-creation’ (Greek: Auto “self”; and Poiesis “creation or production”), which seemed to really chime with some of the paradoxical intestinal loop drawings I do, and set me off looking for other things to connect up.

I’m really looking forward to running the workshop at the Museum of London late on 31 October. It’s a great way to take a light-hearted look at anatomy and art and I’m hoping to be able to talk to lots of people about my work.

Geoffrey Harrison is the Artist in Residence at St Bart’s Pathology Museum  and will be  running a Halloween card-making sessions, based on his anatomical illustrations, at the Doctors and Dissection late on Halloween at the Museum of London.

Doctors and Dissection late
Museum of London
Wednesday 31 Oct, 7-9.45pm
Book in advance £10 (concs £9, Friends FREE)
Book tickets online or via the box Office on 020 7001 9844.

For more information on Geoffrey Harrison’s work visit his website and to learn more about the St Bart’s Pathology Museum please contact Steve Moore s.moore@qmul.ac.uk or take a look online.

Following on from our recent blog post Coffin decoration & Mrs Campbell, Jill Saunders tells us more about the conservation work on the iron coffin from St Bride’s, focusing on the lacquering and consolidation of the main coffin.

Dust removal, corrosion and encrusted debris reduction and lacquering of the lid now complete, we set our sights on the more complex coffin base, which we had cleared of debris but were yet to clean. As explained in previously blog entries, this object had fragile decorative remains on outside walls as well as intricate interior extant components:

Fig. 1 An area of the preserved decoration featured on the exterior walls of the coffin, shown here at the head end.

Fig. 2 The surviving interior material remains at the foot.

Fig. 3 The surviving interior material remains at the head.

A key concern was the preservation of the external decoration (Fig.1).  As it was so fragile and vulnerable to loss, we decided that this is where we should first direct our attention. The lacquering had worked well to secure and accentuate features on the lid. But before we could add this coating material we wanted to reduce the dust, bulbous corrosion products and debris on the external surface. Though the removal of material from an object can always be viewed controversially, we felt this level of cleaning was justified to protect the integrity of the material remains and help to communicate its features to the viewing public.  Again we used a brush and object vacuum, with netting over the funnel in case of loss, and a stiff brush and Garryflex, being careful not to disturb the features, before applying the same conservation grade acrylic resin which we had used to lacquer the lid.

Fig. 4 An area of the external main coffin before coating.

Fig. 5 The same area after coating.

During this process we discovered areas of a dull, pale silver metal; the same in appearance as we had found in places on the lid (Figs. 6 & 7). This metal was a thin sheet directly on top of the iron and beneath the remains of decorative elements. We knew that wooden caskets of the time often had lead sheeting and so we conducted a chemical spot test to support this theory, which gave a positive result (Fig. 8). As previously stated in the Coffin decoration & Mrs Campbell blog post, chemical spot tests are indicative only and materials science analysis such as SEM or XRF would be needed to certify elemental information. However, the historical context and properties of available metals also strongly indicated the use of lead for this type of sheeting.

Figs. 6 & 7 Areas where lead is clearly visible on top of the iron and beneath decorative elements.

Figs. 6 & 7 Areas where lead is clearly visible on top of the iron and beneath decorative elements.

Fig. 8 Jon conducts a chemical spot test on a small sample taken from one of these areas.

After lacquering the outside we turned to the inside which, like the lid had quite a lot of dust and bulbous crusty corrosion products which we wanted to remove (Fig. 9). We covered internal features at the base and the head as well as a few fabric patches attached to the walls to protect them before following the same methodology of brushing and vacuuming, using a scalpel occasionally to reduce stubborn corrosive mounds protruding from the surface. The inside walls were now ready to be lacquered but we felt that this process could wait and wanted instead to deal with the loose and friable interior features at the head and base. Very light brushing and vacuuming provided final dust reduction, but the material was so loose we soon reached a point where we had to accept some minimal dust remains so as not to cause unacceptable material loss and damage. We decided to consolidate these regions to keep them intact and secure and we had plenty of samples of the uncontaminated materials if needed for future analysis. We used a conservation grade polyvinyl resin and applied it with pipettes so that no potentially destructive contact with the material was necessary. For example, as would have been caused by brush application.

