MAKING A HOUSE A MUSEUM: OPTIMIZING A SUSTAINABLE
ENVIRONMENT THROUGH THE THEORY OF PREVENTIVE
CONSERVATION: A CASE STUDY OF THE BIDWELL
MANSION STATE HISTORIC PARK,
CHICO, CALIFORNIA
______
A Thesis
Presented
to the Faculty of
California State University, Chico
______
In Partial Fulfillment
of the Requirements for the Degree
Master of Arts
in
Anthropology
Museum Studies Option
______
by
Melissa Chacon de la Cruz
Fall 2015 MAKING A HOUSE A MUSEUM: OPTIMIZING A SUSTAINABLE
ENVIRONMENT THROUGH THE THEORY OF PREVENTIVE
CONSERVATION: A CASE STUDY OF THE BIDWELL
MANSION STATE HISTORIC PARK,
CHICO, CALIFORNIA
A Thesis
by
Melissa Chacon de la Cruz
Fall 2015
APPROVED BY THE INTERIM DEAN OF GRADUATE STUDIES:
______Sharon Barrios, Ph.D.
APPROVED BY THE GRADUATE ADVISORY COMMITTEE:
______Guy Q. King, Ph.D. Georgia L. Fox, Ph.D., Chair Graduate Coordinator
______Antoinette Martinez, Ph.D. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
My graduate studies journey began in 2009, after graduating from the
University of South Florida, when I by chance found an archaeological field school being offered in the middle of the Caribbean. The field school was hosted by California State
University, Chico, but was fortunately open to everyone. Attending the field school gave me the opportunity to not only find what career path I was meant to follow, but also led me to develop a relationship that would eventually grow into the most influential mentorship I ever could have hoped for. This thesis would not have been possible without the guidance, encouragement, and knowledge of Dr. Georgia Fox. I would not be where I am today without all you have done for me. Thank you, in every way possible.
Thanks also needs to be given to Dr. Antoinette Martinez, for sitting on my thesis committee and providing me with second and third opinions each time we discussed my thoughts and ideas. Her support in my project and work was reassuring and inspiring.
I was lucky to not only have had an outstanding thesis committee, but an incredible support team that helped keep me balanced, too. Without the advice and reassurance from Adrienne Scott and Heather McCafferty, I am sure I would have lost my mind a few times in the midst of how crazy life and school work could get. I learned so much from them, and will be forever grateful for every single time they reminded me of what I was capable of.
iii I need to extend a very special thank you to the staff of the Bidwell Mansion.
My research could not have been completed without the permission and generosity of
Denise Rist, Raeanne Bossarte, Nancy Arnold, and Maria Lozano. The experience I had working with you all was invaluable. I hope this thesis is as helpful to you as you all were to me.
Finally, I would like to thank my mom and dad for always believing in me, supporting my dreams and aspirations, and going above and beyond to help me however they could. Thank you to my husband for working as hard as he did, so that I could completely devote myself to finishing my education. This process has been long and extensive, and the patience and love from my family was instrumental to its completion.
iv TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
Acknowledgments ...... iii
List of Tables...... vii
List of Figures...... ix
Abstract...... xiii
CHAPTER
I. Introduction...... 1
Thesis Overview...... 7
II. Literature Review...... 9
Theoretical Perspective ...... 9 Preventative Conservation...... 26 Preventative Conservation: Theory and Practice ...... 31 Preventive Conservation in Action: Museum Collections Management...... 35 Agents of Deterioration ...... 39 Historic House Museum Housekeeping ...... 68 Caring for Historic Houses...... 73 Summary...... 76
III. The Study Site: Bidwell Mansion...... 77
John Bidwell...... 77 Annie Bidwell...... 85 The Bidwell Mansion ...... 88 Architectural Changes to the Bidwell Mansion...... 101 Threat of Closure...... 106 Summary...... 109
v CHAPTER PAGE
IV. Methodology...... 111
The Park Closure Inventory...... 112 Arranging to Work at the Bidwell Mansion...... 114 Conducting Research...... 116 Forming Relationships...... 121 Housekeeping Schedules...... 122 Summary...... 125
V. Data, Analysis, and Interpretation...... 126
Data Collected from the Data Loggers...... 126 Temperature and Relative Humidity, February 2013...... 136 Temperature and Relative Humidity, March 2013...... 140 Temperature and Relative Humidity, April 2013...... 144 Light Meter Readings...... 148 Insect Monitoring with Sticky Traps...... 170 Utilizing the Ultraviolet Lamp ...... 172 Summary...... 174
VI. Thoughts for Bidwell Mansion: Some Guidelines for Historic House Collections Care ...... 175
Preventive Conservation...... 175 Approaching Housekeeping Schedules ...... 176 Preventive Conservation and Light Damage...... 179 Preventive Conservation and Temperature and Relative Humidity Control ...... 182 Preventive Conservation and IPM...... 186 Limitations to the Study ...... 188 Conclusion...... 190
References Cited...... 193
Appendices
A. California Department of Parks and Recreation Letters of Permission...... 207 B. Bidwell Mansion State Historic Park Light Readings...... 215
vi LIST OF TABLES
TABLE PAGE
1. TWPI Values for Chemical Decay ...... 130
2. Mechanical Damage Values Based on Dimensional Change...... 132
3. Mold Risk Factor Values...... 133
4. Metal Corrosion Risk Values ...... 133
5. Bidwell Mansion Library February 2013 Table of Deterioration Risks ...... 138
6. Bidwell Mansion Bidwell’s Bedroom February 2013 Table of Deterioration Risks...... 140
7. Bidwell Mansion Textile Room February 2013 Table of Deterioration Risks...... 140
8. Bidwell Mansion Library March 2013 Table of Deterioration Risks ...... 143
9. Bidwell Mansion Bidwell’s Bedroom March 2013 Table of Deterioration Risks...... 143
10. Bidwell Mansion Textile Room March 2013 Table of Deterioration Risks...... 143
11. Bidwell Mansion Library April 2013 Table of Deterioration Risks ...... 145
12. Bidwell Mansion Bidwell’s Bedroom April 2013 Table of Deterioration Risks...... 145
13. Bidwell Mansion Textile Room April 2013 Table of Deterioration Risks...... 145
14. The Traditional Rule-Driven Strategy...... 152
vii TABLE PAGE
15. Data From Insect Sticky Traps From the Month of March 2013...... 171
16. Data From Insect Sticky Traps From the Month of April 2013...... 171
17. Sample Cleaning Schedule for House Museums 2...... 177
18. Sample Cleaning Schedule for House Museums 2...... 178
viii LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE PAGE
1. Bidwell Mansion’s Geographic Location in Chico, California ...... 78
2. Portrait of John Bidwell in 1890...... 79
3. John Bidwell's Rancho Chico About 1854 ...... 81
4. Map Showing the State Normal School, Deer Park, Downtown Chico, Big Chico Creek, Rancheria Lane, Bidwell Mansion, Bidwell Mill, and Indian Village ...... 82
5. Portrait of Annie Bidwell in 1875...... 87
6. Bidwell Mansion in 1870...... 88
7. The Bidwell Mansion in 2013 ...... 89
8. Bidwell Mansion Currently ...... 89
9. Annie Bidwell Standing in Front of the Bidwell Mansion in 1914...... 91
10. Annie Bidwell Standing in Front of Her Beloved Hydrangea Bushes, 1916...... 92
11. Exterior of the Back of Bidwell Mansion, Nov. 9, 1914 ...... 93
12. Seated Around the Dining Room Table Are Annie Bidwell and the Workers Who Built the Presbyterian Church in 1910 ...... 94
13. Chico State College Students Sitting in the Dining Room at Bidwell Hall (Bidwell Mansion) in 1930 ...... 95
14. Four Young Women Seated in the Kitchen of Bidwell Mansion When It Was a Classroom at Chico State Teachers College in 1934...... 96
ix FIGURE PAGE
15. Bidwell Mansion Being Fumigated for a Wood-Eating Beetle Problem in 1965...... 97
16. Bidwell Mansion, 1970...... 98
17. Bidwell Mansion in the Winter of 1922, When It Was Converted into a College Dorm for the Normal School...... 103
18. Bidwell Mansion Library February 2013 Graph of Temperature, RH, and Dew Point ...... 136
19. Bidwell Mansion Bidwell’s Bedroom February 2013 Graph of Temperature, RH, and Dew Point...... 139
20. Bidwell Mansion Textile Room February 2013 Graph of Temperature, RH, and Dew Point...... 139
21. Bidwell Mansion Library March 2013 Graph of Temperature, RH, and Dew Point ...... 141
22. Bidwell Mansion Bidwell’s Bedroom March 2013 Graph of Temperature, RH, and Dew Point...... 142
23. Bidwell Mansion Textile Room March 2013 Graph of Temperature, RH, and Dew Point...... 142
24. Bidwell Mansion Library April 2013 Graph of Temperature, RH, and Dew Point ...... 146
25. Bidwell Mansion Bidwell’s Bedroom April 2013 Graph of Temperature, RH, and Dew Point...... 146
26. Bidwell Mansion Textile Room April 2013 Graph of Temperature, RH, and Dew Point...... 147
27. Light Meter Reading Graph for the Bidwell Mansion Library During the Month of March 2013...... 149
28. Image Displays Front of Dress ...... 154
29. Back of Dress...... 154
x FIGURE PAGE
30. Right Side of Dress Stretched Out to Reveal the Inside of a Crease, Which Had Less Exposure to Light ...... 155
31. The Bidwell’s Bathroom on Display ...... 156
32. This Towel on Display in the Bidwell’s Bathroom Has Not Been Removed from Its Original Position in an Unknown Amount of Time...... 156
33. After Removing the Display Towel, the Fading the Wooden Wall Panels Have Experienced Was Very Obvious ...... 157
34. The Sink and Mirror in the Bidwell’s Bathroom...... 157
35. Upon Pushing the Mirror Aside, the Same Issue Was Found Behind the Wooden Panels As the Towel...... 158
36. The Grandfather Clock on Display in the Hallway of the First Floor ...... 160
37. The Hallway Is Full of Light from Windows and Doors and the Clock Sits in the Center ...... 160
38. This Image Shows the Front of John Bidwell’s Original Desk Chair in the Bidwell’s Bedroom ...... 162
39. The Back of John’s Chair Has Directly Faced a Window for an Unknown About of Time While on Display...... 163
40. Pictured Here Is the Table on Display in the Bidwell’s Bedroom...... 164
41. After Removing the Contents on the Table, and Pulling the Decorative Doily Back, the Fading the Wood Has Experienced Was Highly Visible...... 164
42. A Towel on Display in a Bathroom on the Second Floor...... 167
43. With the Towel Removed from the Rack, the Fading the Room’s Wooden Panels Have Experienced Can Be Seen...... 167
xi FIGURE PAGE
44. From the Same Bathroom on the Second Floor, This Photograph Is of a Framed Picture on Display ...... 168
45. Upon Removing the Framed Picture from the Wall, the Fading of the Room Was Very Apparent...... 168
xii ABSTRACT
MAKING A HOUSE A MUSEUM: OPTIMIZING A SUSTAINABLE
ENVIRONMENT THROUGH THE THEORY OF PREVENTIVE
CONSERVATION: A CASE STUDY OF THE BIDWELL
MANSION STATE HISTORIC PARK,
CHICO, CALIFORNIA
by
Melissa Chacon de la Cruz
Master of Arts in Anthropology
Museum Studies Option
California State University, Chico
Fall 2015
This thesis applies the theory of Preventive Conservation to examine common collections care problems of historic house museums in regard to environmental control, preventative mitigation, and integrated pest management. The Bidwell Mansion State
Historic Park of Chico, California, was used as a case study. An assessment of the mansion’s current collections problems was conducted, and the data was used to analyze their causes and propose practical solutions and museum professional recommendations of best practice measures. Over time, lack of improper maintenance and care of a museum’s collections can cause current issues to escalate if they go unattended.
xiii Architectural issues, improper light control, and pest infestations are just a few of the problems historic house museums face, which ultimately lead to dysfunction if they are not addressed. At worst, a culmination of these problems can result in a historic house museum’s closure. The Bidwell Mansion was recently faced with such a situation.
Fortunately, preventive measures using the theory of Preventive Conservation were implemented through this thesis, as well as governmental support through the California
Department of Parks and Recreation, and the Bidwell Mansion’s problematic state is currently being rectified. This thesis presents a portion of how such a situation can be handled and provides examples other historic house museums can follow.
xiv
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
In 1997, the International Council of Museums (ICOM) held a groundbreaking conference in Genoa, Italy entitled “Abitare la storia: Le dimore storiche- museo” (“Inhabiting History: Historical House Museums”) It was the very first time that historic house museums were seriously discussed as an important element of museology that needed special attention by over 40 museum professionals worldwide (Pinna
2001:4). Aspects of restoration techniques, interpretive teaching, communication, and security in relation to house museums were debated. Emphasis focused on the fact that historic house museums place strong significance on not only the value of the collections held within them, but on the actual house structures themselves and the preserved spirit the homes and their previous inhabitants represent (Pinna 2001:4).
A museum by definition, according to the ICOM Statues Definition and
Terms (2015:1),
is a non-profit, permanent institution in the service of society and its development, open to the public, which acquires, conserves, researches, communicates and exhibits the tangible and intangible heritage of humanity and its environment for the purposes of education, study and enjoyment.
The historic house museum, which falls into this general definition, differs only on the museum’s main emphasis. The historic house museum centers on the same concepts as the general museum definition, however its focus is on an entire single, historical
1 2 structure or a complex of structures associated with the primary residence. This means that interpretation of the historic house museum is predominantly the residential structure itself and the lives of the individuals associated with it, rather than just the artifacts on display (Donnelly 2002:18-19).
In this sense, historic house museums have a different advantage compared to other museums. A historic house museum provides visitors with the unique experience of a compact environment that regardless of its age, size, or style is ultimately a residence, a universally understood place (Donnelly 2002:3). Connections and relationships with the house are built on the foundation of this understanding. People are able to relate to other people, even if they were from another time. This is because all people eat, play, work, sleep, entertain, and carry out their basic life necessities in a home. Visitors of historic house museums, based on their own experiences and lives, are able to imagine what life within it could have been like and relate it back to their own (Donnelly 2002:3).
Large, complex museums appeal to audiences because of the artifacts held within them. Historic house museums are appealing because of the familiarity they provide, especially to a community. A historic house museum can be relied on to mostly never change. They are representations of a specific era and style, and intentionally kept to portray that time (Harris 2007). Harris (2007:9) describes them as “collective memories of a place” and “tangible reminders of the past.” For a significant number of people, historic house museums are the first places they visit where the past comes alive and connections between learned facts and authentic objects are made (Harris 2007).
The houses that constitute these types of museums can range from lavish mansions to the smallest cottages, resulting in the necessity of exceptionally diverse
3 conservation and preservation methods. The uniqueness of historic house museums placed them in a special category of museums the ICOM conference attendees recognized. A motion to create an international committee dedicated to the service of historic house museums was presented. With the support of ICOM Italia, which also attended the conference, the International Committee for Historic House Museums
(DemHist) was created and signed into order at the ICOM General Conference in
Melbourne, Australia in 1998 (Pinna 2001:4)
Despite the professional platform DemHist has created for historic house museums to share solutions and ideas, the care practices and collections stewardship these museums need are often not reflective of their nature. Reasoning behind this unintended hitch is that the professional standards and practices historic house museums have to reference were crafted to better serve larger, high traffic museums. Creativity and sustainability then becomes deterred and the historic house museum begins to slowly fall into distress (DemHist 2007:1).
The pride and adoration communities feel for their historic houses is without a doubt genuine, and each one provides significant architectural and historical meaning worthy of being boasted as a landmark. However, the impressive pedigrees of many historic house museums are not enough to keep them out of trouble. Historic house museums in the United States are struggling to survive (Moe 2002:6).
The expenses of conserving and caring for an enormous collection, tending to wear and tear caused by visitors, architectural repairs, maintenance upkeep, providing engaging and interpretive tours, while maintaining staff salaries and maintaining a volunteer corps are constantly syphoning funding from the historic house’s finances. The
4 process of slipping into distress begins happening here, when choices of which issues are priorities and which can be temporarily put off have to be made. The most unfortunate aspect of choosing is that the needs that are only meant to be temporarily put off often become permanently neglected (Moe 2002:9; Harris 2007:3).
The purpose of this thesis is to address common collections care problems of historic house museums. The main objective is to analyze these causes and propose practical solutions based on the theory of preventative conservation. For my thesis research, I will use the Bidwell Mansion State Historic Park of Chico, California, as my case study. An assessment of the mansion’s current collection problems will result in museum professional recommendations for best practice measures regarding environmental control, preventative mitigation, and an integrated pest management plan the Bidwell Mansion can use as reference material to assist in improving its longevity.
Crooke (2011:171) sums up the main factors of museums studies well, as
“identity, representation, people, and the social responsibility of museums.” These key factors all link to one main theme, community. Museums can give communities a sense of identity and physically show what connects the people they represent to their local areas. The relationships that are formed between a museum and its community create a voice for both the institution and the people that demonstrate the needs, assets, and interests both desire (Crooke 2011).
The identity a museum can give its community was something I experienced firsthand during my Graduate Program in the Department of Anthropology at California
State University, Chico, when my involvement with the Bidwell Mansion began for one of my classes. As an outsider witnessing a community rally to the aid of its city’s historic
5 house museum, combined with my own passion for museums and collections care, I was more than willing to become a part of the relationship when the opportunity was presented to me.
I chose to apply the theory of preventive conservation to the management of historic house museums as my thesis topic once I had learned about the types of problems the Bidwell Mansion was experiencing. The troubled state the Bidwell Mansion had fallen into is unfortunately a common situation historic house museums all over the country are facing. I decided that by using the Bidwell Mansion as a case study, I could demonstrate simple, basic solutions to problems smaller institutions like historic house museums typically face.
Preventive conservation methods usually appear as being applicable to larger and more generously funded museums only. While it is true that these types of institutions do generally have access to the most state-of-the-art techniques, it does not mean that the technique’s main concepts cannot be utilized by smaller museums. My goal for this thesis is to demonstrate that regardless of a museum’s size, it can properly care for its collections using professional best practice methods.
The two main research questions I approached for this thesis were, 1.) How did the Bidwell Mansion reach its current distressed state; and 2.) What can be done to rectify its condition? This thesis seeks to provide methods historic house museum staff can apply to their collections care routines while also educating them on how to identify existing problems and prevent issues from becoming future problems.
It is important to note that there is no one solution or single way to prevent problems from arising despite all best efforts. Historic house museums were never
6 originally meant to stand the test of time as a living time capsule visitors pass through daily. They were built as homes during specific eras that met the needs of the families who once lived there. Problems and issues are eventually inevitable. However, this does not mean that all is lost. Although your historic house museum will ultimately need that new roof one day, better insulation 10 years from now, or new wiring next week regardless of how well staff members take care of everything, a more proactive approach through the theory of preventive conservation can help ensure a more stable and sustainable life for the house and its collections.
The best way to accomplish this is through education of the methods and solutions, different techniques and options, and the available resources museum professionals have access to in their profession. These resources include websites, books, free online courses, free webinars, and conferences, to name a few. Money is always a consuming preoccupation for historic house museum staff. The budget is not as forgiving as at larger institutions. Despite this obstacle, several of the listed resources I mentioned are free or of little cost. A well-stocked library of reference materials can provide an immense amount of help, and it is something that can be accumulated over time.
By synthesizing methods on what to look for, how to prevent problems, and how to resolve them into one study, this thesis hopes to contribute a type of “how to” manual other historic house museums can learn from and utilize. The literature on conservation, museums studies, collections care, and environmental control is enormous.
It is, understandably, overwhelming. Historic house museum staff, and more often than not, volunteers are not always professionally trained in any of these areas. Research can be done, but it can be confusing. This thesis aims to serve as a guide to help historic
7 house museums which, like the Bidwell Mansion, have fallen into a state of distress and need a way to begin correcting their problems.
Thesis Overview
Chapter II is a literature review that covers the origins of the preservation movement and the historic house museum to better appreciate how we have arrived at current best practices and standards in collections management. This section will also assess the passion for the preservation movement in the United States. It then discusses museum collections management and the perspective of preventive conservation, in both theory and practice as it pertains to the care of cultural heritage. This section provides some basic concepts and how they pertain to the care of historic houses and their collections. An outline of all common museum environmental issues is provided as basic reference material. Lastly, historic housekeeping and the proper care of a historic house is examined.
As the Bidwell Mansion is the focus of my study, Chapter III chronicles the history and lives of John and Annie Bidwell, and the life of the Bidwell Mansion. This includes discussion of architectural changes the mansion underwent during its time as a home, and later functioning as part of California State University, Chico, to its eventual incorporation into the California Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR). It also examines the threat of closure the Bidwell Mansion experienced during 2012 to 2013 when DPR and its associated museums and parks underwent threats of actual closures during the state budget crisis.
8
Chapter IV addresses the materials and methods used to conduct my research.
It begins by discussing the Bidwell Mansion’s Park Closure Inventory, which was conducted when the mansion was originally slated to close. The Inventory’s purpose was to catalog the mansion’s current condition of its collections, any potential losses, and how to prepare for the possibility of deaccession as closure neared. The response generated from the Inventory, however, was what spurred the proposition to restore the mansion instead. My involvement in the project and the methods I used to conduct my research is then detailed. It also discusses the relationships I formed with the staff members of the
Bidwell Mansion, considering I had no authority to be in the mansion looking around without their permission or approval. The remaining section reviews the mansion’s housekeeping schedule.
