GLASS BEAD DETERIORATION OF ETHNOGRAPHIC OBJECTS ...

GLASS BEAD DETERIORATION OF ETHNOGRAPHICOBJECTS: IDENTIFICATION, PREVENTION, ANDTREATMENTApproved:byAdam LovellJuly 18, 2006Submitted in Partial Fulfillmentof the Requirements for the Degree ofMaster of ArtsinMuseum Studiesin theSchool of Education and Liberal ArtsatJohn F. Kennedy University________________________________Department Chair_________Date1

TABLE OF CONTENTSIntroduction 1Purpose of Study 3Research Questions and Objectives 4Methodology 6Limitations 10Product Description 12Background 16History of Glass 17Glass Manufacturing 20Glass Bead Manufacturing 24Trade and Use 27Glass Disease 28Glass Bead Deterioration 31Treatment 38Museum Literature 42Conservation Literature 44Conclusion 53Findings and Conclusions 54Surveys 54Interviews 64Online Discussion Groups 79Conclusion 832

INTRODUCTIONNearly every culture around the world has used beads to decorateclothing, religious objects, and functional tools for thousands of years. Whilebeads have been made from a number of natural materials including wood,bone, shell, and stone, beads made from glass have become one of the mostpopular and colorful types in recent centuries. The indigenous people ofNorth America have been well known for their intricate and unique style ofwork with glass beads imported from Europe. However, over the years thesebeads used to decorate everyday as well as sacred objects have becomesusceptible to a devastating type of deterioration changing the appearanceand meaning of the object forever.Glass is one of many materials commonly found in museumcollections that can be potentially problematic when it comes to conservationissues. While objects such as fine historic dishes, stained glass windowpanes, and shimmering art sculptures are easily recognized and categorized asglass, American Indian moccasins, Indonesian baby carriers, and Africanceremonial masks can easily be omitted from a museum’s list of objects thatcontain glass. These ethnographic objects, and many others, contain glassbeads which are vulnerable to the same problems and concerns as morecommon glass objects—and more.1

The most common and obvious concern with glass objects isbreakage. The fragility of most glass objects prompts most museumprofessionals and volunteers to take caution when handling, storing, ordisplaying glass objects. A more serious concern that conservators recognizewith glass is the possibility of the glass becoming chemically unstable, aprocess that can eventually lead to total deterioration. The problem ofunstable glass is well researched and is discussed in publications byprofessional conservators, yet little is being done to inform the generalmuseum community about glass disease and how it relates to ethnographicbeadwork. As a result numerous cultural objects are permanently affected bythe loss and deterioration of glass beads.This master’s project focuses on glass deterioration on ethnographicobjects containing glass beads and the ways in which collectionsmanagement staff can identify, prevent, and care for these objects. The beststrategy for preserving ethnographic beadwork is to engage both conservatorsand collections staff in an open discussion of the issue. This project drawsheavily on the knowledge and expertise of the conservation community tomake practical recommendations to collections management staff on how todeal with the problem of glass bead deterioration in museum collections.2

PURPOSE OF STUDYThe purpose of this study is to bring awareness to museumprofessionals about how to identify, prevent, and care for ethnographicobjects suffering from glass bead deterioration. These objects appear inseveral different types of museums, including: history museums, artmuseums, natural history museums, tribal museums, and anthropologymuseums. I also located glass beads and beaded objects in collections at achildren’s museum, bead museums, textile museums, and a glass museum.Because of the wide range of museums that hold ethnographic beadwork, Iincluded a broad range of museums in my research. This project is intendedfor collections managers and registrars who deal with ethnographiccollections.3

RESEARCH QUESTIONS & OBJECTIVESThroughout this project I had some underlying questions and objectivesthat drove my research efforts and provided a framework for my findings andend product. I began my project by asking, what is glass disease and whatare its causes? Furthermore I wanted to know how glass disease specificallyaffects glass beads on ethnographic objects and what additional problems arepresented to the other materials on these same objects. With these technicaland scientific questions answered, I began to investigate how wide-spreadthis problem was in U.S. museums by asking how many museums had objectin this condition and what museum professionals knew about recognizing anddealing with this problem. Finally, I wanted to know what treatments andpreventive measures can be taken to deal specifically with glass beaddeterioration.In addition to the above research questions, I developed a set ofobjectives that I used to guide my efforts in this project. The first objectivewas to research the history and manufacturing process of glass beads andhow they became so popular amonf American Indian groups. With thisinformation in hand I was prepared to learn the causes and properties of glassdisease. After a thorough review of the literature and several interviews withmuseum professionals, I determined that there was a definite need to informthe museum community about glass bead deterioration on ethnographic4

objects. Finally, I wanted to make practical recommendations to collectionsmanagers and registrars about the treatment and prevention of glass beaddeterioration.5

METHODOLOGYFor this masters project I employed several different methodologies toconduct my research. The bulk of my background material was supplied byan extensive review of past and current literature in the areas of glass historyand manufacture, the production and use of glass beads, museum collectionspractices, and conservation. I also spoke with fourteen individuals aboutvarious issues related to glass bead deterioration; these individuals consistedof conservators, collections managers, registrars, and bead researchers.Finally, I conducted a survey of sixty-three U.S. museums to learn what wasknown about glass bead deterioration and how it was being dealt with bycollections staff.Literature ReviewI reviewed a number of articles and book references about theproduction of early glass and the problems with deterioration. The problemof glass disease has been known about for some time by glass manufacturersand conservators, but the association of glass disease with beadedethnographic objects has only begun to be recognized on its own. I soughtout and reviewed as many sources as I could find that specifically addressedglass bead deterioration. Many of these references were written for6

professional conservators and it was difficult to single out important details attimes. I also consulted books and manuals that dealt with current practicesand standards in the museum and conservation field.InterviewsI conducted fourteen interviews with three groups of people:professional conservators, collections managers and registrars, and beadresearchers. The conservators I interviewed were all knowledgeable aboutglass disease or ethnographic objects. Some conservators had previouslypublished or presented on these topics to the professional community. Iasked these conservators about the specifics of glass bead deterioration andhow serious the problem was in museums. Many of these professionals Ispoke with had personal stories to tell about dealing with glass disease andwhat they had done to treat and prevent the problem on beaded objects. Irelied heavily on conservators to simplify the scientific jargon that waspresent in many of the written works I reviewed for this project.The collections managers and registrars I interviewed were allcurrently employed in a museum with collections that housed ethnographicobjects with glass beads—mostly American Indian beadwork. I asked thesemuseum professionals about what they knew about glass bead deteriorationand how they dealt with the issue in their museum. These interviews proved7

particularly helpful in discovering the relationship and effectiveness ofcommunication between conservators and collections staff. As with theconservators, the collections managers I interviewed related personal storiesabout glass bead deterioration and how they dealt with the issues. Theseparticular stories provide the strongest evidence of the misunderstanding ofhow glass disease develops on ethnographic beadwork and how it should bedealt with. I also conducted five interviews with individuals who providedinsight into cultural issues surrounding glass bead deterioration onethnographic objects.The next group of interviewees I am classifying as bead researchers.These individuals range from passionate enthusiasts to authors and curators atbead museums and are knowledgeable in areas of bead manufacture and use.The information obtained in these interviews was used mostly forbackground information and in gathering references; however, I did obtainsome insightful personal stories relating to glass bead deterioration.Lastly, I searched three separate online discussion groups for poststhat relate to glass bead deterioration. I uncovered several such posts and theresponses by other members of the group. The questions asked in thesediscussion groups showed how professionals today seek to find quicksolutions to problems in their museum collections and also showed howunreliable online postings can be. The answers provided online by peers arefrequently brief and sometimes grossly inaccurate.8

SurveysAs part of this project, I mailed surveys to 170 U.S. museums askingquestions about glass bead deterioration in April of 2005. Of these 170,sixty-three, or thirty-seven percent, were returned. In order to targetmuseums that most likely had beaded objects in their collection, I selectedmuseums from a broad range of disciplines, size, and geographic location.These included history museums, natural history museums, art museums, andtribal museums. During the early stages of my research I discovered threebead museums in the U.S. and decided to include these museums in mysurvey.9

LIMITATIONSMy research on the topic of glass bead deterioration on ethnographicobjects was limited by several factors. My greatest limitation was not being aprofessional conservator. My background in history and the arts left mepoorly prepared to tackle an issue with such a strong scientific base inchemistry and physics. As a result I relied heavily on conservators andmembers of the scientific community to translate many of the technical andscientific terms into layman’s terms so that I could understand the processesbeing discussed. Nevertheless, there are still concepts and properties that Imay never fully understand on the same level as a conservator or chemist.Glass disease in general has been well studied and known about in theconservation community for some time. This project is not a regeneration ofglass conservation research, but is a review of the literature available todayand how it applies specifically to glass bead deterioration.Aside from knowledge limitations, my research was bound by myavailability of time and money. Additional surveys, a more complete reviewof the literature, site visits, and actual experimentation with treatment optionswere not possible due to the added time and money needed to complete suchtasks. While I believe that my research has been thorough and accurate, Ibelieve that more research and information would have produced a similarconclusion with a somewhat stronger argument.10

My recommendations for recognizing, preventing, and treating glassbead deterioration are directed toward collections managers and registrars,not professional conservators. Since collections staff are usually the first lineof defense in preventive conservation, it is imperative that they have theproper knowledge and skills to handle a variety of situations. Myrecommendations and product are meant only as guidelines for collectionsstaff and not as definitive solutions for preventing or stopping glass beaddeterioration.11

PRODUCT DESCRIPTIONThe final product for this master’s project is an informational web siteabout glass bead deterioration. My research finding for this project show thatin the age of “Google” people first look to the internet for quick and easyanswers to questions about collections issues. My research specificallyreveals several posts in online discussion groups about how to deal withcleaning and other problems with ethnographic beadwork. The answers tothese questions are brief at best and sometimes inaccurate. For this reason Ihave produced a web site with information and resources about how to dealwith glass bead deterioration. This web site is available to museum staffwhen searching for keywords and topics relating to beadwork conservationon the web. The medium of a web site also allows for continuous updating ofinformation and images as well as there being no cost to view theinformation. The web site can be accessed at http://bead-disease.122mb.comor at http://bead-disease.com.The web page is composed of five main parts: an introduction, historyof glass beads, overview of glass disease, glass bead deterioration, andresources. The introduction briefly outlines the remaining four sections andexplains how the web site came about. A menu bar placed on the left handside of the screen remains visible on every page, allowing users to quicklyjump to any of the five main sections of the site.12

The history section of the web site contains four separate pages:history, glass making, bead manufacturing, and trade and use. The story ofglass bead production is essential to understanding how and why glass fromcertain time periods is more susceptible to becoming unstable in the future.A short overview of the materials and processes used in making glassprepares the reader to understand the deterioration process. The finalmanufacturing process is what makes glass beads different from other glassobjects, for that reason the techniques and processes of finalizing glass intobeads is discussed. The last page in the history section is trade and use. Thissection discusses the introduction of beads to North America and the multipleuses of beads by American Indian people for centuries.The second section of the web site describes the problem of glassdisease in general. This section has the largest amount of scientific terms andcontains a link to a glossary of terms used throughout the site. Theinformation about how glass disease develops is essential to understandinghow the condition works specifically with glass beads.The third section is the most important part of the web site. Thissections deals directly with glass bead deterioration on ethnographic objects.This section has three parts: symptoms and stages, prevention, and treatment.The first part, symptoms and stages, describes the various physical aspectsseen on the beads at each stage of the deterioration process. The full colorphotos clearly illustrate each stage—a characteristic that is lacking in many13

publications about bead deterioration. The photos and text are the tools thatcollections managers need to identify glass disease on beaded objects.The other two parts of the glass bead deterioration section discussprevention measures and treatment options. This is where the reader will findthe most practical information about dealing with glass bead deterioration.The preventive measures are suggestions and actual practices thatconservators and collections managers use to effectively slow or prevent theaffects of glass disease on ethnographic beadwork. Treatment options arefew, but they are listed to inform the reader about the available options. Awarning is included at the bottom of this page about consulting a professionalconservator before attempting any cleaning or treatment on an object.The fifth and final section of this web site is a list of resources forfurther research and help. The full bibliography of this master’s thesis iscontained in the section. Also included is a list of museums withconservators from across the country that specialize in ethnographic objectsand glass conservation. Finally there is a link to send an email to me forquestions or comments about the web site.One of the advantages of a web site over a printed medium is that theinformation can be changed or updated with ease. This site will bemaintained to the best of my ability and updated with new resources andphotos when available. When posters to online discussion groups ask14

questions in the future about glass bead conservation, the web address can begiven instead of a brief and general response by another group member.15

