What is a mount?
Regarding parchment, paper or similar materials, the mount refers to the secure framing most commonly made of conservation-grade acid free museum board in a neutral colour, that the object is stored within. The mount protects the object from accidental damage and makes them much easier to store as a group, or display. Mounting also refers to the set-up and act of securing the object to the board.
 |
| Trolley with boxes containing different sized mounts and parchment fragments |
There are various techniques for mounting objects, and the mount itself is tailored to the conservation needs of the object. For example, a cockled parchment fragment will be suspect to damage if the window mount is too shallow or restrictive. On the other hand, an aged tracing paper map faces problems such as accidental tearing due to the thin and brittle nature of the substrate. Since mounting is one of the final stages of conservation, the conservator will be familiar with the particular problems of an object and plan the mount accordingly.
Why mount parchment?
- The mount will hold the object in a way that supports the object and helps prevent damage.
- The mount should help make the object more accessible to viewers, whether through how the information is presented on display or through ease of handling for individual readers.
- Both sides of the fragment should be accessible to researchers or readers.
Failed or reversible mounts
Mounts are meant to protect the object.
Trying to make mounts which are reversible and minimal is an important consideration. If the mount fails, it should be a simple procedure to repair or replace it without too much interaction with or change to the object. Alternatively, if the mounts for this project are made in a reversible way and in ten years a more sympathetic mounting technique is in use, the mount can easily be changed.
The way in which a mount fails is important too. Whilst a conservator can never predict all of the circumstances the object and the mount will be subject to, it is important to make sure that if the parchment fragment moves slightly the mounting system is strong enough to hold it in place, but that if the fragment moves significantly, the mounting system releases and fails to prevent damage to the fragment.
Since mounting is often specific to the object, a variety of mounting techniques have been used historically, and no single technique can be universally recommended. Below I have compiled a few different examples of mounts I have come across during my survey, as well as several articles on different mounting techniques. The list below is not comprehensive but gives an overall idea of the types of mounts found in the collection.
Fragment mounts from the survey
Nearly every fragment in this survey is in need of partial or total remounting. Several examples I have compiled below utilize self-adhesive tape; all of these need to be remounted. The adhesive in any self-adhesive tape is non-archival, will cross-link and deteriorate. Many self-adhesive tapes will permanently bond with the substrate it is attached to and cause discolouration.
There are many mounting techniques that only display the recto of a folio. These techniques tend to minimize the use of adhesive, and often add no adhesive at all. Very few of examples of these techniques were found on these fragments, however, due to the presence of important information on both recto and verso of most of the fragments, these systems are not likely to be used in remounting.
Hinging
MS Marlay Fr. 4 is an example of a hinged mount. Hinges can be applied either directly out onto the surrounding board, or folded under the fragment, as is the case here. Hinges can be applied to any single side of the fragment, though they are most commonly on the left or head, and are commonly found made of Japanese paper attached with starch paste or self-adhesive tape.
Pros: Hinging is one of the most minimal mounting techniques that requires only very localized adhesive attachment. The verso of the fragment is easily accessible. This method is easy for an untrained person to master, and is simple to change or replace.
Cons: To view the verso, a reader will handle the parchment directly. The parchment may move, be torn, or cockle due to handling. Often, the window is cut to overlay the fragment and hold it in place. If the hinges are not correctly applied, the fragment will not turn well, and may to subject to adverse stress (see image below).
There are many mounting techniques that only display the recto of a folio. These techniques tend to minimize the use of adhesive, and often add no adhesive at all. Very few of examples of these techniques were found on these fragments, however, due to the presence of important information on both recto and verso of most of the fragments, these systems are not likely to be used in remounting.