Chapter V examines the data I collected from the house. The first section covers the data loggers, which analyzes the temperature and relative humidity levels for months of March, April, and May of 2013. The following sections discuss the recorded light meter readings I took, insect trap observations, and my findings from using an Ultra
Violet light to look for foreign substances.
Chapter VI is a discussion of the results and includes suggestions on how to resolve the aforementioned common collections care problems of historic house museums and concludes the study by highlighting the salient points of the study. This section also includes recommendations for similar future projects and research, as well as the study’s contribution to the growing body of literature on the care of historic house museum and museum collections management.
CHAPTER II
LITERATURE REVIEW
Theoretical Perspective
The act of preserving objects and places of national, cultural, and historic value is not a recent concept, nor particular to a specific region. It has been a meaningful responsibility assumed across the globe by those invested in the oversight and care of their cultural heritage. Material objects have long been society’s primary priority to safeguard, but the effort to include historic properties eventually became just as vital once their value as cultural capital was seriously considered. Early bouts of patriotic affection and national pride became the driving force behind most of the earliest historic preservation efforts, including in the United States. Devotion to saving shrines relative to
Revolutionary War heroes and events paved the way for ongoing legislation and national efforts.
A few key terms will be used regarding the concept of preservation in this thesis. For clarity, they will be defined according to their use in the following chapters.
The definitions have been adapted from the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for
Preservation and Guidelines for Preserving Historic Buildings, and William J. Murtagh
(2006:5).
Preservation refers to “the act or process of applying measures to sustain the existing form, integrity, and material of a building or structure, and the existing form and
9 10 vegetative cover of a site. It may include initial stabilization work, where necessary, as well as ongoing maintenance of the historic building materials” (Murtagh 2006:5).
Restoration is defined as “the act or process of accurately recovering the form and details of a property and its setting as it appeared at a particular period of time by means of the removal of later work or by the replacement of missing earlier work”
(Murtagh 2006:5).
Reconstruction is “the act or process of reproducing by new construction the exact form and detail of a vanished building, structure, or object, or a part thereof, as it appeared at a specific period of time” (Murtagh 2006:5).
The preservation movement in the United States subtly began in the early
1800s, when Americans slowly began developing concern for their past. As a newly founded nation, growing interest in community identity and social achievements encouraged public enthusiasm in memorializing culturally significant resources. This eventually extended beyond historical artifacts to include buildings and landmarks that resonated patriotism and national character (Murtagh 1997; Tyler 2000:11). The movement organized itself entirely as a grass-roots effort, with amateur community societies progressively springing up across the nation to protect local historical landmarks
(Hosmer 1965). Some of the first noted organized preservation activities were directed toward the Touro Synagogue in Newport, Rhode Island, and Philadelphia’s Old State
House, which was later named Independence Hall (Murtagh 1997; Lea 2003:1-2; Young
2008).
In 1813, Philadelphia’s Old State House was threatened with demolition and its surrounding property scheduled to be divided and sold as independent lots. The
11 proceeds of this sale were to be used toward the construction of a new capital. Citizens of
Philadelphia greatly objected to the Hall’s destruction and quickly began presenting arguments to sway the state’s legislators. As the site where the Declaration of
Independence was signed, the community believed it would better serve as a public building rather than be destroyed. Petitioners speaking in defense of the State House’s value called attention to its impressive history. The Hall had been witness to the world’s only free Republic (Hosmer 1965). The city was able to purchase the building and its property from the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania in 1816 for $70,000. Restoration of the building was conducted to replace fundamental features lost over the years, and a new tower was constructed to replace the original that had been removed in 1790 (Murtagh
1997; Lea 2003:1-2; Young 2008; Hosmer 1965).
Restoration activity in the United States continued its slow establishment from
1827 -1828, when the Touro Synagogue of Newport, Rhode Island, needed repair. It was built in 1763, by Peter Harrison, a local Rhode Island amateur architect. The synagogue not only served as the first permanent house of worship for the second oldest settled
Jewish congregation of the United States, but also operated as a hospital by the British military during the Revolutionary War. When the British invaded and occupied the city, most families fled to neighboring colonies. Isaac Touro, the community congregation’s prayer leader, remained in Newport to keep watch over the synagogue (Murtagh 1997;
Kleiman 2012:1).
Once the war ended and Rhode Island ratified the U.S. Constitution, George
Washington traveled to Newport and was received by the community at the synagogue in
1790. The congregation’s president, Moses Mendes Seixas, was elected to officially
12 welcome Washington. His welcome letter addressed the issues of religious liberties as well as the need for separation of church and state. Seixas’ concerns were taken quiet seriously and helped influence principles found in the Bill of Rights. The synagogue therefore held significance to more than just the city of Newport. It was a place that added to the development of the United States and was highly regarded as a structure of cultural importance (Kleiman 2012:1).
Despite the organization of these early endeavors, the modern preservation movement in the United States is generally considered to have officially begun with the establishment of the Mount Vernon Ladies’ Association of the Union in 1853. It was the first organized national preservation society in the United States. The Association came to fruition after Louisa Bird Cunningham observed the declining state of George
Washington’s plantation homestead, Mount Vernon, during a trip down the Potomac
River in Virginia. The idea to take on the responsibility of rescuing such an important component of the nation’s history and identity was passed on to her daughter, Ann
Pamela Cunningham. The idea quickly turned into action and gained the involvement and devotion of patriotic women all over the country (Tyler 2000:33-34; West 1999:6; Harris
2007:7; Lindgren 2004:76).
The property of Mount Vernon remained in the Washington family under the care of successive generations after George’s death in 1799. At the time of Ann
Cunningham’s crusade, the plantation was owned by John Augustine Washington III,
George Washington’s great grand-nephew. Unfortunately, by the 1850s, the home and landscape had fallen into a state of deterioration. Speculation about the estate’s general welfare was also a developing issue, as rumors of it being demolished and its land used
13 for a new hotel, racetrack, and saloon were circulating. The estate had already become a place of pilgrimage for early American tourists, and the toll it was taking on the land and house were adding to its progressive disrepair. The public voiced concern regarding
Mount Vernon’s fate, but the estate’s future was ultimately indefinite (West 1999:6;
Lindgren 2006:76; Murtagh 2006:13-14).
In 1846, a petition was submitted urging the government to buy the home for
$100,000, but failed due to congressional preoccupation and concern over the possibility of war with Mexico. It was argued that such an excessive mishandling of much needed funds would put too large of a strain on the treasury and the matter was dropped (West
1999:6).
In 1853, another petition was organized by the state of Virginia. The price of the plantation had risen to $200,000 by then and it, too, was rejected, due to high costs.
Again, Congress did not want to get involved, but reasoning this time was voiced over the concern that meddling in the affairs of preserving historic sites would become a perpetual burden to the federal government (West 1999:6).
After these initial failures of acquisition, Ann Cunningham took matters into her own hands. A native of South Carolina, Ann first began the rescue of Mount Vernon in December of 1853, when she issued and published her “Appeal to the Ladies of the
South” in the local Charleston Mercury. In her Appeal, she emphasized Southern charm and hospitality in an attempt to rally local advocates (West 1999). Ann’s bold strategy of combining traditional Southern culture with the principles of republican motherhood prompted Southern women to support her efforts (West 1999; Lindgren 2004:76).
14
The women of the Association were influenced by domesticity, moral authority, and the philosophy of personalism, meaning that material objects and places could provide an individual with personal attachments that were highly revered, because they physically represented prominent social values of the day, such as good moral character and public duty. Because the home of one of the nation’s founders was symbolic of a great patriarch all Americans could ultimately relate to. Cunningham was convinced that by allowing the demise of Mount Vernon was akin to the nation dismissing Washington’s legacy altogether (Lindgren 2004:76).
Cunningham addressed a letter to John Washington’s wife, Eleanor, requesting time to raise the necessary funds to purchase the Mount Vernon estate. Her request was declined. If the home was to be sold at all, the Washingtons wished for the purchase to be made by the Federal Government or the State of Virginia. The
Washingtons casual dismissal of Cunningham’s all -female organization only propelled her to try and meet their wishes. She declared that the Mount Vernon Ladies’ Association would do their part acquiring the Washington’s asking price and then delegate the money to the governor of Virginia for official sale. What initially began as a Southern crusade eventually spread to the North, when the difficulty of raising $200,000 was recognized.
Her plea was formally written in a third appeal in November of 1854, and was addressed to the women of the Union (West 1999).
Over the next several years, Cunningham’s fight for the estate continued with petitions, rejected charters, and frequent letters to John Washington. Washington’s initial dismissal of Cunningham’s first letter steadily grew more negative as time progressed, and he unexpectedly withdrew the estate from sale in 1856. Fundraising did not end after
15 this setback, however. Great public speakers also interested in the cause, like Edward
Everett, a former statesman of Massachusetts and then president of Harvard toured the country delivering speeches on George Washington’s character and notability in lecture halls to appeal to more donors. The lengthy fight was finally won in 1858, when the
Association purchased the estate (West 1999; Lindgren 2004:76).
Cunningham’s success at Mount Vernon sparked a nationwide grass-roots movement of historic preservation that has greatly evolved since. Her Association inspired the formation of numerous groups across the country dedicated to saving other patriotic shrines, which remained the driving force behind early historic preservationists until 1900 (Murtagh 2006:15 – 16; Lea 2003:2). Most of these early groups continued to be headed by women, like The National Society of Colonial Dames and Daughters of the
American Revolution. The need to establish American identity led to the creation of other public venues celebrating national heroes, such as George Washington’s sister’s home and Andrew Jackson’s home. The main principle guiding these organizations was the belief that the private citizen was the true advocate for preservation rather than government officials (Murtagh 2006:16; Lea 2003:2).
Another wave of patriotic fervor that helped push the preservation movement forward was the Philadelphia Centennial Exposition of 1876. The display of
Revolutionary War relics inspired thousands of tourists visiting Philadelphia to revisit the past. It triggered a renewed fascination with the war and interest in the heroic deeds of their ancestors (Hosmer 1965). The aesthetic qualities and architecture of the city’s buildings also became better appreciated because of the heroic figures associated with them (Lea 2003:3; Tyler 2000; 34-35).
16
The Exposition featured displays of many eighteenth-century buildings and the style, known as Colonial Revival, quickly became popular with the general public.
The sudden realization that the structure of buildings was something worth saving began changing what the American public viewed as worthy of preserving. Saving buildings for their architectural significance, however, did not become a major part of the movement until the mid-twentieth century (Lea 2003:3; Tyler 2000:34-35).
The federal government continued to remain uninterested in preserving historic structures through the end of the 1800s. Its overall involvement in the act of preservation began to change, though, once interest in protecting natural features of historic significance started to become a priority. Congress recognized the loss of prehistoric lands and national areas of historic value from Westward expansion, societal development, and the looting of artifacts. The loss of these areas equated to the loss of national identity. To help restore this loss, areas of cultural significance slowly started coming under the federal protection (Tyler 2000:35; Murtagh 2006:16).
In 1872, Yellowstone National Park was established as the first federally recognized park. Particularly memorable Civil War battlefields were protected from being cleared for development. Acquisition of the ruins of Casa Grande in Arizona, a prehistoric site, was official in 1889, to protect the area from massive looting. In 1918, it became the first appointed National Monument and the first federally protected area to receive funding for its upkeep (Tyler 2000:35; Murtagh 2006:37).
Simultaneously, while the preservation movement was developing, museums as a whole were becoming more professionally established, and the need to unite them to share ideas and further mutual interest through an association was deemed necessary
17
(Genoways and Ireland 2003:12). The American Association of Museums, now known as the American Alliance of Museums (AAM) was founded in 1906. Today, the AAM has matured into a specialized group dedicated to “helping develop standards and best practices, gathering and sharing knowledge, and providing advocacy on issues of concern to the entire museum community” (Blanton 2012:1)
Government involvement in historic preservation radically changed during
Theodore Roosevelt’s presidential terms. The American Antiquities Act of 1906 was signed in response to pressure from concerned education and scientific organizations over the heavy vandalism of prehistoric sites and the trafficking and exploitation of artifacts
(Murtagh 2006:39). The 1906 Act instituted the enforcement of penalties for the unlicensed excavation, removal, injury, or destruction of “…any historic or prehistoric ruin or monument, or any object of antiquity, situated on lands owned or controlled by the government of the United States” (Murtagh 2006:39). The Act also granted the
President the authority to establish national monuments, transfer the delegation of preservation activities to the executive branch of government, and establish administration responsibilities to the Office of the Secretary of the Interior (Tyler
2000:35-36; Murtagh 2006:39).
With the number of national parks in the United States steadily increasing, an official agency was soon deemed necessary to properly manage the parks and administer regulated public protection. The poor conditions of many of the first parks required an organized sector. The parks’ grounds were not being adequately maintained, and areas designated for lodging and food consumption were becoming dirty and unhealthy. Many of the superintendents appointed to running individual parks were busy office-holding
18 politicians who did not have the spare time to properly manage enormous pieces of land.
Work on a bill to propose such a national park service began in 1915 (Albright and
Schenck 1999:41).
Due to Stephen Mather’s and Horace M. Albright’s determination and commitment to the cause, the bill was passed and signed by President Woodrow Wilson in 1916. Mather eventually became the National Park Service’s first director and Albright was appointed as Assistant Director from 1917 to 1919. Albright eventually became
Mather’s successor in 1929. The creation of the National Park Service was significantly responsible for influencing the establishment of all future preservation organizations and laws (Albright and Schenck 1999; Murtagh 2006).
As the development of federal protection for natural features progressed, so did the motives behind the preservation of historic structures. Economic motives soon began replacing the initial patriotic driving force that sparked the early movement as industrialization moved the country forward. Love of the American past and its heroes was soon replaced by the eagerness to advance the country’s social standing. Powerhouse industrialists Henry Ford and John D. Rockefeller Jr. entered the preservation movement in the 1920s (Barthel 1996; West 1999). Their involvement was a direct reflection of their own personal concepts and visions of the connection between America’s past and her promising future, a future in which they both were responsible for shaping and changing (Barthel 1996).
Ford’s involvement in historic preservation began with the purchase of the
Wayside Inn in Sudbury, Massachusetts in 1923. He had the building restored and converted into a museum to serve as a physical place foreigners could visit so they could
19 better understand the American spirit. The Daughters of the American Revolution agreed with Ford’s vision and used the house museum as a teaching institution for immigrant children who needed to learn “Americanism” (West 1999:96). Ford also took on the task of restoring his childhood home in Dearborn, Michigan, and transforming it into another house museum. Restoration work was done to make the house appear as it was in 1876.
The preservation of his home was only the beginning of what would eventually come to be known as Greenfield Village, an eclectic collection of unrelated historic buildings from random periods of time. Upon its completion in 1929, the Village was comprised of the cabin William McGuffey was born in, author of the McGuffey Readers; Thomas
Edison’s laboratory complex; a five-hundred-ton stone medieval English cottage; slave quarters from a Georgia plantation; a New England village green; several mills and shops; and the steamboat Suwanee (West 1999:97; Barthel 1996).
William A. R. Goodwin, pastor of Bruton Parish Church in Williamsburg,
Virginia, and head of the Department of Bible Literature and Religious Education at the
College of William and Mary, persuaded John D. Rockefeller to restore the colonial settlement after the proposal had been turned down by Henry Ford (West 1999; Barthel
1989:93; Barthel 1996; Hosmer 1965).
To oversee the project, Rockefeller hired professional architects to completely recreate Colonial Williamsburg as it was during its period of occupation. His main objective behind the seventy-nine million dollar reproduction was to provide a tangible way to share the “unselfish devotion of our forefathers to the common good” with the public (West 1999:98). Colonial Williamsburg officially opened to the public in 1934. Its
20 restoration served as a model for other such projects, and for exterior and interior designs for new houses (Barthel 1989:93).
While the American Antiquities Act of 1906 began the notion of historic preservation as a governmental duty, the Historic Sites Act of 1935 broadened it. Under the Act, the preservation of historic and prehistoric areas of national significance became a federal policy. It established the National Historic Landmarks program and formalized the National Park Service programs pertaining to salvage archaeology. This was particularly important during the Great Depression, as these programs were geared towards employing jobless people in need of work (Childs and Corcoran 2000:8). The
Act also authorized the Secretary of the Interior the responsibility to “secure, collate, and preserve drawings, plans, photographs, and other data of historic and archeologic sites, buildings, and objects” (Childs and Corcoran 2000:8).
President Roosevelt’s New Deal administration of the 1930s also focused attention to historic preservation on the national level. The Great Depression had created a crisis of unemployment in the United States; the New Deal programs provided opportunities for those seeking work to earn back lost wages while also providing much needed services to the country itself. The Civil Works Administration (CWA) was created with the intention of employing architects and photographers to travel the country and document historic structures. The American Institute of Architects (AIA) helped commission the program in support of fellow unemployed architects (Tyler 2000:40;
Barthel 1989:95).
Federal work assistance programs for unemployed architects continued as the
National Park Service developed into a leading federal organization. Charles E. Peterson,
21 restoration architect for the National Park Service, proposed the idea of creating survey teams composed of professionals to document historic buildings in response to high unemployment and the need for a national architecture archive (Murtagh 1997; Cliver et al. 1998).
The proposal addressed issues regarding the loss of American cultural heritage and the effect it was having on the country’s character. “Our architectural heritage of buildings from the last four centuries diminishes at an alarming rate,” the opening line began. “The ravages of fire and the natural elements, together with the demolition and alterations caused by real estate 'improvements' form an inexorable tide of destruction destined to wipe out the great majority of the buildings which knew the beginning and first flourish of the nation” (Lavoie 2006:15).
Support was received from the Library of Congress and the AIA, and the
National Park Service oversaw the formation of the Historic American Buildings Survey
(HABS) program in 1934. The program created a way to serve the country and the public in a number of ways beyond the despair the Great Depression generated. It indirectly provided the public with several different forms of knowledge that had never been previously available. An abundance of preservation project possibilities had now been identified all over the country as structures of historical and architectural significance were publically chronicled. It also created the first documented records to provide a general understanding of architectural development by region as buildings were surveyed
(Tyler 2000; Murtagh 1997; Barthel 1996; Lavoie 2006).
The HABS program’s success identified the National Park Service as a key contributor to the progress of the historic preservation movement. It continued throughout
22 the 1940s and 1950s, and produced a record which contained over 35,000 historic structures and 360,000 measured drawings and large-format photographs by 1951
(Murtagh 1997; Barthel 1996).
The 1940s oversaw the development of more organizations through the private sector of preservation efforts. One of particular importance was the establishment of the American Association for State and Local History (AASLH). The idea of such an organization was proposed in 1939, and headed by Christopher C. Crittenden, who was at the time director of the North Carolina Department of Archives and History. He believed that an independent group could work toward creating a better way to coordinate activities of historical societies while also enhancing the writing and teaching of state and local history in the United States. Today, the AASLH still follows its first adopted charter describing its purpose of, “the promotion of effort and activity in the fields of state, provincial, and local history in the United States and Canada” (American Association for
State and Local History 2015:1; Genoways and Ireland 2003:14).
As the onset of the Second World War diverted governmental attention away from preservation, activists recognized something more needed to be done. Although the development of the public sector of preservation had achieved noteworthy accomplishments, it was believed that an organization separate from the government purely dedicated to the mission of preservation could achieve more (Barthel 1996;
Barthel 1989:95).
A conference to establish such an organization was held on April 15, 1947, at the National Gallery of Art. Activists Horace M. Albright, former director of the NPS,
Ronald F. Lee, eventual northeast regional director for the NPS, and George A.
23
McAneny, President of New York’s American Scenic and Historic Preservation Society, were instrumental in the development of what would become The National Council for
Historic Sites and Buildings (Murtagh 2006; Tyler 2000; Barthel 1996).
Modeled after the British National Trust for Places of Historic Interest or
Natural Beauty, the Council was distinguished as a nongovernmental group with voluntary membership under the direction of a board of trustees. It operated under the mission of "preserving sites, buildings, and objects significant in American history and culture” in order to prevent the continued loss of American landmarks and physical beauty through industrialization (Thompson 1965-1966:153).
In conjunction with the National Council for Historic Sites and Buildings, another section of the Council’s overall objective was to organize a branch that would be specifically responsible for acquiring and maintaining historic properties and setting a professional example for preservation and restoration methods for fellow activists. The branch was to be called the National Trust for Historic Preservation (Thompson 1965-
1966:153).
In 1949, the bill to establish the Trust was presented and accepted, and signed by President Harry Truman in October. Problems arose early once the two organizations were operating simultaneously, however. The two organizations were difficult to differentiate and potential donors and supporters were confused regarding each one’s main responsibilities. Donors felt the Trust needed to be its own free-standing organization rather than remain a sister-like organization to the National Council. A merger of the two organizations was suggested, and by 1953, the Council had conjoined with the Trust. The organizations operated under one name and one board of Trustees
24 under the name The National Trust for Historic Preservation (NTHP) (Thompson 1965 –
1966:154).
