An interview with… Dana Goodburn-Brown
[fg]jpg|Canterbury Roman museum helmet during conservation|Image[/fg]
[fg]jpg|Shorne glass with specs of gold decoration|Image[/fg]
[fg]jpg|Shorne islamic glass|Image[/fg]
[fg]jpg|Shorne training session. Dana peering through the microscope|Image[/fg]
RT: Tell us a bit about your background and how you came to be a conservator?
DGB: I came to be a conservator from an arts background and my interest in the ancient world and diverse cultures. I grew up in southern California, and outside of normal activities of school and family holidays in the mountains, I was always involved in arts and crafts.
In the summer of 1977 aged 18, I was awarded a place on an international exchange programme and spent ten weeks living with a Turkish family on the Black Sea coast. This experience changed my perspective on many things and began my love of travel, museums, and how people made things in the past.
I went on to study fine arts and art history at the University of Colorado, Boulder. In the summer of 1978, I studied art history in Florence, Italy and my professor introduced me to a former student of his who was a conservator there… from that moment on, everything fell into place. I had never heard of the profession before, and 40 years on, I believe it is still a hidden/niche profession.
I researched how to enter the profession and where best to study. Science was necessary for conservation work, so I added biology and chemistry to my art and history-based studies at university. I was lucky enough to be accepted as a pre-professional intern at the Rocky Mountain Regional Conservation Labs in nearby Denver. The following summer I signed up for a dig in Israel (Caesarea Maritima) – my Roman history professor ran a summer school there, and he allowed me to get my first practical work with archaeology: teamwork, digging, cleaning coins, and observing a mosaics conservator in action.
In the summer of 1980 and to comply with requirements for entry to the University of London, I did a summer crash course in German. I scraped through my science exams, achieved a BA in Art History, a BFA in studio arts, and with my archaeology and conservation volunteer experiences, I began my professional studies in London in 1981.
RT: What do you think local archaeological groups are regarding the need for conservation on archaeological excavations?
DGB: I imagine local groups are aware of the need for conservation but feel they can manage without professional conservators. I suppose this indicates that conservators have done an excellent job at issuing advice and guidelines—but perhaps not such a good job at conveying the possible complexity of some finds and the benefits a trained conservator can bring to a project under these circumstances.
RT: Do local groups often approach you for advice?
DGB: Very rarely.
RT: What issues do you regularly see in excavated assemblages?
DGB: Packaging usually needs improving—using archive materials and in a way that finds can be easily accessed with minimal handling. Metal finds have often not been X-radiographed—this means that there may be much yet to be discovered about these finds.
RT: Can you give any examples of good conservation practice and liaison within the County?
DGB: I think the Anglo-Saxon CSI: Sittingbourne project is an excellent example of good practice and liaison between professional experts and local groups. This was created as a project to conserve finds from one particular site and involved the training of over 100 volunteers (c. 30 hours of training followed by professional supervision throughout further microscope-based conservation work). The use of volunteers in a public space enabled public access to the process of conservation, and several smaller collaborations with local groups and archaeological units sprung from this project (e.g., the unrolling and translation of a Roman lead scroll for the Maidstone Archaeology Group; repackaging and discoveries made for the KAS Sarre/Bifrons iron archive; and collaborations with the Shorne Archaeological Group—for improving care of their archive, cleaning and identification work on some of their special finds; conservation and exhibition of finds from Lyminge; and currently one of CSI’s longstanding volunteers and I are conserving materials relating to the recent discovery of ‘Caesar’s landing’ at Ebbsfleet—we are excited to be part of the telling of this important story).
RT: How can people/groups apply for funding to pay for your professional time?
DGB: There are many avenues for people to apply for funding to involve professionals in training, conservation treatments, and display. Local charities may be approached, HLF and/or the Arts Council are good places to contact. Fundraising is a skill in itself, but when I have been fortunate enough to work alongside a fundraiser, I have been made aware of quite a number of places to apply. Luckily, HLF and the Arts Council offer advisory sessions for groups wishing to apply for funds.
RT: A very broad question but how should local groups best collect, store, and archive their finds?
DGB: Local groups should follow best practice, as provided in various guidelines; they should also learn who their nearest professional experts are for help in identifying finds and assisting when needed. An excellent way forward would be for groups to pool resources/create networks amongst themselves/consider shared materials and/or archive storage in regional deposits.
I’d encourage all local archaeological groups to be aware of the following publications:
First Aid for Finds by David Watkinson and Virginia Neal ISBN 1-871656-28-1
Historic England, 2006 Guidelines on the X-radiography of archaeological metalwork goo.gl/6HApxR
Historic England, 2008 Investigative Conservation goo.gl/dcqnpn
RT: What is the most challenging artefact you have had to conserve and why?
DGB: It is tough to single out the most challenging artefact I have treated—this is one thing I love most about my job… there have been many complex artefacts that came across my bench over the years. Perhaps one of the most difficult was a bronze 1st-century Roman Patera from the widening of the A2/M2 at Gravesend. Roman copper alloy bowls are often very thin and deteriorated in a way that leads to the possibility of them fragmenting into many small pieces. This one, in particular, had a detached ram’s head handle, a heavy iron find collapsed on top of it; an ewer with the most lovely cherub face on it to the side; a large Samian bowl above and other food vessels surrounding it. Working alongside Oxford Archaeology archaeologists, it was great teamwork to get it out of the ground without damaging it or the other burial goods associated with it. It came out of the ground as a block, with the iron item still attached, the whole assemblage being supported by a volatile wax and plaster bandages.
After X-radiography, it was carefully micro-excavated, at the lab, and held together with a silicone ‘casing’ on each respective side, as the work progressed from one side to the other; finally, tissue and acrylic bandages and epoxy film fills used where needed for final support; in addition to a specially made mount to conform to the shape of the whole. I was proud that the methodology allowed for a resin replica to be cast from it—which in itself was an achievement. It is great to have a resin replica to remind me of the exciting find and to use for educational and public engagement purposes. (Sadly the wonderful finds from this site are still in limbo—as there is no museum available to accept the large archive.)
RT: If you could offer one piece of conservation advice to all archaeological groups, what would that be?
DGB: Share resources—look towards regional conservation assistance and sharing expertise and materials.