BACKGROUNDSome of the most beautiful and recognizable objects from AmericanIndian culture have been decorated with a multitude of brightly colored glassbeads. These beads were manufactured in Europe and obtained through tradebeginning more than five centuries ago. Poor glass manufacturing practicesand unfavorable environmental conditions have caused some of these glassbeads to deteriorate over time. In most cases only one type of bead or glasscolor has deteriorated on a single object. In the most severe cases, thedeterioration can leave a blank space in the beadwork design. When thedeterioration reaches this point it has not only caused physical damage to theobject, but it has also affected the meaning and interpretation intended by theartist.All glass objects, including glass beads, have the potential to succumbto deterioration under the right conditions. Once the deterioration processhas started it is impossible to reverse and difficult to stop. Proper storage,display, and environmental monitoring can prevent or lessen the deteriorationprocess and preserve the magnificent beadwork tradition of native NorthAmerica.The root of the problem with deteriorating beadwork lies in themanufacturing process of the glass beads themselves. While any glass objectcan deteriorate under certain conditions, beads were often made from poor16

quality glass in order to save time and money. Once the beads are made theyare transported, traded or sold, and then used by American Indian people toembellish both sacred and secular objects. The materials and techniques usedin beadwork bring an added level of conservation concern to beaded objects.Trade cloth, thread, and tanned animal skins react with the deteriorating glassand create problems unique only to glass beads. To fully understand thedeterioration process, we must first look at the manufacturing process thatproduced glass beads and the history of the glass industry in Europe.History of GlassIt has been commonly accepted by scholars that glass was firstdiscovered around 1700 BC in the Middle East. Most likely fire pits weredug in sandy areas and the immense heat from the fire accidentally melted thesand. As a result the silica in the sand—the main ingredient for makingglass—cooled to form a hard, glossy mass that held its shape. After centuriesof experimentation, various cultures throughout the Mediterranean region,including the Egyptians, learned to control and form molten glass to producea variety of colors and shapes. These talented people created functional glasscontainers as well as decorative art and adornment pieces. Primitiveglassworks were reserved for the wealthy and powerful elite class. Toprevent lower classes from gaining access to these highly sought after items,17

only a select group of individuals possessed the secrets to the manufacturingprocesses of early glass, and great care was taken to preserve and protectthese secrets. 1The most influential breakthrough in the history of glass makingtechnology occurred in Syria around 200 BC. Craftsmen in this regiondiscovered that a lump of molten glass placed on the end of a metal pipecould be blown into a bubble and manipulated to form an infinite number ofshapes and sizes. This process—known as glass blowing—allowedglassmakers to mass produce objects of identical size and shape. Theinvention of glassblowing has been the single most important discovery in thehistory of glass making. 2During the thirteenth century A.D., the Islamic and ByzantineEmpires of the Near East were developing stained, enameled, and coloredglass. Italian craftsmen learned this art form through their extensive tradecolonies in the Eastern Mediterranean and brought the knowledge back to thecoastal city of Venice. Venetian glassmakers quickly excelled in theproduction of a variety of glass goods, including bottles, containers,sculptures, and beads. The public’s reception to the introduction of glass insouthern Europe was not unlike that of the earlier Egyptians. Glassmakers1 Rosa Baravier Mentasti, ed, et al, Glass Throughout Time: History and Technique ofGlassmaking from the Ancient World to the Present (New York: Martin Press, 2003) 38-41;Sandra Davison, Conservation and Restoration of Glass (Oxford: Butterworth Heinemann,2003) 87.2 Mentasti, 38-44.18

were regarded as the most skilled and talented of the craftsmen. The Italianglassmakers set high standards of manufacturing to ensure that theirglassworks were of superior quality. Their insistence on perfection made thefinished products become some of the most expensive commodities inEurope. 3 In 1292, the entire Venetian glass making industry was relocated tothe nearby island of Murano. This move was a two-fold strategy to protectthe secrecy of the advanced Venetian glass technology from spreading toother countries as well as to buffer the mainland from the constant threat offire that could easily escape the immense furnaces. Once relocated toMurano, glassmakers and their families were forbidden, by penalty ofimprisonment or even death, to share their trade secrets with craftsmen inother countries. Although glass manufacturing was active throughoutEurope, Venice held the monopoly on glass. 4Venice remained the powerhouse in glassmaking for nearly 300 years.By the sixteenth century, information and trade secrets slowly leaked fromVenice as the power and control of the local government declined. France,Britain, Germany, and Bohemia—now the Czech Republic—began toproduce glass at and above the quality of Venice. With glass factories nowspread throughout Europe, trade schools and craftsmen’s guilds began to3 Carl L. Gable, Murano Magic: Complete Guide to Venetian Glass, its History and Artists(Atglen, PA: Schiffer, 2004), 80.4 Ibid., 83.19

form allowing young apprentices a place to go and learn the once secretformulas and techniques of fine glassmaking. Many of these artists whobegan working in the Northern region of Bohemia, between the German andPolish borders, specialized in the production of glass beads. 5Glass ManufacturingGlass manufacturing is a complicated and precise art requirespatience, skill, and knowledge. The essential ingredient for making glass issilicon dioxide (SiO 2 ), or silica, obtained from sand. While nearly half of theearth’s surface is covered with silicon dioxide sand, only a few select areashave the purity needed to produce high quality glass. The finest sand formaking glass is found naturally throughout the South Pacific region. Sandfrom most other areas must be processed and refined to remove elements andimpurities that can cause structural flaws and discoloration in the glass. 6To make glass, silicon dioxide is melted at a very high temperature ofmore than 1700 degrees Celsius. The molten glass is then formed into adesired shape and finally cooled to produce the finished product. Themelting temperature, however, can be lowered by the introduction of fluxes.Fluxes are elements that mix with the silicon dioxide allowing the particles tomove easier and liquefy at a lower temperature, thus requiring less fuel to5 Mentasti, 112-113.6 Ibid., 12-34; Davison, 73.20

heat the furnace. While several fluxes are known to be used, sodiumcarbonate (Na 2 CO 3 ) and potassium carbonate (K 2 CO 3 ) are the two mostcommonly used when making glass beads. During the melting process, theflux releases carbon dioxide gas from the glass mixture leaving sodium oxideor potassium oxide in the glass. Sodium carbonate and potassiumcarbonate—commonly known as soda ash and potash—are easily andinexpensively obtained from plant ashes. 7The desired finished glass product determines the chemical formulafor the glass mixture. Most glass objects require a stabilizer to producechemical or physical properties essential to the function of the glass, such asincreased hardness or resistance to chemicals or extreme temperatures. Thesestabilizers are commonly found in the form of oxides derived from metalssuch as aluminum, zinc, magnesium, and lead—used in the production oflead crystal. The glass most commonly used for making beads containscalcium carbonate (CaCO 3 ) to improve hardness and chemical resistance. Aswith fluxes carbon dioxide is released from the mixture during the meltingprocess, leaving calcium oxide (CaO) in the glass. Calcium carbonate, alsoknown as lime, is found naturally in limestone, marble, and chalk. Glassmade using lime as a stabilizer and soda ash as the primary flux is called7 Davison, 73.21

soda-lime glass, and is the most common type of glass used for makingbeads. 8 The single most important factor for beads is color. Glass can becolored by adding oxides of pure chemical elements such as copper,chromium, manganese, iron, cobalt, nickel, vanadium, titanium, and evenuranium. 9Coloring formulas are among the most highly kept secrets, as thesame element in different glass mixtures or different oxides of the same metalcan produce different colors. Occasionally, materials containing fluorine,such as fluorspar and certain phosphates, are added to produce smallcrystalline particles in the glass. These crystals give the finished piece acloudy or milky appearance commonly known as lattimo or milk glass. 10The final ingredient that is often added to a glass mixture is small bitsof ground glass called cullet. Cullet is typically made up of pieces of brokenor discarded glass. Glass factories always save their cullet for use in futuremixtures. The cullet acts as a fluxing agent, helping the silicon dioxide meltfaster. Color can also be added by introducing cullet of colored glass.Coloring with cullet typically produces a translucent glass opposed to anopaque glass. Adding cullet to the mixture strengthens the glass as well asconserves costly raw materials. 118 Ibid., 73-75.9 Donna Strahan, “Uranium in Glass, Glazes, and Enamels: History, Identification, andHandling,” IIC Studies in Conservation,2001, 46, 181.10 Gable, 31.11 Mentasti, 16.22

Gathering the raw materials to make glass is only the first step toproducing a finished piece. The materials must be ground to a powder orgranular form and free of any impurities in order to ensure consistency andprevent undesired results. Often times it is difficult to determine the exactcolor and appearance of the glass until after it is cooled.The ingredients areadded at various stages of the melting process when the ideal temperature isreached. Ingredients must also be mixed in precise proportions to make glasswith the necessary physical and chemical properties. A typical soda-limeglass formula would be approximately seventy-four percent sand, sixteenpercent soda ash, five percent lime, one-half percent potash, three percentmagnesium, and one percent aluminum. 12Once the glass mixture has reached its molten form, it can be formedinto an infinite number of sizes and shapes. Glass blowing is the mostcommon technique used to form objects out of molten glass. This techniqueemploys the use of a tool known as a canna de soffio, or blowpipe. Theglassmaker gathers a clump of molten glass mixture at one end of theblowpipe. Air is blown through the pipe creating a bubble in the glass. Thisbubble can be blown into a mold or hand worked to form a custom shape.Modern glass objects are blown by machines making it possible for12 Ibid., 19.23

thousands of glass pieces to be produced with incredible accuracy andconsistency. 13When the molten glass has reached its finished form, the glass ishardened by allowing it to cool. Glass must be cooled at a slow rate toreduce strain and prevent breakage. The process of controlled cooling overan extended period of time is known as annealing. Thicker glass objectsrequire longer annealing times to ensure consistent temperature on thesurface as well as the interior of the glass. 14Glass Bead ManufacturingSome of the earliest glass objects produced in the factories at Veniceand Murano were glass beads. As the popularity of the Roman CatholicChurch spread throughout Europe, the increased demand for prayer beads andRosaries drove the glass bead industry into mass production. 15The globalexplorations beginning in the fifteenth century resulted in an additional outletfor glass beads as trade items with natives from Africa, the Far East, and theNew World—North America. Beads were among the simplest glass objectsmanufactured in the Murano factories because they had minimal functionalspecifications and some level of inconsistency and error was overlooked.13 Gable, 45-48.14 Ibid., 48; Mentasti, 33-35.15 Lois Sherr Dubin, History of Beads: From 30,000 BC to the Present (New York: AbramsPublishing, 1995), 31.24

Glass beads were not expected to withstand extreme temperatures nor werethey expected to undergo unusual levels of stress. The only necessaryfunctional aspect of beads was to have a hole and retain a vibrant color. Forthese reasons the glass making standards and quality for making beads wasnot as good as other glass objects. Glass mixtures were often made with anunusually large percentage of flux to reduce the overall melting temperatureand conserving valuable furnace fuel. 16Beads are made in a wide variety of sizes, shapes, finishes, andcolors. Modern technology and machinery has only increased the range ofpossibilities for making glass beads. Beads are generally grouped into twomajor categories based on their method of manufacture: drawn beads andwound beads. Drawn beads comprise the types commonly known as seedbeads, pony or pound beads, basket beads, tile beads, and chevrons. Mellonbeads, mulberry beads, eye beads, and most other fancy beads are all madeusing the wound technique. 17Drawn beads are made with the glass blowing process describedabove. Once the molten glass mixture is blown into a bubble, the blowpipe isplugged and a metal rod is attached to the opposite end of the bubble. Therod and blowpipe are immediately passed on to two runners who stretch thebubble into a long hollow tube up to 300 feet long. The air inside the bubble16 Ibid., 39, 93, 98; Peter Francis, Jr., Beads of the World (Atglen, PA: Schiffer, 1999), 54.17 Mary Elizabeth Good, “Glass Bead Manufacturing Techniques,” in Beads: Their Use ByUpper Great Lakes Indians (Grand Rapids: Michigan Indian Press, 1977), 29; Dubin, 93.25

etains its pressure to keep the glass tube from collapsing on itself and closingthe hole. The walls of the glass are very thin, so little to no annealing isneeded to cool the glass. The long tube is then cut into shorter tubes andgrouped by size. The short tubes are then scored and cut into uniform sizedpieces. Additional heating and polishing rounds off the rough edgesproducing uniform sized glass beads. 18Several variations are possible when making drawn beads. If theglass bubble is pressed onto a flat surface on several sides, the flat edges willstretch when the glass is drawn creating square or faceted beads. Beforebeing drawn the bubble can be dipped into another color of glass resulting ina bead with a different colored center. Opaque white glass is frequently usedfor these types of beads, commonly referred to as “white hearts.” In someoccasions the finished beads undergo an additional polishing or grindingprocess to produce fancy finishes or flat edges known as cuts. 19Unlike mass produced drawn beads, wound beads are made one at atime by wrapping molten glass cane around a metal rod called a mandrel.The glass cane is similar to drawn glass used for making beads except theglass is not blown so it forms a solid cane opposed to a hollow tube. Thecane is melted by a torch-like instrument and is removed from the glassquickly to allow the bead to cool and take shape. Color variations andpatterns are added by introducing different colored canes to the bead. When18 Good, 29-30; Francis, 56-57.19 Good, 30.26

finished the hole is created as the mandrel is removed from the bead. Inaddition to color and design variations in wound beads, shapes are created bypressing the semi-ductile glass into a mold or by rolling it across a flat slabwith the design carved in relief. 20Trade and UseBeads quickly became a highly prized trade commodity as Europeanexplorers began to penetrate the African and North American continents andthe islands of the South Pacific starting in the fifteenth century. Glass beadsgradually replaced many of the decorative arts practiced by the native peoplein these areas. Large beads were strung as necklaces and used as fringe onlarge objects, while the smaller seed beads were sewn onto tanned animalskin and trade cloth or woven into intricate bands. A variety of cordagematerials were used to string beads of all sizes, including leather, plant fiber,sinew, and commercially spun cotton and linen thread obtained throughtrade. 21 American Indians adapted techniques of earlier porcupine quillworkor fiber weaving into their beadwork tradition. Many of the design elementsremained the same in both native fiber arts and beadwork; although, the20 Ibid., 30-32; Francis, 54-56.21 Janet Coles, Beads: An Exploration of Bead Traditions Around the World (New York:Simon and Schuster, 1997), 108-129.27

increased availability of beads augmented the color palette for many tribes.Beadwork quickly became the dominant art form for most of native NorthAmerica. 22A unique tradition of beadwork began as women created craftingsocieties and established distinct tribal styles to identify their work.Everyday objects, as well as sacred or ceremonial objects, were decoratedwith beads. Each color and design was carefully and meaningfully chosen bythe artist for a specific reason. 23Some of these objects have existed for morethan 200 years and have started to show signs of deterioration. Once theaffected beads have totally disintegrated the intended appearance andmeaning of the object has been changed forever. 24Glass DiseaseMost glass objects remain relatively stable for hundreds of years;however, some problems exist in certain types of glass rendering an objectchemically unstable. Conservators and chemists have researched thisproblem and in true conservation fashion have coined the term “glassdisease” to refer to this condition. Essentially, glass disease is caused bypoor or inconsistent manufacturing techniques—specifically the ratio of flux22 William C. Orchard, The Techniques of Porcupine Quill Decoration Among the Indians ofNorth America (Liberty, UT: Eagle View Publishing, 1984), 3-5; Carrie A. Lyford, Quill andBeadwork of the Western Sioux (Boulder, CO: Johnson Publishing, 1994), 52-60.23 Alyce Sadongei, telephone interview with author, May 22, 2006.24 David W. Penney, Art of the American Indian Frontier: The Chandler-Pohrt Collection(Seattle: University of Washington Press, 1992), 29-31.28