The Trust published a report titled With Heritage So Rich in 1966, illustrating the losses of architectural heritage The United States was suffering. The report detailed recommendations to prevent the losses from getting further out of hand, particularly as historic buildings were being torn down during urban renewal projects. Its powerful message eventually led to the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966. The act resulted in a national preservation policy and the formation of the National Register of
Historic Places. Its duties included regulating historic districts, authorizing legislation to find preservation activities, created State Historic Preservation Offices (SHPOs), founded the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, and formally defined the relationship between federal preservation programs and owners of historic properties (Tyler 2000:44-
45; Murtagh 2006:49, 51).
In 1969, The National Park Service and Library of Congress signed an agreement in accordance with the American Society of Civil Engineers to found the
Historic American Engineering Record (HAER). It was designed to be a companion program to HABS. While HABS concentrated on historic buildings, HAER directed its attention to preserving the heritage of the United States’ engineering past. This included structures such as canals, railroads, and bridges (Tyler 2000; Cliver et al. 1998:33).
The Historic American Engineering Record initially followed the same documentation methodology as HABS, but a different system to fully document complex industrial sites that had undergone numerous transformations over time was found necessary. A multidisciplinary team approach composed of historic site documentation,
25 engineers, technology historians, industrial designers, and archaeologists replaced original teams of only professional architects (Cliver et al. 1998:32-33).
The years following the publication of With Heritage So Rich and the 1966
Act dramatically shifted the preservation movement into the public sector with a flurry legislative activity. Although the government took on a significant role in historic preservation, the bulk of the work is still being conducted at the local and state levels. As mandated by the Secretary of the Interior, every state has an official State Historic
Preservation Officer, with each office required to perform the following duties to:“identify and inventory historic properties in the state; nominate eligible properties to the National Register; prepare and implement a statewide historic preservation plan; serve as a liaison with federal agencies on preservation matters; and provide public information, education, and technical assistance” (Cullingworth 1997:140).
The laws and regulations for historic preservation that developed in the United
States had direct cultural, social, and technological impact on how Americans spent their leisure time. The preservation movement’s progression resulted in protective laws that preserve natural and cultural heritage sites from loss for the purpose of being visited and enjoyed (Merritt and Reilly 2010:5). As leisure time gradually increased for many
Americans, and the development of highways connected states, visiting historic sites and historic house museums became a pastime. The passion for saving historic houses and their surrounding properties because of their cultural value developed a coinciding passion for visitation and the opportunity to personally experience living pieces of history
(Merritt and Reilly 2010:6).
26
With heritage tourism occupying a significant part of how leisure time is spent today, historic house museums have become points of interest and destinations for families. Students and class field trips also make up a large portion of the visitors historic house museums. Educational programs and activities designed to bring the past to life can be interactive and engaging as staff members teach about such things as period cooking, farming methods, and medical practices (Merritt and Reilly 2010:9). House tours lead visitors through kitchens, bathrooms, and private quarters, which provide them the opportunity to see how people managed without any of the modern conveniences (Merritt and Reilly 2010:8).
Preventive Conservation
The life of an object begins with the intention of serving a specific function, whether aesthetic, ceremonial, or practical. During its normal use, an object is properly maintained to preserve its functional efficiency. When the object changes from its original use to that of as part of a museum collection, the object’s purpose completely changes. In this instance, the object is meant to serve as evidence of the past and be preserved in perpetuity. From that point on, the object’s new function is to be preserved in its present condition, because deterioration in any form would result in the loss of its value as material culture. The act of preventing damage from occurring, or the potential for it, is called preventive conservation (Caple 2011:1; Getty Conservation Institute
1992).
Merritt and Reilly (2010:xi) define preventive conservation as a “holistic discipline that looks to the events and environments that surround material culture with
27 an eye to slowing the pace of deterioration and preventing damage, wear, and decay.”
Rather than focusing directly on a single object, preventive conservation examines whole collections, and strives to avoid physical intervention treatments when possible. The less that is done to an object, the more whole it will remain. This means that expensive and complex maintenance strategies are not always the best preservation methods. Instead, the application of common sense and well-informed approaches can reduce the potential for physical, chemical, and biological damages (Getty Conservation Institute 1992).
In contemporary collection’s care, preventive conservation is largely based on creating a stable environment to prevent artifact deterioration. For historic house museums, this maintenance also pertains to the house itself, which is now widely recognized as often being as important as the collections inside. Light exposure, extreme temperature fluctuations, humidity regulation, mold and mildew monitoring, pest control, and proper storage are all concerns museum professionals must address in preventive conservation (Landrey and Hoag 2000; Bachmann 1992:1-3; Merritt and Reilly 2010).
The mitigation of deterioration and damage is conducted through the development of policies and procedures that have been founded on generally accepted preventive conservation standards. Based on a museum’s capability, however, these standards can be tailored to fit the needs of a specific museum, site, or collection, while also being cost effective. By taking the time to continuously improve policies, assessments, inspections, and monitoring techniques cultural property will better survive for future use (Merritt and Reilly 2010:1).
During the First World War, threats of aerial attack over Britain resulted in great efforts to protect national museum collections. Both the British Museum and
28
National Gallery moved parts of their collections underground, because even basements were not safe from the bombings. The railway stations and tunnels used to protect the collections were known to be inhospitable environments for the objects, however. They were damp areas with fluctuating temperatures and humidity levels that could cause irreversible damage. To counteract these issues, electric heaters were installed, ventilation was added, and temperature and humidity were monitored (Caple 2010:7).
Moving objects out of British cities to places with lower risk of air raids forced museum professionals to perform assessments of their objects, the areas they would be moved to, and the risks that could be encountered. The work done during the war was recognized as being significant to the long-term preservation of the collections involved and was ordered to be continued and applied to all British museums. By the
1930s, preservation was developing into a science, and the establishment of the standards and practices used today were emerging (Caple 2010:7).
The Second World War further improved on the ideas established during the previous war, and problems encountered then were readdressed. Although technological developments of the following decades helped to improve conservation practices, those same early methods ended up causing problems later on. For example, adhesives and consolidants used for decades to repair objects were discovered to be unstable and caused damage to objects over the long term. Another problem was the use of highly toxic chemicals to prevent pest infestations; these chemicals, such as arsenic, are now recognized as carcinogenic, and their residues are now being dealt with in many collections (Knapp 2000:1-2). Despite the setbacks of trial and error, preventive conservation efforts forced collections caretakers to take control of the physical,
29 chemical, and biological threats their objects were exposed to, both on display and in storage (Caple 2010:8).
One of the leading figureheads in the development of preventive conservation’s framework was Garry Thomson with his publication of The Museum
Environment in 1978. It brought attention to the importance of stability in the museum environment and formed some of the first recognized conservation guidelines. Continued advances in science and technology have somewhat altered Thomson’s original recommendations, but his work is still well respected and consulted today. The strict dos and don’ts have been replaced by better collections management strategies that analyze the situation at hand. Preventive conservation has become a theoretical approach that guides both the theory and practice of collections care, which enables museums to make the best use of their resources (Caple 2010:9; Thomson 1986).
For this system to work successfully, all staff and volunteer members need to be involved. Merritt and Reilly (2010:1-2) explain that the work to improve collections care must begin with an evaluation of the museum’s current condition. The conservation assessment should include a thorough evaluation of the facilities and storage areas, collections, planning documents, museum procedures, and staff. A strategy for counteractive actions can be developed from identified threats and risks. This process is the first step in drafting the Preservation Master Plan, an official document which details all of the museum’s activities in the context of preservation. The material collected into the Master Plan can then be used as an informational tool by all staff members in the care and maintenance of the collections under their stewardship.
30
A Preservation Master Plan is a part of historic house museum’s entire
Collections Management Policy. Without a well-defined Collections Policy, a museum’s goals for the development and use of its collections are not articulated, nor does it have a strategized plan on how to handle unexpected situations such as disasters or deaccessioning (Genoways and Ireland 2003:175). Genoways and Irelands (2003:175-
176) recommend eight main issues to be discussed by all Collections Management
Policies. They include the mission and scope of a museum’s collection, acquisitions and accession procedures and policies, cataloging and inventories, loans, the care of the collection, collection access, insurance, and deaccessioning.
From this information, a Preservation Master Plan can be created. For example, the Preservation Master Plan for the Virginia Military Institute (VMI) of
Lexington, Virginia, has 10 chapters, including a References Cited section. The plan was based on the individual needs of the VMI’s collections, site, and size. Some of the chapters the VMI Master Plan includes are a history of the VMI institute, its historic contents, its specific preservation approach, the historic buildings on the property, and architectural treatment guidelines for those buildings (Milner Associates INC 2007).
Although the VMI is a very specific historic museum, the chapters for its Master Plan give an idea of what such a plan might entail.
In the next section, several key approaches and factors will be examined as they relate to preventive conservation in both theory and practice. These include environmental control and monitoring, as well as key agents of deterioration such as relative humidity, temperature, light, mold and mildew, and pests.
31
Preventative Conservation: Theory and Practice
As preservation efforts were established over the last century, the care of tangible objects of cultural heritage, including works of art and archaeological artifacts, required a more scientific approach to prevent deterioration. Although scientific conservation paralleled developments in historic preservation, it was a rather hit or miss affair until better knowledge and understanding of the nature of materials and their deterioration developed over the twentieth century into the twenty-first century.
The history of conservation practices can be traced well into the past, because as Caple (2009:25) explains, “societies retain objects because they have value for the members of that society.” Reasons for this value are numerous. Objects are ceremonial, symbolize religious values, are appreciated for their aesthetic appeal, or are assocaited with celebrated individuals. The list of whys can go on and on, but one main point holds true; the society preserving the object is doing so to ensure that its social and cultural value is maintained (Caple 2009:25).
Preventive conservation as it is understood today focuses on avoiding as much physical interaction as possible. The theory can be defined as “any measure that reduces the potential for, or prevents damage. It focuses on collections rather than individual objects, non-treatment rather than treatment” (Caple 2011:1). Merritt and Reilly
(2010:12) add that its goal is to “diminish the daily stresses on collections that build up over time and to avoid catastrophic damage or loss.” Overall, this means that it is extremely important to be as aware of the current condition of a museum’s collection as
32 possible, both for items either on display or housed in collections storage. For historic house museums, this means the house itself is part of the collection.
By the nineteenth century, European and American societies began exhibiting a deeper appreciation for objects because they represented the past, and therefore, contained important information regarding it. Yes, objects were symbolic and highly sought after because of their overall value, but the understanding of their historic importance on a professional level was beginning to develop during this time (Caple
2009:26). As rational thought and observation of the natural world matured, the founding of modern museums was beginning, and with them the foundation of scientific principles for preservation (Caple 2011:5-6).
The actual term “preventive conservation” did not come into professional use until the late twentieth century. Staniforth (2013:1) states, however, that the
“philosophical origins of the concept” were being written about during the early 1800s, by influential figures such as John Ruskin and William Morris. One of the most noted observations that significantly influenced the forming theory was the recognition that the intervention of an object, whether for restorative or aesthetic purposes, had the potential for irreversible damage. Decay was also being closely investigated, and science was providing chemical, biological, and physical explanations for what was happening to different types of materials under different circumstances (Staniforth 2013; Caple 2011).
In 1849, John Ruskin published The Seven Lamps of Architecture. The book presented his seven principles on how architecture should be managed. He believed that restoration was too damaging and that proper maintenance was more important to follow through with. In short, if good care is taken of a building or monument, then the less that
33 will need to be restored (Staniforth 2013:3). Ruskin’s lamp of memory, which mainly states that the world cannot remember without architecture, describes the proactive upkeep of the exterior and interior of buildings as “better a crutch than a lost limb”
(Ruskin 1849:186). This concept directly ties into the modern concept of preventive conservation, which favors non-treatment over physical treatment (Caple 2011).
The idea that restoration was too invasive continued through the work of
William Morris in 1877, when he published The Society for the Protection of Ancient
Buildings Manifesto. His “little and often approach” echoed the beliefs of Ruskin, in that protecting was the better option over aggressive restoring, an act which could take away from an original’s true value (Staniforth 2013:6). By the early 1900s, Cesare Brandi had made a name for himself in the world of conservation by publishing several articles on conservation theory. His works were brought together in one book in 1963, where the term “preventive restoration” came into use for a short time based on the book’s translation from Italian to English. Compared to his predecessors, Brandi saw a connection between restoration and conservation. This connection and the concepts he proposed are basically what is recognized as modern preventive conservation today
(Staniforth 2013:9).
Staniforth (2013:15) explains that the actual term preventive conservation dates to the early 1980s. The term began its official assemblage in 1978, in Garry
Thompson’s The Museum Environment. Thompson talked about, “the growing need for a summary of the ‘preventive medicine’ of conservation.” By the time the second edition was published in 1986, Thompson states, “interest in preventive conservation was growing strongly” (Staniforth 2013:15).
34
In Gael de Guichen’s book, Preventive Conservation: A Mere Fad or Far-
Reaching Change?, published in 1999, he describes preventive conservation as the evolved response museum professionals shaped to address the drastic changes that have been effecting the natural environment and cultural heritage over the last century. All objects and buildings begin as privately or community owned possessions, but as time passes those items eventually make their way into the public sector of life such as museums, whereby they ultimately become public heritage. As public heritage, monuments, artifacts, and buildings need to be protected by the public against agents of deterioration that are much more aggressive than earlier conditions (de Guichen
2013:16). Constant change, in all regards, has brought museum professionals to the theory of preventive conservation as it is defined today.
De Guichen (2013:17) said that “preventive conservation means to think differently.” In just a little over 10 years, Merritt and Reilly (2010:xi) elaborated on that general statement by describing preventive conservation as the “investigation and determination of intellectual control and physical control of collections and sites.”
Intellectual control is in regard to such things as administrative policies and management procedures that keep basic order within a museum to ensure proper protection of the site and its collections. It is an outline of the big picture and should reflect the mission statement of a museum. Physical control references operations inside the museum to keep it running smoothly. Such activity includes security and safety plans, disaster management maintenance, storage practices, and environmental control (Merritt and
Reilly 2010:xi).
35
Preventive Conservation in Action: Museum Collections Management
Most museums today exist because of their collections. Genoways and Ireland
(2003:175) explain that a museum’s collections serve two major functions: to give the museum its character, and to define its purpose. In that regard, a museum’s survival is partially dependent on caring for collections in perpetuity, for research and exhibitions, as stewards of protecting cultural heritage, and to serve the public. As public trusts, museums that have collections have an ethical and moral responsibility to care for the cultural heritage they possess, display, and are entrusted to protect and serve.
To effectively accomplish this, a number of steps are required in contemporary collections management practices that embrace a preventive conservation approach. Museum’s collections are driven by a museum’s mission, thus making the mission statement a guidepost to proper collections management. One of the ongoing problems that historic houses face is a deviation from the institution’s mission; therefore to set precedents, policies, and procedures, a collections management policy in mandatory, and should include a well-defined museum mission statement.
Collections stewardship, the careful and responsible management of the objects entrusted to a museum’s care, is a subject with a lengthy list of technical literature, standards, best practices, and strict guidelines. The information is exceedingly beneficial, and very useful to a large majority of museums and institutions that have collections in North America and elsewhere. Unfortunately, the technical recommendations made by professionals mostly employed at large museums do not completely translate to the bulk of small historic house museums and local historical
36 societies in many communities. Since the information appears to be beyond their capabilities, management of collections tends to be poorly conducted. The truth of the matter is that it is entirely possible for a small museum to responsibly and properly care for its collections according to its means. What is lacking is a clearer direction on how to go about this (American Association of Museums 2008:46-47).
It is easy to become overwhelmed by all of the published collections care information. Instead, the big picture of what collections care actually entails should be examined first. This means knowing what your collection is comprised of, knowing the materials you need to care for your collection, and knowing where your objects are located. These basic characteristics translate to the three basic steps every museum needs to take regarding collections care (American Association of Museums 2008:48). These include 1) knowing the collection, particularly through inventory and good recordkeeping; 2) knowledge of current standards and practices in collections care; and 3) appropriate facilities to house and display the collections, as well as the geographical location and environment of where the collection is displayed and stored.
The first step, knowing what your collection is comprised of, means accurate recordkeeping and conducting regular inventories. Documentation is fundamental to keeping collections organized and maintained. When an object is permanently accessioned, the information that accompanies it can be substantial. Without a well- thought-out strategy on how to document all of this information, objects can be lost and lose their provenience and contextual information. This is where museum recordkeeping first begins, when an object is cataloged into the museums records.
37
Cataloging is the “creation of a full collection record” (Genoways and Ireland
2003:181). The record should contain a full description of the object, its origin, significance, donor files, location, and condition. A designated catalogue number should be assigned to each individual object, both literally on it and in its record, so that its identity is never in question (Genoways and Ireland 2003; American Association of
Museums 2008). Recordkeeping can be hand-written or stored in a computer database cataloging system, which must be consistently maintained (Reibel 2008:82).
The same applies to inventories. A museum needs to account for all of its holdings the entire time it houses them, when and where possible. Routine inventories create awareness of problems, such as missing objects, gaps in the collection, and potential threats to a collection’s stability. For example, organic objects, such as leather shoes, have the potential to develop mold or mildew, or textiles can develop a pest infestation, which, if undetected, can result in the deterioration of the object beyond repair, as a result of neglect. Routine inventories allow museums to track the status of their objects and associated records so that at any given point in time, a single object can be located and its current condition known (Genoways and Ireland 2003:181).
The second step, knowing current industry standards and practices as a yardstick to proper collections care, is fundamental. This includes knowing the necessary materials for proper storage and display, as well as special object requirements. Before housing objects, it is important to become familiar with the storage facility itself. This requires knowing the building, the storage and display environments, and housekeeping schedules and requirements. If the building has water leaks or loose wiring, it is critical to address the issues before they lead to other problems. Consistent housekeeping requires
38 dusting and an Integrated Pest Management system of monitoring and prevention
(National Park Service 2012:7:3-7:4).
The third step, knowing where the objects are, pertains to the actual collections storage space, and object documentation. An entirely separate area should be designated to house all objects not on display, with limited access. Keeping all objects not in use in one area will control the risks of vandalism, theft, and mishandling. Limited access will reduce visitor traffic from bringing in outside contaminants and touching or moving objects. A separate space keeps out unnecessary light, clutter, and air exchanges that could cause drops in temperature. Controlling the storage space means the collections are controlled (National Park Service 2012:7:4-7:5).
Environmental Control and Monitoring
The internal environmental conditions of a museum, as well as its surrounding external environment have a direct effect on the preservation and longevity of its collection, therefore, the most damaging threat to a museum’s collection is an unstable environment. Temperature and relative humidity together tend to be the most devastating factors, because they are constantly changing. Light, mold and mildew, pest control, and improper storage, however, can also cause considerable damage. Regardless of the source, most environmental damage caused by these issues is irreversible. Treatment can help, but if the object is put back into the same unstable environment, then it will be subjected to the same agents of deterioration once again (Graham-Bell 1983:2).
Due to the constantly changing nature of a museum environment, once a correction is made, the issue cannot be permanently ignored. Monitoring the environment of a storage facility and exhibit space on a regular basis will enable caretakers to know
39 how the environment changes over time. The benefits of consistent monitoring include identifying fluctuations in light humidity, and temperature, ensuring monitoring equipment is working properly, and aiding in the development of strategies to improve environmental control (National Park Service 1999:4:14-4:15).
Agents of Deterioration
The deterioration of material objects is caused by three primary types: chemical, biological, and physical. Chemical decay is any change in an object at the atomic and molecular level. When an object reacts with another chemical substance, such as water, pollution, or radiation, a chemical change in its composition usually results.
Examples of this type of decay are the rusting and corrosion of metals, pigment fading, and the embrittlement of textile fibers (Image Permanence Institute 2012:10). Biological deterioration is caused by an attack of biological organisms. It is typically triggered by high amounts of heat and moisture. The most damaging biological agents are mold and insects (Image Permanence Institute 2012:11). Physical decay occurs when there is a change in an object’s physical structure. Plastics and waxes that soften, or wood that has become warped are examples of this decay (Image Permanence Institute 2012:11;
National Park Service 1999:4:6).
These are not the only cause of deterioration in objects. In addition, certain types of objects will deteriorate because the nature of the objects themselves (National
Park Service 1999:4:7). This is called inherent vice, because the agents may be inherent
“in the raw materials, or they may be added as part of the manufacturing process”
(Northeast Document Conservation Center 2015:1). Raw materials often possess
40 characteristics that naturally protect them from degradation in nature. Once the raw materials are processed into an object for human use, these characteristics are usually removed and replaced by unnatural additives. This results in “inherently less stable materials or combinations of mutually incompatible substances that have damaging interaction” (National Park Service 1999:4:7).
The National Park Service (1999:4:7) lists three kinds of inherent vice: short- lived materials, the structural nature of an object, and the object’s history. Short-lived materials are materials that are manufactured without regard to long-term stability.
Examples of short-lived materials are wood pulp paper and cellulose nitrate. Inherent vice in terms of structural nature is in regard to the structure of the object. The object’s design, construction, or application of materials can result in structural failure. Examples of this inherent vice are drying cracks in improperly applied paint and loose joints. The third kind of inherent vice is history. This is in relation to the way an object was used or stored. For example, an accumulation of various different paint layers or deposits of soluble salts in an archaeological ceramic during burial, is inherent vice caused by things like maintenance and the environment (The National Park Service 1999:4:7)
Relative Humidity
Another component to environmental decay is relative humidity (RH).
Relative humidity indicates how saturated the air is with water vapor. This amount is quantified as a percentage. When the air is fully saturated, it is measured at 100 percent.
