Objects Specialty Group Postprints
Volume Eighteen, 2011
Proceedings of the Objects Specialty Group Session
June 1-3, 2011
AMERICAN INSTITUTE FOR CONSERVATION OF HISTORIC AND ARTISTIC WORKS
39th Annual Meeting
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
 
 
 
 
 
Article: Recovering painted organic objects from ancient Mesoamerica: Strategic considerations 
in the field and the lab 
Author(s): Harriet F. Beaubien 
Source: Objects Specialty Group Postprints, Volume Eighteen, 2011 
Pages: 3-23 
Compilers: Sanchita Balachandran, Christine Del Re, and Carolyn Riccardelli 
© 2011 by The American Institute for Conservation of Historic & Artistic Works, 1156 15th 
Street NW, Suite 320, Washington, DC 20005. (202) 452-9545 
www.conservation-us.org 
 
Under a licensing agreement, individual authors retain copyright to their work and extend 
publications rights to the American Institute for Conservation. 
 
Objects Specialty Group Postprints is published annually by the Objects Specialty Group (OSG) 
of the American Institute for Conservation of Historic & Artistic Works (AIC). A membership 
benefit of the Objects Specialty Group, Objects Specialty Group Postprints is mainly comprised 
of papers presented at OSG sessions at AIC Annual Meetings and is intended to inform and 
educate conservation-related disciplines. 
 
Papers presented in Objects Specialty Group Postprints, Volume Eighteen, 2011 have been 
edited for clarity and content but have not undergone a formal process of peer review. This 
publication is primarily intended for the members of the Objects Specialty Group of the 
American Institute for Conservation of Historic & Artistic Works. Responsibility for the 
methods and materials described herein rests solely with the authors, whose articles should not 
be considered official statements of the OSG or the AIC. The OSG is an approved division of the 
AIC but does not necessarily represent the AIC policy or opinions.  
AIC Objects Specialty Group Postprints, Vol. 18, 2011 
RECOVERING PAINTED ORGANIC OBJECTS FROM 
ANCIENT MESOAMERICA: STRATEGIC CONSIDERATIONS 
IN THE FIELD AND THE LAB  
 
HARRIET F. BEAUBIEN 
 
 
ABSTRACT  
 
Objects made of organic materials, such as gourds or wood, have been found at sites throughout the ancient Maya 
world, most commonly as offerings and furnishings in high-status tombs. In these contexts they are typically detected 
only when they were also ornamented with paint, appearing as concentrations of paint flakes that are the remnants of 
paint layers after the collapse and complete decay of the organic substrates. Because of this exceptional instability, 
conservation involvement during the excavation process is key to their recovery. Considerations in developing an 
appropriate conservation strategy – including decisions about field preparation, lifting, laboratory excavation, analysis 
and reconstruction – are discussed using variously successful case study examples from several sites in Central 
America.  
 
1. INTRODUCTION  
 
Painted objects, made of wood, gourd, fiber, and other organic materials, are an elusive 
component of the material culture of the ancient Maya, who flourished in what is now 
Guatemala, Belize and neighboring areas of Mexico, Honduras and El Salvador, during the first 
millennium BCE through and beyond the time of Spanish Contact. We know from indirect lines 
of evidence that these types of objects were in use on the basis of depictions in other art forms, 
such as stone reliefs, mural paintings, and scenes on painted ceramics, from descriptions of 
indigenous lifeways in the chronicles of early Spanish missionaries, and from persistence in local 
craft practices of traditional Maya communities today.  
From an archaeological standpoint, however, these types of objects are poorly 
represented in the excavation record. Beyond their susceptibility to wear-and-tear, fire and other 
events during their use-life, objects made of organic materials typically suffer decay, collapse 
and eventual disappearance of the substrate in a subtropical climate and terrestrial burial 
environment. As a result, these types of objects can be detected only when they were also 
ornamented with paint or other relatively inert materials such as stone appliqués or inlays, which 
resist deterioration, albeit often in a highly fragmented state.  
The contexts within which these types of deposits are most likely to be encountered are 
those that are generally relatively undisturbed, and for which the excavation methodology tends 
to be painstaking since these contexts offer well-associated, more comprehensive and better 
preserved material evidence. Conservators are also much more likely to be involved in 
excavations anticipating such special deposits. All of these aspects contribute to a better 
prognosis for detection and recovery of the remains of painted organic objects.  
This paper presents strategies to meet the challenge of recovering these types of deposits. 
Most of the illustrated examples come from undisturbed Classic-period elite burials during the 
second half of the first millennium CE at primary and secondary civic-ceremonial centers, 
including Copán (Honduras), Waka'-El Perú (Guatemala, henceforth shortened to Waka') and 
Baking Pot (Belize). The non-elite exception is provided by the site of Cerén (El Salvador),  
  
3
Beaubien AIC Objects Specialty Group Postprints, Vol. 18, 2011 
a farming village that was rapidly buried under six meters of volcanic ash in ca. 600 CE, 
preserving the adobe architecture, household items, and other features in an undisturbed state.  
 