and stabilizer in the glass. The visible symptoms of glass disease areweeping or sweating, cloudy appearance, white powdery substance on thesurface, small cracks or crizzling, and breakage. Other symptoms, such astiny cracks and fissures, are visible only with the aid of a microscope or otherinstruments. Aside from assessing visual symptoms, certain tests measuringacidity and chemical composition can be performed to determine if an objectis in fact suffering from glass disease. 25Glass disease occurs when alkaline salts in the glass are drawn to thesurface by water or humidity. These alkaline salts are mostly composed ofsodium and potassium, common fluxing agents in glass. These alkaline saltsare drawn to the surface by hydrogen ions in water causing them to fluoresce.The solution that comes to the surface during this process is a mixture ofsodium hydroxide and potassium hydroxide which can be seen on the surfaceof the glass in the form of moisture spots, commonly referred to as weepingor sweating. Once this alkaline hydroxide solution is exposed to the dryoutside air the sodium and potassium crystallize in low humidity creatingwhite powdery substances known as sodium carbonate and potassiumcarbonate. These alkaline carbonates usually have a high pH of nine or ten. 26The alkaline environment attracts more moisture causing the glass25 Sandra Lougheed, “Deteriorating Glass Beads on Ethnographic Objects: Symptoms andConservation,” in The Proceedings of the Care and Prevention of Ethnographic Materials,ed. R. Barclay, et al. (Ottawa: Canadian Conservation Institute, 1987), 109-110.26 The pH scale (potential of hydrogen) measures the acidity of a substance. A low pH ofzero to six means a substance is an acid, while a high pH of eight to fourteen is a base.Solutions with a pH of seven are neutral.29

deterioration process to escalate. 27 The scientific and conservationcommunities refer to this process of deterioration by several terms, such as:de-alkinization, leaching, alkali-deficient, silica-rich, hydrogen glass, or thegel layer. 28As more and more alkaline salts are removed from the glass, smallpores form on the surface. These pores increase the surface area allowing formore moisture to come in contact with the glass. Over time the pores growand form tiny cracks. Small networks of cracks are known as crizzling.Eventually, the crizzling leads to larger cracks making objects brittle. Inextreme situations the glass becomes so cracked that the object can break oreven shatter. 29As stated above, the factor that is most damaging to unstable glass iswater, especially in the form of relative humidity. Consistently low humiditylevels will stabilize the glass preventing further deterioration. Consistentlyhigh or fluctuating humidity levels will continue to cause the alkaline salts tosurface and continue the deterioration process. For this reason conservators27 Susan M. Bradley, Do Objects have a Finite Lifetime, in Care of Collection, (London:Routledge, 1994), 55-56 states that glass that contains lead has been shown to prevent theintroduction of moisture and stabilize glass objects thus preventing deterioration; Davison,175.28 Davison, 174-17529 Robert Brill, “Crizzling—A Problem in Glass Conservation,” Conservation ofArchaeology and the Applied Arts, International Institute for Conservation 1975, 121-131.30

ecommend low humidity levels of forty to forty-five percent RH as the bestenvironment to prevent glass disease. 30Glass Bead DeteriorationNot all glass beads suffer from glass disease; in fact very few beadscurrently show signs of deterioration. However, beads can be moresusceptible to glass disease due to the nature of their manufacture. Beads areamong the smallest and most mass produced glass objects manufactured inEurope. Beads have the simple purpose of being aesthetically pleasing; theyare not subject to extreme temperatures and high levels of stress like othermore functional glass objects. For this reason beads are made from glasswith an incredibly large amount of flux—sodium and potassium—to lowerthe melting temperature and reduce the amount of costly fuel needed to heatthe furnace. The unusually large amount of alkaline metals used in the glassgreatly increases the possibility of glass disease occurring in the future. 31Chemical analysis of glass beads shows a flux to silica ratio as high as oneto-one.To correct this problem of instability calcium oxide is frequentlyadded to stabilize the glass. Calcium oxide is commonly found in the form oflime or chalk which gives the beads a white or opaque appearance. To obtain30 A.E. Werner, “The Care of Glass in Museums,” Museum News Technical Supplement,June 1966, 13, 45-47.31 Lougheed, 109.31

certain colors or transparent affects to the beads, calcium oxide isoccasionally excluded from the glass mixture, thus making these bead colorsmore susceptible to glass disease. 32Although the deterioration process is the same in all glass, glassdisease develops in a unique way on beaded objects. Most glass objects arecomprised of only glass, such as bottles, stemware, sculptures, andwindowpanes. American Indian beadwork consists of glass beads along withvarious cordage materials and support fabric such as leather or cloth. It isalso not uncommon for natural pigments or plant particles to be present on abeaded object for ceremonial purposes. All these elements create addeddifficulties when dealing with glass bead deterioration on ethnographicobjects. 33The early signs of glass bead deterioration occur during the sweatingor weeping stage of glass disease. The alkaline solution that surfaces on thebeads is sticky and attracts dirt and dust. This clear solution may be difficultto recognize on small beads suffering from glass disease, but they will oftenhave a dirty or grimy build-up not present on nearby stable beads containedon the same object. 34When the early stage of sweating or weeping occurs in beads attachedto animal hide, an additional chemical reaction can take place. The alkaline32 Davison, 118, 177.33 Ann Howard-Krahn, “Conservation: Beadwork,” American Indian Art Magazine, 1986,11(4), 24-29.34 Lougheed, 110.32

solution reacts with fatty material in the leather creating an oil or soapyresidue. This process is known as saponification. The first record of thiscondition is by June Hosford, objects conservator at the South AfricanMuseum of Natural History. Hosford reported this unique reaction on aNdebele—African—beaded apron. 35She observed that the soapy mixtureattracts high amounts of dust and dirt that can spread to adjacent beads.Saponification is observed on a wide range of beaded objects from culturesaround the world with different bead types, animal skin species, and tanningmethods. To date there is no explanation as to why saponification occurs onsome beaded objects suffering from glass disease and not on others. 36The next stage of glass bead deterioration occurs when the sweatingor weeping alkaline solution crystallizes on the surface forming a whitepowdery substance. This powdery material is composed of sodium carbonateand potassium carbonate. When the alkaline hydroxide solutions, formedduring the sweating or weeping stage, is introduced into a dry or lowhumidity environment it dries and turns into an alkaline carbonate solution.The alkaline carbonate attracts moisture to the glass surface causing moresweating or weeping and the deterioration process accelerates. The alkalinecarbonate solutions can weaken or break the threading material in the35 Julia Fenn, “Deterioration of Glass Trade Beads in Contact with Skin and Leather,” in 8 thTriennial Meeting ICOM Committee for Conservation Sydney, Australia 6-11 September,1987, (Los Angeles: The Getty Conservation Institute, 1987), 195-197.36 Ibid.33

eadwork. The substrate, or supporting fabric to which the beads areattached, can also be affected by this process. 37Sandra Lougheed identifies two unique visual signs of glass beaddeterioration on ethnographic objects: bleached image on cloth and darkeningof leather. Both of these conditions refer to the substrate material to whichthe beads are attached. Bleached image refers to a white or ghost image ofthe beads on dark wool, cotton, or silk cloth. The image is the result of thepowdery alkaline carbonate rubbing off of the beads onto the substratematerial. A similar condition occurs when affected beads are in directcontact with leather. Alkaline hydroxide from the glass is absorbed by theleather causing dark discolored areas. Bleached image and darkening ofleather are both glass disease symptoms but on their own can indicate otherproblems as well. 38As more sodium and potassium migrate to the glass surface, the beadsbecome more fragile and unstable. The next stage of the deteriorationprocess is marked by an intricate network of tiny cracks on the surface knownas crazing or crizzling. Crizzling is often difficult to recognize, especially onopaque beads, yet microscopic examination reveals the symptoms quiteclearly. In transparent and translucent beads, crizzling often produces a dullfinish or opaque appearance. 3937 Lougheed, 111-112.38 Ibid., 111.39 Brill, 121-131.34

Glass bead deterioration most often occurs on the surface and worksinward. In rare occasions interior cracks or cracks radiating from thethreading hole appear on glass beads. Ann Frisina, Textile Conservator at theMinnesota Historical Society, suggests that moisture can travel through thethreading material like a wick to start the deterioration process from the holeof the bead rather than the exterior surface. 40Interior cracks, or cracks thatform within the walls of the bead, are frequently the result of improperannealing when the glass is cooled, incorrect proportions of raw materials, orpoor mixing of the molten glass. 41Internal cracks are very difficult toidentify, even with a powerful microscope. One was to identify internalcracks is to look for color change during light scattering tests. 42The final and most severe stage of glass bead deterioration results inbroken and missing beads. Crizzling and cracking continue until the bead isso weak and so much of the sodium and potassium have been removed fromthe glass that it simply falls apart. This stage of glass disease on beads isrelatively easy to recognize as bead fragments may be present on the objector on storage and display lining near the object. A key characteristic ofaffected beads in this stage is for only one type or color of bead to be missingwhen surrounding beads remain intact. Beads broken or missing from the40 Ann Frisina, “Glass Beads,” in Caring for American Indian Objects: A Practical andCultural Guide, ed. Sherelyn Ogden (St. Paul: Minnesota Historical Society Press, 2004),137-138.41 Lougheed, 111.42 Ibid.35

deterioration process often create an area that is void of a particular color inthe overall design scheme. Deterioration should not be confused with beadsmissing as a result of broken threading material, which can cause all beadtypes and colors in a particular area to fall off. When threading materialbreaks whole beads will fall from the object as opposed to bead fragmentsdue to deterioration. When glass disease is the cause of missing or brokenbeads, it is common for the threading material to remain in place after thebeads have deteriorated. Glass disease can cause threading material tobecome weak and break allowing non-affected beads to fall off, but this isuncommon and should not be considered as a symptom of deterioration 43In rare occasions the visual symptoms of glass bead deterioration aremistaken for other problems in ethnographic beadwork. A form of whiteclay, called kaolin, is commonly used by American Indian people to cleanwhite buckskin decorated with glass beads. Over time kaolin becomespowdery and may transfer to the surface of the beads creating a whitepowdery substance similar in appearance to the efflorescence of alkalinecarbonates. When kaolin residue is present glass disease can usually be ruledout when the white powdery substance appears on all beads in a given area asopposed to only one color or type of bead. 44A simple pH test will also43 Ibid., 110.44 Scott Carrol and Kelly McHugh, “Material Characterization of Glass Disease on BeadedEthnographic Artifacts from the Collection of the National Museum of the AmericanIndian,” in Ethnographic Beadwork: Aspects of Manufacture, Use, and Conservation, ed.Margot M. Wright (London: Archetype Publications Ltd, 2001), 34-35.36

determine if a powdery substance is in fact glass disease as kaolin is a mildacid while alkaline carbonate is a base.It is commonly known among bead researchers and others that certaincolors of beads—namely blues, reds, and black—tend to be more susceptibleto glass disease. One researcher in Florida described a milky-blue beadreferred to by local artisans as “bursting blue” because of its tendency todeteriorate on historic objects. 45Other researchers have called the same color“pony trader blue” in reference to the early European-American traders whotransported goods by pony pack trains. The overwhelming occurrence of thisspecific color to deteriorate has caused many museum professionals andresearchers to look for answers to the deterioration problem in the coloringelements of the glass. It is possible that to obtain bead colors such as“bursting blue” the glass formula may have required high amounts of fluxand low amounts of stabilizer, but in general the coloring elements have notbeen directly responsible for deterioration.Visual examination of beaded objects is the easiest and most efficientway of identifying glass bead deterioration in a large collection. Professionalconservators use chemical tests and precise scientific equipment to examinebeads and accurately determine whether or not an object is suffering fromglass disease. Some tests allow an object to completely remain intact duringtesting while others require samples of crystals or broken beads from the45 Jason Wolz, personal conversations with author, Indiana University, Bloomington, August2, 2002.37

object in order to be analyzed in a laboratory. Carbonates, chlorides, oils,and specific metals are detected by tests using only small sample sizes.Beads are also subjected to scanning electron microscopy and electron beamx-ray micro-analysis to positively identify the presence of potassiumcarbonate on deteriorating beads. 46While these tests are accurate andthorough, the high costs of materials, equipment, and time do not prove to bemuch more effective than visual diagnosis when identifying glass beaddeterioration. 47TreatmentConservators experiment with a variety of preventive conservationmethods and treatments to control and counter the effects of glass disease onbeaded objects. Preventive measures deal mostly with safe cleaning andstrict control of environmental conditions in storage and exhibit spaces.Current treatment options are confined to the application of consolidants andcoatings. Once glass beads have started to deteriorate the process isirreversible. For this reason most of the proactive measures to counter glassbead deterioration focus on preventive measures.So far conservators have not been successful in treating the advancedstages of glass disease. One approach they have taken is to apply a surface46 Lougheed, 112.47 Carrol and McHugh, 31-37.38

coating to the beads. This process serves partly to block out any moisturethat can cause efflorescence of alkaline salts. The application of surfacecoatings has an adverse affect by create an alkaline micro-environmentaround the beads that increases deterioration of the glass. Other surfacecoatings are applied to severely cracked glass beads as a consolidant. Theidea behind consolidants is to hold the beads together with special glue-likechemicals to prevent further fragmenting and bead loss. Experimentsconducted using polyvinyl butyral in ethanol and Acryloid B-72 in toluene aswell as other chemicals produce mildly acceptable results. Fracturing beadsare shown to hold together for a period of time, but the long term effects ofthis treatment are still unknown. The largest drawback to consolidants is thetime consuming task and the difficulty of coating the entire surface of thebead while it is still on the threading material. 48While treatment with coatings and consolidants remain largelyunsuccessful and unlikely to correct the later stages or deterioration,conservators demonstrate great success at slowing or even halting the earlystages of glass disease by employing strict preventive conservation measures.The two most damaging factors for affected beads are fluctuations in relativehumidity and an alkaline environment. Routine and proper cleaning withalcohol or saliva—not water—along with accurate monitoring and adjusting48 Lougheed, 113; Ruth Norton, telephone interview with author, May 17, 2005.39

of the environment are essential to preventing or slowing the deteriorationprocess on glass beads.Moisture, in the form of water or humidity, increases the process ofglass bead deterioration. Current conservation and collections managementliterature vary as to the desired level of relative humidity for storing glassobjects; most sources recommend a range of forty to forty-five percent RH.However, all sources agree that extreme humidity levels or fluctuations inrelative humidity can be detrimental to glass beads. The alkaline salts thatappear on deteriorating beads are hygroscopic, meaning they attract moisturefrom the air. These salts come to the surface when humidity is high andcrystallizes when the humidity is low. When these solutions attract moremoisture to the glass surface the deterioration process is repeated at anincreased rate. If affected beads come into direct contact with water, such asduring cleaning, the process is accelerated even more. 49One rare example of how alkaline environments affect glass bead isrevealed by Scott Carrlee, conservator at the Alaska State Museum. Carrlee’sexamination of a glass bead on an Inuit harpoon in the collection of theNational Museum of the American Indian reveals the presence of sodiumchloride (NaCl), most likely acquired from used in sea water. Sodiumchloride acts in a similar way to the alkaline carbonate solutions efflorescingfrom deteriorating glass beads by introducing moisture to the bead and49 Werner, 45-48; Barbara Lang Rottenberg, “Care and Display of Glass Collections,”American Association for State and Local History Technical Leaflet, 1980, 127.40

causing further deterioration. 50This example shows that other outsidefactors, in this case salt water, can produce unpredictable characteristics ondeteriorating beads.In addition to humidity fluctuation, a high alkaline environmentaccelerates the deterioration process by attacking the silica network in theglass, which occurs at a pH of nine or higher. When sodium or potassiumcarbonates or hydroxide—all alkaline solutions—are present on the surfaceof glass beads the pH level of the environment around the object elevates.Removing these alkaline solutions lowers the pH level of the surroundingenvironment and helps slow or, in some cases, stop the deterioration processall together. Conservators typically use stiff brushes and solutions of dilutedalcohol to remove the carbonate buildup on deteriorating beads. Cleaningwith water or soap is discouraged in most instances as it attracts moisture tothe beads and causes the deterioration to progress. 51Other environmental factors contribute to the deterioration of glass.Organic air pollutants, such as acetic acid and formic acid—formaldehyde—can influence the alkaline salts on the surface of deteriorating glass. Thesechemicals are produced from off-gassing of wooden storage or displaycabinets and furnishings. 52Glass objects also require adequate air circulationto prevent moisture in the air from collecting on the surface of the glass.50 Scott Carrlee, telephone interview with author, May 25, 2005.51 Frisina, 139-142.52 L. Robert et al, Understanding Glass Deterioration in Museum Collections through SIMSAnalysis, unpublished paper.41