The problem with moisture in the air is that objects made of organic materials, such as wood, paper, or textiles, are more susceptible to absorbing and releasing the moisture.
High levels of RH can cause objects to absorb water, whereas low levels cause them to
41 release it. Organic objects do this naturally in order to achieve equilibrium with the environment, but if RH levels are too extreme, damage is likely to occur. This could be in the form of mold growth or warping and shrinking (Image Permanence Institute 2012;
Hatchfield and Hutchins 2000; Chicora Foundation 1994).
Temperature
As states by the Image Permanence Institute (2012:8), “temperature is the measure of the motion of molecules in a material.” The temperature of an environment corresponds to the RH or atmospheric moisture, meaning molecules in both warm and cold temperatures can wreak havoc on object materials as they fluctuate. Essentially, the higher the temperature, the faster molecules move (Merritt and Reilly 2010:79). A warm environment is more likely to cause chemical reactions to occur, as well as instigate biological activity because insects breed faster and eat more (Image Permanence Institute
2012:8). In contrast, cooler temperatures are preferred for collections storage and exhibition areas, because the rate of deterioration from outside elements can be better controlled. Better control means a slower rate of deterioration (Image Permanence
Institute 2012:8; National Park Service 1999:4:8-4:9).
Monitoring Temperature and Relative Humidity
One of the biggest problems with not carefully monitoring temperature and relative humidity levels is the potential to create harmful storage and display environments. What may be acceptable levels for one object may be disastrous for another. Erratic levels that are not monitored at all will create inconsistent environments that can cause certain objects, like wood, to continuously expand and shrink based on the
42 moisture content of the air. Objects made of organic materials are particularly susceptible to this because they are hygroscopic, meaning they are able to easily absorb moisture.
When an object is subjected to too much or too little moisture after a long period of time, the structure of it can be altered at the molecular level. This is why it is important to find the right balance of temperature and RH levels to fit the needs of a specific collection
(Erhardt and Mecklenburg 2011:340; National Park Service 1999:4:9).
The Image Permanence Institute (2012:12) states that high temperatures, typically above 75 degrees Fahrenheit, can cause an increase in the chemical deterioration and natural aging of objects. It is also the leading factor in increased pest activity and an accelerator for the growth of mold. Materials that are the most vulnerable to high temperatures are magnetic media, plastics, film, leather, rubber, dyes, and acidic paper. Deterioration can occur in the form of disintegration, fading or discoloration, shrinking, cracking, embrittlement, and melting. Damage from high temperatures is more likely to happen in basements, attics, and garages (Hatchfield and Hutchins 2000:2-3).
Additionally, high relative humidity levels can cause a number of problems for objects. If RH levels reach above 65 percent, the physical structure of organic and inorganic materials is put in jeopardy. This is because there is too much moisture in the air. Excess moisture is absorbed into the molecular structure of an object. When this happens, adhesives soften, mold growth spreads, metals corrode, dyes can bleed, and swelling and warping can buckle an object’s infrastructure. Relative Humidity levels that are too low also have negative effects on materials. If there is not enough moisture in the air, objects can dry out. Shrinkage, stiffening, flaking, and cracking can pull materials
43 apart that have become brittle from the loss of moisture (Image Permanence Institute
2012; National Park Service 1999; Erhardt and Mecklenburg 2011).
Standards for temperature and RH levels are consistently being reevaluated as knowledge of environmental control improves and more factors are taken into consideration. Harold Plenderleith developed the first accepted standards in his publication of The Conservation of Antiquities and Works of Art: Treatment, Repair, and
Restoration in 1956. Garry Thomson expanded on them in 1986, suggesting that RH levels be between 45-60 percent. From Thompson’s work, a worldwide standard of 50 percent ±5 RH and 70°F ±2° was soon adopted. The problem with having a rigid standard is that different climate zones and different object specifications cannot be conformed to fit one standard. For instance, a photograph collection in a museum off the Gulf of
Mexico in Florida will require different environmental control needs than a Native
American basket collection housed in the dry climate of Arizona (Linden 2013; Erhardt and Mecklenburg 2011:340; Hatchfield 2011:42; ASHRAE 2011).
The most recently updated standards now acknowledge that there is no “ideal”
RH for museums, and allows levels to fluctuate between 30-60 percent, depending on object materials and their needs. Acceptable temperature levels should fluctuate between
59-77 degrees Fahrenheit (Image Permanence Institute 2012:1). Because temperature affects RH, the two must be managed together. A useful tool to help with determining the best possible environmental atmosphere for a collection is the Dew Point Calculator by the Image Permanence Institute. It is free software that can be found on their online web site at http://www.dpcalc.org/ (Linden 2013; Erhardt and Mecklenburg 2011:339-340;
ASHRAE 2011; Hatchfield 2011:43; Image Permanence Institute 2012).
44
There are a number of environmental monitoring tools that aid in monitoring temperature and RH. They vary depending on size, accuracy, data capacity, and ease of use (Image Permanence Institute 2012:35). The most common today is electronic data loggers. These instruments continuously measure temperature and RH levels and store the collected data for later retrieval. Their accuracy depends upon their calibration, and error can range between +/- 2 percent RH to +/- 5 percent RH (Image Permanence
Institute 2012:36). Hygrometers, which measure RH, are another tool, and operate as dial or electronic. Dial hygrometers contain a hygroscopic material attached to a hand on the dial, like paper. As moisture is absorbed, it expands and contracts and moves the hand.
Dial hygrometers tend to have an inaccuracy below 40 percent RH or above 80 percent
RH, however. The digital brands come with built-in temperature monitors and need to be calibrated (Image Permanence Institute 2012:35). A third type of monitoring tool is a hygrothermograph. These instruments provide a constant record of temperature and RH by creating a drawn graph. With proper calibrations, hygrothermographs can provide an accuracy within +/- 3 to 5 percent (Image Permanence Institute 2012:36).
Museum Lighting
Lighting in museums is a contradictory element. It is a requirement for one to observe artifacts on display, but uncontrolled light can result in severe object deterioration. As a form of energy and radiation, light is absorbed into exposed objects.
The absorbed energy, especially if excessive, can induce a chemical change in an object’s structure over time. This is because light contains both magnetic and electrical properties, also known as electromagnetic radiation, which produces heat (National Park Service
1999:4:33). Measuring the amount of energy produced is done by the length of light’s
45 waves. The unit of measurement used is a nanometer, which equals one thousand millionth of a meter (Weintraub 1992; Thomson 2011; National Park Service 1999:4:33).
As radiation passes through a prism, it is split into different colors based on wavelength. The shortest wave is violet and the longest is red. Beyond these visible wavelengths are invisible wavelengths, Ultraviolet (UV) and Infrared (IR). Ultraviolet light is at the short end, just below violet light. Infrared light is at the long end, just beyond red light (Weintraub 1992; Merritt and Reilly 2010:61; Thomson 2011:306).
Even though UV light is the shortest wavelength, it is the most energetic form of radiation. Its high energy makes it the most damaging to organic materials. Organic materials made from plants or animals, such as paper, cotton, wood, leather, silk, wool, dyes, and resins can be damaged by prolonged exposure to both natural sunlight and artificial light. Synthetic dyes and plastics can also be grouped into this category, because their chemical structure is similar (Weintraub 1992; Williams and Jagger 2005:4-5;
Thompson 2011:306).
Deterioration from UV radiation is permanent, and therefore irreversible. The longer waves of IR radiation are less damaging than UV waves, because they are not as energetic. Damage does occur, however, because the energy given off by IR light causes an object’s temperatures to rise. Heat increase RH levels, which speeds up chemical deterioration. In addition to sunlight, incandescent lamps and fluorescent lamps produce
IR radiation. The output in fluorescent lighting, though, is much lower (Weintraub 1992;
Williams and Jagger 2005:4-5).
Measuring light intensity is done in footcandles or lux, where one footcandle represents more illumination than a lux and is equal to 10.76 lux units. Recommended
46 light levels will vary depending on the sensitivity of objects on display, as different materials are more susceptible than others. For objects such as silk, wool, prints, drawings, dyed fabrics, paper, or botanical specimens, five to ten footcandles is currently agreed to be the maximum allowable level. Oil paintings, most photographs, ivory, and wood are recommended to receive no more exposure than 15 footcandles. Objects made of metal, stone, glass, or ceramic are generally not affected by strong light. Exposure, in general, should not exceed 25 footcandles, even for objects that can tolerate greater exposure (McCormick 2001:1; National Park Service 1999:4:34).
Overall, there are two types of light typically encountered in museums and historic house museums, natural sunlight and artificially produced light. Natural sunlight is not recommended as a main source of light due to its intensity, heat, and composure of high UV light. Direct sunlight can reach over 5,000 footcandles outside, which has an intensity of about 50 times greater than the average artificial lighting used indoors. Light this strong causes damage to an object at the molecular level. Rugs and furniture in historic house museums can dramatically fade, wood can be bleached, and fabrics can become brittle. It is recommended that controlled artificial lighting be the main source of light inside a museum (Williams and Jagger 2005:4-5; Conn 2012:1).
Artificial lighting includes incandescent lights, fluorescent lights, and Light
Emitting Diodes (LEDs). Incandescent lights, or tungsten lighting, have little to no UV light. Instead, light is produced as an electric current that passes through a tungsten filament. A very small percentage of the current used is converted into light; the rest is given off as heat. Unfortunately, these lights are being phased out and will eventually be difficult to find. A variation of the incandescent light is quartz tungsten-halogen lights.
47
Rather than a quartz bulb, they contain halogen gas. This enables the bulb to burn brighter for longer periods of time. They are used quite often, but tend to emit a high amount of heat (Butcher-Younghans 1996; Williams and Jagger 2005:5; Conn 2012:1;
National Park Service 1999:4:37-4:38).
Fluorescent lights produce very little heat, but the devices used to start the voltage, known as the ballasts, do. An excessive amount of heat can overwhelm a storage case or cause a room to warm. They are also known to emit a significant amount of UV radiation. Shielding is available to help control UV exposure, but fluorescent lights are best used to light rooms rather than display cases (Butcher-Younghans 1996; Conn
2012:1). LED lights have little or no IR or UV radiation and do not conduct heat. They are energy saving due to their long life span. The biggest drawback is color inconsistency
(Conn 2012:1).
The Heritage Health Index is the first official survey to fully analyze the condition and preservation needs of the United States’ museum collections. Over 100 museum collection professionals helped develop the survey and administer it to over
3,300 institutions. It reported that 26 percent of institutions surveyed had no methods of environmental control protecting their collections from environmental modes of decay.
This has resulted in 59 percent of the participating institutions experiencing damage from light exposure, and 53 percent managing damage caused by moisture (Bingmann 2007;
Heritage Health Index 2005:2).
There are a number of ways historic house museums can monitor damage caused by light. One of the easiest ways to control light exposure, is to draw blinds, curtains, shades, draperies, or any other window covering available whenever possible.
48
Because sunlight is the most damaging light to objects, if it does not need to be purposely present, then the best solution for over exposure is to block it out. If the windows cannot be covered most of the time, then UV-inhibiting filters can be applied to window glass.
UV Filters are also available for florescent tubes and gallery lights to help limit exposure during open hours. Materials particularly sensitive to light should be stored or displayed away from any direct light at all. When a room or storage area is not in use, it is most beneficial to leave indoor lights off. The best mindset to have with trying to control light exposure is if light is not necessary, leave it off (Butcher-Younghans 1996; National Park
Service 1999:4:38-4:39).
An inexpensive tool to measure light damage is called the Blue Wool Fading
Strip, also known as the “British Blue Wool Standard.” The strips can be obtained from any archival supplier. They are disposable strips lined with gradations of blue wool fabric that can measure the rate of fading caused by light over time and are left in exhibit cases or beside exposed objects. Once the exposure period is over, the instructions come with a comparison chart for estimating the damage. Lower power light bulbs and the replacement of lighting fixtures is another inexpensive way to monitor exposure
(Williams and Jagger 2005:7).
If funds are available, an investment in a light meter is exceptionally helpful to monitor light exposure. There are several different brands that measure Lux,
Footcandles, and UV and IR light (Williams and Jagger 2005:7). Light meters are great monitoring tools to have, because eyesight alone is not an accurate way to monitor light intensity in a museum or historic house. The reason for this is because eyes adapt to
49 changing light conditions. It is also not possible for plain eyesight to see the damaging part of the light spectrum (McCormick 2001:2).
Mold and Mildew
The air of any environment is full of pollutants. Whether they are pollen grains, skin cells, fungal spores, or bacteria, particulate matter is constantly floating around and landing on anything in its surrounding area. When an environment contains excess moisture or dampness, warm temperatures, or has any signs of decay present, these floating particulates can begin to grow into molds or mildew on surfaces. Objects that are made of organic materials are most at risk of mold and mildew outbreaks, because their materials are conducive to growth. Even glass in a damp, warm environment can support mold spores (Brewer 2007:1; Florian 2002:21).
Mold and mildew spores are fungi and survive by feeding on material substances. Cellulose-based materials are particularly susceptible to an outbreak because of the nutrients they provide (Guild and MacDonald 2004:1-2). This is what makes mold so destructive. The growth will begin in one spot and spread outward as it seeks new nutrients. As long as the conditions are favorable, the spores will remain active and continue to multiply. RH levels reaching higher than 65 percent provide the perfect environment to support germination, growth, and production. Between 39 and 86 degrees
Fahrenheit, mold spores will grow (Strang and Dawson 1991:1). Differing temperatures will either encourage increased or decreased production. Freezing or extreme heat will not kill mold spores, but rather deactivate them temporarily. Once conditions return favorable and the spores have not be removed, they will once again reactivate (Strang and
Dawson 1991:1-2; Brewer 2007:2-3).
50
A mold outbreak on an object will contain two parts. The first is the fungus itself. Fungal spores are actively living cells and excrete metabolic products after digesting their host material. The second is the change in the object’s material and structure. As the mold spreads, the products it creates can cause discoloration, odors, and physical and chemical changes to the host object (Florian 2002:31-32; Brewer 2007:1).
This is what is most damaging to objects in museum collections. As spores digest material proteins, the object’s internal structure is jeopardized (Merritt and Reilly
2010:81). Molds can be identified by the furry or down-like look they have in addition to their common white, green, or black appearance (Florian 2002:31-32; Brewer 2007:1).
Since mold spores and pollutant particulates exist everywhere, it is nearly impossible to completely eliminate them from the museum environment. The best method of prevention, then, is to closely monitor the museum environment as a whole to ensure that favorable conditions for growth do not form. This includes monitoring both the building interior and exterior (Guild and MacDonald 2004:5-6). Uncontrolled moisture in a historic house museum can turn into a serious problem with the potential of deterioration of the collection and the building (Merritt and Reilly 2010:82). The first response to a suspected mold bloom, then, should be to identify the source of moisture.
This is why monitoring both the exterior and interior of the house is important. Moisture sources can stem from a number of areas. Leaky roofs or pipes, broken windows, damp basements, blocked gutters, or interior fountains are just a few. Environmental monitoring of temperature and RH levels is important in this aspect as well, since excess moisture is where a mold or mildew problem can begin (Olcott Price 2013:5, 11). Despite
51 these trigger issues, there are a number of ways a historic house museum can protect itself against mold blooms.
If a museum has a heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) system, which is an internal system that regulates air circulation by cooling, heating, drying, and monitoring humidity (Merritt and Reilly 2010:93), it should be regularly inspected for areas of moisture collection. Although they are meant to monitor moisture, HVAC systems should never be overlooked. Monitoring HVAC systems will also ensure that proper air ventilation is being maintained. Stagnant air is another favorable factor for mold growth (Olcott Price 2013:5-6; Strang and Dawson 1991:2-3; Brewer 2007:3-4).
Internal vents can be fitted with filters to help reduce the introduction of spores from outside air. As the seasons change, adjustments should be made to account for shifts in weather, because certain species of fungi thrive best when it is cold or hot.
Regular housekeeping, like vacuuming and dusting, will help keep particulates under control rather than allowing them to build up. This should include both exhibit and collection storage areas. Objects should also not be stored in damp areas, like basements or attics, or near windows and sinks (Olcott Price 2013:5-6; Strang and Dawson 1991:2-
3; Brewer 2007:3-4).
An example of what can happen to a poorly monitored environment is the 19- month emergency response the Detroit Historical Museum (DHM) conducted when a mold outbreak occurred in the artifact storage area of the Collection Resource Center at its Historic Fort Wayne site in 1995 (Hobart Dicus 2000:85). Although the warehouse chosen as the new space had been newly renovated to accommodate as a collections storage space, equipped with mechanical monitoring systems, and tested for a year with
52 readings from a hygrothermograph, the building ultimately was still not properly monitored. Not only is the DHM an example of what can happen when a mold outbreak occurs, but it also shows that despite having the best of prevention methods, the museum and its collections are still not immune from mold problems. In addition, the objects stored in the repurposed warehouse were not stored in the best manner either (Hobart
Dicus 2000:86).
The start of the entire mold episode began in 1992, when the DHM experienced a severe budget reduction, which impacted collections and curatorial staff immensely. The difficulty of being short-staffed with reduced yearly budgets delayed the discovery of high RH in the storage facility during the summer of 1995. A period of high
RH occurred in mid-July that no one caught because of a malfunction in the mechanical system, plus the hygrothermographs were out of calibration, and the collections area was not monitored. Mold began to grow on the objects in the facility and was discovered in early August. A textile conservator was contacted and brought it to survey the damage
(Hobart Dicus 2000:86).
Damage from mold had occurred on wooden and upholstered furniture, leather chairs, and ironing board covers. Textiles and costumes made of wool, basketry, and other leather objects had mold growth as well. Mold spores were evident on almost every surface of and in the building, including the walls and ductwork. Mold growth was more prevalent on objects that were not properly stored inside a box, or wrapped in a protective archival material. A majority of the objects in the storage facility were left out in the open air and susceptible to airborne spores, which explains the large number of affected objects (Hobart Dicus 2000:86-87).
53
The response generated from this outbreak included constant environmental monitoring to bring the RH back down to acceptable levels, a log of daily mitigation was started, affected materials were removed, mitigation conservators were contracted to begin repairing the damage, and staff was improved with specialists to educate all on better environmental monitoring. Although, the description of how the outbreak was handled seems rather condensed, the entire process to resolve this outbreak took almost two years of treatment, as it was estimated that at least 51,000 objects had been affected by mold, and over 25,500 hours were spent in examining, cleaning, and rehousing the collection (Hobart Dicus 2000:88). The amount of work that went into this disaster is staggering and the financial cost prohibitive.
When mold is discovered, the first action that should be taken is isolating the objects that have been affected, as it is important to try and stop the growth immediately if the outbreak is small. If it is significant, the best solution is to call a professional to contain the issue once the objects have been quarantined from the main collection, like the DHM. In the case of smaller outbreaks, mold can be contained by small-scale drying.
Objects like affected papers can be laid flat on a clean surface and books can be stood up right, fanned open to allow air to circulate the pages. Fans can be turned on to speed up the drying process, but they should not be pointed directly at the objects. Direct air from a fan can initiate the spreading of spores. The fans are more for keeping the surrounding air from becoming stagnant (Olcott Price 1996:8).
Vacuum-drying is another method to contain smaller outbreaks. This can be done in fumigation chambers if they are available. A chamber will produce a strong enough vacuum to kill the mold, but it will increase the speed at which objects dry out.
54
The freezing method will not kill mold spores, but it will stop active growth. This method should not be used if there is significant water or moisture in the object, because freezing will cause any water to expand and put the object at risk for damage. It should be noted that photographs are too delicate for the freezing method. The same process of deactivating mold growth can be used through UV light (Olcott Price 1996:8). Overall, it is always best to consult a professionally trained conservator knowledgeable in these instances.
Mold and mildew spores can be vacuumed from contaminated objects once the growth has stopped. Using a HEPA-filtered professional vacuum, certain objects can be placed underneath a fiberglass screen and vacuumed through it. The strength of the vacuum should be controlled so as not to accidentally damage the objects from the suction, especially if paper or other delicate material needs treatment. The nozzle of the vacuum hose should be fitted with fine screening to prevent anything from being lost
(Olcott Price 1996:9; CCI Textile Lab 2008). It is essential to vacuum the entire object rather than just focusing on the visible growth areas. Mold spores are not visible to the naked eye and can be anywhere on the object’s surface. Again, the vacuum to be used during this treatment should contain a high-efficiency, particulate air (HEPA) filter to avoid filtering spores back into the air (Olcott Price 1996:9; CCI Textile Lab 2008).
Integrated Pest Management
Pest control is commonly often a response to the discovery of the evidence of pest activity within a collections storage area, or for objects on display. Unfortunately, in some cases, the damage can be severe. The best method a museum can implement to protect its collections and prevent infestations from happening is to develop an Integrated
55
Pest Management (IPM) plan (Pinniger and Winsor 2011:169-170). Pests include crawling and flying insects and rodents such as mice and rats.
Before the dangers of pesticides and chemicals were taken into consideration, field collectors and museum professionals used them frequently and generously to treat pest problems during the late nineteenth and twentieth centuries. Regular use of these chemicals continued up until the 1980s. Documentation of what types of chemicals were rarely recorded, since their use was seen as part of everyday general collections care
(Pool, Odegaard, and Huber 2005:11). One particularly common chemical was arsenic, which was used to combat pest infestations in objects, such as basketry, becoming toxic to their handlers. Additionally, dry and liquid poisons were professionally recommended as solutions to pest issues. Plant-based repellents and pesticides included tobacco, lavender leaves, cedar wood, creosote leaves, and assorted seeds. Inorganic chemical pesticides, like arsenic compounds, boric acid, and mercuric chloride among just a few, were used on and around objects (Pool, Odegaard, and Huber 2005:12).
