orfej mozaik

8/13/2019 orfej mozaik

1/88

T H E C O N S E R V A T I O NO F T H E O R P H E U S M O S A I CA T P A P H O S , C Y P R U S


2/88


3/88

Cover: Deta il of the Orph eus mosaic aftermiservation. Photo by Gtii l lermo Aldana.

Project Coordinator: Nicholas Stanley Price, GCIManaging Editor: Nicholas Stanley Price, GCIEditing and Design: Jacki Gallagher, G CITechnical Il lustration: Janet Spehar EnriquezTypography : Adobe Postscript Charlemagne and Janson T extPrinting: Westland Graphics, Burbank, California

1991 Th e J. Paul Getty T rus tAll rights reserved

Library of Congress Cataloging-ln-P ublication DataThe Conservation of the Orpheus Mosaic at Paphos, Cyprus,

p. cm.ISBN 0-89236-188-3 (paperback)1. Oq iheu s mosaic (New Paphos) 2. Orp heus (Greek mythology)A n.

3.Mosaics, RomanC onservation and restorationCyprusNew Paphos(Ancient city) 4. Pavem ents, Mosaic Conservation and restorationCyprusNew Paphos (Ancient city) I. G em ' Conservation InstituteNA3770.C65 1991738.5'2~dc20 91-19192

CIP


4/88

T H E G E T T Y C O N S E R V A T IO N IN S T IT U T EThe Getty Conservation Institute, an operating program of theJ. Paul Ge tty Trus t, was created in 1982 to address the conservation needs of our cultural heritage. The Institute conductsworldwide, interdisciplinary professional programs in scientificresearch, training, and documentation. This is accomplishedthrough a combination of in-house projects and collaborativeventures with other organizations in the USA and abroad.Special activities such as field projects, interna tional conferences,and publications strengthen the role of the Institute.


5/88

C O N T E N T S

Foreword viPaolo Mo ra

Preface viiNicholas Stanley Price

Acknowledgments xM arta de la Torre

Ne a Paphos: Historical Background 1Demetrios Michaelides

T he House of Orpheus 3Dem etrios Michaelides

T he Con dition of the Orph eus Mosa ic Following Excavation 11Demetrios Michaelides

Photod ocum entation of the Orp heus Mosa ic 13Giorgio Capriotti and Lorenza D'Alessandro

Facing and Consolidation of the Mosaic 14Giorgio Capriotti and Lorenza D'Alessandro

Detac hme nt of the W all Painting 16Giorgio Capriotti and Lorenza D'Alessandro

Deta chm ent and Rolling of the Mo saic 17Jan Kosinka

Clean ing the Back of the Mo saic 24Paolo Pastorello and Werner Schmid


6/88

Installation ofaProvisional Shelter for the M osaic 26Paolo Pastorello and Werner Schmid

Reinstallation of the M osaic 29Jan Kosinka

Deve lopm ent and Evaluation of the Hexash elter 36Neville Agnew and Richard Coffman

Environ men tal M onito ring of the Papho s Mosaics 42Neville Agnew and Po-Ming Lin

Evaluation of Tesserae from the Paph os Mosaics 46Eric Doehne

Appendix A. Cleaning Tests on Other Mosaics at PaphosCleaning Te sts Using Biocides 58

Giorgio Capriotti and Lorenza DA lessandroCleaning Te sts in the Ho use of Dionysus 59

Paolo Pastorello and Werner Schmid

Appe ndix B. Instru ctors and Participa nts in the Project 61

Append ix C. Cos ts of the Project 66

List of Au thors 68

Ph oto Credits " 69


7/88

F O R E W O R D

Xn recent decades, considerable progress has been made in the field of mosaicsconservation, both in the preservation of mosaics in situ and in the developmentof new supports for mosaics that have been lifted. The tools and materials thatconservators have at their disposal today are considerably more sophisticatedthan those available to their predecessors and provide a broader range of treatment options.

While the rolling technique used for lifting the Orpheus mosaic will notbe applicable to all mosaics, and the cost or unavailability of specialized materialsmight be prohibitive in some cases, we consider it very important that conservators be made aware of this method. Increased familiarity with the technique willnot only allow conservators to make more educated decisions in mosaics preservation, it may also serve as the basis for future developments and improvementsin the technique.

Paolo Mora

Foreword


8/88

PREFACE: DEVEEOPMENT OFTHE PROJECT

X h e P roject on Mosaics Conservation took place in Papho s, Cyprus, in 1988and 1989. I t was jointly organized by the G etty C onservation Insti tute (G CI) andthe Department of Antiquities of Cyprus, following an initiative for a collaborative project propo sed by D r. Vassos Karageorghis, the n D irector of Antiquit ies,Dr . Joh n W alsh, Director of the J . Paul Get ty Museum, and Ma r ion T rue ,Cu rator of Antiquit ies of the J. Paul Ge tty M useu m.

Luis M onrea l, then D irector of the GC I, took up the offer of collaboration with the D epartm ent of Antiquit ies by organizing a meeting in C yprus, inJune of 1988, to define the scope and aims of the project. A number of mosaicsspecialists were invited in addition to members of the Department of Antiquities,the GC I, and the J. Paul Getty Mu seum .

In agreeing with the Department of Antiquit ies to undertake the conservation of the Orph eus mosaic, the G C I proposed from the outset that theopportunity be used as a training project. Since it was decided to use the relat ively uncom mon roll ing technique for detaching the m osaic, the project pr ovided an ideal oppo rtunity to train other conservators from the M editerrane anregion in this method.

In August of 1988, Professor Paolo Mora, accompanied by conservatorsJan Kosinka, Giorgio Capriotti, and Lorenza D'Alessandro, inspected the mosaicand planned the lifting operation with Demetrios Michaelides (ArchaeologicalOfficer for Paphos, Dep artm ent of Antiquities) and the present writer. T h e p ho todocum entation work described on pa ge 13 was carried out d uring this visit.

From Septemb er 5 to Octob er 14, 1988, Phase 1 of the project tookplace, comb ining on-site work on the mosaic with more formal instruction onmosaics conservation for the project participants. The conservators responsiblefor the work on the mosaic also held lectures and exercises that put the Orpheusproject in a broader context of mosaics conservation. In general, each day wasdivided equally between on-site work and formal instruction.

In addition to being fully involved in the on-site work, the project participants took pa rt in exercises designed to cover othe r aspects of mosaics con servation. These included condition rep orting, biocide and cleaning tests (see

Preface: Development of the Project


9/88

Appendix A ), and the making of mosaic samples. The need to work closely withsite archaeologists was also stressed.

Phase 1 saw the completion of the lifting of the mosaic and most of thepreparatory work for the new support. The final cleaning of the back of themosaic and the application of the new m orta r bed was carried out by Jan Kosinkaon May 1-6, 1989. T he mosaic was protected d uring the intervening mon ths bythe interim shelter described on pages 26-28.

Phase 2 of the project, from M ay 28 to Ju ne 23, 1989, saw the reinstallation of the mosaic in situ on its new support. This campaign was devotedentirely to work on-site, directed by Jan Kosinka w ith the help of the mosaicsconservators who had p articipated in Phase 1 the previous year.

On August 16-2 2, J. Claire Dean, who had coordinated local arrange me nts for Phases 1 and 2 of the p roject, finished the infilling of lacunae in t hemosaic and carried out the l imited consolidation work that had been decidedupon. With this work complete, f inal photodocumentation of the conservedmosaic was carried out on October 17-20, 1989, by Guillermo Aldana, withassistance from Dean. The aim of this work was twofold: to document themosaic section-by-section for comparison with photographs taken prior toconservation, and to provide definit ive overhead photographs of the completemosaic (see PI. 1).

The temporary shelter , constructed by the Department of Antiquit iesover the Orpheus mosaic following its reinstallation, was removed to make thisphotograph y possible. I t was removed perma nently once the hexashelter (see pp.36-41) was buil t in Nove mbe r un der the direction of Neville Agnew and RichardCoffrnan of the G CI . Th e hexashelter now covers both the Orp heus m osaic andthe Hercules and Amazon mosaic adjacent to it.

See Ta ble 1 (facing page) for a summ ary of the chronological d evelopme nt of the project.

Nicholas Stanley Price

viii Preface: Development of the Project


10/88

Table 1. Chronology of theProjectonMosaics Conservation,1988-1989.

June 1988

August 1988

September to October 19 88

May 1989

MaytoJune 1989

August 1989

October 1989

November 1989

Symposium on Conservation of MosaicsTraining Project, Paphos

Inspection of the condition of the mosaicPhotodocumenta t ion

Phase 1Documenta t ionLifting of the mosaicRemoval of the old mortar

Completion of the cleaningApplication of the new mortar

Phase 2Construction of the new supportExcavation under the original siteReinstallation of the mosaic

Completion of the infilling of lacunae

Final photodocumentation ofthe conserved mosaic

Erection of the hexashelter

Preface: Development of the Project


11/88

A C K N O W E E D G M E N T S

JLhe success of the Project on Mosaics Conservation owes much to theexcellent cooperation of the D epa rtme nt of Antiquit ies, directed by VassosKarageorghis and by his successor, Athanasios Papageorghiou. DemetriosMic haelides , as Archaeo logical Officer for the Pap hos D istric t and as excavatorof the O rpheus mosaic, was instrume ntal in providing archaeological g uidanceand in ensuring the fullest collaboration of the Department in logistical andorganizational matters. Andreas Georghiad es, Evangelos H adjistephanou,Giorgios Tapakoudes, and Neoptolemos Demetriou, also of the Antiquit iesDepartment, were particularly helpful.

For the planning and implementation of the fieldwork, Dr. Paolo Mora,former Chief Restorer of the Istituto Centrale del Restauro in Rome, was askedto direct the project. W e are indebted to him for agreeing to undertake it, andfor teaching during the Phase 1 campaign a long with M rs. Laura Mora and theother instructors listed in Appendix B. To all of these we are grateful for theirskillful instruction in addition to carrying out the conservation field operationsso successfully.

W e also owe a particular d ebt toJ.Claire D ean, who acted as field coordinator throu ghou t the two field campaigns, and who completed conservation anddocumentation work on the mosaic after its reinstallation. Guillermo Aldana wasresponsible for photography of the mosaic before and after its conservation.