Lastly, extreme temperatures have been shown to destroy unstable objectsalready affected by glass disease. Such temperatures are encountered as aresult of a building fire or freezing. 53Museum LiteratureSpecific literature addressing glass disease and ethnographicbeadwork has been scarce in the past. Scott Carrlee—formerly ScottCarrol—and Kelly McHugh conducted an extensive literature search for glassbead deterioration in preparation for their presentation at the Conservators ofEthnographic Artifacts Seminar in 1999. As a result they found few specificreferences to glass bead deterioration and treatment options. 54Acomprehensive bibliography obtained from the Rakow Research Library atthe Corning Museum of Glass in Corning, New York, added little to thealready thin body of literature on the subject. 55For this project I conducted abroader search of the general museum literature and added little to thedefinitive bibliographies amassed by Carrlee, McHugh and the Corning GlassMuseum.General collections management texts vary as to how glass disease isdiscussed and the recommendations giver to prevent and treat the problem.53 Stephen Koob, telephone interview with author, June 14, 2005.54 Carrlee interview, 2005.55 Unpublished bibliography from Rakow Research Library, Corning Museum of Glass.42

The New Museum Registration Methods is a standard publication used byprofessionals in museums of all sizes as a basic resource for collectionsmanagement and care. Although the main focus of this book is notconservation, some basic guidelines are given for storage and identifyingpotential problems for many object types. Glass is given only a short threeline passage in the section labeled “Specific Collections Needs.” The entiresection reads: “Glass (e.g., archaeological glass, art glass): 40-50% RH. Padstorage shelves or drawers with microfoam or polyester batting.” Therelative humidity recommendation is slightly outside the forty to forty-fivepercent suggested by conservators. In addition, no mention is given on howto recognize the symptoms and stages of glass disease or how to deal with theproblem. 56Susan Bradley writes a decent description of glass disease and evenidentifies ethnographic beadwork as a potentially problematic object type inher article Do Objects Have a Finite Lifetime, published in Care ofCollections. Bradley points to previously published sources that vary onissues such as relative humidity recommendations, suggesting that furtherstudy and collaboration is needed in the field. 57Glass bead deterioration ismentioned by Carolyn Rose in Preserving Ethnographic Objects, suggestingthat beads may be affected if they feel soapy, become cloudy or crizzled, or56 Rebecca A. Buck and Jean Allman Gilmore, eds., The New Museum Registration Methods(Washington D.C.: American Association of Museums, 1998), 115.57 Bradley, 55-56.43

show signs of crystalline deposits on the surface. Rose also makes a validpoint in saying that “the ideally dry storage conditions recommended forunstable glass may be overly dry for adjacent organic material.” This isespecially true for beadwork adornment on leather garments or beads thathave sinew as a threading material. 58Conservation LiteratureUnlike the general museum literature, the international conservationcommunity has discussed glass disease—and to a lesser extent deteriorationof glass beads—quite extensively. Glass disease became a relevant topic inconservation circles beginning in the 1950s. R. M. Organ was one of theearly conservators to study glass disease and publish his research findings.Organ’s 1957 article in Museum Journal brought the problem of glass diseaseout from behind the conservation curtain and introduced it to the generalmuseum community. The article outlined problems encountered at theBritish Museum in London, and provided details for constructing a specialstorage cabinet developed to lower the humidity of a small storage area. Thewooden cabinets employed the use of electric fans to circulate air and silica58 Carolyn L. Rose, “Preserving Ethnographic Objects,” Conservation Concerns: A Guidefor Collectors and Curators (Washington D.C.: Smithsonian Institution Press, 1992), 119-120.44

gel to absorb excess moisture. 59The basic design of Organ’s storage cabinethas changed very little over the past fifty years and the concept is still usedby museums today.Another publication of the same era as Organ’s article was publishedin 1966 as a Technical Supplement in Museum News by A. E. Werner.Werner’s article built upon Organ’s work by including pictures and a moredetailed description of glass disease.Werner presented the causes andsigns of glass disease and described the steps needed to reduce furtherdeterioration. Organ’s diagram for a storage cabinet for glass objects wasreprinted in Werner’s article, and practical advice for cleaning and handlingglassworks was added. 60The vast majority of early references to glassdisease appeared almost exclusively in European journals; Werner’s articlewas the first museum publication to address glass disease in the UnitedStates. While these early publications introduced the concept of unstableglass to museum professionals, all of them fail to mention glass beads as anobject type that can suffer from the condition.An earlier Museum News Technical Supplement offered practicaladvice for managers of ethnographic collections. Stephen A. Gyermekauthored “Conservation of Ethnographic Materials” in 1964, two years beforeWerner’s supplement on glass care. The information provided in Gyermek’ssupplement adequately represented the standards for museum practices of the59 R.M. Organ, “The Safe Storage of Unstable Glass,” Museum Journal,1957, 56, 258.60 Werner, 45-49.45

day. In addition to the application of toxic pesticides and ethicallyquestionable repair techniques, Gyermek recommended cleaning glass andbeaded objects with water and soap suds—a practice now known to haveaccelerated the deterioration process in glass. 61After the publications of the 1960s, the museum community remainedrelatively void of newly published information about glass deterioration fornearly two decades. During the 1970s a small number of scientific articleswere published. These articles targeted professionals in the glass makingindustry and were unlikely to be seen by collections managers. Robert Brill’s1975 article in Conservation in Archaeology and the Applied Arts,specifically addressed the problem of crizzling in glass objects. Whilecrizzling was a major problem in deteriorating glass beads, Brill failed toacknowledge the issue. 62Interest in glass disease resurged in the museum community duringthe 1980s. For the first time glass beads were added to the list of potentiallyproblematic objects. In contrast to earlier references in Museum News andMuseum Journal, many of the later articles that dealt specifically with glassbeads were published in relatively obscure journals and magazines, and hadlimited circulation among museum professionals at the time. The first ofthese later publications was the 1980 Technical Leaflet for the American61 Stephen A. Gyermek, “Conservation of Ethnological Materials,” Museum News TechnicalSupplement, October 1964, 4.62 Brill, 121-131.46

Association of State and Local History, “Care and Display of GlassCollections” by Barbara Lang Rottenberg. Rottenberg detailed the problemsassociated with glass objects, including breakage, repair, display, storage, anddeterioration. Nevertheless, Rottenberg makes no mention of glass beads orethnographic objects and the special concerns associated with them. 63The first mention of glass disease in beadwork appears in SandraLougheed and Jane Shaw’s 1985 article “The Deterioration of Glass Beadson Ethnographic Objects” published in The Bead Forum, the newsletter ofthe Society of Bead Researchers. This brief three page article provided basicinformation about the causes and symptoms of glass bead deterioration.Three preventive conservation recommendations were given at theconclusion of the article: avoid cleaning with water, stabilize objects toprevent excessive movement, and store objects in a stable humidity of thirtyto forty percent relative humidity. 64While Lougheed and Shaw’s article wasfar from a definitive work on the subject, it brought glass bead deteriorationand conservation concerns to the professional community.A significant addition to the study of glass bead deteriorationoccurred when Sandra Lougheed presented her research findings at the 1986Symposium for the Care and Preservation of Ethnological Materials inOttawa. A more detailed account of glass bead deterioration appeared in the63 Rottenberg, 1980.64 Sandra Lougheed and Jane Shaw, “The Deterioration of Glass Beads on EthnographicObjects,” The Bead Forum, October 1985, 7, 10-12.47

proceedings of that symposium. In this paper Lougheed offered the mostcomprehensive and detailed account of glass bead deterioration to date.Nearly all subsequent publications sited Lougheed’s 1987 article as anoteworthy source. In addition to the detailed written description of glassbead deterioration, Lougheed included several photographs that adequatelyillustrate the various stages of deterioration on beaded works. 65One of the most comprehensive and often noted references on glassconservation is Sandra Davison’s Conservation and Restoration of Glass.Davison’s work steers away from the usual topics of Medieval window glassand focuses on archaeological and historic glass vessels. The information inDavison’s book is highly specialized and technical, with a number ofscientific terms and concepts fully explained. Additionally, the bookcontains a number of color photographs that clearly illustrate a wide range ofglass conservation problems. Since this work is meant to be a comprehensiveapproach to glass conservation, Davison devotes only a moderate portion ofthe book to chemical deterioration of soda lime glass. However, theinformation about glass deterioration contained in this book is accurate,thorough, and descriptive. 66The issue of glass bead deterioration was brought to the museumcommunity as well as to private collectors and researchers in a conservationarticle by Ann Howatt-Krahn entitled “Beadwork,” appearing in American65 Lougheed 1986, 109-113.66 Davison, 2003.48

Indian Art Magazine. Of all the specific references to glass beaddeterioration, this article may have received the widest distribution toprofessionals in the museum community. Howatt-Krahn addressed manyaspects of the care and preservation of beadwork, including deterioration inwhich she drew heavily from Lougheed’s work. The information ondeterioration was brief yet sufficient enough to convey the importance of theproper care of beaded objects. While the written descriptions of deteriorationsymptoms were somewhat vague, the article contained wonderful colorphotographs that brilliantly illustrated the most common characteristics ofglass disease in beadwork. 67Prior to 1987 the body of literature about glass bead deteriorationcentered solely on cause, treatment, and prevention; little was being done tolook at how glass disease specifically affected ethnographic beadwork.These unique aspects began to be explored when Julia Fenn, Conservator atthe Royal Ontario Museum in Toronto, presented a paper at the EighthTriennial Meeting of the International Committee for Conservation. Thepaper was entitled “Deterioration of Glass Trade Beads in Contact with Skinand Leather,” or more simply put, “Glass Beads in Soapy Bubble.” 68Fennnoticed that some deteriorating glass beads exhibited an oily or soapysubstance on the surface when in contact with leather or animal skin. The67 Howard-Krahn, 24-29.68 Fenn points out that the term “soapy bubble” is a slang term for trouble in England, Fenn,195.49

problem turned out to be oils from the leather mixing with the alkalinecarbonate build-up from the deteriorating beads. The mixture created a typeof soap that congregated around the affected beads. Treatment options forthis condition had to be suitable for both the beads and the leather. 69Fenn’slater wrote a simplified two-page version of this article, in Rotunda in 1995. 70These two articles were the first to recognize the unique characteristics ofglass disease on ethnographic beadwork.The final account of glass bead deterioration for the decade was abrief mention in Carolyn Rose’s “Ethical and Practical Considerations inConserving Ethnographic Museum Objects” in The Museum Conservation ofEthnographic Objects. This work was the result of a paper presented at a1988 conference at the National Museum of Ethnology, Osaka, Japan. Thethirty-eight page article attempted tp cover all aspects of conservation forethnographic objects; yet the work contained only one small paragraph aboutdeteriorating glass beads. The problem was briefly outlined, and notreatment or preventive conservation measures were suggested. 71Both the museum and conservation communities remained void ofany publications addressing glass bead deterioration for nearly a decadefollowing Rose’s work. Carrlee and McHugh broke the silence when they69 Ibid., 195-197.70 Julia Fenn, “Glass Bead in Soapy Bubble’” Rotunda, Fall 1995, 40-41.71 Carolyn L. Rose, “Ethical and Practical Considerations in Conserving EthnographicMuseum Objects,” in The Museum Conservation of Ethnographic Objects, SenriEthnological Studies, eds. Tsuneyuki Morita and Colin Pearson, no. 23 (Osaka, Japan:National Museum of Ethnology, 1988), 27-28.50

presented and published their finding of an in-depth study of the physical andchemical signs of glass bead deterioration at the 1999 conference organizedby the Conservators of Ethnographic Artefacts in England. Carrlee andMcHugh identified 187 beaded objects suffering from glass disease in thecollection of the National Museum of the American Indian at the SmithsonianInstitution in Washington, D.C. They submitted samples of these objects to aseries of chemical tests to determine the exact cause of deterioration and toverify that the visually identifiable symptoms were in fact signs ofdeterioration. Their research revealed positive results, confirming that glassbead deterioration can be accurately diagnosed through visualcharacteristics. 72Another paper was published in the same proceedings by Annie Lord,Textile Conservator at the National Museums and Galleries on Merseyside,Liverpool, England. Lord presented the case of a black Edwardian eveningbodice that was exhibiting white crystalline formations on the beads. Aninventory was conducted to identify other affected objects in the collection.Treatment and preventive measures were discussed in Lord’s paper. 73Although the collection studied by Lord consisted of historic Europeantextiles, the information and methodology for identifying and dealing with72 Carroll and McHugh, 27-28.73 Annie Lord, “Deterioration of Glass Beads on an Edwardian Evening Bodice,” inEthnographic Beadwork: Aspects of Manufacture, Use, and Conservation, ed. Margot M.Wright (London: Archetype Publications Ltd, 2001), 127-132.51

glass bead deterioration was relevant to ethnographic and American Indianbeadwork.The most recent work on the conservation of ethnographic beadworkis found in Sherelyn Ogden’s 2004 book Caring for American IndianObjects: A Practical and Cultural Guide. The chapter on glass beads waswritten by Ann Frisina, Textile Conservator at the Minnesota HistoricalSociety in St. Paul. This chapter offers information about storage, handling,display, cleaning, and conservation of beaded objects. The issue of glassdisease is addressed in this chapter. A detailed description of the symptomsis presented in both paragraph and bulleted form for easy reference; however,museum professionals may find it difficult to recognize glass disease basedon the one photograph contained in this section. The photo caption reads“deteriorating beads in the center of the flower are probably suffering fromglass disease. Many other beads are missing because the threading materialhas broken in several places.” 74The fact that the threading material is brokendoes not conclusively indicate glass disease. Even after studying the photo atlength, it is difficult to determine which beads were actually deteriorating.The issue of cleaning beadwork is discussed and storing beaded objects inhigh humidity is discouraged, yet the recommendations are subtle and are notemphasized heavily.74 Sherelyn Ogden, ed., Caring for American Indian Objects: A Practical and Cultural Guide(St. Paul: Minnesota Historical Society Press, 2004), 137.52