These poisons were liberally used in established museums as well as personal collections. In some instances, arsenic was reportedly being used as far back as the seventeenth century. The main concern with the past use of these chemicals is the health safety of museum staff working with these contaminated objects, as well as Native
American tribes and other indigenous groups, such as native Hawaiians, during repatriation. Arsenic was officially banned in the United States in 1972 (Odegaard,
Zimmt, and Smith 2005:53-54).
Arsenic’s presence anywhere is of greatest concern because it was used in numerous applications for several centuries. Arsenic compounds were applied to
56 biological specimens and ethnographic objects as a means to preserve them, and to prevent and kill unwanted pests. Compounds were commonly applied as a dust or paste.
The older an object is, the more likely it is to have been treated with arsenic. Evidence of arsenic is often visible as a white powder, although its presence is not always visible to the naked eye. It is environmentally permanent and can contaminate surrounding soil and water. Its toxicity can vary, depending on its chemical formulation and dosage. Exposure can cause health problems anywhere along the lines of chronic renal failure, arrhythmias, paralysis, anemia, delirium, and coma, and even several types of cancers if levels are exceptionally high (Boyer, Seifert, Odegaard, Pool, and Burroughs 2005; 75-76; Pool,
Odegaard, and Huber 2005:12; Knapp 2000:1-2).
The use of arsenic in relation to historic house museums and their collections is that objects in historic houses may have been treated with arsenic or other carcinogenic compounds at some point in the museum’s history. One of the most common uses of arsenic was as a preservative in mounted taxidermy specimens. Its use was very popular during the last quarter of the nineteenth century. Many of these contaminated mounts are now in the processing of deteriorating, which can expose arsenic-coated materials. Other common items that are likely to contain the chemical are baskets, objects containing fur or feathers, textiles, and clothing (Miller 1991:4). Miller (1991:4) states that in Alison
Gemsheim’s Victorian And Edwardian Fashion, A Photographic Study, a popular green dye contained arsenic of copper. The dye was used in fabric used to make clothing as well as in the bright-green cloth covers of Victorian books.
To identify arsenic on an object, the collection itself needs to be closely examined. When inspecting likely contaminated objects, look for powdery or crystalline
57 deposits at the “base of feathers and hairs, around eyes, in or at the base of ears, around mouth or bill, along ventral incision, at base of tail, and on foot pads” (Knapp 2000:2).
Testing for arsenic can be done with a UV light or with a test kit specifically designed to detect the presence of the chemical. A hand-held x-ray diffraction (XRF) instrument can also be used (Knapp 2000:2 – 3).
Boric acid, a pesticide often applied to floors and crevices and inside wooden exhibit cases was used to kill crawling insects. It was not often directly applied to objects, but its presence within display cases and storage areas has led to crossover contamination
(Odegaard, Pool, and Burroughs 2005:55). Use of boric acid began in the 1890s and was most commonly applied as a dust to repel ants, roaches, silverfish, wood borers, and crickets. It can be found in the form of colorless crystals or a fine white powder. While it does not immediately kill on contact, it was an effective way to control pests over a long period of time. Over exposure to objects coated in boric acid remnants can cause skin irritations such as rashes and blisters, vomiting, fevers, convulsions, and muscle twitches
(Pool, Odegaard, and Huber 2005:15).
As use of cabinets for display and storage grew in popularity, volatile fumes entered into the mix of pesticide choices. Thymol crystals, naphthalene, tar camphor, paradichlorobenzene, carbon disulfide, cydrocyanic acid, and fluorosilicate compounds were used inside cabinets to fumigate and kill whatever pests might have been present.
Sprays, dusts, and fogs of several chemical makeups were used in small spaces and areas, successfully killing present pests, but also liberally coating everything the fumigants came into contact with. Gaseous chemicals released into small spaces had the potential to
58 reach lethal concentrations, especially without proper ventilation (Pool, Odegaard, and
Huber 2005:12).
Mercury, in the form of mercuric chloride, was used in collections from the
1810s until 1976, when it was also banned in the United States (Odegaard, Zimmt, and
Smith 2005:54-55). Mercury is described as being used as early as the 1820s, either as a dust or a spray. The form used most often in museums was known as corrosive sublimate and was usually applied directly to objects. Traces of its application are evident of white crystalline residue or powder (Pool, Odegaard, and Huber 2005:17). Like arsenic, mercury is also environmentally permanent and can contaminate its surroundings. Its toxicity varies depending on its chemical formulation. Exposure to high levels of mercury can result in injuries that can occur within minutes or hours, to even years later, especially if exposure is persistent. Health problems related to exposure include kidney damage, circulatory collapse, tremors, and gastrointestinal effects (Boyer, Seifert,
Odegaard, Pool, and Burroughs 2005:76; Pool, Odegaard, and Huber 2005).
In 1947, the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) had been enacted, which established standard procedures for labeling pesticides with the
Department of Agriculture. Actual regulation of pesticide use was not added until 1972, however, when the law was revised. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) gained administration over FIFRA in 1970, and was given the authority to oversee the impact pesticides were having on the environment. The EPA now oversees the sale, distribution, and use of pesticides, but since states have individual local laws they can also independently regulate use as well. Several more amendments have been made
59 throughout 1978, 1988, and 1996 to strengthen FIFRA’s mandates and pesticide registration (Ballard and Koestler 2014:2; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 2012).
The decade between 1980 and 1990 witnessed the greatest changes in pesticide use and fumigation practices in museums as the regulation of pesticides spread beyond the realm of agriculture. In particular, the 1996 Food and Quality Protection Act revision to FIFRA was most important to museums, historic houses, and archives. The act authorized a limited dosage and exposure of pesticides for infants and children, and created a single health-based standard for all foods. It also required regular reviews and registration of pesticides in use. When re-registration was federally required, certain products museums commonly used were no longer able to be produced. Other products were reclassified to meet health and safety standards. This led to many museums housing products banned from legal use (Ballard and Koestler 2014:2).
Once the use of harsh chemical pesticides were recognized as a hazard to museum and historic house staff’s health and could have adverse effects on the objects, the shift towards IPM became the new standard. Today, pest mitigation is done through the use of traps, interior and exterior building maintenance, and strategized plans to safely exterminate infestations when they are discovered. Techniques used to eliminate pests include freezing, high heat, and oxygen deprivation (Pool, Odegaard, and Huber
2005:13).
The legislation regarding tighter control over pesticide use is important to historic house museums because care of collections and the building involves a number of different disciplines. The environment has the greatest effect on deterioration; therefore use of an IPM strategy is a much more holistic approach rather than only
60 reaction to each individual crisis. The heavy use of pesticides to address outbreaks only addressed the problem at hand, but not the overall issue of pest control. Implementing an
IPM plan means tailoring a plan to meet the specific needs of a historic house museum and its collection (Pinniger and Winsor 2011:169-170).
Integrated Pest Management was first developed as a method to control pest activity for fruit and other food crops without the overuse of harmful pesticides and chemicals. Before the 1940s, farmers utilized a combination of chemical and non- chemical pesticides on their crops to control pests. The development and introduction of more effective pesticides resulted in an overuse of the new chemical compounds.
Eventually, pests slowly become resistant to these insecticides, regardless of how much was applied. Safety hazards risking farmers’ health, and rising crop costs, also became new concerns (Pinniger 2001:1; Story 1998:69).
The establishment of IPM presented strategies of monitoring, prevention, and modification that were eventually adapted for use in museums in the 1980s and 1990s.
This is a safer approach to handling pest infestations while also controlling the health and safety of museum staff members, museum objects, and museum environments. As part of the preventive conservation approach, Integrated Pest Management is also the most cost- effective approach to a pest problem, as it seeks to prevent the problems from occurring in the first place (Pinniger 2001:1-2; Pinniger and Winsor 2011:169-170; Querner and
Simon 2011).
An IPM plan should be developed based on the needs of the museum and its collection. It should not be so impractical that it could never be achieved, which is why it is important that it should be customized to meet a museum’s daily activities and left
61 flexible enough to be revised often as the museum evolves and grows. What makes IPM different than simply applying poisons is a knowledge of pests’ habits and ecology, as well as the environments in which they are most attracted to in all stages of their development, from larvae to full adulthood. To summarize the steps to develop a successful IPM plan, the first preventive measure is to reduce or eliminate environments conducive to attracting pests such as exterior landscaping, food, dust, and other attractions. Blocking access to the building and collection is important as well as recognizing common pests, through education and the specific damages they cause. Other preventive measures also include a proactive approach by assessing the problems through inspection, trapping, and identifying high-risk areas. Mitigation can be achieved through improving the surrounding indoor and outdoor environments and performing appropriate treatments, and reviewing the IPM plan procedures for effectiveness (Pinniger 2001:2-8;
Pinniger and Winsor 2011:170-171; National Park Service 1998a:5:10-5:11).
Insect infestations are responsible for the majority of damage found in museums. Because there are so many species to account for, insects can be arranged into groups based on the types of materials they are most attracted to as food sources. Textile pests, or otherwise known as protein feeders, can be divided into groups of carpet beetles, hide beetles, and clothes moths. Wood pests are typically wood-boring/powder-post beetles and drywood termites. Stored product pests are usually the cigarette beetle and the drug-store beetle. The most common paper pests are silverfish, firebrats, and booklice.
General pestsinclude such as cockroaches, crickets, and centipedes (Klein 2008:1-6).
Although these common insects are not harmful to museum collections perse, when they die, their carcasses provide food for more harmful pests.
62
If an infestation is suspected, but cannot be immediately identified, the use of sticky and pheromone traps can be used to detect pests over time. They are also a good tool to help monitor the environment in general. There is a wide variety of sticky traps that have non-toxic adhesive surfaces to choose from. As insects are on the move and crawl across the surface of the trap, the adhesive catches them. Pheromone traps are insect species specific and lure insects through a reproduction of their natural pheromones used to attract mates. Traps should be dated and placed in areas suspected of infestation. The best places to put them are in corners and out of sight rather than in high traffic areas. Traps should be regularly checked to monitor an area, or to locate a problem. All insects that are found in the traps should be documented (Child 1998:1-2;
Pinniger 2001:50; Pinniger and Winsor 2011:185).
The main source of pest activity is poor housekeeping. When dead insects, dust, dirt, food, and litter accumulate in any area, pest activity is going to increase.
Therefore, to avoid pests in the first place, it is ideal to make sure they are denied the four things they most require: food; warmth; humidity; and safe harborage. Areas that tend to be missed, or overlooked too often when cleaning, are areas that will generally become the most attractive (Xavier-Rowe and Lauder 2011:13-14).
This can be a particular problem in historic house museums if a regular housekeeping schedule is not implemented. Despite historic house museums generally having limited hours of operation, this does not mean the rooms and objects do not get dirty. Foot traffic from visitors bring in an array of air pollutants and they leave behind unintentional debris as they travel through the house. Doors and windows opening and closing allow dust and small insects inside without notice. The rooms that are left alone
63 for long periods of time, or those that are not on the tour, eventually do not stay empty if they are never checked. Each historic house was meticulously maintained during its occupational period as a home. Although its function has changed, the same meticulous care is still required to keep outside insects and pests from taking up residence.
A prime example can be seen in historic house chimneys, which can be easily overlooked. The dark area of a chimney provides a refuge for moths. Closed or forgotten rooms not generally open to the public can become overrun with dead insects or other pests, and litter if they are normally not on a cleaning schedule. The neglect of building maintenance can create a number of problems. Animals, rodents, and pests are attracted to clogged gutters, leaking pipes, roof spaces, windows, doors, and dark, damp basements. Wherever there is excess water, warmth, and food sources unwanted pests will definitely find it (Xavier-Rowe and Lauder 2011:13-14; Pinniger 2001:3-4; Pinniger and Winsor 2011).
Types of materials that pests are attracted to are generally organic, like paper, wood, and leather. These materials become food and nesting sources. Crumbs of human food are also appealing, so it is best to either avoid eating in high risk areas, or be sure to completely clean up afterwards if food or drink are involved. All areas involved in food preparation will need to be kept in mind, including disposal. Left over garbage can be a major attractant for pests. A detailed cleaning schedule will be the most effective way to prevent pests from becoming an issue. Periodic deep cleaning as the seasons change, or once a year, will help avoid stagnant areas from developing and ensure that the entire building is looked after (Pinniger 2001:3; Pinniger and Winsor 2011:172; Xavier-Rowe and Lauder 2011:14).
64
The upkeep of a museum’s exterior is as important as the interior, because it is a museum’s first defense against pest intrusion. If there are any cracks or holes, open pipes or ventilation ducts, it is important to seal them all off to prevent pests from gaining access to the building (Kwindt and Smyk 2011:47). This can be a particular problem for historic structures, because insects and pests are naturally secretive and historic homes typically have more areas pests can enter.
Exterior doors in historic house museums were not as well sealed as they are in museums today, and should be fitted with tight sweeps to prevent pests from crawling underneath. The sides and the top should also be lined with weather stripping to seal any other gaps. Ideally, the parameter of the building should mostly be free of vegetation, due to flowers and plants being the natural habitat of insects. A one meter wide vegetation- free zone will help keep insects away from potentially crawling through windows and doors (Kwindt and Smyk 2011:47).
Another aspect that can lead to unwanted pests is temperature. Cooler conditions are naturally discouraging, but areas that reach above 70 degrees Fahrenheit can become breeding grounds, as insects and rodents favor warmer conditions. Humidity levels are more difficult to completely isolate, because different species prefer different environments (Pinniger 2001; 3; Pinniger and Winsor 2011:173).
The most common vertebrate pests museums encounter are rodents. Their presence in a museum or historic house is usually easy to detect, because they are extremely destructive. The most obvious signs are droppings and gnaw marks. Constant gnawing keeps rodent’s teeth worn, because they are continuously growing. They do not taste what they gnaw on, so everything is at risk. Gnawing can damage wires, cables,
65 wood, soft metals, plaster, and any organic materials they come across. When rodents are breeding, they tend to shred paper, textiles, carpets, soft insulation, and other soft items to build nests. Gnaw marks can usually be found near the bases of doors and cabinets (Allan
2011; 91; Pinniger and Winsor 2011:179-180).
One of the biggest problems with rodent infestations are the droppings and urine they leave behind, which can contaminate and stain surfaces. In addition, diseases can be spread if staff or visitors come into contact with rodent bacteria (Allan 2011:92).
A recent problem in the West has been the spread of the Hantavirus, a rare but serious respiratory virus that is transmitted by mice and rats. While not all breeds of rodent carry the virus, it is impossible to detect an infected rodent from one that is not. Therefore, if a rodent problem is discovered, the problem needs to be dealt with seriously (Walli
2014:1). The Hantavirus is spread through the saliva, urine, and feces of infected rats and mice. If a human comes into contact with infected excretions, they become at risk of inhaling the virus through airborne particles, transmission through broken skin, or ingestion of contaminated food or water. Once infected with the virus, symptoms resemble flu-like aches with fever, coughing, nausea, and abdominal pain. The virus progresses quickly and eventually becomes a severe respiratory infection. There is currently no vaccine or effective antiviral medication for the hantavirus (Walli 2014:1-2).
Carpet beetles and hide beetles both belong to the family Dermestidae. They are known as scavengers and feed on almost any plant life or animal-by-products. This means that objects made of materials such as wool, fur, hair, horn, skins, hides, linen, or feathers are at risk for damage. The black carpet beetle, varied carpet beetle, furniture carpet beetle, and common carpet beetle are generally the four main types that can be
66 found in museums. Damage is caused by beetle larvae. Since they molt multiple times throughout their development, skin casts are left behind. A buildup of casts is a sign that infestation is likely. The larvae prefer dark areas, but as they grow into adults carpet beetles are more attracted to the light. Adults can be found on window and light fixtures.
Irregular holes in textiles and loose fur are other signs of an infestation (Kingsolver
1988:65; Pool, Odegaard, and Huber 2005:7-8; Klein 2008:2; National Park Service
1998a:5:33-5:34; Pinniger and Winsor 2011).
Species of hide beetles that tend to produce the most damage are the larder beetle, hide or leather beetle, and black larder beetle. Both adults and larvae cause damage, but the most damage for all three types is by the larvae. These beetles feed on bones, carcasses, wool, wood, cork, feathers, and other animal matter. Identification of an infestation is feeding damage. Larvae burrow into their food source, leaving frass, or excreta, behind (Kingsolver 1988:63; Klein 2008:2).
The types of clothes moths generally found in museums are the common or webbing clothes moth, Tineola bisselleilla, and the case-making or fur moth, Tinea pellionella. They prefer dark areas, like attics, closets, and storage areas, and often lay their eggs in the folds of fabrics. Damage caused by these moths is mostly done by the larvae, which eat a diverse amount of organic materials. Objects made of wool, fur, hair, feathers, quill, horn, or other protein-based material are at risk to feeding damage as larvae eat their way through the fibers. Their excreta take on the same color as the materials they have digested, and will be scattered over the object. Small holes and loose hair or feathers are also signs of a moth problem (Pool, Odegaard, and Huber 2005:5-7;
Klein 2008:3; National Park Service 1998a:5:35).
67
Finally, new acquisitions or donations, or incoming loans have the potential to be carrying unseen pests. Before returning or adding them to collection or exhibition, each object should be carefully inspected with a UV lamp to identify any foreign substances and have a condition report filled out. Once the problem has been assessed and identified, infested objects can be removed from the general collection into quarantine. The next step in developing an IPM plan is solving the problem. Prevention is always the most effective solution, but when pests have already been found, then trapping and treatments need to be implemented. Actions will differ depending on if the problem is with the building or with the objects. If the building is the main problem, it will need to be treated, most likely with traps or rodenticides and insecticides. Insects within objects will need to be handled specifically once they have been quarantined (Pinniger 2001:7-8;
Pinniger and Winsor 2011:187).
Quarantining objects allows staff to remove visible insect bodies and debris first. From there, a treatment can be decided. One inexpensive method is freezing. This method does not aim to freeze the object itself, but rather subject the insects on the object to temperatures cold enough to kill them. Damage to the object is possible if freezing is done carelessly or repeatedly on a routine basis. It should only be used when there is an obvious problem. Textiles, leather, wood, and paper are ideal candidates for example
(Raphael 1994:1-2).
The object/s in question should be sealed in a polyethylene bag 4 mil with duct tape. Draw out as much air from the bag as possible. A regular household freezer can be used because the temperature required to be effective is -5 degrees Fahrenheit.
The length of freezing time depends on the temperature being used. In general, at -5
68 degrees, six to ten days should be sufficient. Once the treatment is complete, leave the object sealed in its bag until it has come to room temperature for 24 hours. A full explanation of the method and the correct way to administer it can be found in Raphael
(1994).
Anoxic fumigation, or a low-oxygen atmosphere has become a more commonly used treatment in conservation. Recently, it has become a safer alternative to chemical fumigants traditionally used in the past to eradicate pests in museum objects made of organic materials. These atmospheres can even be used as a long-term storage and display methods to objects that are sensitive to oxidation (Rowe 2004:259). The treatment is administered by replacing the air in a sealed space with an inert gas, like nitrogen, or by using an oxygen absorber tablet, such as Ageless™ (Burke 1999:1).
Anoxia is a safe treatment method for museum objects, because it poses virtually no risks or health hazards. So far, one of the only known organic material to react to anoxic fumigation is a dye that occurs in historic textile collections known as Prussian blue, a pigment widely used in Europe between 1811 and the late nineteenth century. The dye tends to intensify in slightly oxidized conditions and fade in reducing conditions (Rowe
2004:259).
Historic House Museum Housekeeping
Housekeeping for a historic house museum can be difficult, because there is a transition from home care to preventive care that must be recognized. The housekeeping methods that were once common place in historic houses are likely no longer used.
Historical objects and furniture, however, were not made to endure the same treatment
69 and need special cleaning care to prevent permanent damage (Merritt and Reilly 2010:2;
Minnesota Historical Society 2000). In general, harsh chemicals normally used for household cleaning are discouraged in historic house museums, as they off-gas and can cause chemical reactions.
Throughout the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, the majority of household cleaners were homemade in the United States. Soap, polishes, and cleaning solutions were mixed with resources housewives had on hand. Homemade recipes and cleaning methods were highly valued, and the information was often documented in personal journals and diaries. Many of these personal records became published “How To” manuals that grew in popularity over the centuries. These manuals became key reference guides housewives greatly relied on. House wives understood the damage dust, light, and pests could cause to their belongings, making housekeeping an essential part of their daily lives (Matthews 1987:3; Merritt and Reilly 2010:32-34).
Housekeeping was typically based on a schedule that involved daily, weekly, and seasonal maintenance. Seasonal maintenance was particularly necessary because homes went through a dramatic shift to prepare for the changing seasons. Soot and smoke from indoor fires and lamps, and the accumulation of dust from winter fuel supplies found its way onto every surface in the home. Spring cleaning was a labor-intensive method housewives undertook in order to control the accumulated winter grime. Carpets and draperies would be removed, windows and floors were washed, winter clothing was moth proofed as it was packed away, furniture needed polishing to prevent dulling, and winter stoves needed to be replaced (Schlereth 1991:132; Strasser 1982:61 – 62).