2. DESCRIPTION OF REMAINS  
 
A solid sculptural or flat object may have paint applications decorating all surfaces, or discreet 
areas thereof; paint applications on a hollow object such as a bowl may be on both exterior and 
interior surfaces. Depending on the nature of its substrate, a painted organic object may be 
vulnerable to damage at the time of archaeological deposition as well as during long-term burial, 
such as crushing by falling debris or soil overburden, and then further deformation, collapse and 
fragmentation as organic components undergo decay. In subtropical environments, the organic 
substrate material ordinarily decomposes completely, leaving behind a concentration of 
unsupported paint fragments (fig. 1). 
Despite the object’s severe loss of structural integrity, the fragments – especially in 
relatively undisturbed contexts – still retain something of their original associations according to 
location on the object. A key feature of these paint flakes is their structure in cross-section, 
typically consisting of a monochrome ground or preparation layer, which would have been 
applied to the organic substrate, topped with one or more applications of variously colored paint, 
making up the decorative scheme (fig. 2). The texture of the colored paint applications is notably 
very fine, while that of the ground can vary from fine to quite coarse; particularly in the latter 
case, an intermediate ground layer with a finer texture sometimes is added as a transition layer 
before the decorative paint is applied. The underside of the paint flake often retains subtle stains 
and impressions from the organic material to which it had been applied.  
Flakes from a particular paint layer are assumed to share a number of characteristics, 
including a consistent type of ground, as well as a shared palette of paint colors and decorative 
approaches; their undersides will also display related impressions of the organic substrate. These 
characteristics are important in interpreting the remains, as are the as-found positions and 
orientations of paint layers or group of flakes. In describing orientation (from the viewer’s 
perspective), the terms used here are paint-side-up (PSU), and paint-side-down (PSD) with 
ground surface visible.  
 
3. STRATEGIC CONSIDERATIONS  
 
The exceedingly fragile nature of these deposits and the challenges they offer – from field 
recovery to physical reassembly to safe disposition and interpretation – argue for conservation 
involvement at every step, coordinated closely with the archaeological team. In developing an 
appropriate conservation strategy for these deposits, a number of factors should be considered 
and prioritized, which have archaeological and logistical implications. These include the 
deposit’s general condition (e.g., how shattered or disturbed the remains are) and details of its 
context. How accessible is the deposit in situ, including space available for personnel and 
materials? Can surrounding finds and other intrusive materials be cleared first? What is the 
surface on which it rests and what is underneath? Can the surrounding and underlying matrix be 
disrupted? Logistical factors include when access can be scheduled and how much time is 
available to carry out the work. What field recovery tools and materials are available or would 
need to be brought in? Finally, where will the lifted material be taken for further treatment or 
storage, and how would the lifted material be transported there? 
4
Beaubien AIC Objects Specialty Group Postprints, Vol. 18, 2011 
Fig. 1. Artifact #011 in Burial 24, Structure O14-4, Waka' (Photograph by L. Weber) 
 
Fig. 2. Paint flake cross-section from Artifact #198 in Burial 39, Structure O14-4, Waka' (Photograph by C. Snyder)
5
Beaubien AIC Objects Specialty Group Postprints, Vol. 18, 2011 
From a conservation perspective, a deposit with preserved adjacency and orientation of 
fragments offers the best possible opportunity to recover and interpret an object, including its 
overall features – aspects of shape, decorative scheme, and (through larger expanses of 
impressions on the underside) information about what the organic substrate material might have 
been – as well as technical details, such as materials used for grounds and paints, and some of the 
techniques used to create the decoration. However, even a deposit of disassociated fragments can 
be lifted and meaningfully interpreted, providing documentation of painting materials and 
decorative techniques in use; these technical features can also be used to confirm associations 
with other fragments coming from the same object.  
The resulting conservation plan generally focuses on the field recovery phase, 
encompassing the lifting method along with any preparatory treatment, and any post-lift 
treatment undertaken to accommodate transit and interim storage concerns. In-depth 
examination, conservation and analysis are critical to an interpretation of the deposit, but require 
time and adequate facilities – rarely available in the field – in addition to conservation expertise. 
Provisions for these laboratory-based activities are ideally considered in advance, if at all 
possible, and also become part of the plan.  
Strategies for the field recovery of deposits in various states of preservation, and 
corresponding follow-up in a laboratory setting, are discussed in more detail in the following 
sections.  
 
4. FIELD RECOVERY  
 
4.1 LIFTING LOOSE FRAGMENTS 
An example of a large deposit in which loose collection was the primary recovery method 
is represented by the tomb of Ruler 12, found embedded within a massive stone pyramid at the 
site of Copán (Burial 37-4, ca. early 8th c. CE, in Structure 26) (Fash et al. 2001, Magee et al. 
2001). The tomb chamber was dominated by a stone burial dais, covered with a several-
centimeter thick deposit of fragmentary materials, primarily paint flakes, as well as 
concentrations of jade items, shells and ceramics (Figs.3-4). Because of collapse and decay of 
organic constituents and subsequent seismic disturbance that dislocated wall stones and artifacts, 
the deposit was quite jumbled. Its situation on a stone surface also limited recovery options to 
those that did not involve excavating below the resting surface). This context was fortunately one 
that could be sealed between seasons, giving the conservation team the necessary time to develop 
a conservation plan.  
 