ConclusionIn this section I have outlined the history and process of beadmanufacture and touched on the worldwide distribution of beads throughtrade and their use in objects such as clothing, tools, weapons, andaccessories. Many of the facts about this history have played an importantrole in the occurrence and development of glass disease, especially onAmerican Indian beadwork. The volume of literature about the history ofglass and bead making around the world was abundant and thorough.Articles and books on glass conservation including glass disease startedappearing in museum publications in the 1950s. Specific reference to thedeterioration of glass beads did not surface until the 1980s with Lougheedsseminal article has been sited by all significant publications on the topic sinceits initial appearance. Current literature has been less than forthcoming aboutincreasing awareness of glass disease on beaded objects. In additionuniversal practices and recommendations have not been supplied to themuseum community regarding storage and prevention. The need for moreaccurate and descriptive information distributed to a wider audience ofconservators and museum professionals has been long overdue.53

FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONSFor this master’s project I conducted fourteen interviews and analyzedsixty-three surveys to gather information about how museums dealt withglass bead deterioration on American Indian objects. To gain a more indepthperspective of the issue, I conducted interviews with collectionsmanagement staff at museums and with professional conservators.Additional interviews were conducted with researchers to fill gaps in theliterature review. The information in this section was drawn from theseinterviews and surveys and was supported by the literature review outlined inthe previous section. The recommendations made at the end of this projectwere formed by analyzing these findings and conclusions.SurveysI sent out 170 surveys to registrars and collections managers in U.S.museums across the United States with significant collections of AmericanIndian artifacts including beadwork. I received thirty-seven percent, a totalof sixty-three, of these surveys in return. Of these sixty-three, two were notcompleted to the extent of getting any usable information so they wereeliminated from the totals and percentages cited in this section. The surveyconsisted of ten questions about glass bead deterioration and current cleaning54

and conservation practices used by the museum. The surveys wereaccompanied by an introductory letter outlining my research and brieflyexplaining glass disease on beadwork.The first group of survey questions asked if the museum had beadedobjects in the collection that suffered from glass bead deterioration. Sixtypercent of the responses said that they had beads affected by glass disease.Although the introductory letter explained the condition and briefly describedhow to recognize stages of deterioration, it was not ascertained from thesurvey data how well the respondents were able to adequately asses theproblem and recognize deteriorating glass beads on every object in thecollection. All of the museum professionals who said their collection hadaffected beads also indicated that they had observed one or more of thesignificant visual symptoms of glass disease. From this information we canassume that the sixty percent of museums that reported deteriorating beads inthis survey were representative of the number of total U.S. museums withaffected beads. Additionally, the forty percent of museums who answered noto this question may have been unaware that deteriorating beads were presentin the collection.The respondents were asked to estimate the number of beaded objectscurrently suffering from glass disease in their collection. Of the thirty-sixmuseums that said they had affected beads, twelve had five or fewer, eighthad between six and ten, three had between eleven and fifteen, two had55

etween sixteen and twenty, and eleven had more than twenty. It is notknown what the percentage of objects these numbers represent in comparisonto the total number of beaded objects or the entire collection ad a whole. It isassumed from the data given that the number of affected objects is relativelylow.A study of the collection at the National Museum of the AmericanIndian in Washington D.C. revealed 187 beaded objects suffering from glassdisease. 75This is a small percentage of the tens of thousands of beadedobjects that existed in the collection. An internal survey conducted at theNational Museum and Gallery on Merseyside Decorative Arts Department inEngland revealed that forty-nine of the 130 beaded objects in the collectionwere suffering from deterioration. 76While this number is much lower thanthose at NMAI, it represents a much higher percentage of the overallcollection—about thirty-eight percent!The survey respondents were provided a list of symptoms and askedto check all that have been noticed on beaded objects in the collection. Thesix symptoms were:• white powdery substance• dirty beads• small cracks• broken beads found around object• missing beads with threads still in place• discoloration of backing material.75 Carlee interview, 2005.76 Lord, 131.56

The responses varied drastically. White powdery substance received themost checks with a total of thirty-nine. Twenty-nine museums noticedbroken bead fragments, while twenty observed dirty beads. I expected thenumber of dirty beads to be much higher, possibly even reaching one hundredpercent, as some level of dirt and dust was expected to have accumulated onmost ethnographic objects. A clarification of the term “dirty” might havebeen appropriate. Sixteen museum collections indicated having missingbeads with the threading material still in place, which indicated signs of thefinal and most severe stage of glass disease. If beads had been broken awayby other means, the shattered glass would most likely have cut the fragilethreading material. Cracks in beads were noticed in fourteen museumcollections. Lastly, and most surprisingly, only one museum reported seeingdiscoloration of the backing material on beaded objects.In addition to the raw numbers provided in response to the first groupof questions, some unexpected findings were presented by looking at howcertain symptoms were observed together in comparison to the order of theprogression of glass disease. The symptoms were roughly listed in order ofthe stages in which they occur with the earliest signs first and the worst signslast. One would expect the responses to have somewhat mirrored this order,but they instead followed an illogical and unexpected order. Some of thesymptoms were related and would most likely be seen on the same objects.For instance, more than half of the respondents that observed either broken57

eads or missing beads did not indicate the other symptom that lead to thisfinal stage of deterioration. Similarly, the same proportion that observedcracking did not observe broken or missing beads. The one museum thatrecorded seeing discoloration of backing material also indicated having dirtybeads, which would be expected. However, none of the other nineteenmuseums that recorded dirty beads observed discolored backing material.The responses given to these first three survey questions askingwhether deteriorating beads were present, how many beaded objects wereaffected in the collection, and what symptoms were noticed, revealed the firstindication that collections managers and registrars did not fully understandglass disease as it applied to ethnographic beadwork. This conclusion can bemade despite the fact that the respondents were provided a brief explanationof the condition and that some may have had prior knowledge of glassdisease through professional training or study. At best, these responsesshowed an inconsistent opinion as to what constituted a symptom of glassbead deterioration. The fact that five surveys indicated a white powderysubstance on beads but did not consider any objects to be suffering from glassdisease illustrated the confusion among some museum professionals.Early in the survey the respondents were asked how deterioratingbeads came to the attention of the museum staff. Forty-two percent said theynoticed the problem during collections surveys and inventories. Preparingobjects for exhibitions and condition reporting were both mentioned by about58

twenty-five percent of the total responses. Routine access to the collectionand facilitating researchers was reported by less than ten percent.The responses to this question were positive and reassuring in manyways. The most common answer was noticed during routine inventories.This information led to the conclusion that routine inventories were beingconducted and that the people conducting the inventory were taking measuresto inspect for and document conservation concerns. The second largestreported methods for discovering deteriorating glass beads occurred duringcondition reports and preparation for exhibitions. Again, these two essentialfunctions of collections management staff were intended to spot potentialproblems prior to acquisition, loan, study, or exhibition. Spottingconservation issues during random access to the collection and whilefacilitating outside researchers was the least reported answer in the surveys.This method of identification was likely an accidental one. The results of thisquestion revealed that museum professionals were in fact doing an adequatejob of identifying conservation problems at the appropriate times.My initial research showed a propensity for glass disease to occur oncertain colors of beads, namely blues and reds. I wanted to find out howwide-spread the problem of deterioration really was in regards to color. Myintroductory letter did not mention anything about a correlation betweendeterioration and bead color. Eleven of the sixty-one responses declined tocheck any bead colors on the survey. Of the remaining surveys, half checked59

lue beads as having signs of deterioration. The next closest colors were redand white being checked by only twenty-five percent of the responses each.The only other colors worth mentioning were yellow, pink, and green, allreceiving checks from fewer than ten percent. The remaining colors, orange,black, and clear, were only checked on the three surveys in which all colorswere selected. 77One survey was particularly intriguing in the answer to this questionconcerning deterioration of certain colors. The respondent checked the colorred with the note “for color migration” written next to the selection. Havingfound no chemical explanation as to why this could occur in glass, Icontacted the survey respondent, Rebecca Andrews, Collections Manager ofEthnology at the University of Washington’s Burke Museum in Seattle.Andrews explained to me that the red beads on a particular object appeared tobe fading to a pinkish color. Kate Duncan, a well known bead researcher,identified the beads as Czech manufacture from the 1930s. The colorantcomes from a dye coating applied to the inside of the clear glass beads. Thecolor migration that Andrews noticed was simply the dye coming off and notbead deterioration. 78The results of the color question revealed some predictable yetinteresting information about glass bead deterioration and color. The survey77 Historically, certain bead colors were difficult to produce. The mere lack of these beadcolors in a museum collection could affect the rate of detection on such bead colors, Dubin,101.78 Rebecca Andrews, email correspondence with author, June 9, 2005.60

esponses confirm the stories—and my early research findings—about bluebeads being more susceptible to deterioration than other colors. The lack ofdeterioration on colors such as orange and black—which are generally colorsproduced later—indicated that modern beads were less likely to develop glassdisease. However, only time will tell. Lastly, a relatively large number ofsurvey respondents indicated white beads as having been affected. Sinceglass was stabilized with calcium oxide, a substance that made the glassopaque and white in color, this is unexpected. Neither I nor any of theindividuals I interviewed for this project have ever seen an example of whitebeads suffering from deterioration.One of the most important questions in the survey dealt with thecleaning methods used on beaded objects. I proposed five cleaningtechniques: soap and water, water only, alcohol, vacuum, and dry brush.Also included was the option to add additional cleaning methods not alreadymentioned. Unfortunately, nineteen respondents declined to answer thequestion, five of which specifically saying that they do not cleanethnographic beadwork. It was not clear as to whether the other fourteenrespondents had a similar practice. The cleaning options provided containedthree favorable methods and two unfavorable and potentially harmfulmethods. Of the remaining forty-two surveys, twenty four used a dry brush,fourteen used a vacuum, and three used alcohol. These three methods werethe preferred and recommended practices used by professional conservators.61

A significant number of surveys admitted to using the two harmful cleaningmethods. Four museums cleaned with soap and water and nineteen usedwater only. The only added response was saliva which was mentioned bythree museums and was considered an acceptable but somewhat controversialpractice for this project.Obtaining detailed information about cleaning was difficult. It wasnot known who was doing the cleaning, professional conservators, collectionsstaff, or volunteers. One question on the survey asked whether the museumhad a professional conservator on staff. Sixty percent answered no, whichcould indicate that over half of the museums that cleaned beadwork wereutilizing collections staff or volunteers for the job. The high number ofmuseums using soap or water to clean beadwork showed a lack of knowledgeabout the chemistry behind glass disease and the factors that contribute todeterioration. Of the surveys that indicated undesirable cleaning practices,one stood out from the rest. The museum admitted to cleaning beadworkwith water only as well as having a dangerously high relative humidity levelof sixty-two percent, yet they reported no visible signs of glass beaddeterioration in the collection. Under these circumstances glass diseasewould be expected. All of the remaining eighteen surveys that reportedcleaning with soap or water observed signs of deterioration in the form ofdirty beads and half reported a white powdery substance, which was mostlikely the direct result of moisture in contact with unstable glass.62

The next question asked the respondents to estimate the relativehumidity levels in their storage facilities. I recorded all of the responses anddivided them into four categories: excellent, good, fair, and poor. Thesecategories are based on the degree of fluctuation and the reported minimumand maximum humidity levels in the collections storage areas. Seventeenmuseums were rated excellent, twelve were good, ten were fair, and nineteenwere rated as poor. Three museums declined to give relative humidity levels.Interestingly, these figures create an even split between the higher and lowertwo categories. The highest rated response had a relative humidity of forty toforty-five percent, while the lowest rated response reported thirty to sixtypercent. Two non-numerical answers were given: “standard” and “highvariation with season.” Both of these responses were rated as poor.Only two museums categorized as having poor relative humidityconditions also reported no symptoms of glass bead deterioration in thecollection—one was the extreme example listed above with thirty to sixtypercent humidity. Seven of the museums categorized as excellent reportedno signs of bead deterioration. The survey information supported the adviseby conservators that low and stable relative humidity levels help prevent orlessen the deterioration of glass beads.The overall conclusions drawn from the survey results showed a lackof knowledge and conflicting practices within the museum community inregards to glass bead deterioration. Collections managers appeared to be63

inconsistent at best in their ability to accurately identify and respond to thesymptoms and stages of glass disease on beaded objects. Conflicting reportsabout visual sign of deterioration, cleaning practices, and environmentalconditions created a clouded vision of how glass bead deterioration develops.The respondent’s attention to the proper environmental control and cleaningof ethnographic beadwork was shown to coincide with the severity ofdeterioration in the museum collection. While many museum environmentswere within acceptable ranges for general collections, little was being done toisolate beaded objects in safe and desirable microclimates. Some practicesmay even be contributing to further deterioration.InterviewsIn addition to surveys I conducted fourteen interviews withconservators, collections managers, and bead researchers about theconservation and preservation of glass beads. These interviews helped toclarify major issues about glass bead deterioration and provided practicalstories about how this condition is handled in museum collections.My first interview with a conservator was with Ruth Norton,Anthropology Conservator at the Field Museum of Natural History inChicago. Norton explained to me the basic chemical process behind glassdisease, and mentioned that she has observed glass bead deterioration on64