70
The Housekeeping Book of Susanna Whatman (National Trust Classics 1987) was originally written during the late 1700s, which detailed preferred cleaning methods of the period and listed recipes for solutions, soap, and other cleaners. Whatman described the best way to clean carpets as turning them over for a few days, so that walking on them would beat the dust out. They were instructed to never be washed with direct water, as it could cause the colors to run. If another method was preferred, housewives could use old tea leaves. The leaves were just damp enough to attract dust and could be easily swept up afterward.
Soap was expensive to buy, or make, and left an unattractive white deposit on the floor in Whatman’s opinion. Her preferred method of cleaning was scrubbing the floors with a sand and fuller’s earth mixture (a fine dull-green clay). Afterward, the mixture could be swept up. Whatman discussed another method, which used green herbs instead. Her recipe called for tanzy, mint, and blam. The herbs would be rubbed into the floor with a brush and swept away after they dried. Not only did it clean the floors, but it also left the room smelling sweet (National Trust Classics 1987:21, 24; Beeton 2011).
When soap could be made, it was made from the fats and vegetable oils that were also in demand for cooking. This is what ultimately made soap so expensive. Fats and oils were much preferred to be used for cooking over cleaning when they were available. A recipe Benjamin Franklin’s sister was fond of included: “Eighteen bushels of ashes, one bushel of stone lime, three pounds of tallow, fifteen pounds of the purest
Barbary wax of a lovely green colour and a peck of salt” (National Trust Classics
1987:31). Soap making continued using these same fats into the 1800s, which is noted in recipes published by Catherine Beecher (Beecher 1841).
71
Beecher’s (Beecher 1841:311) directions on washing clothes were very detailed, as many housewives’ directions were. Her instructions called for separating clothes by material and washed in a specific order. Before washing white clothing, it was recommended to first soak in warm water to help save time. According to her methods, using hot water made it more difficult to remove any dirt. Fine, delicate clothing was to be washed first. Clothes would be scrubbed in two separate tubs of soap, then put into a boiling bag to be boiled for a half hour in another tub. Afterward, they were placed in another fresh filled tub to be scrubbed, and then set in yet another tub to rinse in blueing water. White clothing was suggested to be hung to dry in the sun while colored should be kept in the shade.
Another well-known author of household management was Isabella Beeton
(Beeton 2011). Her instructions for proper furniture care included cleaning schedules and polish recipes. Cleaning furniture was necessary, but it was not enough to dust over the surfaces occasionally. Furniture surfaces should be rubbed daily and book case shelving required thorough wiping so that “not a speck of dust” could be found. One of her recipes for furniture polish was composed of a quarter pint of linseed oil, a quarter pint of vinegar, one ounce of spirits of salt, and half an ounce of muriatic antimony. The mixture needed a vigorous shake before use. Another applicant to furniture was furniture paste, which she suggested as a mixture of three ounces of beeswax, one ounce of white wax, one ounce of curd soap, one pint of turpentine, and one pint of boiled water. The mixture needed to set for 48 hours before use (Beeton 2011:438).
Based on the handful of historic recipes and cleaning directions, it is fairly unmistakable that cleaning methods were very different from what is considered standard
72 today. Many of the objects cared for during routine housekeeping were made of organic materials, and therefore absorbent of the environment around them and what was applied to them. When housewives used natural mixtures and solutions, the infrastructure of the object was influenced by what was being applied. Fats, oils, and waxes soaked into the surfaces, often times even assisting in their preservation. Surfaces of these objects were not meant to withstand the application of chemicals used today to clean, however. The harshness of bleach, ammonia, chlorine, and sodium hydroxide found in typical cleaning products today would cause considerable damage to these delicate artifacts.
Today, spray polishes generally contain silicone, which permanently adheres to the surfaces it comes into contact with. The problem with this is that it is very difficult to remove should a piece of furniture need restoring. Polishing today has become much more vigorous than it was in previous centuries. It was conducted quite often, but polishing usually meant rubbing with something soft. The scouring pads used today to polish deeply scratch soft surfaces, such as silver, can only be removed by buffing the scratches out. This, unfortunately, removes layers of the material in the process, ultimately weakening the object (Heaver 2000).
An example of a delicate material that cannot withstand most liquid cleaning chemicals or even water is ivory, which is not uncommon in historic house museums.
Ivory is extremely porous and will absorb other substances it comes into contact with, even oils from human skin. Its porous nature makes ivory susceptible to staining from other substances. So, if an object made of ivory was set to be cleaned with a typical bottle of cleaner from the store that is used on everything, irreversible damage would be done without knowledge that it was happening (Stone 2010:2).
73
The same can be said for wooden objects, like furniture, which is very prevalent in historic house museums. Wood is a soft material and can be damaged by some cleaning techniques if they are too harsh. Due to wood’s natural soft structure, it degrades over time and with use, making older surfaces sometimes even softer than anticipated. It is also quite common for wooden objects to contain patina, traces of substances that were applied or came into contact with the surface when the object was initially first made. Some of these substances are similar to some of the housewives recipes I discussed earlier. Rather than polishing or dusting wood with typical cleaners or waxes today, similar soft cleaning techniques as historic housekeeping methods should be applied (Canadian Conservation Institute 2002:1)
Caring for Historic Houses
The Preservation Movement created the foundation of protecting the United
States’ heritage sites under local, state, and federal levels. With each new law and act that was passed, historic houses shifted from home to museum. The shift, though positive in protecting cultural heritage, changed the house’s original function. For a historic house to survive as a museum, caretakers must be responsible for preserving the site according to its new circumstances. To accomplish this, proper care of the house and its collections is vital. This means that collections care will need to extend beyond the objects and include the entire house (Merritt and Reilly 2010:3; West 1999).
First and foremost, the historic house itself must be a significant part of preservation. Not only does the house help tell half of a personal story, but it was often the main reason the museum was originally founded. It is the one artifact of all the
74 collections the museum contains that cannot be replaced. Without it, the museum would not exist, and there would be nowhere to house the collections that tell the other half of its story. To ensure a historic house’s longevity, a preventative maintenance plan for the exterior and interior should be devised. Neglected maintenance will result in greater damage or deterioration over time. A regularly planned schedule will help prevent major repairs or replacements from happening frequently, although they will most certainly be likely to happen eventually due to time and natural weather damage. Staying on top of the house’s condition by monitoring current repairs and things that will need repairing in the future will help prevent major surprise catastrophes (Merritt and Reilly 2010; National
Park Service 1998b:13:1-13:2).
A good place for a maintenance schedule to start with is room inspections, which should be conducted daily before the house opens to the public. The rooms should be inspected for signs of dust, dirt, debris, insect evidence, structural damage, object damage, or moisture. The findings from the inspection can be recorded in a log for recordkeeping (Fairfax County Park Authority Resource Management Division 2000:9).
The log should also include the dates pest control is conducted, and whether it is conducted by the staff members or by a professional exterminator (Heaver 2000;
Minnesota Historical Society Historic Housekeeping Handbook 2012). Additionally, a planned out cleaning schedule will help keep all staff members on track. Seasonal tasks should be separately defined, as weather conditions differ depending on location.
The cleaning equipment should be stored in a separate room specifically designated for all maintenance tasks. Since the house will more than likely also contain modern-day facilities, manuals indicating separate care instructions will help distinguish
75 cleaning guidelines to prevent any confusion. Restrooms, gift shops, and educational or recreation rooms can receive modern housekeeping, and should be distinguished in the housekeeping guidelines. All other historic areas should be noted as such so that the proper custodial care can be administered (Fairfax County Park Authority Resource
Management Division 2000:5; Minnesota Historical Society Historic Housekeeping
Handbook 2012:4).
In some instances, reproductions are necessary as lost, damaged, or loaned objects can provide gaps. Some objects may be more sensitive than others. In this case they can be rotated out for another suitable object. Rotating original objects still allows visitors to have a positive experience during the visit. For example, displaying the same dress for 15 years makes the costume susceptible to light damage to the textile’s fibers
(Merritt and Reilly 2010; National Park Service 1998b).
Just as the interior needs to be maintained, so does the house exterior. If it is possible, the house’s exterior should have a Historic Structure Report completed. This will create a detailed assessment of the building’s current condition and a chronology of the house’s structural history. Obtaining information about the house’s history will benefit its future life as an operating museum by documenting what repairs or replacements have be made already, what additions were made to the house over its lifetime, and what areas of concern should be addressed. Blue prints, articles, letters, official state documents, and other paperwork tied to the house’s history will give staff a better understanding of what they are dealing with and how care for the house both daily and for the long-term (Merritt and Reilly 2010).
76
Summary
The preservation movement in the United States gradually paved the way for the historic house museum. Renewed interest of the past encouraged public enthusiasm in memorializing culturally significant resources so much to the point that federally funded programs were developed to ensure their longevity. After the historic house museum was established in the sense that it is known today, the responsibility of caring for it as an object was necessary to enact in order to better prevent deterioration. The act of collections stewardship not only applied to the objects inside the house, but to the entire house as well. Although this chapter is only a brief overview of the preservation movement and the developmental history of museum collections management and care, the literature contributes to giving a basic understanding of how the theory of preventive conservation to manage the museum environment developed. The literature review on this background history can now be taken into the context of actually applying the theory of preventive conservation.
CHAPTER III
THE STUDY SITE: BIDWELL MANSION
For my research, I chose the Bidwell Mansion State Historic Park, which is located in Chico, California, in Butte County. The mansion and grounds face one of
Chico’s main streets, the Esplanade. It is walking distance from the campus of California
State University, Chico. Figure 1 displays a map of its location.
Bidwell Mansion was once home to General John and Annie Ellicott Kennedy
Bidwell. Construction of the Italianate-style mansion began in 1865, and was completed in 1868. John Bidwell’s legacy to the City of Chico and State of California is forever remembered through not only his beautiful home, but to the entire development of the
City of Chico itself and the flourishing agriculture of California.
John Bidwell
John Bidwell was born in Chautauqua County, New York, on August 5, 1819.
His father, Abram, was always in a constant state of financial and personal failure, which kept his family regularly on the move. From New York, the family moved to
Pennsylvania temporarily before finally settling in Ohio in 1831. Though Ohio is where they remained, the family moved several more times within the state. Despite the hardship of having no stability, John Bidwell managed to receive a full education, travelling to attend Kingsville Academy 300 miles away (Gillis and Magliari 2004:27-28;
Bidwell 2001). Figure 2 is a photograph of John Bidwell. 77 78
Figure 1. Bidwell Mansion’s geographic location in Chico, California. Map courtesy of the California Department of Parks and Recreation.
After briefly working as a schoolmaster, in 1839, Bidwell left Ohio and headed west. He found himself in Missouri for a short time, but soon learned of a remote, perfect, paradise on the coast of the Pacific Ocean called California through stories from locals who had made the journey. The initial excitement led over 500 people, Bidwell
79
Figure 2. Portrait of John Bidwell in 1890. Photograph courtesy of California State University Meriam Library Special Collections.
included, to form the Western Emigration Society to emigrate. First-hand accounts of
California’s dangers, however, caused nearly all original members to change their minds.
The stories did not sway Bidwell’s decision, and in May of 1841, he and a small team of wagons made the trip across the Rocky Mountains to California on the Oregon Trail
(Gillis and Magliari 2004:29-31; Bidwell 2001).
The Bidwell-Bartleson Party, as the wagon train was called, was not warmly welcomed upon their arrival. The territory was still under Mexican occupation, and home to Native American tribes. At the time, the number of settlers who had made the journey
80 was roughly about 7,000. Bidwell eventually traveled to a new developing settlement, called New Helvetia, which was headed by a German-Swiss immigrant named Johann
Augustus Sutter. Bidwell’s reliability and work ethic gained him popularity with Sutter.
He was appointed to dismantling the Russian outpost of Fort Ross, which Sutter had purchased in 1841. For 14 months, Bidwell aided in dismantling any future stake Russian settlers might have had in California (Gillis and Magliari 2004:73-74; Bidwell 2001).
Bidwell returned to New Helvetia in 1843 to assist in the construction of
Sutter’s Fort over the next four years. As Sutter’s right-hand man, Bidwell performed a variety of central roles for him, including aiding new settlers in obtaining land grants in the Sacramento Valley. During his years of scouting, Bidwell was able to map a significant portion of the valley. He and his partner, Peter Lassen, named Deer, Mill,
Pine, and Antelope creeks in what is now Tehama County. He also named Chico Creek, which would later be the location where Bidwell Mansion was built (Gillis and Magliari
2004:75; Bidwell 2001).
In 1846, the rebellious actions of John C. Fremont and Kit Carson in New
Helvetia eventually led to the outbreak of the Bear Flag Revolt and the Mexican-
American War, in which Bidwell participated as an officer. The Mexican-American War would officially end in 1848, but it ended sooner in California and Bidwell and his volunteer soldiers were discharged from military service in 1847. Afterward, he continued to work with Sutter until the two men parted ways and Bidwell moved on to begin acquiring his own land (Gillis and Magliari 2004:76-78; Bidwell 2001).
Between 1847 and 1848, Bidwell participated in the California Gold Rush and was able to obtain the fortune he needed to build his own ranch. In addition to his own
81 gold strike while prospecting in 1848, he also opened up a supply store with a friend that provided miners with the essential tools they needed to dig for gold (Gillis and Magliari
2004:116). By 1851, he was the sole owner of the Rancho del Arroyo Chico property. It totaled 14 miles, with Chico Creek forming its southern boundary. The property in its very early development is shown in Figure 3.
Figure 3. John Bidwell's Rancho Chico about 1854. Photograph courtesy of California State University Meriam Library Special Collections.
Once he was moved onto the property, construction of a two-story adobe began and would serve as his place of residence until construction of the Bidwell
Mansion was completed in 1868. Bidwell founded the city of Chico in 1860, after he bequest a site of 50 blocks and requested a town plat be designed. Citizens who volunteered to help build the community were granted free lots. He served as Chico’s
82 first head postmaster. The city was officially incorporated in 1872 (Gillis and Magliari
2004:129; Bidwell 2001; Historic Landscape Report 2002:1-2). Figure 4 displays a partial map of Rancho del Arroyo Chico in 1859.
Figure 4. Map showing the State Normal school, Deer Park, Downtown Chico, Big Chico Creek, Rancheria Lane, Bidwell Mansion, Bidwell Mill, and Indian Village. Photograph courtesy of California State University Meriam Library Special Collections.
Bidwell’s ranching efforts began with an investment in cattle and later included sheep. The prices of wool dramatically increased during the Civil War, which
83 led him to purchase a large number of expensive, high quality breeds. Although his herds were extremely successful, Bidwell also heavily invested in farming. His most successful crop was winter wheat. In 1862, Bidwell’s grain farm had become so productive that he was awarded the best grain farm in California by the state agricultural society. His wheat continued to thrive, and in 1878, it won a gold medal at the Paris International Exhibition
(Gillis and Magliari 2004:132-133; Bidwell 2001).
A born opportunist, Bidwell did not rely on only wheat, he invested in specialty crops and began experimenting. Early trips to San Rafael and San Luis Rey were made to select the best grape samples. What started out as an eight acre vineyard grew to 15,000 vines by 1857. Production of wine and brandy was a leading productive operation by 1860. The success of his vineyard would quickly come to a halt, however, the year he met his future wife, Annie Ellicott Kennedy (Gillis and Magliari 2004; 136-
137; Bidwell 2001).
In addition to working Rancho Chico, Bidwell’s distinguished reputation and accumulated wealth allowed him to pursue a career in politics. Although he was never elected governor, he did serve on the first California State Senate in 1849. In 1850 and
1860, he supervised the completion of California’s state census. He also won a seat in
Congress from 1865 to 1867. During his Congressional term, he eventually earned the position of chairman of the House of Agriculture Committee. The most successful contributions he made during his terms were aiding in the authoring and passing of the
California Land Act of 1866 and the California and Oregon Railroad Bill. Although he was not successful, Bidwell also did run for president in 1892 (Gillis and Magliari 2004;
185, 192; Bidwell 2001).
84
While in Washington D. C., Bidwell met Joseph Calm Griffith Kennedy, the director of the U.S. Census Bureau. The two became friendly enough that Kennedy eventually began inviting Bidwell to attend church and other social functions with his family. During these functions John was introduced to Annie, Joseph’s daughter, who would later become his wife (Gillis and Magliari 2004; Bidwell 2001; McDonald
2004:35).
Annie was a devout Presbyterian and prohibitionist and therefore did not drink. While wine was served to other guests during dinner parties, in order to not displease her, Bidwell began refusing it as well. When he returned to Chico a year before the two would marry, Bidwell ordered his vineyard uprooted. In its place he planned for a new crop: raisins. He was the first to harvest and market California’s first raisin crop.
Competition with other raisin farmers eventually drove him to uproot again in the 1880s.
He replaced more than half of it with fruit and nut trees. The crops Bidwell was able to produce equated to nearly every type of specialty crop associated with California agriculture’s great transition of the late nineteenth century. His orchards produced figs, olives, walnuts, cherries, almonds, apples, peaches, and a handful of other fruits
(McDonald 2004:36; Gillis and Magliari 2004:137).
To manage his estate, Bidwell divided Rancho Chico into specialized farming and “industrial” units that were supervised by resident foremen. The enormous growth the ranch displayed over its years of operation also took an equally enormous workforce that constantly increased as areas of operation expanded. Bidwell’s estate also served as a place for public enjoyment. The stress of managing his lands began taking its toll on the ranch during Bidwell’s final years (Gillis and Magliari 2004:147).
85
By 1882, exorbitant debts and the overwhelming amount of responsibilities of the ranch resulted in more authority granted to Bidwell’s foremen. Four years later, greater authority was delegated still. In 1886, Bidwell gave up direct supervision of his fields and initiated a leasing system of his land. The ranch was divided into nine units which were rented out to sharecroppers for one year leases. Whatever remaining responsibilities Bidwell had retained were given to Colonel Charles C. Royce in 1888.
Royce remained in charge of the leased units until 1914 (Gillis and Magliari 2004:147).
Beginning in 1887, to attempt to relieve some of his debt Bidwell had begun selling off parts of Rancho Chico. Despite his efforts, when he died in 1900, Annie was left with an enormous amount of debt totaling $350,000. The couple’s attorney advised
Annie to breakup and sell what was left of the ranch. She died in 1918, and by then all that was left of their estate was the mansion and surrounding grounds. Before her death,
Annie donated 2,300 acres of land to the city of Chico, which was established as Bidwell
Park (Gillis and Magliari 2004:150). Since then, the city of Chico has purchased additional land to expand the park, which now stands at more than 3,600 acres. Today it is the third largest park in California.
Annie Bidwell
Annie Ellicott Kennedy was born on June 30, 1839, in Meadville,
Pennsylvania. She was the fifth child to Joseph Camp Griffith Kennedy and Catherine
Morrison Kennedy (Neider 1964). At the age of 10, Annie and the Kennedys moved to
Washington D.C. There, she attended Madame Breshaw Burr’s School, where all schooling was conducted in French. Annie was fluent, and had a great fondness for
86
French books and the language that continued long into adulthood. She had been very well educated with the opportunity to attend the best schools available (Neider 1964).
Annie’s devotion to helping the less fortunate began at an early age, when she taught in a mission. Her religious beliefs simultaneously developed during this time and she became a member of the Presbyterian Church. She remained a devout Presbyterian for the rest of her life. Annie’s beliefs directly influenced her every-day life decisions and the causes she chose to support until her death. Her involvement in social work was also something she continued passionately. In her early twenties, she volunteered as a nurse during the Civil War (Neider 1964).
After she and John married on April 16, 1868, the couple made the long journey back to California. Upon their arrival, Annie took great interest in her husband’s business affairs. She actively assisted in helping layout his orchards, developing the new town of Chico, and involved herself in the neighboring Mechoopda Indian Racheria.
Annie built a small church in which she conducted religious instruction to local
Mechoopda who worked for John Bidwell (Neider 1964). From today’s perspective, although Annie Bidwell meant well, her good intentions were not conducive to maintaining tribal identity. The Native American perspective of Annie Bidwell’s attempt to educate local Mechoopda to Euroamerican ways is beyond the scope of this thesis; however, it is not a one-sided story of Euroamerican benevolence, as often portrayed in local mythology and history. A photograph of Annie Bidwell is shown in Figure 5.
Annie Bidwell also taught tribal members English, mathematics, cooking, and how to sew. In 1879, Annie was ordained a minister of the Presbyterian Church; and afterward performed marriages and baptisms and presided over burials. Her continuous
87
Figure 5. Portrait of Annie Bidwell in 1875. Photograph courtesy of California State University Meriam Library Special Collections.
work with the Mechoopda tribe allowed her to serve as the vice-president of the National
Woman’s Indian Association when it was founded in 1874. Annie also served as the honorary president of the Northern California Indian Association (Neider 1964). Figure 6 shows an early photograph of the mansion, posed on the porch are two couples, with a fifth person seated in the yard. A carriage can be seen parked near the mansion’s entrance.
88
Figure 6. Bidwell Mansion in 1870. Photograph courtesy of California State University Meriam Library Special Collections.