Hinging
 |
| MS Marlay Fr. 4 © The Fitzwilliam Museum |
MS Marlay Fr. 4 is an example of a hinged mount. Hinges can be applied either directly out onto the surrounding board, or folded under the fragment, as is the case here. Hinges can be applied to any single side of the fragment, though they are most commonly on the left or head, and are commonly found made of Japanese paper attached with starch paste or self-adhesive tape.
 |
| MS Marlay Fr. 4 mount © The Fitzwilliam Museum |
Cons: To view the verso, a reader will handle the parchment directly. The parchment may move, be torn, or cockle due to handling. Often, the window is cut to overlay the fragment and hold it in place. If the hinges are not correctly applied, the fragment will not turn well, and may to subject to adverse stress (see image below).
 |
| MS Marlay Fr. 4 self-adhesive tape hinge details © The Fitzwilliam Museum |
 |
| MS Marlay Fr. 4 parchment and hinges © The Fitzwilliam Museum |
Inlay
MS Marlay 18iv is an example of a fragment inlaid into a bespoke cut card. Most of the inlays found during the survey are made of a cream coloured card, probably a conservation heritage card.
Pros: Minimal or no overmount from the window mount in most cases. The fragment is supported from all sides. A viewer handles the card instead of directly touching the substrate.
Cons: Adhesive and careful attachment necessary on all sides of the fragment. The card can restrict movement of the fragment during changes with temperature and rH and potentially cause damage.
Thread Mount
MS 196 is an example of a thread mount. Threads are adhered at intervals along the edges of the parchment, then adhered to a board with the intention of creating some tension on the parchment.
Pros: Tension is applied across the entire fragment. The fragment can be floated between boards so no media touches the boards, preventing accidental loss or damage. The reader will touch the boards instead of the fragment during handling.
Cons: Adhesive needs to be applied to every edge of the fragment. Successful thread mounting is difficult without practice and training. If the thread mount fails the entire mounting system will need to be removed and replaced.
Closed mount
MS 294(d) is an example of a mount where the hinging technique and the verso of the fragment are inaccessible. This particular mount is made up of six layers of board, which makes it very solid and heavy.
Pros: The fragment cannot be accessed by a reader and is protected from accidental damage from handling.
Cons: It is impossible to see what mounting or hinging technique was used directly on the fragment; the entire mount would need to be taken apart to make sure it is conservation standard. The verso is completely inaccessible. The mount is very heavy and cumbersome during handling.
Thoughts and further reading
The mounts listed are generally representative of the current mounting techniques found on the fragments, though there are many variations and outliers which will be explored further as the project progresses. Many mounts have at least one aspect that will need to be altered: removal of self-adhesive tape, cutting wider windows to remove excessive overmount, making fragments more easily accessible, etc. I have started research on different methods that have been used on similar parchment objects and have begun considering how I will address the remounting of the 91 fragments in a sympathetic way. As I reach the remounting stage this topic will be addressed again.
Some articles I have been reading that address mounting of individual parchment folios are listed below. Any suggestions in the comments for further reading or discussion are welcome.
Nicholas Pickwoad's article 'Alternative Methods of Mounting Parchment for Framing and Exhibition' describes techniques for mounting single sheets of parchment for both permanent and temporary display. It includes instructions for the reverse thread matt, a type of thread mount, and a mounting system using Japanese paper straps and support boards for larger parchment objects.
(Pickwoad, N. (1992) 'Alternative Methods of Mounting Parchment for Framing and Exhibition' The Paper Conservator Vol.16 Issue.1)
Bryan Clarke's article 'A Study of Traditional and Contemporary Techniques for Mounting and Assembling Prints at the Fitzwilliam Museum' describes mounting methods used in the Paper Conservation department at the Fitzwilliam Museum, including the concealed tab method and a tensioning method using Japanese paper tabs instead of threads.
(Clarke, B. 'A Study of Traditional and Contemporary Techniques for Mounting and Assembling Prints at the Fitzwilliam Museum')(full reference to be added soon)
Margaret Lawson's article 'A Method of Mounting Parchment Using Hair Silk' addresses how to create non-adhesive mounts for parchment folios using hair silk, developed for an exhibition of Jean Pucelle's manuscript The Hours of Jean d'Evreux. This technique works for a single mount, double-sided mount, and a nested mount.