4.1.1 Lifting Process 
The selected lifting strategy for most of the surface area was one of loose collection, after 
the robust materials had been carefully removed by the archaeologists shortly after discovery. 
This was carried out within a defined 10cm x 10cm grid system and in a stratigraphic manner 
whenever layering of components was evident, using soft brushes and small “dust pans” cut from 
plastic weighing boats (fig. 5). Small aluminum containers were used to hold the fragments from 
a given grid square, or from a particular layer within a grid square, each secured within a plastic 
bag labeled with provenience information. These could be stacked carefully in modular plastic 
boxes according to grid square for transport out of the burial chamber to the site laboratory, and 
be used for storage. 
6
Beaubien AIC Objects Specialty Group Postprints, Vol. 18, 2011 
Fig. 3. Tomb chamber of Burial 37-4, Structure 26, Copán: dais deposit at the time of discovery in 1989  
(Fash et al. 2001) 
 
Fig. 4. Detail of fragments on the dais of Burial 37-4, Structure 26, Copán (Photograph by H. Beaubien) 
7
Beaubien AIC Objects Specialty Group Postprints, Vol. 18, 2011 
Fig. 5. Loose collection of fragments on the dais of Burial 37-4, Structure 26, Copán (Photograph by C. Magee) 
 
Fig. 6. Artifact #011 in situ with fragment boxes in the tomb chamber of Burial 24, Structure O14-4, Waka' 
(Photograph by H. Beaubien)
8
Beaubien AIC Objects Specialty Group Postprints, Vol. 18, 2011 
Robust fragments surrounding a ceramic vessel on the floor of the same burial at Copán 
(discussed in more detail in Section 5.1 and shown in figure 12), and sculptural elements that 
were part of a fragmented deposit in an elite burial at the site of Waka' were removed in a similar 
fashion (fig. 6). In both cases, the fragments were stored in well-padded containers.  
 
4.2 LIFTING FRAGMENTS IN ASSOCIATION 
In the deposit on the burial dais at Copán were several areas where the paint fragment 
organization was much less disrupted and larger patches of PSU or PSD fragments were 
exposed. These were lifted as articulated groups after in situ treatment.  
 
4.2.1 Pre-Lift Treatment 
The fragments were first carefully cleaned with a soft brush and blower bulb, and then 
linked together using Japanese tissue adhered with an aqueous methyl cellulose gel. This 
combination of materials proved effective because the fine cellulosic tissue, with moisture, 
conformed closely to the irregular surfaces, and methyl cellulose was a sufficiently strong, 
compatible and easily reversible adhesive. Adjacent fragments could be strapped together with 
tissue strips or, for larger expanses, with a continuous tissue facing applied in overlapping 
patches. It was often helpful to strengthen the surfaces first with a dilute Paraloid B-72 solution 
in acetone, which helped tack adjacent fragments together. This application also made it possible 
to aqueously remove the facing tissue later, without disaggregating the fragments. Easy 
reversibility of facing/backing materials is an important consideration as the obscured surface 
may need to be studied during subsequent laboratory investigation.  
 
4.2.2 Lifting Process 
In the Copán example, the lift process involved gradually lifting up and sliding a Mylar 
sheet under the faced group (fig. 7), transferring the group to a flat surface, and then inverting it 
so that it rested on the more secure faced side. These could be stacked with interleaved padding 
(e.g., thin Volara or other soft sheet) in plastic boxes for transport and storage.  
 
Fig. 7. Lifting a faced fragment group on the dais of Burial 37-4, Structure 26, Copán (Photograph by K. McHugh) 
9
Beaubien AIC Objects Specialty Group Postprints, Vol. 18, 2011 
Sometimes, another layer of fragments was found adhering to the underside of the faced 
fragment group, with their respective stucco ground layers in contact. We were concerned that 
this had occurred from B-72 consolidant seeping through cracks from the upper layer of 
fragments to the underlying fragments, making separation more difficult. We found instead that 
this aggregation could occur naturally. Many painted objects were once decorated on both sides 
of the organic substrate material. With the decay of the substrate bringing the two stucco ground 
layers into contact, these gradually cemented lightly together during burial. Fortunately they 
could be separated quite easily by facing the adherent layer and then judiciously applying water 
or ethanol in the seam between them. We noted that this aggregation of paint layers rarely 
happened when the finely finished painted sides of fragments were in face-to-face contact, likely 
due to the reduced porosity of the surfaces.  
 