The hexashelter was developed by Neville Agnew, of the GCI, and wasconstructed in kit form by Jim Davies at the Institute's w orksho p. To these individuals, and all those whose names are unlisted but who contributed so much tothe success of the project, we are deeply grateful.

M arta de la Toire

Acknowledgtneiits


12/88

a M l H H H ^ B B M H I *- > m H W

Plate1. The Offheus Mosaic afterconservation.


13/88

Plate 2. The O rpheus Mosaicbefore conservation.


14/88

Plate 3 (right). D etail of theOrpheus Mosaic.


15/88

Plate 4 (right). Amazon panel,House of Orpheus.Plate 5 (opposite). Stratigraphy ofthe support layers of the Orpheusmosaic. (Nottoscale.) vimtfi :& & & s m d & ^ ^

-sh i ^ M

m; my

. . . .


16/88

tessellatum 1ling layer 2micleus 3mortar 4

nidus 5

statumen 6

deep statumen 7

Strat igr aph y of the Prep arato ry Lay ers

m * 0.

UzJ^M^

natu ral soil


17/88

Support Layersj cracks

JHKI] geological a l terat ion(differences in height)

H I lack of cohes ionI lack of adhes ion1 dee p lacunae

vv j prev ious in terv ent ion(fillings of lacunae)

Plate 6. Condition of the supportlayers of the Orpheus mosaic pri orto conservation.


18/88

Tessellatum[5 5 lack of cohes ion

flakinglossesincrus tat ion

I biologica l attacks (roots)

Plate 7. Condition of the tessellatum of the Orpheus mosaicpriortoconservation.


19/88

The Tombofthe Kings

North East Gate

Town of Paphos

Panaghia Chrysopolitissa East Gate?

0 2501. E I II l l I

Figure I. Ma p of Nea Paphos.After the Department of

Antiquities, Cyprus.)


20/88

N E A P A P H O S :H I S T O R I C A E B A C K G R O U N D

Demetrios Michaelides

iVA -od ern Papho s, capital of the eponym ous district, is situated on the southwest coast of Cypru s (see map, Fig . 1). It was founded towards th e end of thefourth century B.C., and was originally called Nea Paphos (New Paphos) to distinguish it from Palaepaphos (Old Pap hos), a town ab out 16 km to the southeast,famous since Homeric times as a center for the cult of Aphrodite. The town wasfounded by Nico cles, king of Palaepap hos, and altho ugh the reasons that led himto this are not entirely clear, the pro ximity ofanexcellent harbo r would certainlyhave been a factor.

Soon after the foundation of Nea Paphos, Cyprus came under the ruleof Ptolemy, one of Alexander the Great's successful generals, who had by thenbecome king of Egypt. The island was to remain under Ptolemaic rule for mostof the Hellenistic period, up to 58B.C. when the island was annexed by Rome.T he Ptolemies showed great care in the administration of Cyprus. Th e islandwas of paramount importance to them, as their primary military and naval baseoutside of Egypt and as an important source of shipbuilding timber, minerals(especially copper), and grain. The se factors favored the newly founded city ofNea P apho s; in addition to its harbor, w hich was an easy sail from the Ptolem aiccapital of Alexandria, the city was situated near the mountains, source of thetimber and minerals so valuable to the Ptolemies.

For these reasons the city grew rapidly in size and importance. By thelate second centu ry B.C. it had becom e the capital of the island. Th e city c ont inued to prosper thro ugh out the Hellenistic and Ro man periods, and seems to havereached its peak in the later second and third centuriesA.D., receiving (probablyunder the emperor Septimius Severus, A.D. 193-211) the most elaborate andimportant title of its history: "Sebaste Claudia Flavia Paphos, the sacred metropolis of all the towns of Cyprus." Many of the most spectacular remains nowvisible in Paphos date from this period, including several private houses withcostly and elaborate floor mosaics, such as the Ho use of Dion ysus and the H ou seof Orpheus.

The first signs of decline became apparent in the late third and earlyfourth centuries A.D. The disastrous earthquakes of the first half of the fourthcentury contributed to this decline, and the final blow came with the transferof the capital from Paphos to Salamis, a town on the eastern coast of Cyprus.

Nea Paphos: Historical B ackground


21/88

W ith the tr iumph of the Christ ian faith, Ne a Papho s became the seat of the m ostimp orta nt b ishop of the island. (Th e city was, after all, the settin g for the "Blind ing of Elymas," the m iracle throu gh w hich St. Paul converted Sergius Paulus, theRoman proconsul of the island, to Christianity.) In spite of the fact that thisprivilege, too, was soon lost to Salam is, the to wn can boas t several basilicas builtbetween the fourth and the sixth century that are among the finest and mostopulent in the Early Christian world. The floors of the earlier basilicas are decorated with large expanses of mosaic, while the later ones c ombine d m osaic withopus sectile(multicolored, patterned m arble) deco ration.

From the mid-seventh to the tenth century Cyprus was under Arab-Byzantine condom inium. Du ring this period Paph os, like the rest of the island,sank into relative obscurity, althoug h its har bo r con tinue d to be a fairly busy por tof call. T he importan ce of the harbor increased when Cyprus was ruled by th eLusignans (1192-148 9) and the Venetians (148 9-1570), when i t was used bypilgrims traveling to and from th e H oly L and, as well as by me rchants . T h edecline of the town, however, was irremediable and reached its lowest pointduring the Turkis h occupa tion of the island (1570-187 8).

Paphos rem ained the capital of the distr ict under Brit ish Colonial rule(1878-1960) and even later when Cyprus became an independent republic, buti t continued to be small , poor, and remo te. In 1974, with the Tu rkish invasionand occupation of the north ern part of the island and the co nsequ ent loss of thebig holiday resorts of Kyrenia and F amagusta, th e tourist industry turn ed i tsattention to the then unspoiled region of Paph os. T he tourist boom soon threa tened to encroach into the archaeological zone but, thanks to a systematicprogram of land acquisit ion by the De partm ent of Antiquit ies, the largest part ofthe 950,000 square meters enclosed within the H ellenisticwallsof the d tyisnowfree of modern buildings and preserved for archaeological research. Since 1981,moreover, th e ancient city of Ne a P apho s, a considerable part of i ts necropolis,and the area of the San ctuary of Aphrod ite at Palaepaphos, have been includedin UNESCO's World Cultural Heritage List.

Nea Paphos:Historical Background


22/88

hr- fT H E H O U S E O F O R P H E U S


TX h e site of the House of Orpheus has been known since World W ar I I . In

1942,men of the Royal Air Force digging an air raid shelter uncovered a mosaicdepicting Hercules and the Lion. At the t ime, not much importance wasaccorded to this f indthe m osaic was reburied an d the si te aband oned . Som etwenty years later , the discovery of mosaics in the nearby H ous e of Dionys usprom pted their excavator, the late Kyriakos Nicolaou , to search for the "lost"Hercules mosaic. Although he eventually located the mosaic after several trials,he did not a ttempt the systematic excavation of the si te. Th is was undertak en in1982 by the present writer, and is still in progress.

Th ese excavations, lasting one to two m onth s a year, have revealed asubstantial portion of the structure of the Ho use of Orp heu s, covering an area ofapproximately 32 m x 42 m. Even so, the general outl ine and p lan of the h ouseare by no means clear (Fig. 2). Its eastern and northern limits are clearly definedby two imp ortant public roads. T h e western l imit of the house, however, is presently undefined and may have been completely obli terated when the area wasund er cult ivation. Furthe rm ore, to the so uth, later rebuildings and subdivisionsof the insula (building block) seem to have changed the original aspect of thehouse. A monochrome geometric mosaic decorates a room in the southwestcorner of the excavated area and may belong to one of these later alterations.

As the building now stands, it appears to have one en trance on the east side,from th e road th at separates it from the Villa of Th ese us, a palatial building believedto have been the residence of the Rom an proco nsul. A rectangular atrium near th eentrance retains part of its peristyle; this has rectangular pillars at the comers, withengaged half-columns, and colum ns in the spaces between the pillars. T h e intercol-umnia (spaces between the columns) were blocked with a rough -built stone wall atalater stage, at which time an adjacent roo m to th e southwasconverted intoastoragearea, as the four largepithoi(earthenware pots) found in situ show.

T he room s west of the atr ium are smaller and appear to be more p rivatein character (perhaps serving as bedrooms). The northern wing of the buildinghas some of the best preserved features. Th e no rtheas t co m er is occupied by asmall bath complex. Two rooms are heated by a hypocaust (an undergroundfurnace); one of these has hydraulic plaster and three-qu arter m oulding. T he re

The House of Orpheus


23/88

bathHouse of Orpheus, 1989

hypocaust

geometric monochrome mosaicHercules and Amazon mosaic

Fig ure 2. Pla n of the House ofOrphetis. (Redrawn after theDepa rtmen t of Antiquities ,Cypnis.)

are also inlets and outlets for water and a number of basins. The praefiif-nium(stoking room), apparently entered from the street to the north, has not yet beenexcavated. Large discharge channels and ducts show that water used in the bathseventually flowed into one of the main sewers of the town, running under themain east-west road towards the sea.

Two rooms decorated with figural mosaic floors are found west ofthe baths, on the westernmost limit of the investigated part of the house. Thelargest room, adjacent to the east-west road, has two figural panels set in a largegeometric field: the Hercules panel, mentioned earlier, and another depicting anAmazon. To the south of this room there is a small rectangular chamber, thefloor of which has not survived, and further south is the room with the mosaicof Orpheus and the Beasts.

These mosaics, like the rest of the house, date to the late second orearly third cen turyA.D.,but they re prese nt only the last of a series of structu reson the same site. T h er e are clearly visible remains of an earlier b uild ingthroughout the site, and several walls are built on foundations or stumps ofearlier walls. The existence of this and other even earlier structures was confirmed after the lifting of the Orpheus mosaic permitted excavation of theunderlying strata. Immediately un der th e floor was a wall that correspo nded to



24/88

a roo m, with a hard b eaten-e arth floor, which formed p art of an early Romanhouse buried under the mosaic. A small trench cut through this earlier floorrevealed part of an even earlier structure, with a more rudimentary earthenfloor, dating to the mid-Hellenistic period.