(Lawson, M. (2004) 'A Method of Mounting Parchment Using Hair Silk' Journal of the American Institute for Conservation Vol.43 <http://aic.stanford.edu/jaic/articles/jaic43-02-005.html>)
(Rickman, C, K. Edmondson and E. Le Cornu (2012) 'The conservation of botanical
illustrations on vellum: past, present and future' Journal of the Institute of Conservation Vol.35 Issue 2)
<http://teroauvinen4.files.wordpress.com/2013/08/194552242e20122e724606.pdf>
Paul Hepworth and Maurizio Michelozzi's article 'Conservation of two Coptic parchment manuscript fragments' describes the conservation treatment of two similar Coptic parchment fragments that were independently treated, unknowingly, around the same time. It includes descriptions of two very different choices made regarding the mounting of the fragments.
(Hepworth, P. and M. Michelozzi (2004) 'Conservation of two Coptic parchment manuscript fragments' The Paper Conservator Vol.28)
Daniel Norman's article 'The mounting of single leaf parchment & vellum objects for display and storage' addresses the problems faced with mounting single parchment folios for display and the techniques experimented with.
(Norman, D. (1993) 'The mounting of single leaf parchment & vellum objects for display and storage' V&A Conservation Journal Issue 9
<http://www.vam.ac.uk/content/journals/conservation-journal/issue-09/the-mounting-of-single-leaf-parchment-and-vellum-objects-for-display-and-storage/>)
Christopher Clarkson's article “The Preservation and Display of Single Parchment Leaves and Fragments” is, I believe, the first description of the thread mount, and often quoted in other articles. I have not had access to this article as of yet.
(Clarkson, C. (1987) “The Preservation and Display of Single Parchment Leaves and Fragments” Conservation of Library and Archive Materials and the Graphic Arts)
The next post, preparation for pigment consolidation, will post on Friday the 29th of November.
(Unrelated but interesting: Three conservators working at the Cambridge University Library were interviewed for the Naked Scientists radio show about conservation of paper and parchment documents. They discuss the classification of damage, ink consolidation, and local humidification of parchment, so if you'd like to learn a bit more about conservation you can listen for free at:
http://www.thenakedscientists.com/HTML/podcasts/naked-scientists/show/1000549/ )
 |
| MS Marlay 18iv © The Fitzwilliam Museum |
MS Marlay 18iv is an example of a fragment inlaid into a bespoke cut card. Most of the inlays found during the survey are made of a cream coloured card, probably a conservation heritage card.
Pros: Minimal or no overmount from the window mount in most cases. The fragment is supported from all sides. A viewer handles the card instead of directly touching the substrate.
 |
| MS Marlay 18 iv verso © The Fitzwilliam Museum |
Thread Mount
 |
| MS 196 © The Fitzwilliam Museum |
 |
| MS 196 verso thread mount © The Fitzwilliam Museum |
 |
| Thread mount detail with loose threads and excess adhesive visible MS 196 © The Fitzwilliam Museum |
Cons: Adhesive needs to be applied to every edge of the fragment. Successful thread mounting is difficult without practice and training. If the thread mount fails the entire mounting system will need to be removed and replaced.
Closed mount
 |
| MS 294(d) © The Fitzwilliam Museum |
 |
| Detail of six layers of mount board MS 294(d) © The Fitzwilliam Museum |
 |
| Layers of mount board MS 294(d) © The Fitzwilliam Museum |
Cons: It is impossible to see what mounting or hinging technique was used directly on the fragment; the entire mount would need to be taken apart to make sure it is conservation standard. The verso is completely inaccessible. The mount is very heavy and cumbersome during handling.
Thoughts and further reading
The mounts listed are generally representative of the current mounting techniques found on the fragments, though there are many variations and outliers which will be explored further as the project progresses. Many mounts have at least one aspect that will need to be altered: removal of self-adhesive tape, cutting wider windows to remove excessive overmount, making fragments more easily accessible, etc. I have started research on different methods that have been used on similar parchment objects and have begun considering how I will address the remounting of the 91 fragments in a sympathetic way. As I reach the remounting stage this topic will be addressed again.
