condition described at the time of treatment at the Fogg with their condi-
tion in the mid-1970s. The panels were found to be stable; flaking and
other instabilities, which had plagued these paintings prior to their treat-
ment, had been eliminated.
Stout, who initiated the consideration of characteristic panel
paintings problems at the Fogg, was soon joined by Murry Pease and
Richard Buck. Kolch documented the treatments done over the years from
1927 to 1952. The paintings treated suffered from unstable design layers
and supports, wood deterioration and deformation, and inappropriate
reinforcement. The intention of treatment was to stabilize and preserve
the design and structure without removing more of the original than was
necessary for consolidation. Furthermore, the treatments were designed to
avoid the addition of reinforcement that would be incompatible or intro-
duce new problems (Buck 1947; Stout 1955; Pease 1948).
While details of these treatments vary greatly, it will be useful to
review the general approach. Additions such as cradles or previous transfer
panels were removed where they caused damaging stresses or interfered
with access for consolidation. Severely deteriorated or insect-damaged
wood was removed. These removals occasionally extended to the gesso
or paint layer in local areas, or even to the entire painting. The intention,
however, was to preserve as much of the original structure as possible.
Reconstruction materials included gesso, wax-resin, bulked wax-resin mor-
tar, f abrics, redwood strips, balsa-wood strips and blocks, and aluminum
strips and tubing in a variety of combinations. Where the original gesso or
paint was exposed, gesso and fabric reinforcement were often used prior to
the filling of voids with wax and balsa, or the building up of larger areas
with wax and redwood strips. Several panels were flattened with mois-
ture—a procedure aided by channels cut in the panel—prior to the final
backing. Wax and fabric were often used to finish the back and to provide
afinal moisture barrier.
It is instructive to review several of these treatments to under-
stand the development of this method. The information here is based on
David Kolch’s research on the conservation records of the Fogg Museum
ofArt, as well as some of the original treatment records (Kolch 1977).
These records show that the end-grain, balsa-block backing method is an
outgrowth of extensive treatment experience.
One of the earliest treatments reviewed was carried out from
1934 to 1936. The treatment involved a panel with areas of severe deterio-
ration from insect tunneling. In the first stage of treatment, the powdery
damaged wood was removed down to the original gesso in local areas,
and the voids were filled with a layered structure of a damar-wax mixture
(4:1), linen gauze, damar-wax putty with chalk and hemp fiber, and red-
wood blocks. Two years later, deteriorated wood was more extensively
removed over most of the panel, but apparently a thin layer of original
wood was left next to the gesso. In this treatment, wax-resin bulked with
shredded cork and hemp fibers was used to level the back over the thin
remaining wood. This layer was covered with fabric and layers of balsa
wood strips embedded in the wax-resin putty. In Kolch’s examination, this
painting was one of the two that showed adverse effects from treatments.
On this painting, a slight surface depression, visible in raking light, roughly
follows the area of reconstruction; within this area a bulge (approximately
83 15 cm) is presumed to correspond to part of the first excavation and
reconstruction. It is interesting to note that in the first stage of reconstruc-290 Horns