The Bidwell Mansion
The backdrop to all of these developments of John and Annie Bidwell’s lives in Chico was their home, a magnificent mansion designed and built by San Francisco architect Henry W. Cleaveland. The Victorian-era home was styled to resemble a romantic Italian Villa, with pink-tinted plaster and brown wood trimming. The tower at the top of the home was built with a hipped roof and central monitor, which acted as an air circulation aid to keep the house cool. Annie finished furnishing and decorating the interior (Historic Landscape Report 2002:2; Davis and Kimbro 1988:1). The house as it looks today is pictured in Figures 7 and 8.
89
Figure 7. The Bidwell Mansion in 2013. Photograph courtesy of the California Department of Parks and Recreation.
Figure 8. Bidwell Mansion currently. Photograph courtesy of the California Department of Parks and Recreation.
90
Not only was the house itself beautiful, but the Bidwells’ passion for nature inspired them to create a beautiful landscape as well. Planted around the house were magnolias, hydrangeas, verbena, yellow jasmine, lilies, roses, and a number of other native plant species. Today, Annie’s beloved hydrangeas still grow plentifully around the mansion. Her diary noted the landscape plants quite frequently over the years. More species that were said to have been on the property according to her entries were violets, chrysanthemums, camellias, oleander, lilacs, hyacinths, and poppies (Historic Landscape
Report 2002:2). While researching the property, I had asked one of the volunteers if she could tell me what known plants could be found on the grounds today. In addition to the hydrangeas, the landscape contained azalea bushes, privet, southern magnolia, boxwood, ferns, roses, Japanese wisteria, palm trees, day lilies, canna bulbs, thyme bush, and lavender. Annie is pictured posing with her flowers in Figures 9 and 10.
Located in the back of the house is a small building, which was used as a temporary residence for Cleaveland during the mansion’s construction. Its use afterward seems to have varied based on different reports. The building was said to have been used as a schoolroom for Annie, an office for Bidwell’s business, and a living quarter for the groundskeeper in the 1900s. At other times it was also said to have stored fruits and vegetables. Today, a reproduction carriage house is attached to it, which houses several restored carriages once belonging to the Bidwells (Historic Landscape Report 2002:13-
14). Displayed in Figure 11 is the Bidwell Mansion a few years before Annie’s death, with a portion of the veranda on the back of the house screened in.
The Bidwell Mansion remained in Annie’s name until just before her death in
1918. Before she passed, she deeded the property to the College Board of the
91
Figure 9. Annie Bidwell standing in front of the Bidwell Mansion in 1914. Photograph courtesy of California State University Meriam Library Special Collections.
Presbyterian Church with the hope that it would be used as a co-educational
Christian school. The church, however, could not afford to maintain the home because it was determined that the bequeathed endowment would not be sufficient enough to meet the operating expenses of a seminary (Carey & Co. Inc. 1999:4; Steve Feazel 1920-
1929). According to the Chico Record of 1919, a public meeting was held in town to determine the mansion’s fate. Many considerations included turning the house into an educational facility, since this had been Annie’s original wish (Feazel 1920-1929; Davis and Kimbro 1988). Roughly 27 acres of land was sold to the Chico Land Company in
92
Figure 10. Annie Bidwell standing in front of her beloved hydrangea bushes, 1916. Photograph courtesy of California State University Meriam Library Special Collections.
1920, by the College Board and the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church, leaving 10.21 acres that accompanied the house (Feazel 1920-1929). Figure 12 shows
Annie and the group of workers who built the Presbyterian Church.
On September 20, 1921, the College Board of the church deeded the Bidwell
Mansion and 10.21 acres it retained to the Trustees of the General Assembly of the
Presbyterian Church. The Assembly held a meeting in Winona Lake, Indiana on May 24,
1921, to authorize the Trustees of the Assembly to accept the deeded title and to then transfer it to the General Board of Education of the Church. Although Annie’s educational wishes had not yet been realized, the church was attempting to do all that it could to carry out her will as completely as possible (Feazel 1920-1929).
93
Figure 11. Exterior of the back of Bidwell Mansion, Nov. 9, 1914. A portion of the veranda is screened in. Photograph courtesy of California State University Meriam Library Special Collections.
By March of 1922, the Bidwell Mansion’s fate was still undecided. The possibility of selling the property was once again suggested, but before this could happen,
Charles Osenbaugh, president of the Chico State Teachers College, proposed the mansion be converted into college dormitories. Osenbaugh, along with a handful of other staff members, raised $10,000 in an attempt to buy the Bidwell property. The church agreed to the price and deeded the mansion and the 10.21 acres on August 1, 1922. By September
11, 1922, 56 female students were scheduled to move into the mansion (Feazel 1920-
1929; Carey & Co. Inc. 1999). Figures 13 and 14 show students in the mansion during its time as a dormitory.
94
Figure 12. Seated around the dining room table are Annie Bidwell and the workers who built the Presbyterian Church in 1910. Photograph courtesy of California State University Meriam Library Special Collections.
The acquisition of the Bidwell Mansion by Charles Osenbaugh did not remain in the school’s official ownership. By 1923, the title of the house and the surrounding grounds was transferred to the State of California. This did not change its use as dormitories, however, and it remained in use as such until 1935. The Depression unfortunately had a significant effect on students’ financial abilities to afford living costs.
Bidwell Hall, as the dormitories had been called, was then turned into classrooms. Its use as classrooms, and as social and club activities, continued into the 1950s (Feazel 1935;
Feazel 1950-1959).
95
Figure 13. Chico State College students sitting in the dining room at Bidwell Hall (Bidwell Mansion) in 1930. Photograph courtesy of California State University Meriam Library Special Collections.
At the same time, the Chico community began to reminisce about the Bidwell
Mansion’s historic significance. In 1953, Paul Byrne, a Chico legislator, created a report which recommended the State Park System to acquire the Bidwell Mansion (Feazel 1950-
1959). The California State Legislature responded to the report by adding Section 5073 to the Public Resource Code, which provided for the “‘preservation, development, and interpretation’ of the Mansion by the State Park Department as a ‘State Historical
Monument’” (Feazel 1957). The transfer from the college to the State Park System was not to happen, though, until the mansion was deemed no longer necessary for classroom use (Feazel 1950-1959).
96
Figure 14. Four young women seated in the kitchen of Bidwell Mansion when it was a classroom at Chico State Teachers College in 1934. Photograph courtesy of California State University Meriam Library Special Collections.
By 1963, the Bidwell Mansion was no longer being used as classrooms by the college. President Glenn Kendall announced that he was initiating plans to transfer ownership to the State Department of Parks and Recreation in May of 1963. The date of official transfer marking the mansion as a State Historical Monument was January 20,
1964. The state budget of 1964, allotted a budget of $60,000 for maintaining the mansion.
This budget allowed for a roof replacement, police and fire alarm installations, interior painting and repairs, and a complete rewiring of the building. That same year James
Neider was appointed as the Bidwell Mansion’s first ranger (Carey & Co. Inc. 1999;
Feazel 1963; Feazel 1964).
97
The Bidwell Mansion was officially dedicated as a State Historic Monument at a ceremony held on May 7, 1966. A plaque was presented to Helen Sommer Gage, a member of the then Bidwell Mansion Restoration Committee, by the State Parks
Commission, which designated the mansion as California Registered Historical
Landmark #329. In 1967, the Bidwell Mansion Restoration Association held a meeting to establish a restoration schedule for the mansion. Although a budget had not yet been set, plans to paint, rewire, carpet, restore two rooms on the first floor, build a new entrance, and establish a parking area and interpretive center were on the agenda as very necessary
(Feazel 1966; Feazel 1967). A photograph of restoration work is shown in Figure 15.
Figure 15. Bidwell Mansion being fumigated for a wood-eating beetle problem in 1965. Photograph courtesy of California State University Meriam Library Special Collections.
98
Lee Shelton served as the Bidwell Mansion’s ranger from 1970 to 1978. In
1970, when he first started, the mansion was still developing as a historic house museum.
A heating system was still in the works of being installed. The only entrance to the mansion parking lot was off of So-wee-lino Avenue (Shelton 1970-1978). The first floor was the only floor open to the public, as it was the only floor that had been recently carpeted and prepared for visitation. The second floor was still covered in dust with evidence of rodent tracks on the furniture. Furniture and artifacts meant for display were scattered throughout the rooms. Shelton’s first order of business was to undertake the organization of the artifacts and to tackle cleaning the rest of the house so that the mansion could be open on a regularly scheduled basis (Shelton 1970-1978). Pictured below in Figure 16 is a photograph of the Bidwell Mansion in 1970.
Figure 16. Bidwell Mansion, 1970. Photograph courtesy of California State University Meriam Library Special Collections.
99
By May of 1970, the Guest Bedroom, Nursery, and Alexander Room were on display on the second floor. With the help of donations due to rapidly dwindling funds, the remaining bedrooms on the second floor were cleaned and on display by September of that same year. The mansion’s progress allowed additional artifacts for display to be brought up from Sacramento (Shelton 1970-1978).
The mansion also began attracting attention from more than Chico locals.
Volunteers were soon needed to help guide guests around the house as popularity grew and more portions of the home opened up. It was no longer safe for guests to freely roam without supervision. Most of the first volunteers came from the local Women’s Club, Las
Senoras, and were local college students (Shelton 1970-1978).
Visitorship to the Bidwell Mansion was calculated to have exceeded 50,000 people in 1971. By 1972, a $.25 admission fee was charged for tours. A set guided tour by volunteers was also established. Guidelines on better security were deemed necessary because it was vital to stop the theft of artifacts (Feazel 1972). The mansion records I briefly had access to, which were accounts written by Steve Feazel in just a notebook, did not elaborate on the problem of theft. Only one sentence was recorded regarding the issue, with nothing else stated anywhere that I could find. At the time that the mansion was establishing itself as an operating historic house museum, a proper inventory was most likely not completed as the mansion was filling with objects for display. Therefore,
I do not have much information about the past events of theft at the Bidwell Mansion.
A membership drive was hosted in 1973, during an open house event.
Membership was $1.00 at the time. The mansion also began hosting other special events by local clubs who had been involved with the mansion’s restoration from the beginning.
100
The Chico Women’s Club, for example, held their first Bell Ringers concert in 1973, in which a program of 20 carols was performed (Feazel 1973).
Throughout the 1980s, restoration and repairs were made to all rooms, objects, and the architecture of the house, most of it all possible because of the generosity of donations. In 1982, a General Development Plan was written to help set guidelines for future restoration and development proposals for the mansion. A public meeting regarding the plan was hosted and well received by the city of Chico. By the summer of
1982, a plan to replace the wood Ballroom floor on the third level was voted on, with a total estimated cost of $1,800.00. It was completed in 1983 (Feazel 1982).
A history of poorly installed fire alarms finally ended in 1990, when the state
Fire Marshall approved a new, upgraded fire alarm system that included five alarm pull stations and bells throughout the home. Restoration to keep the Bidwell Mansion in its most original state has been the main objective since it became a National Historic
Monument. The continued improvements also included integrating safety codes as well.
The same year, the restoration of four veranda columns was completed. The project took six months to complete, and the majority of the work had been removing old lead-based paint (Holman 1990).
Today, the Bidwell Mansion is fully furnished to resemble how it might have looked during the period the Bidwells occupied it. It is estimated that less than 30 percent of the objects on display are original content from John and Annie Bidwell, making the majority of objects on display period pieces. After Annie’s death in 1918, when the mansion’s ownership passed to the Presbyterian Church, her personal items and belongings were dispersed to her heirs. For the time the mansion served as dormitories
101 and classrooms, any original objects that remained in the house were sent to the State
Museum (Sutter’s Fort) for safekeeping. Following the mansion’s establishment as a
State Park, an appeal was made for original and period artifacts to be returned to furnish the rooms. All of the furniture and accompanying household objects were contributed from Bidwell family members, the church, historic associations, California State
University, Chico, local Chico citizens, and museum resource centers. The items that were held at the State Museum were also returned.
Architectural Changes to the Bidwell Mansion
The Bidwell Mansion has undergone a number of changes over the last century, with most modifications having occurred as periodically needed as ownership and use of the mansion changed several times over its history. This thesis will not cover every single modification, but rather give a brief overview of some of the more significant changes. A lack of information, documentation, and dates has contributed to not being able to give a fully detailed account of all of the architectural changes the mansion has undergone.
In 1907, Annie commissioned a kitchen renovation with architect Alexander
Bryan. The idea of this renovation had been discussed with John Bidwell previously, but it was not until after his death did this proposed renovation come to light. It is suspected that the renovation was prompted by the need for more comfortable living conditions for
Annie Bidwell’s live-in servants, as the original kitchen was directly next to the laundry room. The heat generated from both rooms made the servant’s living spaces insufferable
102 during the hot summers (Davis and Kimbro 1988:7; Annie Bidwell 2002; Historic
Landscape Report 2002:13).
Construction of a new kitchen on the north east side of the mansion was to replace the original kitchen, while the original kitchen was to be converted into a dining area for the house servants. Within a year, the new kitchen and old were connected and the addition was complete. Reconstruction to the west end of the veranda destroyed from the expansion was completed afterward, and it was extended to connect flush to the wall of the new kitchen. Annie commissioned the old laundry room to be renovated into a concrete vault in 1913 (Davis and Kimbro 1988:7; Annie Bidwell 2002).
The dining room was extended in 1927. A single large room was added to the north side of the original dining room and the east side of the 1907/08 kitchen. This addition destroyed a portion of the mansion’s original wrap around veranda as well as the original dining room windows. Three windows were reused during construction, but two more were fabricated to match the original look. The newer windows, though made to match the originals as closely as possible, have slight variations in the bottom rails which give them away as being more recent if they are studied closely. A replacement veranda was built onto the new dining room (Davis and Kimbro 1988:47).
From 1922 until 1935, the mansion was converted into school dormitories.
For a time, the dormitory dining room was converted into a cooking lab. This conversion required the addition of two walls and the removal of a sink and an 1865 window. Due to the Great Depression of the 1930s, students were unable to afford the cost of living. The solution to this issue was converting the mansion into classrooms instead. In the spring semester of 1935, the Art and Home Economics Departments moved their classrooms
103 into the mansion. The Art Department was assigned the third floor because of the sky light of the Ballroom. Home economics was assigned the second floor and part of the first floor. Rooms on the first floor that were not used as teaching spaces were set aside as social spaces for students to use (Davis and Kimbro 1988:49; Feazel 1920-1929; Carey &
Co. Inc. 1999). Figure 17 shows a photograph of the mansion during its time as a dormitory.
Figure 17. Bidwell Mansion in the winter of 1922, when it was converted into a college dorm for the Normal School. Photograph courtesy of California State University Meriam Library Special Collections.
104
In 1939, when the house was used by the Chico Normal School, a men’s restroom was installed in the southeast corner of the old kitchen space. After the mansion came under the ownership of the Department of Parks and Recreation in 1965, a women’s restroom was added next to the men’s. This addition occupied most of what was left of the old, original kitchen space. In 1997, the restrooms were removed, along with the laundry room vault (Kitchen Restoration 1999:7).
Through the modifications the Bidwell Mansion has incurred over its lifetime, its interior has been considerably impacted to accommodate the growth of change, as well as use. The mansion is unique in that it did not immediately transfer from home to historic house museum as many historic houses do, but rather experienced a long period of multiuse functions. Its time as a dormitory required changes to accommodate a large number of young adult college students. The switch to operating as classrooms required further changes, especially to a room I cannot identify. This particular space, known as
Room 48, is based on documentation I was able to review. Davis and Kimbro state that
(1988:52),
this room (Room 48) has been heavily modified to make possible its conversion to an interpretive area. Flat panels and display cases block many of the wall surfaces, four windows have been obstructed, the original plaster ceiling has been covered with acoustical tiles, and the floor has been covered with commercial-grade carpeting.
Although this room may not contain all of these modifications today, it is an example of how the Bidwell Mansion’s interior has changed over time.
Sad as this may be to the historic house museum’s original integrity, without the need for a house’s use, there would be no house period. Preservation is a process that applies necessary measures to sustain a historic property’s existing form, integrity, and
105 materials (Merritt and Reilly 2010:125). Applying the concept of preventive conservation to an already existing preservation maintenance plan will prolong a property’s existence.
The Bidwell Mansion has experienced this process since the day Annie Bidwell bequeathed it. It has served as a functional space, as she wished, and it continues to today. Over 100 year later, the Bidwell Mansion is still one of Chico’s proud centerpieces.
The Bidwell Mansion’s windows were treated with protective UV film in
1981, to help safeguard valuable objects on display from harsh and damaging sunlight.
Another treatment was applied in 2004, which also included repairing and replacing broken and cracked windows. Sometime between 1980 and 1990, a heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) system was installed on the first and third floor (Walton n.d.).
A new and separate visitor’s center was built in 1993, a short distance across from the mansion. The center includes a small exhibit hall which displays a short, summarized story of the Bidwells. Annie’s original wedding shoes are on exhibit here.
The center also contains teaching classrooms for school tours, a museum store, and restrooms. All staff offices are also located in the center. Its hours of operation, which includes when tours are given, are Saturdays, Sundays, and Mondays from 11 A.M. to 5
P.M. As of 2015, the Interpretive Center is currently undergoing plans for renovation.
In 1999, the architecture firm Carey & Co. Inc. was hired to complete a kitchen restoration analysis. The ultimate goal of the restoration was to return the kitchen area, the pantry, laundry room, and storage area back to a selected period of significance.
The period of 1868 to 1900 was chosen, because that was the period when John Bidwell
106 occupied the mansion. However, for the specific purpose of the restoration, the period of significance ended in 1884 rather than 1900, because a new stove replaced the original that year (Carey & Co. 1999).
The rooms were analyzed separately in order to determine what changes had been made to these areas throughout the house’s lifetime. The walls were carefully evaluated for constructional changes so that restoration could return them to match as closely to Cleaveland’s original design as possible. A paint analysis was also conducted to chart changes made to the interior. A full restoration included returning the desired space back to its original look and interior design. The project was commissioned by the
State of California, Department of Parks and Recreation and completed in 2000 (Carey &
Co. Inc. 1999:1).
Threat of Closure
During the state budget crisis of 2011-2013, 70 California State Parks were projected to officially close by July of 2012, due to insufficient funds in the California
State budget. State funding had been estimated to be decreased by millions of dollars for
2011 and 2012/2013, resulting in the inability for California State Parks to afford to operate all of its 278 parks, some of which included museums and their collections. The
Bidwell Mansion had been selected as one of them.
When word of its impending closure reached the city of Chico, the community immediately came together in an attempt to save the mansion from closure. As a local landmark, the citizens of Chico are immensely proud of the Bidwell Mansion; therefore the threat of closure hit the community hard. In addition to staff members conducting
107 their own fundraising, the Bidwell Mansion Community Project was formed to aid in fundraising efforts. Several local businesses helped contribute to fundraising during the
2012 year. Mad Dash Pizza, Madison Bear Garden, Envee Hair Studio and Spa, and
Powell’s Sweet Shoppe all participated in contributing a portion of their proceeds through temporary specials they offered. Chico also hosted a fundraising race, calling it “Run for
Bidwell Mansion.” A total of $140,000 had been raised. In addition to what could be voluntarily raised, the state had established a $10 million matching fund. This meant that donations made would be matched by the state.
Attention to the Bidwell Mansion’s collections problems was brought to light because the museum was slated to close. To prepare for the quickly approaching deadline, the California Department of Parks and Recreation assigned Linda Walton,
Curator I of the Archaeology, History and Museums Division, to conduct a Park Closure
Inventory of the Bidwell Mansion. The inventory would account for the current condition of the Bidwell Mansion and its collections, any potential losses, and prepare for the possibility of deaccession. The inventory was conducted during the weeks of November
14-18, 2011, January 3-6, 2012, and February 19, 2012, respectively.
Unfortunately, while efforts were being taken to prevent the mansion’s closure, it was revealed that undisclosed amounts of money were being withheld within the State Parks system. News of the scandal caused an angry uproar among all
Californians, since other communities were also doing what they could to prevent the closure of other parks similar to Chico. A few officials employed with State Parks resigned after the news broke, and legislators called for a full accounting of all available funds (Hacking 2012:1).
108
Despite the newly “found” money, at the time, it was still uncertain as to whether or not Bidwell Mansion would be able to remain open, even with all the funds raised to help maintain it. The scandal left many feeling State Parks was untrustworthy.
People were concerned over what would happen to the raised money if it was turned over to be used for the mansion’s budget, since there was still no guarantee that it would keep the mansion open for tours three days a week for the next two years as the amount covered. Furthermore, there was also fear that that money would potentially end up disappearing like the other “missing” millions of the scandal had (Hacking 2012:1).
Fortunately, the overall outcome of the mansion’s uncertainty and initial uneasy feelings regarding the scandal was positive. The very public effort to save the
Bidwell Mansion combined with the poor condition of the mansion’s valuable collections discovered through the Park Closure Inventory drew attention to the museum’s significance at the California Department of Parks and Recreation. Rather than allow the mansion to close, the Park Closure Inventory was submitted as a Proposition 84 Project on July 2, 2012, which is a grant offered by the Rebuilding California State Parks
Program. The grant was officially awarded in October of 2012. The contract was finalized in July 2014, and the project is now in full swing. Professional expert curators in textiles, paper, photography, furniture, and other specialty areas are assessing the mansion’s collections and display rooms. Original records are being searched for and collected together. Unnecessary objects are also being considering for deaccessioning, so that the Bidwell Mansion can remain true to its mission.