American Indian, African, and Indonesian objects. She also pointed out thatthe problem of bead deterioration was not wide-spread in the collection at theField Museum. Norton commented that the alkaline solutions drawn out ofdeteriorating glass can eat away at the fibrous threading material used tosecure beads to the backing material. As for treatment options, Nortonexplained how alcohol or acetone solutions or a stiff dry brush wassuccessfully used to remove carbonate build-up on glass beads. Consolidantswere also mentioned as a possible treatment, but these substances werehighly discouraged by Norton due to their unpredictability and the difficultyof removing them from the object in the future. 79Norton discussed several preventive conservation measures that haveproduced encouraging results. First, a relative humidity level of forty toforty-five percent should be maintained. Conservators at the Field Museumhave isolated deteriorating objects in plastic storage containers sealed withcellophane tape. Silica gel was placed in the container—which was changedat regular intervals—along with a monitoring device that measured humidity.This method proved quite successful at slowing the deterioration process indeteriorating objects. 80Norton agreed that accurate and early identification of glass beaddeterioration was essential to preventing further damage. When asked aboutthe relationship between the conservators and the collections staff at the79 Norton interview, 2005.80 Ibid.65

museum, Norton considered the communication lines to be open andfrequent. Collections staff were instructed to report any signs ofcrystallization or breakage to the conservators. Norton painted a pleasant andoptimistic picture for the care of beaded objects in a museum. However,small museums have often found themselves understaffed and without anonsite conservator. In these instances Norton suggested that the museumdevelop a good relationship with a nearby conservation lab, or apply for aCAP grant (Conservation Assessment Program) to bring in outside help tosurvey the collection for conservation related issues.Scott Carrlee, Conservator at the Alaska State Museum in Juneau,spoke with me on more than one occasion about the deterioration of glassbeads on ethnographic objects. Carrlee conducted an in-depth researchproject with Kelly McHugh investigating the symptoms of glass disease inthe collection of the National Museum of the American Indian at theSmithsonian Institution in Washington, D.C. The results of this study werepublished in Ethnographic Beadwork, the proceedings of a 1999 seminar bythe Conservators of Ethnographic Artifacts at the Conservation Centre,National Museums and Galleries on Merseyside, England. 81Carrlee first explained to me how scarce the literature was on beaddeterioration, and he outlined the following points about his extensiveliterature review. The few articles and references that existed were in81 Carlee interview, 2005.66

elatively obscure publications that were not readily available to the museumcollections community. The majority of the literature about glass diseasefocused on archaeological glass—mostly stained glass form the Roman era.Glass disease on ethnographic beadwork was unique from all otheroccurrences of glass disease due to the added materials such as thread,leather, cloth, and metal. Lastly, Carrlee introduced the added element ofrecycled beads and beaded objects that cause a particular item to exhibitunusual and inconsistent symptoms. 82Carrlee noted that glass bead deterioration was more prevalent inAmerican Indian objects from the Plains Region, but it also appeared onobjects from a variety of areas in Africa. One possible explanation for thisobservation was that the American Indians from the Plains Region producedan unusually large amount of beadwork during the reservation era, 1880-1910. 83 The fact that more beadwork from the plains was held in the museumcollection reflects the increased number of deteriorating beaded objects.Other conservators and collections managers indicated no regional area thattends to be more affected than another. My own research into glass beaddeterioration showed a similar pattern.82 Recycled beadwork is a term used by many researchers and scholars to refer to objecttypes that have been disassembled in part and used in the construction of a new object. Arecycled beadwork piece might have affected and unaffected beads depending on the storageand use of the original object, Benson L. Lanford, “Indian-made Conversions,” inARTIFACTS/ARTIFAKES:The Proceedings of the 1984 Plains Indian Seminar Held in Cody,Wyoming (Cody, WY: Buffalo Bill Historical Center, 1992), 31-36.83 Lyford, 12-38.67

Carrlee made several good points concerning preventive conservationand the treatment of glass bead deterioration. These points were based on hispersonal experiences in dealing with glass disease on beadwork. Carrleeadmited that conservators have experimented with consolidants, such asAcryloid B-72 and others, but have not produced any promising results. Oneinteresting ethical conflict that Carrlee pointed out was that of routinecleaning of ethnographic works. According to Carlee some conservatorsbelieved that cultural objects should not be cleaned but rather left todeteriorate naturally. Others in the profession considered routine cleaning anessential part of prolonging the life of the object for future generations toenjoy. Carrlee believed in cleaning ethnographic beadwork. His research hasshowed that the removal of alkaline carbonates lowered the pH of theenvironment around the object and prevented further deterioration of theglass. It was important to note that Carrlee strongly recommended that onlyprofessionally trained conservators should actively engage in any cleaning ortreatment of ethnographic beadwork.There were, however, some general preventive conservation practicessuggested by Carlee that collections managers and registrars can take toprevent and lessen the affects of glass disease on beadwork. One action wasto use non-buffered tissue paper when wrapping and storing objects. Carrleebelieved that the increased amount of alkaline material present in bufferedtissue paper actually accelerated the deterioration process in beaded objects.68

Throughout my talks with Scott Carrlee, I realized how much workhas already been done to understand, recognize, prevent, and treat glassdisease in ethnographic beadwork, yet there were still many questions thatremain unanswered. The length of time it took for beads to start to showsigns of glass disease as well as the future stability of modern glass beadswere just two relatively simple questions that remain unanswered. Carrleerecognized and understood that the answers to these questions, and manyothers, remained, but believed that through further collaboration and researchconservators could gain a better understanding of glass bead deterioration.Perhaps the most current authority on the conservation of glass in theUnited States at the time of this project was Stephen Koob, Head Conservatorat the Corning Museum of Glass in New York. In my conversation withKoob, he revealed some astonishing facts to me about glass deterioration andconservation. I asked Koob first about why glass disease seemed to be moreprevalent in blue and red beads. He responded by saying that calcium oxide,in the form of lime, was added as a stabilizer in the glass and preventedmoisture from attacking the sodium and potassium ions. One adverse affectof calcium oxide was that it also acted as an opacifier in the glass—causingtransparent glass to appear opaque. Transparent or semi-transparent beadsoften had lowered amounts of calcium oxide, thus rendering these glasscolors more unstable than opaque colored beads. White beads had an69

increased amount of calcium oxide, which explained why glass disease wasnearly non-existent in white beads. 84Koob made reference to several startling facts about glassdeterioration that I had not come across in any of my research. The first wasthe problem of storing or displaying glass objects in wooden cabinets orcases. Koob explained how wood emitted acetic and formic acid thatcontributed to the deterioration of glass. He considered the storage or displayof glass in wooden cases to be the “worst thing for glass objects.” Koob alsopointed out that stable glass, including many modern glasses, becameunstable if the conditions were poor. Restricted air movement, relativehumidity above sixty percent, alkaline environments, and frequent washingwith water made any type of glass unstable over a period of time. Koobinsisted that proper care and storage of glass was essential to the longevity ofits existence. 85I asked Koob about the affects of the two most common pestmanagement treatment practices in museums: freezing and anoxicenvironments, such as carbon dioxide (CO 2 ). Since most glass objects wereinorganic they were not likely to have infestations, thus little to no treatmentwas performed on glass. Ethnographic beadwork, on the other hand,contained cloth, leather, and plant fibers as well as glass beads, which made84 Koob interview, 2005.85 Ibid.70

these objects highly vulnerable to insect and rodent damage. 86Koobrecognized three potential problems that could be encountered while freezingglass beads: excessive dehydration during the freezing process, excessivemoisture due to condensation while unfreezing or thawing, and the extremecold environment encountered by the object while frozen. Koob suggestedthat stable glass beads would have no problem undergoing freezingtreatments, but beads that exhibited signs of deterioration should bereconsidered before freezing. Carbon dioxide, and other inoxic treatments,expose objects to an oxygen-free environment, killing any living insects orrodents. While Koob was not familiar with any glass objects being treatedwith CO 2 , he found no obvious threat to beaded objects being exposed to thistreatment. 87Emily Kaplan of the National Museum of the American Indiancontradicted some of Koob’s assumptions about potential freezing problemsin my interview with her. During the recent move from New York toSuitland, MD, the entire NMAI collection was frozen, including beadedworks. Prior to the move a conservation survey identified glass disease on187 objects which were also subjected to freezing. 88 Kaplan and otherconservators noted conditions before and after freezing on all beaded objectsand found no formation of crystals or broken beads. Kaplan suggested that86 Ogden, 228-230.87 Koob interview, 2005.88 Carrol and McHugh, 30.71

these results may be due to the strict standards of freezing objects usingdouble bags with all air removed from the bags prior to freezing. 89Additionally, I conducted five interviews with conservators regardingthe cultural impact of glass bead deterioration on ethnographic objects. Thefirst of these interviews was with Glenn Wharton, conservator at New YorkUniversity. Wharton has done extensive research on the issues surroundingliving cultures and the conservation of cultural objects. Wharton pointed outthat there are conflicting views about conservation among different tribes andeven individuals within a single tribe. One aspect that Wharton pointed outwas that ethics and practices regarding cultural objects were constantly beingchallenged and changed to meet the needs and wishes of variouscommunities. 90Wharton alluded to an example of how one modern American Indiantribe took an active role in the conservation process. The story was furtherexplained in a recently published article written by Wharton. Theconservation department at the National Museum of the American Indiancalled upon artists from the Tuscarora tribe to restore a beaded textile. Theproject plan called for the re-use of historic material as well as the use ofperiod beads to complete missing beaded sections of the textile. Both ofthese practices go against modern conservation standards and ethics, but itwas a decision made in conjunction with tribal members and museum staff.89 Emily Kaplan, email correspondence with author, June 13, 2005.90 Glenn Wharton, email interview with author, September 12, 2005.72

The Tuscarora people wanted the piece to look appropriate while on exhibitand the decision was supported by both sides. 91My second interview regarding cultural issues in conservation waswith Nancy Odegaard, conservator at the Arizona State Museum. Odegaardoutlined a number of conditions that need to be considered before anyconservation work or cleaning was performed on a cultural object. Theseconditions included: identification, composition, technology, deterioration,original context and use, subsequent use, acquisition context, conservation atthe time of collection, museum use, indigenous perspectives, indigenousreservation, academic concerns, related museum issues, long-termpreservation, treatment options, and treatment procedures. Additionally,Odegaard suggested that an object that suffered from glass bead deteriorationmay or may not be culturally significant to warrant active treatment. Forinstance, a sacred object being repatriated will often remain unchanged whilein the care of the museum and the tribe would have direct and total authorityas to any conservation action taken on the object. However, secular orartistic objects that were going on exhibit were handled in a totally differentmanner. These objects were often cleaned or actively treated to stabilize theobject for display. Odeggard summed up by saying that there was no onesimple formula or guideline to consult when cultural objects are in need ofconservation attention. Active and open discussions between the91 Glenn Wharton, “Indigenous Claims and Heritage Conservation: An Opportunity forCritical Dialogue,” Public Archaeologist 4 (2005): 199-204.73

communities involved and conservators was the best way to approach thesesensitive and complex issues. 92During a conversation with Sherelyn Ogden, Head Conservator at theMinnesota Historical Society, some interesting cultural issues came to light.Ogden expressed concern for objects suffering from glass disease that werebeing actively used by tribal members for ceremonies, rituals, or other specialuse. Tribal use of museum objects has become quite popular in the UnitedStates and Canada. Some recent examples of tribal use of museum artifactsinclude: a Northwest Coast tribe using masks for a potlatch ceremony, aPomo basket maker who “feeds” baskets in a museum storage facility, and aMiwok tribal member who sets up a cultural and educational display in apublic building. 93Ogden is concerned about the fragility of deterioratingbeads being excessively handled as well as potential exposure to sweat,water, smoke, heat, cold, and various unknown materials. 94Ogden also notes that American Indian people are getting more say inthe conservation process. While conservation concept and terminology canbe quite confusing, Ogden points out that it is easier for tribal members tograsp these complex issues than it is for non-native conservators tounderstand American Indian culture as a whole. Conservators now demand92 Nancy Odegaard, email interview with author, October 10, 2005.93 Miriam Clavir, “Reflections on Changes in Museums and the Conservation of Collectionsfrom Indigenous Peoples,” Journal of the American Institute for Conservation 35, no. 2(1996): 99-107; Mike Tucker, personal conversations, Sacramento, CA, March 2005.94 Sherelyn Ogden, telephone interview with author, May 18, 2006.74

considerable cooperation and assistance from tribal communities. However,American Indian people have been caring for these objects for years andconservators should not be so quick to expect them to change immediately.Cultural concerns about beadwork conservation were reiterated byAnn Frisina, Textile Conservator at the Minnesota Historical Society. Frisinasuggests a set of preventive conservation options that can easily be followedby tribal communities with limited resources. One technique was thecleaning and removal of alkaline salts from beadwork using a cotton swaband saliva, a solution that is not harmful to glass beads. A light wash in analcohol solution afterward removed the remaining moisture from the beads.Frisina did express the possibility of negative cultural connotations beingassociated with such a practice in certain communities.One interesting observation by Frisina focused on the interaction ofmuseum collections staff and conservators or lack thereof. Frisina believesthat the two groups have limited interaction. She explained how professionalconferences and associations were separate and how individuals from oneside rarely participated in the activities of the other. Publications seemed tobe the one common ground where both sides of the issue could come togetherto share information. 95The last interview I conducted concerning the cultural issues of glassbead deterioration was with Alyce Sadongei, Assistant Curator of Native95 Ann Frisina, telephone interview with author, May 19, 2006.75