4.3 BLOCK-LIFTING 
The scenario that provides the best chance of more nuanced reconstruction is when 
block-lifting is possible. With this method, a deposit of paint flakes is removed in its entirety. 
The significant advantages of a block-lift are that it does the best job of keeping all the fragments 
in their original positions, and “buys time” – allowing the challenge of determining the best way 
to extricate the fragments to happen later in a more controlled laboratory-type setting.  
Because the object is a deposit of loose paint fragments, lifting will require the matrix in 
which the deposit is embedded to play a significant role in its support. Eligible contexts include 
those in which the deposit is resting on an earthen floor, such as a number of the elite burials at 
Copán, Waka' and Baking Pot, or embedded within a particulate matrix, such as the ash filled 
adobe structures at Cerén. These allow excavation steps to be carried out that isolate the deposit 
on a pedestal of matrix material, as follows. Enough overlying material is removed to define the 
nature and extent of the deposit. Leaving at least several centimeters of matrix intact around the 
periphery as a protective margin, the object is pedestaled by lowering the surrounding matrix to a 
depth that corresponds to that of the entire object and continues deeper, with enough clearance 
below the object that the block can be cut from beneath with minimal disturbance to the deposit 
(fig. 8).  
One of the most important aspects to consider in advance is the desirable orientation of 
the block after lifting. During the initial lift process, the block is maintained in its original 
orientation, but the circumstances of transport to an adequate location for the next phase of 
treatment or storage, or the immediate stability needs of the block, may argue for inversion of the 
block right after lifting. The orientation for transport should be decided in advance, as this will 
dictate some of the decisions about surface protection of the deposit and matrix support methods, 
both of which are critical elements for a successful lift.  
 
4.3.1 Pre-Lift Treatment 
Once sufficient overlying material has been carefully removed, most deposits of loose 
paint fragments require some kind of surface stabilization in situ as the first step in the process, 
whether to maintain the articulation of fragments, to protect the surface from disturbance during 
the subsequent excavation and lifting process, and/or to strengthen the surface if the block is to 
be inverted.  
In the first of the author’s encounters with the remains of painted organic objects, a flat 
rectangular patch of PSD fragments adhering to the floor of a residential building at Cerén 
(Artifact #2-51, Structure 2) was exposed and gently cleaned, consolidated with B-72, then faced 
10
Beaubien AIC Objects Specialty Group Postprints, Vol. 18, 2011 
ith tissue using methylcellulose to secure it prior to block-lifting, shown after block-lifting in 
figure16 (Beaubien 1993). The same approach was taken to secure the fragments of a flat 
circular PSU layer prior to lifting, from a cache found near an elite burial at Copán (Burial 95-1, 
Structure 16), discussed further in Section 5.2 (Lynn A. Grant, personal communication; Grant 
1999).  
Paint deposits of a more 3-dimensional nature were also found in various buildings at 
Cerén, including a number of bowl-like forms (Beaubien and Corbett 2002:160-162). In these 
situations, fine ash had fully surrounded the objects and filled their interior cavities, thus holding 
the paint layers in place even after substrate decomposition. As excavation exposed a “rim” of 
paint fragments, ash was left intact around the object but cleared from the concave hemispherical 
interior until the paint surface became visible. Before conservators were involved with the site’s 
excavation, several had been lifted by the archaeological team following a method used in the 
1960s for recovery of several painted organic objects in a royal burial at the site of Tikal in 
Guatemala (Temple 32 Burial 195, Virginia Greene, personal communication); this involved 
pouring plaster of Paris into the object’s cavity (fig. 9).  
While capturing the form and securing the fragmented paint, the disadvantage of this 
approach emerged as later discoveries showed that such objects were painted on both exterior 
and interior surfaces, surviving as back-to-back paint layers, both of which were now sealed to 
and inseparable from the plaster. We also found that the visible paint surface was susceptible to 
damage from efflorescent salts from the plaster, and the objects were considerably heavy. 
 
Fig. 8. Artifact #011 during clearance of surrounding matrix in the tomb chamber of Burial 24, Structure O14-4, 
Waka' (Photograph by H. Beaubien) 
11
Beaubien AIC Objects Specialty Group Postprints, Vol. 18, 2011 
Fig. 9. Artifact #1-247 from Structure 1 at Cerén, shown inverted after lifting by pouring plaster into the concave 
interior space (Photograph by H. Beaubien) 
 
Fig. 10. Facing the concave interior paint surface of Artifact #8-160 in Structure 10 at Cerén  
(Photograph by M. Fenn) 
12
Beaubien AIC Objects Specialty Group Postprints, Vol. 18, 2011 
This approach was subsequently modified as follows. The object’s interior paint surface 
was exposed (as before), carefully documented and then lightly consolidated with B-72; this 
tacked the inner layer to the outer layer by seepage of the consolidant through cracks and losses. 
The entire concave interior surface was then faced with tissue and methylcellulose (fig. 10), lined 
with plastic cling wrap as a barrier layer, and filled with plaster. Once set, the plaster insert could 
be removed; it was then coated thoroughly with B-72 to render the material more inert, and put 
back in place without the barrier film to serve as a conforming interior support for the paint 
layer. (Note that alternate materials can be used for the interior support.)  
Cyclododecane (CDD), another material for stabilizing and lifting fragile finds, was 
newly available when paint flake deposits were found in an elite burial at Waka' (Burial 24, ca. 
6th-7th c. CE, in Structure O14-4) (Beaubien and Weber 2007). Careful cleaning in situ revealed 
fragments that still maintained their original alignment, including undulating walls (seen in fig. 
8); these were backed with tissue and methyl cellulose to hold fragments in position. A 
combination of facings, cotton wool packing around fragments, and drizzled molten CDD 
secured the upper surface and the edges of the deposit, and created a simplified overall shape (as 
seen in the foreground artifact in figure 11). The CDD also provided an effective barrier layer for 
application of plaster bandages (described below) to create a cap across the top, which would 
later serve as a robust base when the block was inverted.  
 