Soundings below this level reached bedrock at a depth of 1.55 m belowthe mosaic floor. The bedrock showed clear signs of quarrying, while the fillbetween it and the earliest floor included pottery sherds that can be dated to thelate fourth century B.C. and are thu s con tem po rane ou s with the foundation ofNea Paphos .

Originally, the house must have had m ore mosaic decoration than thethree floors described below, since small fragments have been found in severalparts of the site, especially the area of the b aths. N on e of these, fragments,however, includes more than a short leng th of one or ano ther decorative patterncomm on in Paphos throughou t the Roman p er iod.All the mosaics, complete or fragmentary, are made of tesserae cutfrom local stone, primarily lim estones and b asalts . A small quantity of im portedbluish-grey m arble is used in the backgrou nd of the Amazon p anel and as abackground to the band of superposed triangles framing the Orpheus mosaic.Even rarer is the use of tesserae made of glass. N o n e is used in the Her culespanel, while its use in the Am azon panel is restricted to the reins of the horseand details of the Am azon's head . M or e glass tesserae are used in the Or ph euspanel. Single tesserae high light th e eyes of some animals, while the plum age ofsome birds (most notably the parrot and peacock), and the garments ofOrp heu s (especially those covering his torso) were largely ma de of glass.Unfortunately, a large portion of the glass tesserae had disintegrated longbefore the mosaic came to light.

T h e R o o m o f t h e H e r c u l e sand Amazon Mosa ic

Of the three surviving mosaic floors, the largest is the one decorated with twopanels, one representing H ercules and the lion, the other an Amazon and herhorse (Fig. 3). Th ese are set in a geometric field with a polychro me runn ing-pelta pattern , the whole framed by a series of geom etric borders and measuringapproximately 7 m x 6.5 m. Th e ro om is approached from the east throu gh a tripartite open ing formed by two rectang ular stone pillars. T h e two figural p anelsare arranged in this field in a rather asymmetric manner. That of Hercules isopposite the central door on the east, and one would face it on en tering the roo m.It is not, however, situated on the east-west axis. The Amazon panel acts as amo re or less central pse udo emb lema, and is situated o n th e east-west axis. It is,however, off-center and closer to the door on the east. It is also upside-down inrelation to the Hercules panel and is meant to be viewed from inside the room.Th is , and the p os i t ioning of the panels , would indica te tha t the room was a



25/88

Figure 3. The Hercules andAmazon Mosaic.

triclinium (dining roo m) . W he n used as such the three wide areas, on all but theentra nce side, would be occupied by couches, leaving an unobs tructed view of theAmazon pane l in the c enter .

The Hercules panel (Fig. 4) is rectangular, measuring 1.60 m x 0.69 m,and is framed byaband of grey serrated saw-tooth triangles againstawhite background. I t depicts Hercules' First Labor, his combat with the Lion of Nemea.T h e naked h ero , having discarded his club, is abou t to grab the attacking lion andthrottle it with his bare hands. It is this detail that renders the mosaic unique,because although Hercules and the Lion are commonly represented in ancientart, norm al iconog raph y shows the two protagon ists already engaged in the fight.In this respect, the scene is iconographically closer to the Hu nti ng Mosa ics of thenearby Ho use of Dionysus than to other m osaic depictions of Hercules.

The iconography of the adjacent panel (PI. 4) is equally unorthodox.Amazons, a common theme in mosaic art, are almost always depicted riding onhorseback and either hunting animals or fighting the Greeks. By contrast, thisAmazon is standing, almost immo bile, in front of her horse. With one hand sheholds the reins of the horse, with the other a double axe, the Amazons' favoriteweapon. T h e Ph rygian cap on her head is a remind er of her oriental bir thplacein north eas t Asia M ino r. Th e Am azon panel is almost square, measuring 1.40 m x1.11 m, and is framed by a wave patter n, red on b lue.

_-*Is

The House of O rpheus


26/88

Figure 4. The Hercules panel. In the past, a great number of fresco fragments have been recoveredeach time anoth er section of this mosaic was exposed. Unfo rtun ately, it is imp ossible to say much about them except that they show elaborate polychrome floraland geometric designs. Some narrow strips surviving on the n orth wall, on topof the edge of the mosaic, show that the painted decoration had a red dado andthat it was applied after th e mo saic had been laid. Large r areas of fresco surviveon some bro ken sections of the rectan gular pillars of the tripartite entra nce to t heeast. These show a brightly colored, floral scroll design.

T h e R o o m o f t h eM o n o c h r o m eGeomet r ic Mosa ic

Although the largest part of this mosaic, found at the southern mo st limit of theexcavated area, was destroyed when the area was under cultivation, the beddingshows that the room must have measured approximately 6.45 m x 4.9 m. It consisted ofa central field of adjacent octagons (containing concentric circles)forming squares, the whole framed by a series of unusually wide borders. Thetechn ique used in this mosaic is highly un usual. Itismono chrome, m ade ent i re lyof pale greenish-grey tesserae, and the patterns therefore are traced not by colorbut by the way the tesserae are set. No other mosaic of this kind is known inCyprus, and merely a handful have been found anywhere in the world.

Because of plough ing activities in th e past, and th e shallow depth of soil,onlyarelatively small num ber of fresco fragments, primarily red , were found abovethe mo saic. But when the mosaic was lifted for conservation and th e underly ing areaexcavated, a surprising discovery was made: a layer of fresco fragments immed iatelyunder the mosaic bedding. This layer became deeper towards the center of the



27/88

room, where a pit 1.0 m deep and 1.3 m in diameter was absolutely filled withfresco fragments. This was clearly dug for the express purpose of holding thesefragments, since it contained no soil and little else except a few lamps and som elarge oyster shells. Evidently these fresco fragments constitute the original decoration of the room , which (either because i t was damaged, perhaps d uring anearthquake, or because the ow ners wanted som ething new ) was dil igentlyscraped off the walls, buried in the pit, and covered by the mosaic.

There are literally thousands of mostly very small fragments that arepresently being sorted byateam of volunteers. I twillbe years before itispossibleto tell whether the en tire decorative scheme can be reconstructed, b ut already i tis clear that there are panels with figural decoration in addition to the usualgeom etric and floral designs. T h e lamps found tog eth er with these fragmentsgive us the end of the first century A.D. as a terminus ante for the fresco, and asa terminus post for the laying of th e m osaic.

T h e R o o m o f t h eO r p h e u s M o s a i c

Th is room is not particularly large, measuring approximately 4.25 m x 5.10 m.Even so, the mosaic depicting Orph eus and the Beasts is the largest single (no n-com posite) figural repres entatio n so far known on t he island (Pis. 1,2). T h e pa nelitself (exclusive of the bord er) me asures 2.82 m x 3.40 m , and its frame consistsof the following elem ents: a triple ma roo n filet; a plain white ban d; a band o f serrated saw -tooth m aroon tr iangles on a white backg round; a plain black band; aband of serrated sa w-tooth blue tr iangles on a ma roon b ackgroun d; a row ofsuperposed r ight-angled, isosceles tr iangles, random ly l ight pink, pink, m aroonor brown against a blue background; and finally a band of serrated saw-toothmaroon triangles againstablue background, which extends to form the su rroundof the mosaic.

T he panel has a white background and, in i ts uppe r center , Orp heu s isdepicted si t t ing on a rock. Of the incidents associated with Orp heu s, the mythicalpoet and musician from Th rac e, the most famous is his descent into the U nd erworld to rescue his dead wife Eurydice. T h e m ost comm only represented,however, is the scene depicting the mo me nt w hen every sort of l iving creature,tame or wild, gathe red to listen peacefully to the m agic of O rp he us ' divine music(PI. 1). He is wearing a high-waisted, long-sleeved tunic, a Phrygian cap, andpossibly anaxyrides (baggy trousers); these denote his oriental origin. Orpheus'half-open mo uth shows that he is singing, accompa nying himself on a large six-stringed cithara (lyre) propped on the rock to his left. He holds the plectrum inhis outstretched r ight hand , but instead of plucking the str ings he seems to bepointing to the effect of his music on the fifteen creatures that have gatheredaround him. Th er e are eight mamm als (fox, bear, boar, bull, leopard, l ion, t iger ,deer), one reptile (a snake coiling up the rock towards the cithara), and six birds



28/88

(partridge, eagle, peacock, parrot, and two mostly destroyed, unidentifiableones). Each creature stands or sits on its own ground line, the mammals in thelower foreground and beside Orpheus, and the birds, logically, at the top of thepanel. All except the bear are turn ed tow ards O rph eus , and some raise their pawsin reverence. A small shrub, in the lower left co rner, co mpletes the p icture.

N o bird or oth er creature is represented above Orp heu s' head, in the topcenter of the panel, as this space was reserved for an inscription . Th is, written inlarge Greek capitals, constitutes the most important feature of the mosaic. Thebeginning is missing but the rest reads [,..]OC niNIOC PECTITOYTOC EflOIEI.The first word can easily be interpreted as either [TIT]OC or [rAI]OC. This literally means "Titus (or Gaius) Pinnius Restitutus made it," but there are reasonsto believe that the man named is not the mosaicist but rather the owner of thehouse who commissioned and paid for the mosaic. Whatever the meaning, thisis a rare type of inscription which remains, so far, unique in Roman Cyprus.

The iconography of the mosaic is also rare. Representations of Orpheusand the Beasts were in great demand d uring the R oman period, a popularity theyowed, to some extent, to the opp ortun ity for depictingavariety of exotic birds andanimals. Th ere are nearly ninety known examples of Orpheu s mosaics from theRoman world, two of which come from Cyprus: the present example and another(now destroyed) from Salamis. T h e P aphos m osaic, with Orp heu s and the Beaststogether in a single panel, adheres to an iconographic tradition common throughout the Mediterranea n basin, quite different from those found in north ern Eur opeand G reat Britain. It belongs, however, toarare variety where O rph eus ' right handis no t plucking the strings of the cithara, but is outstretched to the right.