American Relations at the Arizona State Museum. Sadongei was a memberof the Kiowa and Tohono O’Odham tribes. Sadongei explained how colorwas an important aspect of any decorative process for American Indianpeople. The meaning and intention expressed by the creator of the objectchanged drastically when a particular color was omitted due to thedevastating affects of glass bead deterioration. After some thought, Sadongeibelieved that tribal members would be in favor of replacing broken ormissing beads in order to restore the proper appearance of a particular object.Ultimately, she believed that more open discussions between tribalcommunities and museums were the best solution to the issue. 96My interviews with collections managers, registrars, researchers, andother museum professionals tended to be more general and brief than myinterviews with conservators. I interviewed a total of eleven individuals inthis category resulting in a mixture of personal stories about dealing withglass bead deterioration and current measures being taken in regards to thisproblem. Some of the interviewees requested to remain anonymous; in thesecases just enough background information was provided to give context tothe situation yet not reveal the identity of the institution or individualsinvolved.Personal stories about glass disease on ethnographic beadworkprovided a unique insight to the ways in which museum professionals96 Sadongei interview, 2006.76

ecognized and dealt with this problem. The collections manager from asmall inland Northwest art museum related one such story. In this instancean object on display was exhibiting symptoms of glass disease, namely awhite crystalline substance on the surface of the beads. The collectionsmanager had never considered glass disease on beaded objects. The whitepowdery substance began to appear on one object shortly after it had been puton exhibit but never showed signs of deterioration while in storage. Thinkingthat the substance could be dust or particles from the exhibit case, thecollections manager simply wiped the surface of the object with a ragdampened with water. Only a few weeks later the white powdery substancere-appeared and the treatment was repeated. Another museum professionalvisiting from a neighboring institution pointed the problem out to themuseum staff. Since that time no cleaning or treatment has been done to theobject.Rebecca Andrews, Collections Manager for Ethnology at the BurkeMuseum of Natural History and Culture at the University of Washington inSeattle, pointed out a unique and intriguing symptom that she thought couldbe glass disease. Andrews had heard of glass bead deterioration but had littlespecific information about the condition in which to reference. She noticedpink beads on an Athabaskan baby carrier appeared to be fading or migratingcolor. Good quality close-up photos of the piece could not be obtained, butbased on the information presented this particular instance does not appear to77

e glass disease. Further research and inspection of the beads by an outsideresearcher determined that these beads were a unique type of Bohemian glassbead that were colored with a dye on the exterior of the glass and that it wasthe dye not the glass that was the issue in this problem piece. The valid pointin this story was that the museum staff considered this problem as a possiblesign of glass bead deterioration, further evience that collections staff have notbeen provided with adequate information to properly recognize glass diseaseon ethnographic beadwork. 97The characteristics of dirty, broken, or missing beads were the mostdifficult and potentially misleading symptoms of glass bead deteriorationrelated to me in personal stories with collections staff. Dirty beads may havebeen a result of dirt or dust that adhered to the alkaline hydroxide solutionsurfacing from the glass or from the soapy substance created whendeteriorating beads were in contact with leather. More common, however, isthe accumulation of dirt and grime over the many years of use and storage.Reports of dirt and grime on beaded objects were conveyed by nearly everyinterviewee; however, few of these examples seemed to indicate glass beaddeterioration. Beads were often missing when the fragile threading materialbroke, which caused beads to simply fall from the object. In rare occasionsalkaline solutions from deteriorating glass beads caused this thread breakage,but this was difficult to prove in most instances. The repeated reports of97 Rebecca Andrews, telephone interview with author, June 6, 2005.78

dirty and missing beads as being potential signs of severe deteriorationproved that the physical descriptions for symptoms of glass disease onethnographic beadwork were not well defined or clear.Online Discussion GroupsIn addition to interviews and surveys, I decided to search throughsome of the online discussion groups that became quite popular among manyprofessional interest groups in recent years. The information obtained fromthese message boards was not as strong as my interviews nor was it as directas surveys, but it presented real issues from real people and the unpromptedresponses from actual professionals in the field. I found references to glassconservation or glass bead deterioration in four discussion groups:Conservation DistList, MUSEUM-L, The American Institute of Conservationdiscussion group, and the Plains Indian Seminar E-Group. The results of mysearch revealed only a few examples of glass disease discussion, and evenfewer references specifically relating to glass beads.The first online discussion group that I searched was the ConservationDistList, an international email distribution list for conservators and museumprofessionals from a variety of institutions. The topic of glass beads wasonly briefly touched on. A March 13, 2002 post by a private conservatorasked about a white powdery substance on a black garment embellished with79

lack beads. Corning Glass Museum Conservator Stephen Koob respondedby suggesting that the beads were the culprit, not the cloth garment aspreviously assumed by the author of the post. Koob explained how darkcolored beads—especially reds, blues, and black—often have low amounts oflime as a stabilizer. Koob responded to another post from July 28, 2003,regarding the presence of salt on glass. A brief overview of glass diseaseensued pointing out that increased humidity was the most contributing factorto the problem. In a side note, Koob mentioned that airborne pollutants fromwooden cabinets accelerated the deterioration process.A similar online forum for a broader professional museum audiencecalled MUSUM-L was also searched for references to glass disease andbeadwork conservation issues. I was only able to find one thread discussingbeadwork on MUSEUM-L. On December 29, 1997, one individual asked forsuggestions on how to clean beaded objects. The responses were limited;however, one reply stated that “glass beads are generally not the problem”but the main concern should be with the material to which the beads areattached, such ads leather, cloth, and thread. The author of this reply wasapparently unaware of glass bead deterioration, although the informationgiven coincided with the available literature of the time concerning the careof ethnographic objects.A 2005 post to the American Institute for Conservation onlinediscussion group specifically addressed the issue of glass bead deterioration.80

In this post a Yoruba beaded object was exhibiting signs of deterioration.The conservators at the museum had obviously done considerable researchinto the condition, yet they still felt the need to ask for clarification andguidance from other conservators. Steve Koob once again served as the solerespondent to the query. Koob’s response to this post was nearly identical tohis previous responses on other discussion boards, thus adding little newinformation to that already available on the internet.The largest amount of “chatter” about deteriorating glass beads camefrom the Plains Indian Seminar E-Group. This message board was designedas a year round discussion of American Indian art and material culturestemming from the annual conference of the Material Culture of the Plains,Plateau, and Prairie, each fall. Members of this list came from the UnitedStates and Europe and ranged from museum professionals, to researchers, toprivate collectors. The topic of glass bead deterioration came up as a threadin September of 2004. The comments and assertions made were full ofinaccuracies and unsupported creative solutions to the problem.In regards to the cause of glass disease, one author with a backgroundin chemistry related that the problem was due to the oxidizing of certaincolors, and named blue beads that contained radioactive cobalt salts as aspecific example. Another member of the group from Europe insisted thatthe problem was isolated to only the so-called “greasy” colors of beads,mainly blue and yellow. The author continued adding that some museum81

professionals were of the opinion that glass bead deterioration was the resultof camphor—a chemical used to prevent pest damage—drying the beads andcausing more damage. I found no such references during my literature searchor in any of my interviews with museum professionals and conservators.A variety of treatment options were also suggested by members of thePlains Indian Seminar E-group. Cleaning beads with an ethanol solution andstoring in a cool, dry environment was proposed by one member with amuseum and conservation background. While these measures are commonlyaccepted practices, the reasons given for such treatment are slightly flawed.The author asserted that the white powdery substance was acidic and thatlight can accelerate the deterioration process. Both of these claims wereinaccurate and false. Another group member bravely suggested the use ofsuper glue to hold fracturing beads together or Teflon film to separate thebeads from the substrate material. This last author made the effort to remindthe other members that “this [was] only neophyte conjecture…I am not abead physician.”These internet discussion group postings showed how modern daymuseum professionals turned to quick and fast answers using the World WideWeb. Many of these professionals were already short on time and resourcesand in the age of “Google” a simple internet search or post to an online forumsaved valuable time. Unfortunately, the answers provided by well meaningand often knowledgeable individuals were insufficient and misleading.82

ConclusionThe findings of the literature review, survey results, and interviewsreveal some interesting yet disturbing facts about glass bead deterioration. Inreviewing the museum and conservation literature it is apparent that thegeneral topic of glass disease is covered and published in conservationsources. However, specific references to how glass disease relates toethnographic beadwork remain scarce and obscure. The small amount ofavailable publications also lack clear photographs that are essential whenidentifying glass bead deterioration.The general knowledge that collections managers have on glass beaddeterioration is shown clearly in the survey results from this project. First,the problem of glass beead deterioration is evidenced by the fact that sixtypercent of museums surveyed claim to have affected beadwork in theircollection, yet the survey respondents are inconsistent in reporting signs ofglass disease and are inaccurate in identifying the problem in detail. Whenglass disease is present on ethnographic beadwork, treatment options andpreventive measures frequently contradict the recommendations set forth byconservators and those knowledgeable about glass disease. Half of themuseums surveyed report substandard environmental conditions orunacceptable cleaning procedures. In short, a general lack of knowledge and83

information about glass disease on ethnographic beadwork is abundantlyclear.The conservators interviewed for this project show a firm grasp on thetopic of glass disease and glass bead deterioration. Clearly a large amount ofwork has gone into understanding the problem, and there is a definitedirection set for the continuation of research and experimentation to fullyunderstand glass bead deterioration. This precious information, however, isnot reaching the general collections management community in manymuseums across the country. My interviews with collections managersclosely echoes the findings from the surveys in that most individuals are illequipped to deal with the problem of glass disease on ethnographicbeadwork. Lastly, the results of the online discussion groups show how wellmeaning people are searching for answers using twenty-first centurytechnology of the internet, yet almost no online information exists.84

RECOMENDATIONSIn response to the problem of glass bead deterioration, I havedeveloped a number of recommendations based on my research and findingsfrom this project. These recommendations are grouped into two maincategories: those for museum collections managers and those for professionalconservators. Many of these recommendations are targeted towardprofessionals at small and medium sized museums, but staff at museums ofall sizes can benefit from these guidelines.For Collections MangersThe museum community can take several steps toward recognizingand preventing glass bead deterioration in their collection. Once the issue hasbeen identified, collections managers can begin to store, handle, and displayethnographic beadwork in ways that will not contribute to furtherdeterioration. The following recommendations should be taken intoconsideration by all museum professionals and volunteers who managecollections of ethnographic beadwork.85

1. Learn to identify the physical symptoms of glass beaddeterioration.The most overwhelming finding of this project is that collections staffin museums lack information and specific knowledge about what glassdisease is and how it relates to ethnographic beadwork. The greatest problemthat these individuals face is their lack of information on how to recognizeglass bead deterioration. Collections staff are often the first line of defensewhen it comes to spotting conservation issues in museum collections. Theseindividuals need to learn the physical symptoms of glass disease and howthey specifically relate to ethnographic beadwork. By knowing these signsand spotting potential problems early on, conservators may be able tostabilize or minimize the damaging effects of glass disease on the object.Collections managers should also know which objects are more proneto deterioration. Beadwork on leather may exhibit soapy or oily residue, darkbeads may show signs of efflorescence more frequently than white beads,broken threads and missing beads should be examined to determine if glassdisease is the cause of the problem. Objects that may have come from humidenvironments, have been stored in wooden cases, or have been frozen for pestmanagement should be inspected on a regular basis for signs of deterioration.Special notice should be given to beads in contact with leather as well astransparent or semi-transparent beads.86

The physical signs to look for are:• Moisture spots on beads (weeping or sweating)• White crystalline deposits, usually on only one type ofbead• Tiny web-like cracks (crizzling)• Large cracks or broken bead fragments• Missing beads with threading material still in place• Ghost image on cloth substrate or darkening of leathersubstrate• Oily or soapy substance on beads in contact withleather2. Practice sound preventive conservation to avoid problemswith glass bead deterioration.In addition to knowing the physical symptoms of glass beaddeterioration, collections staff should understand the basic principals thatcontribute to the condition. When the causes are fully understood preventiveconservation measures can be enacted to reduce the probability of glassdisease to occur on ethnographic beadwork. Any museum that has a87

significant number of ethnographic beaded works should visit the web sitedesigned as the product of this master’s project at http://beaddisease.122mb.comor at http://bead-disease.com. This web site containsmultiple color photos and useful links.HumidityThe most important factor to control is humidity. High humidity orfluctuations in humidity accelerate the deterioration process. In idealcircumstances a relative humidity of forty to forty-five percent should bemaintained with as little fluctuation as possible. Museums unable to meetsuch demanding levels should strive to come as close as possible in order topreserve beaded objects.Air CirculationAdequate air circulation should be available to beaded objects as well.Air circulation helps to dry the glass and prevent excess moisture fromaccumulating on the glass surface. Avoid storing beaded objects in air tightcontainers, bags, or cabinets that restrict air flow. Larger cabinets anddisplay cases can be fitted with small electric fans to circulate air within thecase.Storage and DisplayWooden storage units and display cases are discouraged. Wood offgassesacidic agents—namely acetic and formic acid—that contribute to the88

deterioration of glass beads. Cabinets and cases made from metal, plastic,and glass are ideal for objects made with glass beads. If wooden cabinets areall that is available to the museum, objects showing signs of deteriorationshould be removed immediately to reduce further damage. Other museumobjects made of wood should be kept separate from beaded objects. Woodeddisplay mounts are also discouraged. Chemical wood sealants can also beapplied to storage and display furnishings to prevent off-gassing.Pest Management PracticesWhen freezing objects for pest management take extra care to noticepre and post-freezing conditions. Double bag beaded objects and seal tightlyto prevent transference of moisture through the opening. Ensure that all air isremoved from the bags prior to freezing. Beaded objects exhibiting signs ofdeterioration should not be frozen. In these instances CO 2 or other anoxictreatment options should be explored. When practical, all beaded objectsshould be treated to CO 2 as opposed to freezing.3. Consult professional conservators to treat and cleanethnographic beadwork.Collections staff should focus their efforts on the abovementioned preventive conservation methods. Aggressive treatment andcleaning of beaded objects should only be done with the supervision of a89

professional conservator. Improper cleaning can escalate deterioration ofglass beads as well as remove vital historical and cultural elements of anobject. Conservators are also trained to work with native communities todetermine the best cource of action for a particular object. The use of anytype of liquid chemical on beadwork for any reason is highly discouraged.When such treatment is advised, the application should be performed oroverseen by a conservator.4. Museums without a conservation staff should apply foroutside aid and assistance to effectively conserve problematicobjects in the collection.As most small and medium sized museums do not haveconservation staff, a working relationship with a nearby conservationdepartment should be developed. Small museums can apply for ConservationAssessment Program (CAP) grants to fund an outside conservator to evaluatethe collection and make practical recommendations. Other fundingopportunities may also be available on the state or local level. Contact astate, regional, or national museum professional organization to find moreinformation.90

FOR CONSERVATORS:The conservation community plays an integral role in the preventionof glass disease on ethnographic objects. The lines of communication are notalways clear enough to properly relate the important aspects of glassconservation to the museum collections community. The recommendationspresented below are important concepts that conservators should strive tomake available to collections mangers in order to ensure the best possibleoutcomes from the museum community as a whole.1. Educate collections staff on how to deal with glass beaddeterioration.The survey results and interviews from this project show thatcollections staff are inconsistent in their handling of objects with glass beaddeterioration, while conservators have proven their expertise and competencein dealing with the issue. Conservators should take extra time to educatecollections staff on the specific aspects and potential problems inherent totheir particular institution. The signs of deterioration should be explainedalong with proper handling and storage techniques to minimize damage to theobjects.91