Fig. 9 The interior walls were thick with dust and debris caught in protruding corrosion.

Fig. 10 The internal organic remains at the foot end during consolidation.

Fig. 11 An area of coated interior wall.

(N.B. most of the shine is because it is freshly applied and still wet).

Once these areas had been secured we progressed to lacquering the interior walls and the base. The majority of the object was now complete but we still needed to address the issue of the base, which in places was detached from the walls of the coffin and needed structural support.

Watch this space for the next entry covering work conducted to support the coffin base: Bottom heavy hazard.

Following on from Lacquering the lid, Jill Saunders lifts the lid on identifying the iron coffin’s late owner. Read on to find out more…

One of the exciting things about working with historic objects are the mysteries and gaps in our knowledge about an object’s life before it comes to us. For example; original appearance, its movements and different locations through time and/or any human relationships, such as craftsmanship and ownership. Such details may be discovered through historic research and material investigations and can often be very important to how we come to think about an object and approach its conservation treatment. In the case of the iron coffin we had some key questions:

• How would it have looked when newly made?

Fig. 1 Photoshop image showing decoration placement as indicated by degradation patterns

Fig. 2 19th century stamped tin coffin lace example held at the Victoria and Albert Museum

Fig. 3 Coffins often exhibit preserved border decoration such as in this crypt in Lincolnshire

Though we could discern the original location of different elements, had researched early nineteenth century coffin decoration and, thanks to SEM analysis (see Name that fibre!) had confirmed the use of certain materials,  there was still a lot of guess-work relating to original appearance.

• Was it definitely used for a burial?

Fig.4 Losses to the base seemed to correspond to the placement and decomposition of a body

Though the corrosion pattern led us to believe the coffin had been used (see Initial Investigations), we could not be positive without material evidence of human remains and/or documentation attesting use. Human remains would have been removed at the time of excavation and kept in the crypt alongside the many other skeletons homed at St. Bride’s. Further, as such an unusual object, it was plausible that it was made for display purposes only.

• If used, was it interred in the ground or placed inside a crypt chamber?

Fig. 5 A graveyard burial would have exposed the metal to conditions which could act as a catalyst to corrosion such as moisture and unfavourable pH environments

Fig. 6 Though not necessarily an 'ideal' environment for metal, containment in a crypt chamber may have protected the metal from degradation to some extent

We knew from historical research that iron coffins were very unpopular from the perspective of the church as they did not degrade like the standard wooden caskets and prevented the deterioration of the body. Many churchyards simply refused to take them. Additionally, if the coffin was used, it would have belonged to a reasonably wealthy, perhaps important individual. The iron was in excellent condition for an archaeological object. Could these three things point toward a crypt as opposed to earth burial?

• If used, whose coffin was it?!

Fig. 7 Many stored coffin plates from excavated coffins at St. Bride’s had readable inscriptions.

Fig. 8 The skeletal remains of past coffin owners are kept in the hallowed ground of the crypt

Jelena Bekvalac, Osteologist and Doctors, Dissection and Resurrection Men exhibition curator, had come across a reference to a lady laid to rest at St. Bride’s who had requested a burial which deterred grave robbers – could this be a reference to our coffin and its previous occupier?

A Breakthrough at St. Bride’s
The name of the individual who had requested protection from grave robbers was Mrs. Campbell and, chasing up a hunch about this reference, Jelena went to the St Bride’s crypt to try to find Mrs. Campbell’s coffin plate. Items such as metal coffin plates were commonly removed from coffins (usually wood and often badly degraded) and kept during graveyard excavations (Fig. 7). It was our hope that the corrosion/degradation patterns left on the coffin lid might match up to any plate pieces if they could be found. We had a major breakthrough when, in addition to Mrs. Campbell’s coffin plate, Jelena returned with a bag of decorative metallic strips which were immediately recognisable as our border motifs (Figs. 9-12).