4.3.2 Lifting Process 
Because the pedestal matrix serves to immobilize the deposit, some kind of subsidiary 
support around the sides is always recommended. Even if the matrix is very clayey and cohesive, 
hidden roots or rocks can destabilize the block, so materials that conform and provide a rigid 
collar around the pedestal are advisable. Gauze bandages impregnated with plaster of Paris 
powder have proven to be the most useful in these situations, requiring nothing more than 
scissors to cut the strips into useful lengths, and a bowl of water to dip them in to activate the 
plaster; the wet strips can then be placed, overlapping and layering them to quickly form an 
effective collar around the pedestal and/or cap once the plaster hardens (fig. 11). No barrier layer 
is needed around the pedestal unless the plaster is close to or in direct contact with original 
material; in these cases, a conforming barrier layer (e.g., aluminum foil, plastic cling film, CDD) 
must be used to prevent problematic adhesion. In the case of the bowl-like objects from Cerén, a 
plaster collar around the ash pedestal’s sides, in combination with the plaster bowl insert, 
immobilized the fragile form.  
A support is also needed for the bottom of the block to keep the matrix in place, and to carry the 
block’s weight. This can be a thin rigid board that is slid underneath or onto which the block is 
maneuvered, and it is useful to cut the pedestal first with a long blade or wire to ease the sheet’s 
passage. Note that enough matrix needs to be cleared around the sides of the pedestal to allow 
tools or lifting supports to be inserted during the lifting process. A metal sheet with a sharpened 
leading edge was invaluable for a number of lifts at Cerén.  
Another method of supporting the base is to gradually undercut the block, adding plaster 
bandages in the process, until the bottom is partially or fully encased and the block is freed (as 
seen in the background artifact in figure 11). This method was used to secure the sides and 
bottom of the blocks for the three paint flake deposits from Waka'. A clipboard was used as a 
temporary support on which to slide each of the prepared blocks, but all were immediately 
inverted onto their plaster caps for transport in boxes to the field lab.  
13
Beaubien AIC Objects Specialty Group Postprints, Vol. 18, 2011 
Fig. 11. Artifacts #012 (foreground) and #013 in Burial 24 at Waka', at various stages of block preparation 
(Photograph by H. Beaubien) 
 
4.3.3 Post-Lift Field Treatment 
Additional surface stabilization treatment and creation of plaster caps or other block 
reinforcements can be carried out in the field immediately after lifting. Plaster caps can be made 
removable using an aluminum foil or plastic cling film barrier layer, and can serve as a sturdy 
base if the block is inverted. Inverting the block in the field is generally done if this provides the 
more secure orientation for transport from the site, as was true for the three blocks from Waka'. 
For maximum immobilization during transport, any exposed pedestal matrix of the inverted 
blocks was covered with additional plaster bandage to fully encase the deposits.  
 
5. LABORATORY CONSERVATION  
 
5.1 LOOSE COLLECTIONS AND FRAGMENT GROUPS 
If collected carefully by context, loose fragments can potentially be reassembled in the 
laboratory. One example is provided by a collection of disturbed fragments surrounding a 
ceramic vessel on the floor next to the dais in the Ruler 12 burial at Copán, previously mentioned 
in Section 4.1 (fig. 12). A number could be joined, in some cases by simply edge-joining 
14
Beaubien AIC Objects Specialty Group Postprints, Vol. 18, 2011 
fragments with B72, or with the addition of small pieces of Japanese tissue adhered with methyl 
cellulose (fig. 13). The resulting fragment groups included long curving segments of what 
appeared to be edge or rim segments, as well as quite flat body fragments. These reassembled 
groups allowed larger expanses of texture to be detected on the reverse, which gave clues to the 
organic substrate that they once decorated. One reconstructed flat patch showed an intriguing 
array of what looked like chisel marks, and edge fragment groups showed linear striations in 
varying orientations as if positioned around a circular shaped piece of wood. These clues suggest 
that the fragments represent the remains of a painted wooden lid for the ceramic vessel.  
We did not expect that the complex disturbed deposit on the burial dais would hold any 
promise of reassembly in a physical sense. However, the systematic study of the lifted loose 
fragmentary materials from approximately 350 grid squares yielded surprising results (Fash et al. 
2001, Magee et al. 2001). Close examination under the microscope – distinguishing patterns in 
paint-side-up and -down orientation, color scheme, layering and distribution for each grid square 
– resulted in a virtual reconstruction of the deposit, which included a painted platform extending 
across most of the dais, and a raised painted “bed” holding the body of the primary individual.  
Even disassociated fragments can yield information useful for their interpretation, 
through this process. In the case of a paint deposit from an elite burial at Baking Pot (Artifact R 
from Tomb 2, ca. 7th-8th c. CE, in Structure E), unforeseen tree roots had severely disrupted the 
block-lifting process, resulting in two partial blocks and an abundance of fragments from 
unknown locations. With careful sorting of these fragments according to ground type and 
texture, and further by color and decorative scheme, several discreet objects making up the 
deposit could be proposed, albeit of unknown form. Three different ground colors – cream, white 
and brown – were found, with additional textural differences present within the first two ground 
colors, possibly reflecting application to organic materials with variously textured surfaces. The 
textural characteristics of the fragments with a cream ground, for example, in combination with 
their decorative schemes, suggest that they had once ornamented a gourd with a monochrome 
interior and polychrome exterior (Section II in Audet 2005).  
 