In addition to the large number of fresco fragments excavated in thelayer above the mosaic, the sou thern wall of this room preserves a small sectionof the fresco in place (see PI. 2). It shows a red d ado, 45 cm high , above w hichthere is an 8-cm-wide band of yellow ochre. Fu rth er up th ere are traces, up to 6cm wide, of yet another red element. This may not be much, but it is a rare andwelcome feature in a site such as Paphos which, plundered by stone robbers forcenturies, has lost practically all walls and th eir dec oration . W he n excavated, thebrilliance of the colors of the fresco was already reduced, apparently from exposure. A better ind ication of their original tone is provided by broken fragmentsfound on top of the m osaic. Th ese also show that, further up, the walls were decorated with more intricate geometric as well as floral designs.

T h e part of the fresco still adhe ring to th e wall provides evidence that itwasapplied after the mosaic was laid. T h e m outh of an amphora neck, incorporated inthe lowest part of the fresco and leading to a drain on the oth er side of the wall, suggests that, when in use, the floor was washed with large quantities of water.



29/88

B i b l i o g r a p h y K . N i c o la o u1978 Bulletin de Correspondance Hellenique 102 :930 .*1979 Illustrated London News, Aug ust 1979:4 7.*1980 American Jou rnal ofArchaeology84:71,pi . 15 .*

1980-81 Archaeology Reports 19 80 -81 :71 , figs. 83 -84 .*1984 "T hr ee Ne w Mosaics at Paph os, Cy pru s." In At ti III Colloquio Intemazionale m l Mosaico

Antico, Ravenna, 6-10 Settembre 1980, pp. 219-225, figs. 6-8. Ravenna: Mario Lapucci,Edizoni del Girasole.W . A. Daszewski

1988 "Figu ral Mosaics from Paph os, Cy prus : Subjects, Style and Significance." In W . A.Daszewski and D. Michaelides, Floor Mosaics in Cyprus, Bibliotecadi "Felix Ruvenna"No.3 ,48-53 , figs. 20-22 . Ravenna: Mario Lapucci, Edizoni del Girasole.D . Michae l ides

1982-8 7 An nua l Report Director of Antiquities1982:38f; 1983:45;1984:44f, 1985:46;1986:47f,1987:55f; figs. 89-90.*

1983-88 BulletindeCorrespondance Hellenique1983 107):944f,fig. 69;1984


30/88

h r iT H E C O N D I T I O N O F T HE O R P H E U S M O S A I CF O E E O W I N G E X C A V A T I O N


TJ .heO rph eus m osaic was first located in the excavation season of 1984. After a

small area of it had been cleared, it was reburied unti l resources we re available toundertake its full excavation in 1985.

At the time ofits excavation, the Orpheus mosaic appeared to be ingood c ond ition. Th e d epiction of two birds at the top (west) end of the mosaichad been destroyed by the root action of bushes, leaving large lacunae (see Pis.1,2). Other roots had dislodged the tesserae and passed under most of theinscription and Orpheus' extended right hand, where the tesserae lacked anyfirm attachment.

Further damage to the mosaic was evident on the southeast and westsides, where stone-robbing from the walls of the room had destroyed the edgesof the mosaic. Most of the walls had been robbed to below their foundations,with the exception of that to the south where the area of wall-painting was stillpreserved. The mosaic appeared otherwise to be in good condition, despite lyingonly a few centimeters below the ground surface. It was not uniformly flat,however; a hum p run ning the entire length of the n orth side of the mosaic waslater confirmed to be the result of an underlying wall.

The subsidence caused by the partial support of the mosaic on thisunderlying wall became more pronounced as the subsoil dried out followingexcavation, and minor cracking began to appear. It was also suspected (asproved to be the case) that much of the mortar of the setting-bed had lost i tscohesion (see condition drawings, Pis.6,7). A consolidation of the mosaic in situwould therefo re hav e been of limited effectiveness, and it was decide d to lift theOrpheus mosaic and to provide it with a new support that would be impermeable to capillary rise of moisture before replacing it in situ. In the meantime,the lacunae and the broken edges of the mosaic were mortared for protection.

The decision to use the rolling technique for lifting the mosaic wastaken for both practical and didactic reasons. This technique, the general principles of which have been described elsewhere (Barov 1985; W ih r 1978,1983), isparticularly appropriate for use when the mosaic to be lifted is (1) easily accessible without surrounding high walls, (2) ofa single pictorial composition withoutregular subdivisions into smaller panels, and (3) in good condition without

The Condition of the Orpheus Mosaic Following Excavation 11


31/88

se r ious lacunae or p reex is t ing c racks . Each of these c r i te r ia was me t by theOr ph eu s mo sa ic and i t was dec ided , the re fo re , to l if t the mo sa ic in on e p ieceus ing the ro l l ing technique , r a the r than to cu t i t in to a rb i t r a ry p ieces for ind iv idua l l i f ting . At the same t ime , the ope ra t ion wo uld prov ide a goo d opp or t un i ty tot r a in o th e r mo s a i c s c o n s e r v a to r s i n t h e t e c h n iq u e .

R e f e r e n c e s Z . B a ro v1985 "Recent Developm ents in Mosaic Lifting Tech niqu es and New Suppo rts for Removed

Flo or M osaics." In Conservation In Situ, Aquileia 1 983, pp . 163 -18 3. R om e: ICCROM.R. W ih r

1978 "T he Restoration of Mosaics in Germ any." In MosaicsNo.1: Deterioration and Conservation, Rome, November 1977, pp. 62-66. Rome: ICCROM.

1983 MosaicsNo. 2: Safeguard, Carthage 1978, Perigueux 1980. Rome: ICCROM.

12 The Condition of the Orpheu s Mosaic Following Excavation


32/88

P H O T O D O C U M E N T A T I O N O F T H EO R P H E U S M O S A I C

Giorgio Capriotti and Lorenza D'Alessandro

c areful docum entation is a critical comp onen t of any conservation intervention. Before beginning any operation, the object must be studied and analyzedand a range of information recorded, including th e technique of excavation andthe materials used, as well as the pre sen t state of conse rvation. T h e cho ice of"base" documen t (e.g., drawing, photo graph , etc.) and scale of reproduc tion isdetermined by the nature of the object, its state of conservation, and the means(equipment) available.For the O rpheu s mosaic, photo graphy proved to be practical, quick, andsufficiently accurate in its results. A comp lete, detailed imag e of the mo saic, fordocum entation purposes, was obtained by subdividing the area into a series ofquadrants (each 80 cm x 80 cm), photogra phin g each qu adran t with identicalmethods, and then assembling the individual photographs to form a completeview of the mosaic.

T o pho tograph these quadrants ,awoo den structure (Fig.5)was built t ohold the camera (35 mm C ano nA E 1 ,35 mm lens, F P4 film). Each quad rant wasphotographed with the camera always positioned the same distance from theground , on axis with the center of the quad rant. Th e images were printed at ascale of 1:10, following the metric reference provided by tapes delimiting eachquadrant. The photographs were then joined to obtain a complete image of themosaic, the general design of which was traced on to tran sparent paper. T hi sdrawing served as the basis for the final condition drawings.

The same photographs were used for field documentation purposes, byplacing sheets of acetate film over them. Course participants recorded all relevant data o n th e acetate overlays, using a symb ol key devised after close analysisof the work to be docum ented. D ata referring t o the preparato ry layers and tothe mosaic surface were recorded separately.

Finally, the collected information was transferred on to the cond itiondrawings, using the tracing of the mosaic made earlier and standard draftingconventions. Th e cond ition drawings are reprodu ced here as Plates 6 and 7.

Figure 5. Photographing quadrants of the Orpheus mosaic usinga camera mountedona woodenframe.

Photodocumentation of the Orpheus Mosaic 13


33/88

F A C I N G A N D C O N S O E I D A T I O NO F T H E M O S A I C


jDefore proceeding with the application ofafacing to the m osaic, it was necessary to p reconso lidate tho se areas lacking cohesion (see PI. 7). On fragile redstone tesserae whe re lack of cohesion was particularly severe, Paraloid B72(e thyl methacryla te -methyl acryla te copolymer) in Ch loroth ene (1,1,1 t r ichlo-roethan e) was infiltrated in different con centratio ns (3 %to 6% ) unt i l comple tesaturation and reestablishment of cohesion was achieved. Similar operations,using ethyl silicate as a consolidant, were carried out on the tesserae of glassaffected by flaking phenomena.

Once cohesion was reestablished in the weaker areas, the preliminaryoperations for the complete facing of the mosaic were carried out. Superficialdeposits (earth, remains of mortar from previous interventions, loose incrustations) were cleaned, to allow good adhesion between the tesserae and the layersof facing, and loose residues in the interstitial spaces between the tesserae wereextracted with a vacuum cleaner. Areas of detached tesserae were temporarilyreinforced w ith a very thin mo rtar, composed of one part l ime and four partsmarble powder in water, which was packed into the spaces between the tesseraeusing palette kn ives, scalpels, and fingers.

Strengthened tesserae (of fragile red stone and glass) were faced withthin strips of Japan ese tissue and acrylic resin in solution (Paraloid B72 in n itrothinn er at 15% ). Th is provided bette r protection for the more fragile areas bypreventing direct contact with the adhesive of the facing material, which wastenacious and difficult to remove. Subsidences in the pavement were faced withsmall pieces of gauze and acrylic/vinyl resin in emulsion. This emulsion wascomp osed of equal parts vinyl resin (Vinavil N P C , 3:1 in water) and acrylic resin(Primal AC33, also 3:1 in water).

The mosaic surface was then completely faced with two layers of cottongauze and two of hemp cloth using the same acrylic/vinyl resin. (Th e cottongauze and hem p cloth had been washed and ironed and their edges had b eentrim me d in advance.) Each layer of facing was allowed to dry comp letely and u ni formly, to ensure proper adhesion of successive layers.

14 Facingand Consolidation ofhe Mosaic


34/88

The layers of facing were applied without tension, following as far aspossible the depressions and deformations of the surface. Particular care wastaken to avoid forming folds or overlaps of the bo rders of the cloth, wh ich wouldhave left uneven impressions in the surface of the mosaic during rolling.

T h e last two layers were applied so as to leave approximately 50 cm of clothfree along th e sho rt ends (east and west), which could be attached w ith staples to thedrum at the beginning and end of the rolling operation (see pp. 17-21). Strips ofcloth were sewn along the edges of the long sides of the facing m aterials to allowattachment of the edges of the mosaic to the drum during transport.