Fig. 9 Metal strips from the St. Bride’s crypt stored as belonging to Mrs. Campbell’s coffin.

Fig. 10 A close up reveals the shiny silver surface with black deposits (suspected paint)

Fig. 11 and Fig. 12 The pattern on the discovered strips matches precisely the impressions left on our coffin.

Fig. 11 and Fig. 12 The pattern on the discovered strips matches precisely the impressions left on our coffin.

The silver colour, light weight and historical context suggested that these decorations were tin but we performed a chemical spot test to support our conjecture. Though materials science analysis such as XRF or SEM would be needed to be 100% certain of elemental diagnosis, the positive chemical test result coupled with the contextual likelihood was a satisfactory conclusion. We also performed the tests for lead and silver which were both negative. As you can see from Fig. 10 some areas were very bright and in these places the remains of black substance could be seen. It was common practice for funerary motifs to be painted black and we think that in arrears where more paint has survived the metal has been protected from degradation, making it shinier than the dulled areas where paint was lost and the metal surface has been exposed.

When painted the borders would have looked like the example shown earlier (See Fig. 2 for reference).

Mrs. Campbell’s’ coffin plate remains were precisely the right size as the impressions left on the coffin lid:

Figs 13 & 14 Photoshop images of the location of plates on the outer lid surface indicated by corrosion.

Figs 13 & 14 Photoshop images of the location of plates on the outer lid surface indicated by corrosion.

Fig 15 The location of the main plate.

Fig. 16 Mrs. Campbells’ coffin plate in place

Though such dimensions were likely to be standardised, the border and design motifs matched exactly the degradation patterns left behind, as shown here:

Fig. 17 A detail of the coffin plate moved slightly out of position to show the alignment with the degradation pattern below.

Though the plate at first glance looked to be the same material composition as the border pieces, the weight and areas of rust coloured corrosion products indicated that it was made from iron (though this would have been tinned and painted black, matching the border details in appearance).

Figs. 18 & 19 Coffin plate details showing the rust colour which indicates iron content

Figs. 18 & 19 Coffin plate details showing the rust colour which indicates iron content

Watch this space for the next entry covering the lacquering and consolidation of the main coffin: The main event

Subsequent to Jill Saunders’ recent blog post, Name that fibre!, in this entry Jill covers the application of lacquer to the lid of the iron coffin from St Bride’s.

With the corrosion reduced on the internal surface (See Keeping a lid on it) and the dust and debris removed from the outer surface and loose features secured (See Turning over a new lid), we were ready to lacquer the lid. Lacquering is seen as quite an unusual procedure in conservation, not least because of the significant aesthetic changes often caused. However, in the case of this object we felt it was important to help secure vulnerable decoration and protect the iron from future environments. The coffin and lid were in good condition, meaning there was still plenty of iron metal left ready to corrode if given half the chance! The open display conditions both in our Doctors, Dissection and Resurrection Men exhibition and in the St. Bride’s crypt, with uncontrolled humidity and temperature, were good justification for this measure.

Fig. 1 We fed the lid into the fume cupboard and used two Fumecubes to manage the harmful vapours from the solvent of the lacquer.

Note the aesthetic change. The darker region is freshly lacquered.

For the lacquering material we used a conservation grade acrylic resin in a slow-evaporating solvent which would adhere to the surface, provide a degree of flexibility to prevent cracking and surface exposure, and form a tough coating. We also added a matting agent in an attempt to prevent the object becoming too shiny, as this is considered an undesirable aesthetic effect of lacquering. We felt after the second layer that the object was on the verge of developing a shine. If it was not for its known future of repeated access, movement and open display, we probably would have left it at two. However, given this context, we decided three layers would be wise. In addition to the general darkening effect (Fig. 1), the lacquer made decorative features, such as the remains of the leather border, stand out more from the surrounding iron. We felt that this was positive as it would make these features more understandable to the viewing public (Figs. 2 & 3).