5.2 BLOCK-LIFTED DEPOSITS 
With a goal of articulating and documenting all the paint layers in a block-lifted deposit, 
the conservation treatment will typically require a lab setting because of the potentially complex 
sequence of steps and time needed. The treatment strategy will likely need to accommodate one 
or more approaches, such as manual transfer of fragments from discrete layers, or supported 
removal of expanses of fragments, as well as additional interventions to enable working from the 
top down and from bottom up at various stages. Note that the painted surface that either directly 
lies on or is otherwise collapsed onto a flat floor tends to be more intact and better preserved than 
the vulnerable uppermost layer(s); as a result most excavation strategies include a block 
inversion step that makes this layer accessible quickly. 
15
Beaubien AIC Objects Specialty Group Postprints, Vol. 18, 2011 
Fig. 12. Paint fragments in situ on the tomb chamber floor of Burial 37-4 at Copán (Photograph by B. Fash) 
 
Fig. 13. Reassembly in the Copán field lab of fragments collected from the tomb chamber floor  
(Photograph by H. Beaubien) 
16
Beaubien AIC Objects Specialty Group Postprints, Vol. 18, 2011 
Fig. 14. Excavation of the pedestal soil to expose the bottommost paint layer for Artifact #012 in the Waka' field lab 
(Photograph by H. Beaubien) 
 