Facing an d Consolidation of the Mosaic 15


35/88

D E T A C H M E N T O F T H EW A E E P A I N T I N G


Jjefore the mosaic could be rolled, fragments of fresco surviving on the onewall still standin g on the south side of the mosaic had to be tempora rily rem oved.The fresco, simple bichrome decoration (yellow and red) about 230 cm x 50 cmin size (see PI. 2), showed extensive loss of cohesion in the surface layers anddetachment of the plaster from the stone wall (built of an irregular mix of largeand small stones).

T he first step in detac hme nt of the fresco was the reestablishment ofcohesion in the superficial layers (paint surface and/or plaster) by impregnationwith acrylic resin in solution (Paraloid B72 in Chlorothene, from 3 to 6% ). Areasof well-preserved pain t film were the n faced w ith layers of thin Japanes e tissue andacrylic resin in solution (Paraloid B72 in nitro t hin ne r at10%).Th e Japanese tissuein this case acted as a protective layer betwe en the paint surface and successivelayers effacing, preventing any impression ofweaveon the paint film.

The entire area was first faced with thin cotton gauze and acrylic resinin solution (Paraloid B72 in nitro thinne r at 15% ), then with m ediu m-w eighthem p cloth (using Paraloid B72 in nitro thinn er at 20% ). A bord er of approximately 40 cm was left along the u pper edge of the fresco; this was attached to aplank that would support the weight of the fragments during detachment.

The fresco was divided into three sections along the lines of existingcracks, to allow easier detachm ent and tra nsp ortatio n of the fragments; the gauzeand cloth were cut along these lines. T h e m ortare d bo rders of the fragment,applied in the past to anchor it to the wall, were removed mechanically. Thethree sections of the fresco were detach ed using steel rods with sh arpened bladesand chisels, working from the bottom towards the top to avoid creating dangerous pockets of detritus. The thickness of the detached fresco fragments variedfrom 2 cm to 4 cm. Fresco fragments were transferred ont o flat panels cut to sizeand were packed where necessary with layers of cotton.

The detachment operation succeeded perfectly, without any loss offragments. Interesting fragments of arriccio (the support layer behind the wallpainting), similar to those from adjacent pa rts of the site, were also discovered.In addition, two complete rows of mosaic tesserae were recovered at the base ofthe fresco, indicating that the pavement mosaic had already been completedbefore the wall was plastered and painted.

16 Detachment of theWallPainting


36/88

D E T A C H M E N T A N D R O E E I N GO F T HE M O S A I C

Jan Kosinka

An order to begin detachment of the mosaic from the west end, i t was necessary to excavate a trench to have access to the b edd ing layers of the m osaic (Fig.6). This trench, running the length of the west side of the mosaic, was excavated with appropriate archaeological techniques under the supervision ofDem etr ios Michael ides. Once the bedding layers were undercut and the tessel latum began to be detached, the drum was rolled into posit ion and the clothoverlap extending from the mosaic surface was stapled to the drum to starttaking up the detached tessellatum.

Figure 6. Initial undercutting ofthe mosaic from the west end.

Detachment and Rolling of the Mosaic n


37/88

central axis struts wooden wedges screws wooden paneling

f^ -: \ ^

^ ^ -

^'.'.ZZZZ'.^ ^ ^ m - ^ ^[

:ZZZZZIII^ ^ ^ \

\V\ '\

\;

\-L V^ ^

\ ^ -^ ^1

^^ ^^ ^' '.i 1 1 1 i

1

Figure 7 (top). Interna l construction of the drum . (Redrawn afterJan Kosinka. Nottoscale.)Figure 8 (above), (a, left) Internalstructure of the drum, showingstmts anddisks.Q),right) Woodenwedgesattachedtostm ts to provideadditional support.

T h e c o n s t ru c t i o n o f t h e d r u m u s e d fo r ro l l i n g t h e O rp h e u s m o s a i cdepends on fou r in te rna l ho r izon ta l s t ru t s tha t cons t i tu te i t s po in t o f p r inc ipa lfo rce (see F ig . 7 ). T he se a re a t t ache d to the en ds o f the d rum , para l l e l to , and a ta min imal d i s tance f rom, the me ta l p ipe (7 .5 cm in d iame ter ) tha t se rves as theaxis. O n th e s t ru ts is fixed a series of d iscs , m ad e of coated ply wo od 1 .8 cm th ic kand spaced abou t 1 m apar t (F ig . 8a) . T h e ou te r c i rcu mfe renc e o f the d ru m i scovered w i th board s , 5 cm wide and 2 cm th ick , a t t ached t o the d i scs wi th sc rews .S t r on g wed ges o f wo od p laced in the ang les be tw een the in te rna l s t ru t s and th ed i scs (F ig . 8b ) g ive the jo in t s a g rea te r capa c i ty to wi th s tan d t he fo rce e xer ted onthe d ru m d ur in g the ro l l ing o f the mo sa ic . T h e c en t ra l p ipe i s fixed to the endso f the d rum by means o f two meta l shee t s , s c rewed on to the wooden d i scs a t eachend and so ldered on to the meta l p ipe (F ig . 9 ) .

The p ro jec t ing ends o f the meta l p ipe tha t s e rves as the d rum 's ax i s res ton w ood en s ide- ra i l s cons t ruc te d on the no r th and so u th s ides o f the mosa ic f loo r(F igs . 9 -11 ) . The s ide- ra i l s a re cons t ruc ted on an ascend ing s lope so tha t thed ru m, as i t i s ro l l ed fo rward g a th er in g the mosa ic and ther e fo re incr eas in g inbu lk and weigh t , never res t s upon the mosa ic su r face . The r i sk o f damag ing thetes serae on par t s o f the mosa ic ye t to be ro l l ed i s there fo re g rea t ly d imin i shed .

T h e r o l l i n g o p e ra t i o n w a s m a d e e a s i e r b y e x p l o i t i n g t h e p r e s e n c e o fthe two lacunae a t the wes t end o f the mosa ic , the end f rom which the ro l l ing

18 Detachment and Rolling of the Mosaic


38/88

Figure 9 (right). Endviewofthe drum. (Redrawn after Ja nKosinka. Na ttoscale.)Figu re 1 0 (below). D rum sitting onwooden rai ls, a s origiruilly designed.The presence ofhesouth wall prohibitedtheuse ofhisdesign:railswere laidatopstone piling?, a s illustrate d below. (Redrawn after J a nKosinka. Nottoscale.)Figure 11 (bottmn). The drum inits locked position on th e woodenrails, w ith canvas facings attached.

678

1.2 .3.

4.5.6.

7.8.

external panelingwooden diskmetal sheet soldered to axisand screwed to end of drumaxis (metal tube)wooden strutscanvas attached to d rum withmetal staplestessellatumremains of mortar

detached mosaic

sharpened iron rodto aid detachment

Detachmen t an d Rolling of the Mosaic 19


39/88

o p e r a t i o n c o mme n c e d . O n c e t h e a r e a w i th t h e s e l a c u n a e h a d b e e n r o l l e d o n tothe dru m, i t was poss ib le to cu t th ro ug h the f ac ing fabr ic , the tem po ra ry m or ta rc o n s o l i d a t i o n , a n d t h e w o o d e n p a n e l s o f t h e d r u m, i n o r d e r t o i n s e r t w o o d e npoles r ad ia l ly in to the dr um (F ig . 12) . T he se ac ted a s leve r s and g rea t ly f ac i li ta tedth e t u r n in g o f t h e d r u m . W h e n t h e d e t a c h m e n t a n d ro l l i n g o p e r a t i o n r e a c h e d apo in t ab out 1 m f rom the eas t end of the m osa ic , i t was dec ided to s impl i fy a ndspeed up the process by wo rk in g s im ul tan eous ly f rom bot h s ides of the d rum .

De tachment o f the sou th s ide of the mosa ic p roved qu i te d i f f icu l t . In th isa rea , f lank ing the surv iv ing wa l l , the anc ien t mor ta r was in good condi t ion andtenac ious ly r e s i s ted a t tempts to sepa ra te i t f rom the mosa ic sur face . I t was nec essa ry to ca r ry ou t th e cu t t i ng wi th a f ra ise ( a too l wi th a ro t a t i ng d isk for cu t t in g

Figure 12 (right). Detachmentof the mosaic from the east end.The drumisstabilized with supports exploiting lacunae in themosaicsmface.Figure 13 (below right). Undercutting the mosaic using a fraise.

20 Detachment and Rolling of the Mosaic


40/88

s t o n e m a t e r i a l ) fr om u n d e rn e a t h , c u t t i n g t h e m o r t a r i n r e c t a n g l e s a n d t h e r e b yfac i l i t a t ing the ro l l ing o f the mosa ic (F ig . 13 ) .

I n t h e c o u r s e o f t h e d e t a c h m e n t o p e r a t i o n , t h e p r e p a ra t o ry l a y e r su n d e r l y i n g t h e O rp h e u s m o s a i c w e re r e c o r d e d ( F i g . 14 ; P I . 5 ) . O f p a r t i c u l a rno te a re f ragments, app rox im ate ly 2 cm x 1 cm , foun d be tw ee n leve l s 2 and 3 ;t h e s e s h o w t r a c e s o f r e d c o l o r i n g m a t e r i a l a n d w e re p ro b a b l y p a r t o f t h e p r e par a to ry des ign d raw ing (s inop ia ) to def ine the spaces o f the mosa ic f loor .A n o t h e r f r a g m e n t , f o u n d b e t w e e n l e v e l s 3 a n d 4 , s h o w s e v i d e n c e o f f r e sh l yinc i sed rec t i l inear l ines .

Figure 14. Stratification of thepreparatory layers. See PI. 5 for aschematic diagra m of these layers,(a, top) Levels 2 (bedding layer), 3(nucleus), and 4 (mortar), (b,middle) Levels 5 (rudus) and 6(statumen). (c, bottom) Levels 6and 7 (deep statumen ).