2. Publish and present understandable information onethnographic beadwork to the general museum community.In many museums, collections managers, registrars, curators,and volunteers all handle ethnographic beadwork on a regular basis. Oftentimes these individuals turn to books, journals, or even the internet to seekanswers to everyday problems. There is little literature specific to the issuesof glass bead deterioration. The good work that has been done has beenpublished in relatively obscure sources not likely to be readily available tomuseum professionals and volunteers.Conservators are the most knowledgeable about glass deteriorationand are therefore the most likely people to write about it. Conferencepresentations, journal articles, and book chapters should be written in easy tounderstand language that non-conservators can put to practical use. Lastly,good quality color photographs are essential to show the different stages andcharacteristics of glass bead deterioration.3. Continue to research glass disease and share findings aboutits effects on ethnographic objects to the conservationcommunity.Recent publications and conference presentations have done agreat deal to bring the issue of glass bead deterioration to the conservation92

community, but there is still a great amount of work to be done to fullyunderstand the problem and how best to prevent and treat it. By building onthe work that has already been done, the international conservationcommunity should continue to push the issue of glass disease on beadedobjects. Professional organizations like the Glass Studies Institute,Association for the History of Glass, and the International Council onMuseums Conservation of Glass Committee are prime audiences to introducethe issue of ethnographic beadwork. In addition, organizations like theCenter for Bead Research and numerous regional and national bead societiesopenly welcome outside conservators to publish and present current researchon the issue of bead deterioration.By following these recommendations, museums will greatly extendthe life of ethnographic beaded objects allowing future generations toexperience the artistic culture of beadwork from around the world. Thecontinuation of research and the increased availability of its findings willserve to educate the professional museum and conservation communitiesabout the unique issues posed by beaded objects suffering from glass disease.93

BIBLIOGRAPHYBachmann, Konstanze, ed. Conservation Concerns: A Guide for Collectorsand Curators. Washington D.C.: Smithsonian Institute Press, 1992.Buck, Rebecca A., and Jean Allman Gilmore, eds. The New MuseumRegistration Methods. Washington D.C.: American Association ofMuseums, 1998.Brill, Robert. “Crizzling—A Problem in Glass Conservation.” Conservationof Archaeology and the Applied Arts, International Institute forConservation, 1975, 121-131.Brozkova, Helena, Olga Drahotova, and Jan Mergl. Bohemian Glass. Prague:Museum of Decorative Arts, 1992.Carrol, Scott and Kelly McHugh. “Material Characterization of Glass Diseaseon Beaded Ethnographic Artifacts from the Collection of the NationalMuseum of the American Indian.” In Ethnographic Beadwork:Aspects of Manufacture, Use, and Conservation, edited by Margot M.Wright, 27-38. London: Archetype Publications Ltd, 2001.Clavir, Miriam. Preserving What is Valued: Museums, Conservation, andFirst Nations. Toronto: University of British Columbia Press, 2002.Clavir, Miriam. “Reflections on Changes in Museums and the Conservationof Collections from Indigenous Peoples.” Journal of the AmericanInstitute for Conservation 35, no. 2 (1996): 99-107.Coles, Janet. Beads: An Exploration of Bead Traditions Around the World.New York: Simon and Schuster, 1997.Davison, Sandra. Conservation and Restoration of Glass. Burlington, MA:Butterworth-Heinemann, 2003.Dubin, Lois Sherr. History of Beads: From 30,000 BC to the Present. NewYork: Abrams Publishing, 1995.Fenn, Julia. “Glass Bead in Soapy Bubble.” Rotunda, Fall 1995, 40.94

Fenn, Julia. “Deterioration of Glass Trade Beads in Contact with Skin andLeather.” In 8 th Triennial Meeting ICOM Committee for ConservationSydney, Australia 6-11 September, 1987, 195-197. Los Angeles: TheGetty Conservation Institute, 1987.Francis, Peter, Jr. Beads of the World. Atglen, PA: Schiffer Publishing Ltd.,1999.Gable, Carl L. Murano Magic: Complete Guide to Venetian Glass, itsHistory and Artists. Atglen, PA: Schiffer, 2004.Good, Mary Elizabeth. “Glass Bead Manufacturing Techniques.” In Beads:Their Use By Upper Great Lakes Indians, 27-34. Grand Rapids:Michigan Indian Press, 1977.Gyermek, Stephen A. “Conservation of Ethnological Materials.” MuseumNews Technical Supplement. October 1964, 4.Howatt-Krahn, Ann. “Conservation: Beadwork.” American Indian ArtMagazine. 1986, 11(4), 24-29.Lanford, Benson L. “Caring for American Indian Materials.” In Beads:Their Use By Upper Great Lakes Indians, 35-6. Grand Rapids:Michigan Indian Press, 1977.Lanford, Benson L. “Indian-made Conversions.” InARTIFACTS/ARTIFAKES:The Proceedings of the 1984 Plains IndianSeminar Held in Cody, Wyoming, 31-36. Cody: Buffalo BillHistorical Center, 1992.Lord, Annie. “Deterioration of Glass Beads on an Edwardian EveningBodice.” In Ethnographic Beadwork: Aspects of Manufacture, Use,and Conservation, edited by Margot M. Wright, 127-132. London:Archetype Publications Ltd, 2001.Lougheed, S. “Deteriorating Glass Beads on Ethnographic Objects:Symptoms and Conservation.” In The Proceedings of the Care andPrevention of Ethnological Materials, edited by R. Barclay, et.al.,109-113. Ottawa: Canadian Conservation Institute, 1987.Lougheed, Sandra, and Jane Shaw. “The Deterioration of Glass Beads onEthnographic Objects.” The Bead Forum. October 1985, 7.95

Lyford, Carrie A. Quill and Beadwork of the Western Sioux. Boulder, CO:Johnson Publishing, 1994.Mentasti, Rosa Baravier, ed., et al. Glass Throughout Time: History andTechnique of Glassmaking from the Ancient World to the Present.New York: Martin Press, 2003.Newton, Roy G. and Sandra Davison, eds. Conservation of Glass. Boston:Butterworth-Heinemann, 1996.Ogden, Sherelyn, ed. Caring for American Indian Objects. St. Paul:Minnesota Historical Society Press, 2004.Orchard, William C. The Technique of Porcupine Quill Decoration Amongthe Indians of North America. Liberty, UT: Eagle View Publishing,1984.Organ, R.M. “The Safe Storage of Unstable Glass.” Museum Journal. 1957,56, 265-272.Penney, David W. Art of the American Indian Frontier: The Chandler-PohrtCollection. Seattle: University of Washington Press, 1992.Robinet, L. et al. Understanding Glass Deterioration in Museum Collectionsthrough SIMS Analysis. Unpublished paper.Rose, Carolyn L. “Ethical and Practical Considerations in ConservingEthnographic Museum Objects.” In The Museum Conservation ofEthnographic Objects, Senri Ethnological Studies, eds. TsuneyukiMorita and Colin Pearson, no. 23. Osaka, Japan: National Museum ofEthnology, 1988, 5-43.Rose, Carolyn L. “Preserving Ethnographic Objects.” In ConservationConcerns: A Guide for Collectors and Curators, 115-122.Washington D.C.: Smithsonian Institute Press, 1992.Rottenberg, Barbara Lang. “Care and Display of Glass Collections.”American Association for State and Local History Technical Leaflet.1980. 127.Strahan, Donna. "Uranium in Glass, Glazes and Enamels: History,Identification and Handling." IIC Studies in Conservation. 2001,46,181.96

Werner, A.E. “The Care of Glass in Museums.” Museum News TechnicalSupplement. June 1966, 13, ##.Wharton, Glenn. “Indigenous Claims and Heritage Conservation.” PublicArchaeology. 2005, 4, 199-204.Interviews and Personal Communications:Allen, Jamey D. Researcher and Adjunct Curator of the Bead Museum,Glendale, AZ. Personal conversations with author.Andrews, Rebecca. Collections Manager, Ethnology, Burke Museum ofNatural History and Culture, University of Washington, Seattle, WA.Telephone interview with author, June 6, 2005.Carrlee, Scott. Conservator, Alaska State Museum. Telephone interview withauthor, May 25, 2005.Frisina, Ann. Textile Conservator, Minneapolis Historical Society.Telephone interview with author, May 19, 2006.Foniciello, Nancy. Private conservator. Personal communications withauthor.Koob, Stephen. Conservator, Corning Museum of Glass. Telephoneinterview with author, June 14, 2005.Lanford, Benson. Researcher and author. Personal conversations withauthor. Ashland, OR, September 2004.Norton, Ruth. Conservator, Chicago Field Museum. Telephone interviewwith author, May 17 2005.Odegaard, Nancy. Conservator, Arizona State Museum. Email interviewwith author, October 10, 2005.Ogden, Sherelyn. Head of Conservation, Minnesota Historical Society.Telephone interview with author, May 18, 2006.Sadongei, Alyce. Assistant Curator of Native American Relations, ArizonaState Museum. Telephone interview with author, May 22, 2006.97

Sheere, Alice. Director, Society for Bead Research. Interview with author.Sonoma, CA, April 18, 2005.Sparks, Hellen. Volunteer, Lincoln County Historical Society, Chandler,OK. Telephone interview with author, May 22, 2005.Wharton, Glenn. Conservator, New York University. Email interview,September 12, 2005.Wolz, Jason. Researcher. Personal conversations with author, IndianaUniversity, Bloomington, August 2, 2002.98

APPENDIX APHOTOS99

Blue beads with efflorescence of alkalinehydroxidePhoto by Scott Carrlee, NMAI CollectionSome beads reacting while others remainstablePhoto by Scott Carrlee, NMAI CollectionBlack beads showing spots ofefflorescencePhoto by Scott Carrlee, NMAI Collection100

Red beads reacting with leatherPhoto by Scott Carrlee, NMAI CollectionBlack beads with alkaline carbonatePhoto by Scott Carrlee, NMAI CollectionRed beads showing crizzlingPhoto by Nancy Fonicello101

Blue beads showing signs of deterioration.Minneapolis Institute of Art PhotoWeeping on a blue beadPhoto by Adam Lovell,Vesterheim Museum CollectionBlue beads showing alkaline carbonatePhoto by Alan Cronister, Private Collection102

Amber beads with crystalline depositsPhoto by Adam Lovell,Vesterheim Museum CollectionBlue beads deteriorating while stable beads remainPhoto by Adam Lovell, Benson Lanford CollectionBlue beads near total deteriorationPhoto by Alan Cronister, Private Collection103

Total deterioration of blue beads leaves a void in thedesign with threads still in placePhoto by Adam Lovell, Private CollectionExample of bead loss NOT caused bydeterioration of the glass104

APPENDIX BSAMPLE SURVEY105

NAMEINSTITUTIONADDRESSCETY, ST ZIPApril 28, 2005My name is Adam Lovell, I am a graduate student in the Masters ofMuseum Studies Program at John F. Kennedy University in Berkeley, CA. Iam writing my thesis on the deterioration of glass beads on ethnographicobjects in museum collections. I am specifically looking at how registrarsand collections managers address this issue. My final product will be aguide book for collections staff on how to identify, treat, and prevent glassbead deterioration.Pleasetake a few minutes to complete the enclosed survey form about glass beadsin your collection. Answer any and all questions to the best of your abilityand return in the enclosed self addressed stamped envelope by June 1st.Electronic copies of my final thesis will be available on CD. Please indicate at thebottom of the survey if you would like a copy of my thesis. Copies of myproduct, a guide book for dealing with glass bead deterioration, will beavailable at cost by this fall.Thank you for your assistance.Adam Lovell106

Have you seen evidence of glass bead deterioration in yourmuseum’s collection?2. How did this problem come to your attention?YesNo3. Which characteristics that you have identified on the beads? Check all that apply.____White powderysubstance____Dirty beads____Small cracks____Broken bead fragments found around object____Missing beads with threads still in place____Discoloration of backing material4. Approximately how many objects in your collection show signs of glass bead deterioration?_____0-5 _____6-10 _____11- _____16- _____over15 20 205. What color beads have you found evidence of deterioration in place? Check all that apply.____Reds____Yellows____Blues____Oranges____Black____Clear____Greens ____Pinks ____White ____Other6. What methods of cleaning have you used on objects with glass beads? Check all that apply.____Soap andwater____Water only____Alcohol____Vaccum____Dry brush____Other7. Have you taken any action to treat or prevent glass bead deterioration? Yes No8. If so, please briefly explain the treatment and result.9. Do you have a professional conservator on staff?YesNo10. What are the approximate ranges of Relative Humidity in your storage area?If you would like a free CD copy of myfinished thesis, please provide a mailingaddress.107

APPENDIX CLIST OF INTERVIEWS108

INTERVIEWSJamey D. Allen. Researcher and Adjunct Curator, Bead Museum, Glendale,AZ. April 8, 2005, Sonoma, CA.Rebecca Andrews. Collections Manager, Ethnology, Burke Museum ofNatural History and Culture, University of Washington, Seattle, WA.Telephone interview with author, June 6, 2005.Scott Carrlee. Conservator, Alaska State Museum. Telephone interviewwith author, May 25, 2005.Ann Frisina. Textile Conservator, Minneapolis Historical Society.Telephone interview with author, May 19, 2006.Nancy Foniciello. Private conservator. Personal communications withauthor.Stephen Koob. Conservator, Corning Museum of Glass. Telephoneinterview with author, June 14, 2005.Benson Lanford. Researcher and author. Personal conversations withauthor. Ashland, OR, September 2004.Ruth Norton. Conservator, Chicago Field Museum. Telephone interviewwith author, May 17 2005.Nancy Odegaard. Conservator, Arizona State Museum. Email interviewwith author, October 10, 2005.Sherelyn Ogden. Head of Conservation, Minnesota Historical Society.Telephone interview with author, May 18, 2006.Alyce Sadongei. Assistant Curator of Native American Relations, ArizonaState Museum. Telephone interview with author, May 22, 2006.Alice Sheere. Director, Society for Bead Research. Interview with author.Sonoma, CA, April 18, 2005.Hellen Sparks. Volunteer, Lincoln County Historical Society, Chandler,OK. Telephone interview with author, May 22, 2005.109

Glenn Wharton. Conservator, New York University. Email interview,September 12, 2005.Jason Wolz. Researcher. Personal conversations with author, IndianaUniversity, Bloomington, August 2, 2002.110

APPENDIX DPRODUCT“Glass Bead Deterioration onEthnographic Objects”http://bead-disease.122mb.comorhttp://bead-disease.com111

112

113

114

115

116

117

118