Fig. 15. Artifact #1/6/385-2 from a cache near Burial 95-1 in Structure 16 at Copán, after L. Grant’s field treatment 
(Photograph by H. Beaubien)
17
Beaubien AIC Objects Specialty Group Postprints, Vol. 18, 2011 
Although block-lifted deposits can be stored immediately after field recovery with no 
further intervention, it is useful to carry out a preliminary excavation step in the field lab to 
remove excess soil from the block and reduce the size and weight of the object. The three block-
lifted artifacts from Waka' were all processed in this way once they were transferred to the field 
lab. The plaster wrapping was cut away from the upper surfaces of the inverted blocks and the 
pedestal soil shaved down to a level where paint flake surfaces began to be revealed (fig. 14). 
These represented the painted surface that originally either directly lay or otherwise collapsed on 
to the flat floor. The exposed flakes were consolidated lightly with B-72 and locally faced with 
tissue using methylcellulose. An overall tissue layer was lightly attached to the entire surface 
with methylcellulose, and a removable plaster cap was made to form a secure housing for the 
block, which now contains little else but the paint deposit.  
A similar strategy was followed by Lynn Grant to investigate the circular paint deposit 
from Copán (Artifact #1/6/385-2 from near Burial 95-1, ca. mid-5th c. CE, in Structure 16), 
mentioned in Section 4.3 above. Its polychrome PSU surface had been consolidated and 
temporarily faced in the field and the deposit block-lifted from the dense clayey matrix, using 
elastic bandages wrapped around the pedestal sides. The block was inverted in the field (not 
transported to the lab in this case), in order to remove the pedestal matrix and expose a possible 
paint layer decorating the object’s underside (Lynn A. Grant, personal communication). In this 
case, no other paint layer was encountered, nor any trace of substrate material. A thin film of soil 
was left in situ to protect the underside of the paint layer; it was consolidated with a dilute B-72 
solution, and then backed with tissue secured with B-72 adhesive. The supported paint layer was 
then returned to its original orientation, and the temporary facing tissue removed (fig. 15). These 
conservation steps reduced the size and weight of the artifact, simplifying its storage, and the 
surface treatment allowed the dimensions, the format of the decoration, and the iconographic 
elements to be preserved for further study (Grant 1999).  
In the case of Artifact #2-51 from Structure 2 at Cerén, the lifted remains were approved 
for temporary loan to the Smithsonian’s Museum Conservation Institute for conservation and 
technical study. For the single (bottommost) layer of PSD fragments adhering to the earthen 
floor of the structure, mentioned previously in Section 4.3, the goal of lab treatment was to 
uncover the painted side of the fragments (fig. 16). A removable conforming plaster support was 
molded (using a barrier layer) over the tissue-backed layer. The block was inverted and the 
pedestal soil was removed to expose the polychrome painted side of the fragments. As described 
in detail elsewhere (Beaubien 1993), this paint layer was part of a thicker deposit that had been 
removed by sliding a metal sheet along the floor surface, prior to the author’s arrival on site (fig. 
17). The thicker deposit was left untouched until transfer to the lab.  
The treatment of this deposit began from the top down. The uppermost layer (#1) was 
transferred fragment by fragment to a sheet of tissue, while still maintaining the fragments’ 
relative in situ positions. These PSU polychrome fragments were found to have a second layer of 
very thin monochrome fragments adhering to their undersides with ground surfaces tangent (#2, 
PSD). Other than basic documentation, these PSD fragments were not separated as a discrete 
layer; instead the back-to-back fragments were secured to the tissue with methylcellulose, 
oriented with the PSU decorated layer #1 visible. The layer (#3) exposed by this removal step 
was a continuous, relatively undisturbed, monochrome PSU group of fragments. To make sure 
that only fragments from this layer were lifted, they were transferred manually to Mylar, 
maintaining their relative in situ positions using a grid system. These fragments were generally 
more robust than the layer #2 monochrome fragments; adherent fragments from a paint layer 
18
Beaubien AIC Objects Specialty Group Postprints, Vol. 18, 2011 
below were less common, and were gently separated prior to transfer. Placement on Mylar 
facilitated any repositioning of fragments to create better joins, and when a temporary tissue 
facing was adhered to their painted surfaces with methylcellulose to hold the reconstructed layer 
together, the Mylar also kept the fragments from sticking. Layer #3 could then be inverted to 
examine the texture preserved in the ground. Once documented, a tissue backing was then 
attached to the ground side of the fragments, thus sandwiching them between tissue, and the 
layer was returned to its PSU orientation. The easy reversibility of the adhesive made it possible 
to selectively remove the earlier facing using a dampened brush. The polychrome PSD fragments 
that remained in the deposit were the final layer (#4), originally in contact with the floor and 
adjoining the fragmentary single layer lifted separately and described above. These were 
removed as an articulated group of fragments, by attaching a backing tissue, molding a 
removable plaster support on them, and inverting the block to expose the painted surface of the 
layer #4 fragments.  
A complex series of steps such as this should be anticipated for the articulation of any 
multi-layered paint deposit. In the case of the Cerén artifact, access to both painted and ground 
surfaces of the fragments, and large expanses of fragments in close to original positions, supplied 
evidence needed to interpret the remains. These allowed the painted decoration, substrate 
impressions and layer orientation to be better understood, and supported an identification of the 
object as a painted globular bowl made from a gourd. This had decayed into a flattened deposit, 
leaving behind fragments of a monochrome green interior paint layer and a polychrome exterior 
decorated with repeating seated figures around the rim, and radiating bands at the base 
referencing the gourd’s own botanical features (fig. 18).  
Other paint deposits found at the site followed a similar pattern of decoration, increasing 
the number of known examples of painted organic objects to more than ten items (Beaubien and 
Corbett 2002). Among these were several bowl-shaped deposits block-lifted using the removable 
plaster inserts described in Section 4.3 above; the block pedestals were supported around the 
sides with collars made of plaster-impregnated cloth strips, and removed using a metal sheet. In 
the field lab, the block-lifted objects were inverted, to rest on the plaster insert (fig. 19). Working 
down through the pedestal, the matrix ash was cleared, exposing the paint layer first at the 
object’s base. Where the tissue from the interior application was visible, it was spot-tacked with 
B-72 to anchor it to the plaster support. The painted surface was successively cleared in this 
manner. Future access to interior surfaces of the inner and outer paint layers will be difficult but 
not impossible because of the use of reversible materials, while the lifting method also allowed 
the paint schemes to be documented and the form to be preserved. 
19
Beaubien AIC Objects Specialty Group Postprints, Vol. 18, 2011 
Fig. 16. Block-lifted paint layer from Artifact #2-51 (Structure 2, Cerén), during lab excavation  
(Photograph by H. Beaubien) 
 
Fig. 17. Lifted paint deposit from Artifact #2-51, Structure 2, Cerén (Photograph by H. Beaubien) 
20
Beaubien AIC Objects Specialty Group Postprints, Vol. 18, 2011 
Fig. 18. Exterior decorative scheme of Artifact #2-51, reconstructed from fragmentary layers: rim decoration from 
PSU layer #1 (above); base decoration (below) combining PSD layer #4 and the single layer segment  
(Drawing by H. Beaubien) 
 
Fig. 19. Artifact #8-160 from Structure 10 at Cerén, secured to the plaster mount with polychrome exterior 
decoration visible (Photograph by H. Beaubien)
21
Beaubien AIC Objects Specialty Group Postprints, Vol. 18, 2011 
6. TECHNICAL ANALYSIS 
 
Fragments, whether available from loose collections or as components of block-lifted deposits, 
offer ready access to outermost painted surfaces, undersides and edges for further analysis, 
supplementing observations recorded during the lifting and lab conservation stages described 
above. Instrumental analysis of selected fragments, using techniques such as microscopy, X-ray 
diffraction, scanning electron microscopy-energy dispersive spectroscopy, Fourier transform 
infrared spectroscopy, and gas chromatography-mass spectrometry, can potentially yield key 
technical information about the materials making up the paint flakes, the paint application 
process, as well as the now-decomposed organic substrate. While presentation of those results of 
analysis is not the focus of this paper, it has been an important component of the conservation 
work carried out by the author and colleagues on the painted organic objects described above 
(Audet 2005; Beaubien 1993; Beaubien and Corbett 2002), yielding in combination new 
information about these elusive and largely unstudied artifact types, and enriching the body of 
archaeological research on the ancient Maya.   
 