4 : J>-iii i m ; ~ m

Detachment and Rolling of the Mosaic 21


41/88

^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^

^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ S3

mmmFigure 15. (a, top) Temporaiysupport for the drum,, bu ilt ofscaffolding. Scaffolding clamps arefixed at every point w here tubescross, (h, above) Unrolling thedetached mosaic from the dru m.(Redrawn after Jan Kosinka. Notto scale)

W h e n d e t a c h m e n t o f t h e t e s s e ll a t u m w a s c o m p l e t e , t h e d r u m w a s r e l o ca ted to i t s o r ig ina l pos i t ion a t the s t a r t o f the s ide ra i l s , to a l low heavy m ach ine ryeas ie r access to the mosa ic . A bu l ldo zer wi th a l a rge , maneu ver ab le scoop , f romwhic h the ropes a t t ached to the d r um co u ld be suspe nded , was u sed to t ran spo r tthe mosa ic .

T h e d ru m a n d m o s a i c w e r e t r a n s p o r t e d t o a c o n c re t e p l a t fo r m t h a t h a db e e n c o n s t ru c t e d b y t h e D e p a r t m e n t o f A n t i q u i t i e s a p p r o x i m a t e l y 5 0 m a w a y . I twas p laced on a t em po rar y supp or t bu i l t o f s caf fo ld ing t ub i ng (F ig . 15 ) , thenunro l led face dow n wi th a shee t o f po lye thy len e be twe en the concre te p la t fo rmand the mosa ic (F igs . 16 ,17 ) . I t i s very imp or tan t tha t the po lye thy le ne sh ee t bes t re tched comple te ly f l a t p r io r to un ro l l ing the mosa ic , as any c reases in theshee t ing wi l l be permanen t ly impressed in the su r face o f the t es se rae .

Detachment and Rolling of the Mosaic


42/88

igures and 17. Unrolling themosaic on the concrete platform

ot s The suggestion to place the wedges in the angles between the internal struts and discswas made by Aristodemos Mikellis the carpenter of the Department of Antiquities whoconstructed the drum. His skill at overcoming numerous obstacles in meeting designrequirements with local resources was of great value to the project.2 Recording of the preparatory layers was carried out by Giorgio Capriotti and LorenzaD Alessandro who provided the information and photographs in this section.

etachment and Rolling the osaic 23


43/88

C E E A N I N G T H E B A C K O FT H E M O S A I C

Paolo Pastorello and Werner Schmid

JLechnical considerations required that all disintegrated material still presenton the back of the mosaic surface be removed, since it might prevent good adhesion between the tesserae and the new preparatory layers. The mortars of thepreparatory layers of the Orpheus mosaic were all found to be in an advancedstate of deterioration, due to loss of internal cohesion and lack of adhesionbetween the various layers. During the detachment of the mosaic surface fromthe original suppo rt, it was confirmed that a large part of the morta r of the rudusand of the nucleus, lacking any adhesion to th e tessellatum, had already separatedfrom the back of the m osaic.

Those areas that retained greater internal cohesion and perfect adhesionto the tesserae were thinned down and cut in a rectangular pattern using a fraise(see pp.20 -21 ,Fig. 13); this allowed the tessellatum to adapt to the curvedsurface of the drum with less chance of damage. Before transferring the mosaicon to the co ncrete platform that would serve as a work area, the thickest areas ofthe sett ing-bed mo rtar were removed using a ham me r and metal chisels, tolighten as much as possible the drum and its fragile load (Fig. 18).After unrolling the mosaic face down on the concrete platform, the backwas cleaned us ing the following tools: wood chisels of various sizes, small saws,rasps, stainless steel brushes, natural and synthetic hard-fiber brushes, and scalpels. The aim was to remove all residual material of the mortar layers down tothe thin stratum of the setting -bed as delicately and gradually as possible. Man ual

Figure 18. Removal of thickerresidues of mo rtar with hamm erand chisels before lifting thedetached mosaic.

24 Cleaning the Back of the Mosaic


44/88

tools, which allowed greater control over the depth of the work to avoid damaging the underside of the tesserae particularly the very fragile glass tesserae , weretherefore preferred.

After using abrasive and cutting tools to remove the disintegratedmortars of the preparatory layers, cleaning of the back of the mosaic continuedusing more precise tools. his operation is traditionally called the spillaturabecause it is carried out using spilli, small metal awls, although these are now supplemented with precision electrical instruments. he tools used on the rpheusmosaic included fine stainless steel awls, dental drills with microfraises rotatingcutters , and vibrating cutters with the tip modified to a chisel-shape Fig. 19 .

he aim of this operation was to free the interstitial spaces of thetesserae of residues from the disintegrated setting-bed and of all traces of organicmatter and earth accumulated between the tesserae during burial, which mightinterfere with adhesion between the mosaic and its new support. he residuesfrom the cleaning operations were removed using a vacuum cleaner Fig. 20 .Finally, the back of the mosaic was disinfected using a biocide Metatin N 5870/101, see p 59 applied by brush.

Figzwe 19 above . Section mosaic back after spillatura.Figzm 20 above right Vacuum-ing the back the mosaic.

Cleaning the Back the Mosaic 5


45/88

INST LL TION OF PROVISION L SH LT RFOR THE MOS I

olo Past01 ello and erner chmid

ecauseof the possibility of substantial winter rains in the interval before thenew support would be completed, the mosaic was covered with a thick protectivelayer of inert material, in contact with the underside of the tesserae, and thenwith a protective shelter.

The structure of the roof shelter was built of steel tubing of the kindused in scaffolding, assembled by means of coupling clamps and covered withcorrugated sheets of galvanized steel Fig. 21 . The shelter roof was built at anangle that would assure efficient run off of rainwater, but not offer too large a

Figzwe 21. TempO/my shelter ovethe 01 pheus mosaic.

26 Installation of Provisional Shelte1I01 the Mosaic


46/88

corrugated sheets ofgalvanized steel

- A , Vi t w , I_ -A- t w . -

concrete platformwater channel

wooden coffer

wooden case metal tubing

Figure 22 (top). Cut-away viewof he temporary shelter. (Redrawnafter W. Schmid)Figure 23 (above). Cross-sectionof the layers of inert mate rialover the mosaic. (Redrawn afterW. Schmid)

s u r f a c e a re a t o w in d g u s t s . I t w a s c o n s id e r a b ly l a r g e r t h a n t h e p l a t f o r m o nwhich the mosa ic lay and was enc losed on the th ree s ides exposed to loca l windsso a s to avoid wa te r in f i l t r a t ion (F ig . 22) . I t was open on the eas t s ide to gua r an tee go od a ir f low, b ut a f ine-mesh pla st ic ne t was insta l led to c lose off this s ideand to exc lude an im a ls and b i rds . S t ra ta o f in e r t ma te r ia l wer e laid ove r th eb a c k o f t h e mo s a i c t o f u r t h e r p r o t e c t i t f r o m w e a th e r , b io lo g i c a l a t t a ck , v a n d a l i sm, and poss ib le the f t (F ig . 23) .

Installation of a Provisional Sh elter for the Mosaic 27


47/88

Figure 24 l ight). Spl eading claypellets over the nylon net.Figure 2S below l ight . Structzwe scaffolding poles constructed overthe mosaicfor additional security.

A sheet of polyethylene had previously been laid down between themosaic and the concrete platform, and a broad-spectrum biocide had beenapplied to the back of the tesserae. A fine-mesh nylon netwas then stretched overthe mosaic and over the edges of the wooden coffer th t surrounded it, to facilitate later removal of the first layer of inert isolating material. his material, alayer approximately 20 cm of expanded clay pellets Fig. 24 , has been testedmany times in similar situations.

A second nylon net was laid over the expanded clay, followed by a layerof 20 cm of local gravel which, because of its weight, represented a reasonabledeterrent to potential theft. A reticular structure, of the same tubular scaffoldingelements used for the roof, was then constructed a few centimeters above thesecond protective layer for added security Fig. 25 .

Installation a hovisional Sheltel for the Mosaic


48/88


49/88

ibil ity during the process of turning the mosaic over. T he mo rtar was wetted con tinuously for one w eek and th en left to set slowly over a three-w eek period.

T he mo rtar applied to the back was leveled and thinned u sing a mec hanical grinder. Thi s operation removed the thin crust that had formed on theceme nt and eventually reduced th e thickness of the mortar to th e point whe re thehigher tesserae were visible.

T he wood en coffer was dismantled and replaced with ano ther, also ofwood covered with plastic.

T h e N e w S u p p o r t The panels making up the new support are Aerolam lightweight "F^boardsmanufactured and supplied by Ciba -Geigy (UK ). Eac h board is 2.44 m x 1.22 mand approximately 5 cm thick. They are ready-made bonded honeycomb sandwich panels, consisting ofa core of Aeroweb aluminum honeycomb betweenplastic skins reinforced with w oven glass fiber.

T he hone ycom b panels were cu t to size and small insets (approximately5 cm x5cm) were cut into the panels, distributed aroun d the edge s at regular inte rvals of about 50 cm; these were used for injecting resin into th e joins betweenpanels. T he frame of the suppo rt was mad e of length s of reinforced alum um m,T-sh aped in section, inserted in the joins between panels. Perforations w ere mad ein the aluminum, corresponding to the insets on the edges of the hon eycombpanels, for self-threading P arker screws (Fig. 27).

The entire structure described above was tested several times "dry" toensure that al l joins and measu rements w ere correct (Fig. 28). T h e necessaryquan tity of chop ped m at fiberglass (weight: 330 g per n r ) was then cu t to size,and the app ropriate quantity of resin was mixed. Epoxy resin from Ciba-G eigy

Figure 27. Cross-section of themosaicsupport. (Redrawn afterJ. Claire Dean . Not to scale. )

mor tar

fiberglass

self-threading Parker screws

aluminum "T"-secr ion re inforcement "F"-board

30 Reinstallation of the Mosaic


50/88

Figure right). Testing thesupport dlY to enszwe thatalljoins and11leaSZwenlents

COl rectFigure 29 below). Applying thefirst l a y e l ~ epoxy to the back the mosaic.Figm e 3 below l ~ i g b t Roughen-ing the surface one the panels.