Fig. 2 The lacquer made the different decorative features stand out more from the iron background.

Fig. 3 The border decoration detail can be seen clearly

Though secured fairly well by the lacquer, some details were raised up from the surface of the iron so that they could be caught, or were vulnerable to breakage (Fig. 4). We decided to fill these areas using a syringe and highly viscous conservation grade fill material mix, coloured with powder pigments to avoid aesthetic disruption.

Fig. 4 Areas like this were filled.

Watch this space for the next entry covering the exciting identification of the coffin’s late owner: Coffin decoration & Mrs Campbell.

Following on from our recent blog post, Turning over a new lid, Jill Saunders’ latest entry reveals how scanning electron microscopy analysis helped identify the different materials, both on and inside the iron coffin from St Bride’s. Read on to find out more…

In blogs to date you may have noticed that I have often said ‘suspected leather’ regarding exterior decorative features, and have merely suggested possible identifications for material from the coffin interior such as sawdust, woodchip, straw or hay. Our socio-historical research into burial methods and coffin manufacture, together with macroscopic (with the naked eye) and low-magnification visual examinations, have allowed us to make educated guesses. However it is crucial not to take these conjectures for granted unless you can observe definitive attributes, which are often only clear under very high magnifications such as scales on hair fibres. In terms of conservation, incorrect assumptions could lead you to misunderstand all sorts of information about structure and likely condition, which obviously would hinder your ability to tailor the best possible conservation approach to the material at hand eg electing a suitable consolidant. Further, incorrect identifications could lead to misguided historical conclusions, whereas correct knowledge about materials present would be valuable information.

Fig. 1 A summary of samples taken with accompanying images

Fig. 1a Interior: Coarse textile

Fig. 1b Interior: long fibrous material, suspected straw/hay

Fig. 1c Interior: Suspected woodchip/sawdust

Fig. 1d Exterior: suspected leather exterior facing

Fig. 1e Exterior: Suspected leather border decoration

We decided to take samples from key materials (Fig. 1) and examine them with images generated through SEM (scanning electron microscopy) analysis. The organic samples were gold coated to generate clear images more easily. The tiny losses needed for a sample from an object of this size would be negligible and well worth it for the sake of generating data, which could lead to positive identifications. Additionally the coated samples on their staves have all been saved and filed, ready and available for future analysis so that theoretically more need never be taken.

Fig. 2 The mounted samples from the coffin

Fig. 3 Gold plated ready for SEM analysis

Fig. 4 The sample in the chamber at UCL

Summary: Coarse textile
The images reveal the same simple weave visible to the naked eye:

The fabric seems to be composed of two different fibres. One is animal hair, probably wool, with characteristic scales, and appears one is plant material:

They seem very much interwoven, like a coarse matting material made from fibre scraps:

Conclusions:
The material appears to be a cheaply made type of coarse matting. The presence of animal hair/wool was surprising as this could not be discerned with the naked eye and, though we knew the material was organic, we had thought it would be entirely plant based.

Summary: Suspected hay/straw
Under high magnification, the material, which had the appearance of thick hair to the naked eye, looks like rough wood chips of different types of wood.

The sample contained scraps of other material, as of yet unidentified.

This scrap on the left seems to show straw-like material matted together. The piece on the right is unidentified to date and may be from original material or be contamination.

Conclusions:
The sample appears to be a plant based coarse packing material, but more research is needed to identify some of the images captured.

Summary: Suspected leather
We took two samples in order to image the upper side and underside of the suspected leather:

Both showed protruding fibres:

Summary: Suspected leather (border)
Appears to be same material as above:

Conclusions:
The protruding fibres are characteristic of leather.

Watch this space for the next entry covering the application of lacquer to the coffin lid: Lacquering the lid.