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 
 
The author gratefully acknowledges the many former conservation fellows and interns whose 
work with me in the field and the lab on various aspects of the conservation and technical study 
of painted organic objects deeply informs this paper, with mention of the following for their 
significant contributions to the particular examples cited: Mark Fenn, Holly Lundberg (Cerén); 
Catherine Magee, Kelly McHugh, as well as Pat Griffin, Marie Svoboda, Tania Collas (Copán); 
Leslie Weber, Colleen Snyder (Waka'); and Claudia Chemello (Baking Pot). Many 
archaeologists have worked hand-in-hand with us, with particular inspiration and support from: 
Payson Sheets and Brian McKee (Cerén); Bill and Barb Fash, and Bob Sharer, Loa Traxler and 
Ellen Bell (Copán); Michelle Rich (Waka'); and Carolyn Audet (Baking Pot). Thanks are 
extended to the Samuel H. Kress Foundation, the Foundation for the Advancement of 
Mesoamerican Studies, the archaeological projects, as well as the Smithsonian Institution for 
funding support; and to the Smithsonian’s Museum Conservation Institute, especially the 
technical staff. This work has been deeply enriched by collaboration with conservator Lynn 
Grant, with whom I share a fascination with painted organic objects, and who deserves credit for 
coining their affectionate nickname “POO.” 
 
REFERENCES 
 
Audet, C. M. 2005. Baking Pot Codex restoration project (Grant #02090, 2003); see Section II 
by Harriet F. Beaubien, with Claudia Chemello. Unpublished manuscript, Foundation for the 
Advancement of Mesoamerican Studies, www.famsi.org.  
 
Beaubien, H. F. 1993. From codex to calabash: Recovery of a painted organic artifact from the 
archaeological site of Cerén, El Salvador. Journal of the American Institute for Conservation 
32:153–164. 
 
22
Beaubien AIC Objects Specialty Group Postprints, Vol. 18, 2011 
Beaubien, H. F., and M. Beaudry-Corbett. 2002. Artifacts made from plant materials. In Before 
the volcano erupted: The ancient Cerén village in Central America, ed. P. D. Sheets. Austin: 
University of Texas Press. 159–166 
 
Beaubien, H. F., and L. G. Weber. 2007. Capítulo 9: Conservación en el campo de objetos 
orgánicos pintados del Entierro 24, Estructure O14-1. In Proyecto Arqueológico El Perú-Waka', 
Informe No.4, Temporada 2006, ed. H. L. Escobedo and D. Freidel. Unpublished manuscript. 
Smithsonian’s Museum Conservation Institute, Suitland, MD (MCI 6039). 357–371. 
www.mesoweb.com/resources/informes/Waka2006-Cap09.pdf (accessed 08/27/2012). 
 
Fash, W. L., H. F. Beaubien, C. E. Magee, B. W. Fash, and R. V. Williamson. 2001. The 
trappings of kingship among the classic Maya: Ritual and identity in a royal tomb from Copán. 
In Fleeting identities: Perishable material culture in archaeological research, ed. P. B. Drooker. 
Carbondale, IL: Center for Archaeological Investigations. 152–169. 
 
Grant, L. 1999. Conservation at Copán. Expedition 41(2):39–44.  
 
Magee, C. E., H. F. Beaubien, W. L. Fash, and B. W. Fash. 2001. The cooperative efforts in the 
excavation of a royal Maya tomb. In Human remains: Conservation, retrieval and analysis ; 
proceedings of a conference held in Williamsburg, VA, Nov 7-11th 1999, ed. Emily Williams. 
Oxford: Archaeopress. 39–43. 
 
HARRIET F. “RAE” BEAUBIEN holds a BA in Art from Beloit College, an MA in the History 
of Art from the University of Chicago, and an MA/Advanced Certificate in Conservation of 
Works of Art from the Conservation Center of New York University’s Institute of Fine Arts. 
Since 2008, she has been head of conservation at the Smithsonian’s Museum Conservation 
Institute, where she began working in 1988, specializing in the technical study and conservation 
of archaeological materials. With a program focused on the integration of conservation and 
archaeology, she has hosted numerous interns and fellows in lab and field contexts, taught 
archaeological conservation as adjunct faculty in several graduate conservation programs in the 
U.S., and provided on-site conservation assistance to a wide range of archaeological projects in 
Central America, as well as South Asia, Mongolia, and the Eastern Mediterranean. Address: 
Museum Conservation Institute, Smithsonian Institution, 4210 Silver Hill Road, Suitland, MD 
20746; 301-238-1235 (work), 301-238-2709 (FAX). E-mail: beaubienh@si.edu 
23