Y5 60 with hardener HY560 was used, in a ratio of five parts resin to one p rthardener. h is was poured into buckets and mixed, using mixing paddles affixedto heavy-duty drills, with marble powder roughly 1 partmarble to 2 parts epoxythat had been sieved using window screen.

he resin was spread on the back of the mosaic in bands no wider thana sheet of fiberglass Fig. 29 . he fiberglass sheets were laid in place andnother coat of resin applied. After the epoxy/fiberglass layer had cured, itssurface was roughened with a mechanical grinder, as were the surfaces of thepanels Fig. 30 and the aluminum reinforcements. he aluminum was alsodegreased with acetone.

Reinstallation the Mosaic


51/88

The panels were positioned on the mosaic, then each was lifted in turn,the epoxy was applied ben eath it, and it was replaced in position. T h e aluminumreinforce me nts w ere then pu t in place. T h e next day, after the epoxy benea th thepanels had cured, the inserts around the reinforcements were filled with moreepoxy (Fig. 31).

T h e following day an additional layer of epoxy and fiberglass wasapplied (Fig. 32 ). On ce t hat had cu red, a second set of inserts was cut to allowattachm ent of another set of aluminum reinforcements, installed perpendicularto the first and fixed in place with screws and epoxy (Fig. 33). Th ese allowed themosaic to sit clear of the concrete slab.

The outer wooden coffer was removed and the edges of the backingwere trimmed and tidied. L-shaped aluminum sections were cut and attachedarou nd the edg e of the m osaic to form a frame, add ing stability to the edgeaswellas giving it a more finished look.

Figu re 31 (above). Pou ring epoxyinto the inserts in the panels.Figure 32 (above right). Applying the fina l layer of fiberglassan d epoxy.Figure 33 (right). Installingthe second set of aluminumreinforcements.

12 Reinstallation of the Mosaic


52/88

Figure 34. The mosaic with its newsupport being lowered onto its orig-inal site

When the resin had cured, the panel was turned over, first with the assistance oflevers and a mechanical hoist, and then with the help of a crane Fig. 34 .1The weight of the mosaic pavementwithout mortar is estimated at 20 kg/m2.Thecombined weight of the whole panel pavement and support is a little over 1000kg see Table 2 for the weight of the support materials .

Table 2. aterials used for thenew support with an estimate their weight

Epoxy resin LY 560ardenerHY 560oneycomb panels 8 panelsarble powder

Aluminum T - and L-sectionsFiberglass, 50 mydraulic lime

Aerated pozzolanaWhite cementBrick powder

Total

einstallation the Mosaic

200 kg50 kg

140 kg100 kg50 kg20 kg20 kg10 kg50 kg10 kg

650 kg

33


53/88

einstallation theosaic

Figure 35. The excavated m eabackfilled nd pl epm ed fOl thepoul ing the concnte slab

Once the mosaic had been lifted, and the underlying area fully excavated, the exca-vated remains were protected with a polyethylene sheet and the trench backfilledwith excavated stone material Fig. 35 . hisprovided a strong foundation for theconcrete slab, prepared by the Department ofAntiquities, on which the mosaicw sreinstalled. Wooden boards placed on the slab beneath the mosaic allowed workersto shift the mosaic into its exact original position, after which they were removed.

With the mosaic in place, the facings were removed. ofacilitate this,compresses of wetted foam rubber were applied to the mosaic surface. hesewere left in place for between 48 and 60 hours sufficient time to reswell theadhesive of the cloth layers and to make them lose their adhesion to the mosaicsurface. hecloth was gradually removed using a steady pulling force parallel the surface Fig. 36 .

henext phase of work consisted of cleaning the remains of the gluefrom the interstices of the tesserae. At the same time the temporary mortar in thelacunae was removed. oclean the small lacunae more carefully, a very smallpneumatic hammer was used.

he large lacunae were integrated with a mortar composed of eightparts marble powder, eight parts yellow sand, four parts black sand, one partbrick powder, four parts white cement, and four parts Lafarge lime. Smalllacunae were integrated with a darker mortar composed of four parts black sand,eight parts yellow sand, one part brick powder, one part marble powder, twoparts white cement, and two parts Lafarge lime; this was felt to be less visuallyobtrusive in the interior areas of the mosaic.

A number of fragments from the geometric border of the mosaic hadbeen discovered during excavation of the site after the mosaic had been lifted. hemajority came from the north side, and only a f w from the west and east

34 einst ll tion the Mosaic


54/88

Figure 36. Removal of facingsfrom the mosaic surface.

s ides . N o n e o f the f ragments jo ine d d i rec t ly w i th the m ain mosa ic , bu t the i rp ro b a b l e p o s i t i o n s w e r e e s t i m a t e d b y m a t c h i n g t h e c o l o r a n d p a t t e rn o f t h e f ra gm e n t w i t h e x i s t i n g b o r d e r s . T h e f ra gm e nts w e r e t h e n i n s e r t e d i n t o t h e t e m p o ra ry mor ta r f il l, u s in g M as t ic e po lyes te r l iqu id (ma nufa c tu r ed b y Bel lazo n i o fM i l a n , I t a ly ) m i x e d w i t h 1% ha rd en er an d f il led wi th t a lc to fo rm a pas te . A sep ara t io n l ayer o f Par a lo id B 72 res in in to l ue ne a t 15 % was app l ied to the u nd ers ideo f the t es se rae in case the f ragments ne ed to be remo ved in th e fu tu re . -

A v e r y l o w w a l l - s t u b w a s b u i l t a ro u n d t h e r e s t o r e d m o s a i c , e x t e n d i n g af ew c e n t i m e t e r s b e y o n d i t s p e r i m e t e r ; t h i s h i d e s t h e e d g e s o f t h e s u p p o r t a n dprov id es a m or e f in ished app ear anc e .

T h e f i na l s t e p in t h e o p e r a t i o n w a s t o d e c i d e w h e t h e r o r n o t a f in al c o n so l ida t ion o f the mosa ic su r face was necessary . Conso l ida t ion , in the sense o f am o re o r l e ss r e v e rs i b l e l a y e r o f s y n t h e t i c m a t e r i a l , m a k e s s e n s e w h e n a p p l i e d t of ri ab le mate r ia l s th a t wi l l be par t i c u la r ly vu l ner ab le to we ar wi t h t ime . T h e a pp l i c a t i o n o f a c o n s o l i d a n t t o t h e e n t i r e s u r f a c e, o n t h e o t h e r h a n d , i s m o t i v a t e d n o tb y c o n s e r v a t io n n e e d s b u t r a t h e r b y a e s t h e t ic r e q u i r e m e n t s i m p r o v i n g t h ec la r i ty o f the image fo r the pub l ic . I t was dec ided , there fo re , no t to ca r ry ou t af in al c o n s o l i d a t i o n o f t h e w h o l e o f t h e m o s a i c s u rf a c e , b u t r a t h e r t o u n d e r t a k eloca l conso l ida t ion on ly in zones tha t had lo s t the i r cohes ion .

N o t e s 1. Use of the crane, arranged by the De partm ent of Antiquities, was generously providedby Florentiades Concrete (Paphos) Ltd.2.Reintegration of the bor der fragments was carried out by J. Claire D ean , who suppliedthe information in this section.

Reinstallation of the Mosaic 35


55/88

DEVEEOPMENT AND EVAEUATION OFTHE HEXASHEETER

Figtn-e37.Schematic plan of thetwo-ring hexashelter.

Neville Agnew and Richard Coffman

A n 1989, a l ightweight, temporary shelter was constructed over both theOrpheus and the Hercules and Amazon mosaics. This structure is a prototypeshelter designed to protect certain categories of archaeological sites. Thepremise behind the shelter is that it be lightweight, modular, easy to erect,relatively inexpensive compared to a conventional structure, and temporary ifdesired. The design allows for easy expansion ofaprotected area dep endingupon the needs of the si te. I t is less expensive than a conventional perm anen tstruc ture an d does no t require a large work crew to erect. It can also be built overirregular topography and minimizes the impact to the surface and subsurface ofarchaeologically sensitive areas by using concrete anchor blocks of appropriatesize (approximately 1 m 3each) and mass. W he n th e shelter is no lon ger neede dit can be quickly and easily dismantled with a minim um of equip men t and personnel, and once dismantled leaves little or no evidence of its prior existence.

T h e framework of the structu re has a zig-zag profile and six sides; thename "hexashelter ," therefore, derives from the hexagonal shape of each m odule .T he framework is aluminum tubing (10 cm diam eter for vertical supports; 7.5 cmdiameter for roof members) with a fabric roof and side panels. Because it ismodular, it can easily be expanded by building laterally from any one of the hexagonal sides. T he shelter at Papho s is a dual-r ing struc ture (Figs. 37, 38); onering is centered over the Orpheus mosaic and the other over the Hercules and

N


56/88

Figure 38 (top). Trial assembly ofthe hexashelter, using short supportlegs fo r convenience.Note thestabilizing cable linking the threehigh points of the fa r ring.Figure 39 (right). Construction ofthe hexashelterinNovember 1989.The Orpheus mosaic (covered) is inthefore^

A m a z o n m o s a i c . T h e s h e l t e r w a s e r e c t e d i n N o v e m b e r o f 1 9 8 9 b y t h e a u t h o r sa n d a w o rk c r e w o f f iv e fr om t h e D e p a r t m e n t o f A n t i q u i t i e s (F i g . 3 9 ) . C o n s t ru c ti on t o o k a p p ro x i m a t e l y t h r e e w e e k s , w i t h o u t t h e u s e o f h e a v y e q u i p m e n t e x c e p tfo r a c o n c re t e t r u c k t h a t d e l i v e r e d a n d p o u re d c o n c re t e f o r t h e fo o t i n g s a n da n c h o r b l o ck s . N e w i m p e r m e a b l e r o o f m e m b r a n e s w e r e i n s ta l l e d i n 1 9 9 0 , t op ro v i d e b e t t e r p ro t e c t i o n a g a i n s t r a i n ; t h i s w o rk w a s c o m p l e t e d i n t w o w e e k s .

As no ted abov e , th e s t ru c tu re has s ix s ides , w i th a z ig -z ag p ro f i l e o f a l t e r n a t i n g h i g h a n d l o w p o i n t s . Ea c h c o n n e c t i n g p o i n t is a s o l id a l u m i n u m h u b .