Some articles I have been reading that address mounting of individual parchment folios are listed below. Any suggestions in the comments for further reading or discussion are welcome.
Nicholas Pickwoad's article 'Alternative Methods of Mounting Parchment for Framing and Exhibition' describes techniques for mounting single sheets of parchment for both permanent and temporary display. It includes instructions for the reverse thread matt, a type of thread mount, and a mounting system using Japanese paper straps and support boards for larger parchment objects.
(Pickwoad, N. (1992) 'Alternative Methods of Mounting Parchment for Framing and Exhibition' The Paper Conservator Vol.16 Issue.1)
Bryan Clarke's article 'A Study of Traditional and Contemporary Techniques for Mounting and Assembling Prints at the Fitzwilliam Museum' describes mounting methods used in the Paper Conservation department at the Fitzwilliam Museum, including the concealed tab method and a tensioning method using Japanese paper tabs instead of threads.
(Clarke, B. 'A Study of Traditional and Contemporary Techniques for Mounting and Assembling Prints at the Fitzwilliam Museum')(full reference to be added soon)
Margaret Lawson's article 'A Method of Mounting Parchment Using Hair Silk' addresses how to create non-adhesive mounts for parchment folios using hair silk, developed for an exhibition of Jean Pucelle's manuscript The Hours of Jean d'Evreux. This technique works for a single mount, double-sided mount, and a nested mount.
(Lawson, M. (2004) 'A Method of Mounting Parchment Using Hair Silk' Journal of the American Institute for Conservation Vol.43 <http://aic.stanford.edu/jaic/articles/jaic43-02-005.html>)
Catherine Rickman, Kate Edmondson and Emma Le Cornu's article 'The conservation of botanical
illustrations on vellum: past, present and future' describes a variety of mounting techniques used on the collection of botanical illustrations at the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew. the article is available online, but the entire issue the journal is is published in has relevant articles about conservation and storage of parchment.
illustrations on vellum: past, present and future' Journal of the Institute of Conservation Vol.35 Issue 2)
<http://teroauvinen4.files.wordpress.com/2013/08/194552242e20122e724606.pdf>
Paul Hepworth and Maurizio Michelozzi's article 'Conservation of two Coptic parchment manuscript fragments' describes the conservation treatment of two similar Coptic parchment fragments that were independently treated, unknowingly, around the same time. It includes descriptions of two very different choices made regarding the mounting of the fragments.
(Hepworth, P. and M. Michelozzi (2004) 'Conservation of two Coptic parchment manuscript fragments' The Paper Conservator Vol.28)
Daniel Norman's article 'The mounting of single leaf parchment & vellum objects for display and storage' addresses the problems faced with mounting single parchment folios for display and the techniques experimented with.
(Norman, D. (1993) 'The mounting of single leaf parchment & vellum objects for display and storage' V&A Conservation Journal Issue 9
<http://www.vam.ac.uk/content/journals/conservation-journal/issue-09/the-mounting-of-single-leaf-parchment-and-vellum-objects-for-display-and-storage/>)
Christopher Clarkson's article “The Preservation and Display of Single Parchment Leaves and Fragments” is, I believe, the first description of the thread mount, and often quoted in other articles. I have not had access to this article as of yet.
(Clarkson, C. (1987) “The Preservation and Display of Single Parchment Leaves and Fragments” Conservation of Library and Archive Materials and the Graphic Arts)
The next post, preparation for pigment consolidation, will post on Friday the 29th of November.
(Unrelated but interesting: Three conservators working at the Cambridge University Library were interviewed for the Naked Scientists radio show about conservation of paper and parchment documents. They discuss the classification of damage, ink consolidation, and local humidification of parchment, so if you'd like to learn a bit more about conservation you can listen for free at:
http://www.thenakedscientists.com/HTML/podcasts/naked-scientists/show/1000549/ )
Hello Sibel,
ReplyDeleteI have fifty parchment manuscripts from the XI to XIV, in various sizes and I'm facing the same situation as you on mounting them. I will appreciate a lot with you can share how you addressed the mounting of your parchment collection and materials you used.