Development and E valuation of the Hex ashelter 31


57/88

15 cm in diameter (Fig. 40), machined to an internal angle ofate t rahedron(109.5). The solid cylindrical stock was also through-drilled to provide a fifthpoin t of attachm ent for an eyebolt for cabling. W he n conn ected bysixmemb ers ,the hub s create a zig-zag profile that is m ore stable against torq uin g stresses thana f lat hexagon. Th us , the structure acts both as a suppo rt for th e roofing m aterialand as its own stabilizing truss .

T he hubs were drilled to accept threaded steel rods to which the h orizontal and vertical mem bers and th e eyebolts were attach ed. At each low po int isconnected a vertical aluminum tube, approximately 1.85 m lon g, that extends tothe ground. Thus each hexashelter module has three legs supporting the structure. Th is design was chosen because i t is the m ost stable configuration with aminimu m of vertical supports. Wh en two hexashelter modules are connected, asat Paphos, they share one side and o ne leg, result ing in a structure with ten sidessupp orted by five legs. Each arm is 5.23 m in lengt h and is made of two pieces ofaluminum tubing connec ted internally by means of solid aluminum stock sixinches long and secured by means of steel set screws. Th e same techn ique is usedto attach the arms and legs to the hubs , with sl ight modifications. T h e aluminumstuds and hubs were tapped and thread ed to a steel rod to perm it the differentmem bers to be screwed togethe r. Th e alum inum tube sl ides over these studs andthe steel set screws clamp the pieces together. At each high and low point a steeleyebolt was also installed thro ugh which the perim eter cables were attached andthe stabilizing cables strung . Th e total area covered by the two hexagonal rings is156 n r . An upper lim it to the size of the individual arms is estimated to be 6.15 m ;lengths greater than this would create a ring too large for structural stability.

Each leg was embedded in a support footing of concrete approximately1 m . Because the struc ture was installed on an archaeological site, the con cretefootings si t on the ground and do no t intrude subsurface. In addition, the structure required nine concrete anchors (each approximately 0.5 m 3 ), also placed

Figure 40. Solid aluminum hubshowing two tubing ar ms in placeand two eyebolts.Cablesshownconnect the thre e high points of eachring ; the other eyebolt is for cablingto concrete anchor blocks. Recessedlocking screws secure the ar ms tothestuds threaded to the hub.

38 Development and Evaluation of he Hexashelter


58/88

above ground, to which th e steel support cables were attached. The se a ncho rs,located from 1 to 5 m (ho rizontal d istance) from the hig h and low po ints, eachhave two hooked, m ild-steel reinforcing bars embedd ed in them to which th esteel support cables are attached. The cables are attached to the high and lowpoints via the eyebolts and provide structural sup port and a means of tensioningthe structure, accomplished by means of tumbuckles attached to each supportcable. Additional steel cabling was attached to th e high points of each mo dulethrou gh the eyebolts , forming a triangle above each ring and providin g a meansof counter-tensioning the structure. The support cables from the high and lowpoints to the anchor blocks were also used to attach the knitted aerotextile sidepanels to the shelter. An additional steel cable was strung arou nd the perim eterof each ring throu gh the eyebolts as a means of attaching the roof m em bran e.

Stainless steel cable (6 mm ) and fittings we re usedasm u c haspossible inthe structure. In instances where mild steel or poorly galvanized material wasused, severe corrosion occurre d with in a year because of the pro ximity to th e sea.

T h e Papho s hexashelter was originally covered with a polyethylene,open-k nit, "aerotextile" material com mon ly used in the horticultural industry asshade cloth. T h e fabric, manufactured by Weatha shad e, Inc., of Austraha, is tancolored with a 70% shade "density." Itisa low-cost, durable m aterial, which doesnot rip since itisknitted rather th an woven. Itissupplied in rolls of 1.85 m x 50 m .T h e fabric was cut and sewn into large panels using po lyethylene cord supp lied bythe manufacturer. The roof membrane and side panels were assembled within afew days by local workers from the De partm ent of Antiquities. After assembly, theroofs and side panels were attached to th e perim eter and su ppo rt cables usingplastic cinch ties and butterfly clips provided b y the m anufacturer. T hi s wasaccomplished by attaching one edg e of the fabric to one of the cables, then pullingthe ot her sides taut and attaching ties and dip s. On ly seven side panels wereinstalled, leaving the rem aining th ree sides open on the sheltered side (facing awayfrom th e sea) so that visitors could approach and view the mosaics (Fig. 41).

Because of the op en kn it, the aerotextile fabric does not p rovide ade quate protection against rain when used as the roof mem bran e. In planning th eproject, it was decided to waterproof the fabric in situ; tests and aging experimen ts were conducted in the laboratory to determine th e most durable m aterialfor the purpose. Thu s, an attempt was made to waterproof or "im permeab ilize"the roof m emb rane over the O rph eus mosaic by applying a GEC silicone gel tothe fabric after the structure had been erected. Th is proved to b e time con sumingand difficult since the gel could no t be coated evenly and was forced thr ou gh th efabric holes as it was applied. Num ero us pinho les developed, allowing rain w aterto seep throu gh the fabric. Wind -drive n rain could also pass thro ug h the side

Development and Evaluation of the Hexashelter 39


59/88

Figure41 . The hexashelter inNovember 1989, with three sidesleft open fo r visitor access.

p a n e l s , w h i c h w e re n o t t r e a t e d w i t h s i l i c on e , a l t h o u g h t h i s w a s n o t a s s e r i o u s a ni s s u e a s t h e w a t e r -p e rm e a b l e roof.

T h e ro o f p ro b l e m w a s s o l v e d b y d e s i g n i n g a p r e f a b r i c a t e d i m p e rm e a b l ero o f m e m b ra n e w h i c h w a s c u s t o m i z e d fo r t h e P a p h o s h e x a s h e l t e r . T h e n e wm e m b ra n e w a s c o n s t ru c t e d f ro m a t r i - l a m i n a t e d v in y l m a t e r i a l m a d e f ro m p o l y es te r sc r im sandw iched b e tw een t w o layers o f v iny l fab r ic . Ad d i t ion a l fea tu res o ft h e n e w ro o f m e m b ra n e i n c l u d e p e r i m e t e r s l e e ve s w i t h b u i l t - i n c a b l i n g t op re ven t f r ic tion be tw een the cab l in g and the fab r ic , S -hoo ks and tum bu ck les top e rm i t t e n s i o n i n g o f t h e m e m b ra n e , n y l o n w e b b e d s t r a p s t o a s s i s t i n a t t a c h i n gt h e ro o f t o t h e h i g h p o i n t s , a n d p e r i m e t e r f l a p s w i t h g ro m m e t s t o p e r m i t b e t t e ra t t a c h m e n t t o t h e h e x a s h e l t e r a r m s . T h e s e ne w rm e m b r a n e s w e r e i n st a ll e d o n t h eh e x a s h e l t e r i n N o v e m b e r o f 1 9 9 0 . N e w , b e t t e r - f i t t i n g s i d e p a n e l s w h i c he x t e n d e d l o w e r d o w n t o t h e a n c h o r s a n d o v e r l a p p e d a t t h e i r e d g e s w e re a l s oins ta l l ed a t th i s t ime (F ig . 42 ) . W hi le d r iv ing ra in can st i ll pe ne t ra te the s id epane l s , these p rov ide be t t e r p ro t ec t io n than d id the f i rs t s e t . I f req u i re d , a f inalre f i nem en t wi l l com pr i se the in s ta l l a t ion o f f ree-hang ing aero te x t i l e d rap esins ide the s ide pane l s and a t t ached to the a rms o f the she l t e r . These ver t i ca l lyha ng i ng d ra pes , if f it ted o n the seaw ard s ide , wi l l p rov ide an add i t i ona l l eve l o fp ro t e c t i o n a g a i n s t w i n d -d r i v e n r a i n .

40 Development and Evaluation of he Hexasbeher


60/88

Figure 4 2. The hexashelter inNovember 1990 with a new roofmembrane and more extensive,overlappingsidepanels.

S h o u l d t h e s h e l t e r b e r e q u i r e d t o f u n c t i o n f o r se v e r a l y e a r s , p e n d i n g ap e rm a n e n t r o o f i n g s o l u t i o n f o r t h e m o s a i c s , a s o l u t i o n w i l l b e d e v e l o p e d f o rd ra inage o f the s i t e and wate r d i sposa l f rom the she l t e r roof.T h i s w i l l p r o b a b l yinvo lve the u se o f smal l concre te channe l s , su r face- la id be low the d r ip l ine o f thehexa she l te r a rm s , to ca r ry wa te r away f rom the m osa ic s .

T h e h e x a s h e l t e r i s a p ro t o t y p e s t il l i n t h e d e v e l o p m e n t a l s t a g e . I t h a s anumber o f appea l ing fea tu res : I t i s a re la t ive ly low cos t s t ruc tu re in t e rms o fm a t e r i a l s , f a b r i c a ti o n , a n d e r e c t i o n ( s e e A p p e n d i x C ) ; i t i s a e s t h e t i c a l ly c o m p a t i b l e w i t h a n a r c h a e o l o g i c a l l a n d s c a p e s u c h a s t h e P a p h o s m o s a i c s s i t e ; a n c h o r a g eo n t h e s u r fa c e o f t h e g r o u n d w i t h c o n c r e t e f o o t i n g s d o e s n o t d i s t u r b s u b s u r f a c ea r c h a e o l o g i c a l m a t e r i a l s ; it c a n e as i ly b e d i s m a n t l e d a n d m o v e d fo r r e u s e e l s e wh ere ; it is ada p tab le to a var ie ty o f s i te t e r ra in s ; and i t can be ex t end ed la te ra l lyb y c o n s t ru c t i o n o f a d d i t i o n a l r i n g s t o c o v e r n e w e x c a v a t i o n s .

O n t h e o t h e r h a n d t h e s h e l t e r d o e s n o t p r o v i d e t o t a l p ro t e c t i o n a g a i n s tt h e w e a t h e r . Th e o p e n -w e a v e s i d e p a n e l s b r e a k t h e f o r c e o f w i n d a n d r a i n , b u td o n o t e x c l u d e w a t e r c o m p l e t e l y . A w a t e r d i s p o s a l s y s t e m fo r r o o f r u n -o f f h a s y e tt o b e d e s i g n e d a n d i m p l e m e n t e d .

Documents

orfej mozaik