109
Summary
The Bidwell Mansion stands as a representation of almost 150 years of
California history. John Bidwell’s arrival in California was the beginning of a legacy that influenced California’s development as a state, a powerhouse in agriculture, politics, and most importantly to the citizens of Chico, established their hometown where one of the state’s major colleges resides. Though the life of the Bidwell Mansion passed through multiple ownerships after John and Annie Bidwell died, the mansion itself never stopped providing for the community. Ownership now resides with the California Department of
Parks and Recreation and Bidwell Mansion has become the third largest state park in
California.
As the mansion’s function periodically changed to meet the needs of the
Chico community, its overall structure also experienced architectural changes. These changes were expressed in a Preliminary Historical Structure Report completed in 1988.
Ideally, a thorough understanding of a historic house museum’s collections and buildings is important to maintaining an effective preventive conservation program, however it is not always possible to obtain a complete history (Merritt and Reilly 2010:131). That said, the compilation of all possible documentation of a historic house results in a Historic
Structure Report, which is a detailed assessment of the house’s current condition. It also includes an analysis of the building’s compliance with safety codes, repair recommendations, and identifies the building’s periods of significance, to name a few themes.
The problem with the Bidwell Mansion’s Historic House Report is that it is from 1988. As of today, I am not aware of a more recent report. If one does not exist,
110 then it is imperative that one be completed in the near future, especially as the mansion undergoes the improvements of Proposition 84 Project and begins implementing the professional recommendations conservators will give once their assessments are completed. It the lack of following through with such important preventive conservation methods like this that have put the Bidwell Mansion in its current state in the first place.
CHAPTER IV
METHODOLOGY
The opportunity to work with the Bidwell Mansion for this thesis arose during its uncertain projected closure in 2012, when my name had been suggested as a potential assistant to help assess and resolve collections problem areas identified in the Park
Closure Inventory. Essentially, the inventory was the catalyst in enlightening California
State Parks staff about the mansion’s deteriorating state. This, combined with the possibility of closure and the fight the city of Chico put up to prevent it, resulted in the decision to completely assess the mansion in all its operating aspects and to determine the best way to solve its steady growing list of problems.
Linda Walton, Curator I of the Archaeology, History and Museums Division of State Parks, completed the inventory during the weeks of November 14-18, 2011,
January 3-6, 2012, and February 19, 2012. The inventory described the current state of its collections, any potential losses, and how to prepare for the possibility of deaccessions.
It specifically targeted the mansion’s most significant collections, which included textiles, baskets, books, photographs, artwork, and items once owned by John and Annie Bidwell. Collections storage was assessed for pest and mold infestations, temperature and relative humidity control, and light and heat intrusion (Walton n.d.). This chapter will cover the results of the inventory, and my role in this project. I will discuss
111 112 the methodologies I used in this study. Chapter V will discuss the data from my study and
Chapter VI will cover interpretation of the data and suggestions.
The Park Closure Inventory
According to Walton’s (n.d.) findings, a pest (insect) infestation was discovered in Annie’s Dressing Room and the Bidwell Bedroom, both located on the second floor. Evidence of dermestid beetle and moth damage was found. The Textile
Room, which stores all of the mansion’s textiles and is located on the third floor, also showed evidence of moth damage. Discoloration and shredding from uncontrolled humidity and temperature fluctuations were found on some of the most delicate objects as well. A silver fish infestation was present in the Servant’s Quarters on the second floor. A mattress and its bedding had to be removed and destroyed due to the overwhelming amount of silver fish found in it (Walton n.d.:1)
A portion of Annie’s French book collection was found to have mold damage and all affected books were removed from the library, which is located on the first floor.
As stated in Chapter II, items that are infected with mold often need to be quarantined or destroyed for fear of infecting other similar materials. At the time the survey was conducted, the books were wrapped in tissue and placed in a separate area to try and contain the mold from spreading. In addition, mice droppings were found in the library
(Walton n.d.:1). The problems did not end there.
The Bidwells had accumulated a significant collection of Native American baskets made by the Native American women who lived and worked on Rancho Chico.
The majority of the baskets had been given to Annie as gifts. Walton determined that the
113 display of the baskets needed evaluation to preserve their integrity. The baskets require a stable environment with controlled humidity, proper lighting, and proper display cases rather than having them sporadically scattered around the house. Not all baskets are on display, and many remain in collections storage. The condition of the baskets in storage also needed to be reviewed and reworked for the sake of their preservation (Walton n.d.:1).
Walton (n.d.) also inventoried the mansion’s historic photograph collection and determined the photographs needed to be stored in a climate-controlled environment with proper archival materials, such as acid-free boxes, Melinex, and acid-free paper sleeves. She advised that all photographs needed to be scanned and linked to the mansion’s collections management software program. Recording the photographs establishes an effective way to monitor the conditions of each photograph while also ensuring their preservation (Walton n.d.:2).
Based on the inventory, Walton (n.d.) decided that a cultural assessment of the entire Bidwell Mansion and its collections by a professional curatorial team was needed to determine the best solutions to address the problems. The mansion’s textile collection was advised to be prioritized, with any textiles that originally belonged to John or Annie
Bidwell being top priority. A better pest management plan needed to be developed and implemented to treat the pest problems discovered during the inventory and to also help prevent future problems from arising. The mold found in the library needed to be addressed immediately. Annie’s Native American basket collection required more attention to maintain their preservation, including their storage. According to the inventory, the entire room where they and other artifacts are kept needed to be
114 reorganized by a professional curator. The other storage rooms located throughout the mansion should also have the same reorganization recommendations made by a professional. Finally, Walton (n.d.:2) suggested that the Scope of Collections statement should be revised.
Arranging to Work at the Bidwell Mansion
In the early fall of 2012, I first spoke with Paulette Hennum, Supervisor of
Museum Services and Archives and the Archaeology, History, and Museums Division within California State Parks about the early ideas of a thesis centered on the Bidwell
Mansion. Through Paulette, I was introduced to Denise Rist, Valley Sector
Superintendent, and met with her to further discuss the details of my involvement with the mansion on September 28, 2012.
Because funding from Proposition 84, the Comprehensive Assessment and
Implementation of Treatment Recommendations, was still unconfirmed at the time, my involvement could not move forward until decisions had been made regarding the future of the assessment. During this waiting period, I further developed the plans for my thesis and what it would entail to better inform Denise and the other staff members of the type of research that I would be conducting. I had explained that the purpose of my thesis was to address common collections care problems of historic house museums, analyze the causes, and propose practical solutions based on the theory of preventative conservation.
It would use the Bidwell Mansion State Historic Park as a case study.
When funding was approved in October 2012, I was invited to attend a meeting scheduled with the project team on November 15, 2012, where my involvement
115 would be explained to all park officials included in the project. The meeting covered the project’s pre-assessment work list, which outlined the tasks that would need to be completed before any definite work could begin. It was stressed that staff members needed a clear understanding of the problems the mansion was facing in order to make the best possible decisions to correct them. The pre-assessment list detailed the importance of purchasing temperature and humidity logging equipment, the need for deaccessioning, contracting with an extermination company to perform a pest assessment, possibly contracting out to complete a property assessment, increasing housekeeping and maintenance, reworking the collections policy, and hiring textile and basket specialists and conservators to provide recommendations for object care. A budget of $50,000 was projected. The deadline of overall project completion was assigned for June 30, 2014.
I had received an outline of exactly what Proposition 84 would entail as well as the Park Closure Inventory, which had been completed by Linda Walton. The inventory accounted for the current condition of the Bidwell Mansion and its collections; this included any potential losses, and suggested preparation for the possibility of deaccessioning objects in the collections.
My research with the mansion could not begin until I had completed the
California State Park Volunteers application, which is required before being permitted to work inside the mansion. The paperwork was submitted on the day of the meeting and by
December, it was almost completely accepted. All aspects of the application were approved and signed by February 2013, and I was finally able to begin my research in correlation with the progressing work of Proposition 84, slated to begin in March 2013.
116
Conducting Research
I began the research for my thesis by first introducing myself to staff members of the Bidwell Mansion and letting them show me around the property. It was important for me to familiarize myself with the mansion and the staff as much as I could before gathering any evidence or asking to view the problem areas. As a new temporary official volunteer at the mansion, my first step was to build a relationship with everyone I would be working with. The research I needed required me to ask personal questions, view private documents, and analyze areas of the mansion that are staff-only areas. I did not expect the staff members to willingly hand me any private information without getting to know me on a personal level first.
For the months of March and April of 2013, I visited the mansion four days a week at most, typically on Mondays, Tuesdays, Wednesdays, and Thursdays. I did not want to interfere with tours during its operating hours, so all work was done before the mansion opened or after it was closed. Generally, I was able to go inside during the times that Maria Lozano, Maintenance Aid, and Nancy Arnold, Park Aid, cleaned the house.
When I was not inside the mansion working with Maria or Nancy, I was in the Visitor
Center working with Raeann Bossarte, the mansion’s State Park Interpreter I and collections manager.
The very beginning of my research started with interviewing Maria and Nancy regarding their mansion cleaning schedules in order to gain an understanding of how the housekeeping was conducted. Most of my questions about the house were usually directed to Nancy, because she was the one I was most often in the house with during my visits. She was also usually the first person I told when I discovered an issue that might
117 have been overlooked or not known about. Once she was aware of certain problems, as she cleaned the rooms she was always the first to show me anything else she had found the next morning I arrived. My time in the mansion was generally very limited, and so having their eyes open and looking for the problem areas I discussed with them daily was extremely helpful.
All questions I had concerning the collection, storage, and the objects in the house were answered by Raeann. Just as I discussed what I was finding in the mansion with Nancy and Maria, I made sure to also inform Raeann. I even had the opportunity to share with her how a UV light can be used in the detection of deterioration or chemical residues and other substances on objects, especially baskets. The Heritage Resources
Conservation Laboratory (HRCL) in the Department of Anthropology at California State
University, Chico, owns one, and I was permitted to bring it to the mansion for a demonstration. Raeann and I scanned a few of Annie’s Native American baskets together as an example, as well as the Kitchen, Laundry Room, and Basement. UV lamps can also be helpful in detecting rat and mice urine trails on floors, walls, and shelves.
Twelve EL-USB-2 data loggers were installed throughout the house in early
February 2013, to help identify temperature and humidity fluctuations. Improper environmental control is an issue the Bidwell Mansion needed to address, and the loggers were brought in to help give staff members a better understanding of its environment.
Erratic fluctuations have a direct effect on material degradation (Image Permanence
Institute 2012) and can result in mechanical damage to objects, mold and mildew growth, natural aging, and metal corrosion, as discussed in Chapter II of this thesis.
118
The data loggers are portable USB’s which I collected at the end of February,
March, and April to retrieve the logged temperature and humidity readings for the corresponding months. Each collection day, Raeann and I would gather the USB’s from the mansion and load the information into the Visitor’s Center’s computer system. A graph which charted an overall average of the entire month for all three months was printed for all 12 rooms. We did not want to keep the data loggers out of the rooms for too long to disrupt any of the recording, so our retrieval, loading, saving, and printing of the information was completed in a timely manner.
The rooms that contain data loggers on the first floor are the Library, which contains two instruments; the Drawing Room; and the Dining Room. The rooms that contain data loggers on the second floor are the Alexander Bedroom, the Bidwell’s
Bedroom, the VIP Bedroom, and the Servant’s Bedroom. The rooms that contain data loggers on the third floor are the Ballroom, Room Five, Room Eigh,; and the Textile
Room.
The second step I took in researching the Bidwell Mansion’s environmental conditions was recording the amount of light exposure the house was experiencing by using a handheld General 3 Range Digital Light Meter. Light exposure can come from two sources: sunlight, or ultraviolet radiation (UV), and visual, which can be produced by candles, oil or gas lamps, fluorescent and halogen lamps, or flash photography. Radiation from constant light, especially UV light, on objects’ surfaces can create enough energy to induce chemical changes to occur in the material. These changes can lead to fading, loss of strength, and brittleness. Because the mansion was built with a significant number of large windows to accommodate heat and light, the objects on display are susceptible to
119 relentless UV light exposure. Every day I visited the mansion I walked through the house and recorded light readings for nearly every room that contained windows, including the stairwell.
The rooms on the first floor I recorded included the Library, Dining Room,
Drawing Room, and John’s Office. The rooms on the second floor I recorded included
Bidwell’s Bedroom, Annie’s Dressing Room, Guest Bedroom, Nursery, Alexander
Bedroom, VIP Bedroom, the Cook’s Bedroom, and the Maid’s Bedroom. The rooms on the third floor I recorded included the Ballroom, Room One, John’s Office upstairs,
Room Three, and Room Eight. All readings were recorded in both lux and footcandles.
While taking my readings I also took the time to inspect each room for issues.
Once a week I checked and recorded the sticky bug traps set in each room. I recorded all of my light readings and bug trap analyses in a log during each visit. The day I was permitted to bring the conservation lab’s UV light to the mansion, I also used it to investigate the first floor and basement for rodent evidence. Raeann and I scanned the entire kitchen and laundry room first, and then used the light in the basement. The time we spent scanning the basement shelving was the only time I was allowed to examine that room.
The basement, at the time I conducted my research, was where past documents of the Bidwell Mansion’s history were kept. On February 7, 2013, I was allowed to go through what records were able to be found in the storage boxes kept down in the basement. The records I reviewed included a few binders of past District
Superintendent’s Monthly Reports, mostly dating from the 1980s and 1990s. Another binder I looked through was called, “Bidwell Mansion State Historic Park Unit History,”
120 which summarized events of the mansion’s history from the 1920s through the 1980s.
February 7, was the only day I was able to look through these records.
Since my time with these records was limited, note-taking and photographs were the only ways to take the information with me so I could write about it accurately in this thesis. I also employed the use of note-taking whenever I was inside the mansion or speaking with someone. Every day I was in the mansion my experience was different, whether it was from the weather, issues that were being investigated, or if I was asking questions. It was the only way to organize such a large amount of information.
I was not permitted to take casual photography whenever I wanted inside the mansion, but I was permitted to take photographs of certain damaged objects to demonstrate the points I was trying to make about environmental control. Each object I wanted to photograph was first discussed with the staff and then approved for use. These photographs will be featured in Chapter V.
Only so much information could be gathered from the Bidwell Mansion itself.
To help try and put together the rest of the mansion’s historical story, I had to rely on other sources. The Special Collections department of the Meriam Library at CSU, Chico was helpful in providing me with original historic photographs of the Bidwell Mansion through time, as well as original paperwork regarding the mansion’s degrees of ownership. Special Collections also had a number of maps and blue prints of the mansion to look at, though most had not yet been scanned into their computer system which would have allowed me to incorporate the images into this thesis. Nonetheless, the images were still beneficial to see the development of the mansion.
121
Forming Relationships
I would like to acknowledge that the staff members of the Bidwell Mansion could not have been more gracious or accommodating during the two months that I visited nearly every day. Their staff team consists of just a handful of people with twice the amount of responsibilities to undertake. A historic house museum requires an enormous amount of effort and energy to ensure that it is maintained properly, so every staff member or volunteer is almost always overloaded with work. On top of regularly caring for the house, hosting tours, and preparing for the Comprehensive Assessment of
Proposition 84 to help restore the mansion’s overall condition, they all took the time to not only educate me as best they could on the mansion’s history and their maintenance routines, but they also came to know me on a personal level as well.
I did not feel like a stranger intruding on their busy schedules while I conducted my inspections. In fact, Nancy and Maria, whom I worked with the most, became my second and third pair of eyes. During each visit I explained exactly what I was doing or looking for, the reasoning behind it, and what could be done to help resolve the problem in the future. Nancy, whom I often spoke with the most, would take everything I said very seriously and if anything else was found during her working hours, she would be sure to alert me the following morning. The research I conducted was definitely a team effort as Nancy, Raeann, and Maria learned more and more of my intentions as the weeks passed and I of their daily work routines.
122
Housekeeping Schedules
The Bidwell Mansion’s housekeeping is managed by Nancy and Maria. I spoke with each of them separately regarding their cleaning schedules to gain an idea of the types of tasks that were performed. Originally, cleaning directions came from a previously decided cleaning schedule, but they made their own decisions. Maria explained that different tasks were designated on particular days. As a broad overview, she said that vacuuming and sweeping was done on Wednesdays, dusting was done on
Thursdays and Fridays, and extra vacuuming and sweeping was done on Saturdays if necessary right before tours. During a shift, one floor is cleaned at a time.
Maria explained that dusting was previously done using distilled water, but now everything is dry dusted with very soft cloths. The stairs and stair rail are cleaned once a week, and waxed once a year with Renaissance wax. All upholstery is vacuumed once a month using a HEPA filter vacuum and placing a small screen over the suction area as a buffer. All windows are cleaned at least once a month with ammonia and water using a squeegee. Window curtains are taken care of once a year, at least, but it is a difficult task to consistently undertake if there is no extra help.
In the bedrooms upstairs, Maria explained that all of the bedding is no longer treated. It was previously occasionally shaken, but now nothing is really done as she was not sure what to do. Dusting of furniture in the bedrooms is done carefully, since bed headboards and mirrors are fragile and a number of small objects decorate the tables, stands, and dressers. She stressed it was important to be mindful of the little things when cleaning, because damage could easily be inflicted by rough dusting or careless
123 vacuuming. Several tables and stands are decorated with lace doilies, and those are all washed once a year by hand with soap.
When I spoke with Nancy about her responsibilities, she explained that she and Maria worked as a team. If they were not working together, Nancy would pick up wherever Maria left off during her next shift. Nancy further described more of their housekeeping regimen by explaining that the kitchen area and bathrooms, Maid’s Room, and Cook’s Room on the second floor are mopped with water. In addition to regular dusting throughout the rooms, high places and corners and objects displayed up high are dusted once a month. All room closets are cleaned a few times a year by removing all contents and wiping each object down.
Maintenance is not limited to just the inside of the Bidwell Mansion. Nancy and Maria are both responsible for cleaning the outside as well as maintaining the property. There were several times when I would come to do my light meter recordings and both were outside tending to windows or the veranda.
I asked Nancy how pest control was handled, since the Park Closure Inventory addressed a few pest issues in some areas of the house. An exterminator from Terminix sets sticky traps throughout the house and checks them once a month, and has set mouse traps in the basement. The property is routinely sprayed as well, and if there is a problem, then the inside is also treated. Currently, in 2015, I am not aware if this routine has changed as Proposition 84 is being fulfilled.
While I did my walk-through inspections for light meter readings, once a week I would also check the bug traps. I found 13 traps. The rooms that contained traps were the Library, the Drawing Room, the Bidwell’s Bedroom, Annie’s Dressing Room,
124 the Guest Bedroom, the Nursery, the Alexander Bedroom, the VIP Bedroom, the Cook’s
Bedroom, the Maid’s Bedroom, John’s Office upstairs, Room Five, and Room Eight.
A number of other pest problems have been recorded in the mansion’s past that staff members are mindful of, because some are reoccurring. During the time of my research, spring of 2013, I was told that there had been two ladybug infestations within the last couple of months on the third floor, mostly concentrated by the stairwell to the roof tower. They were found scattered throughout the house as well, though not as numerous, near windows trying to escape. I was there during what was probably the second infestation, and would routinely come across a number of them on the third floor dead or dying on the stairs to the tower. I recall Nancy and Raeann collecting them as we went through the house.
Bees have been a past problem. The last time they were a problem, it took six exterminating attempts to completely eradicate the hives. Two years ago bats were a problem in the third floor tower. Quite a few had nested in the tower and occasionally they would fly through the house. On the very last day I recorded light meter readings, I noticed a woodpecker making a nest on the house. The woodpecker’s pecking on the wooden roof first drew my attention to the window in the Alexander Bedroom, which is how I eventually spotted the bird. I was told that woodpeckers have been a problem and regardless of how many times the nests are removed and the holes patched, they keep coming back to nest. This is because woodpeckers like small cavities and the house’s decorative wood structures resemble a tree.
125
Summary
This chapter provided an overview of how my involvement with the Bidwell
Mansion for my thesis evolved and an outline of the methods used for my research. There were many components to the development of this thesis, none of which would have been possible without the relationships I formed with all of those that are so dedicatedly involved with the Bidwell Mansion. Though I was able to conduct research of the mansion on my own, I would not have been able to gather a more complete story of its history from scholarly resources alone. Being granted permission to work as a volunteer alongside the mansion’s employed staff gave my thesis a very personal perspective. It has made the struggle that historic house museums are facing tangible, as opposed to simply reading about their plight in articles or books. The data and results of my research will be discussed in further details in Chapters V and VI, with the objective of helping the
Bidwell Mansion, and other historic house museums like it, understand how to take control of their troubled situations.
CHAPTER V
DATA, ANALYSIS, AND
INTERPRETATION
This chapter presents the results of the data I collected at the Bidwell Mansion and its collections from February through April, 2013. Each section will separately evaluate the findings I obtained from the data loggers, light readings, insect traps, and the results of the UV light inspections. The data is then analyzed and interpreted as to what it reveals about the state of the Bidwell Mansion’s overall “health” in terms of its collections and the house itself as a historic house museum.
Data Collected from the Data Loggers
The installation of the 12 EL-USB-2 data loggers throughout the Bidwell
Mansion was to begin helping staff members understand what kind of environment they were dealing with inside the house. With only the first and third floors containing an
HVAC system, the second floor is left susceptible to the constant fluctuations of temperature and humidity levels for a good portion of the year. Portable cooling units are installed on the second floor in late May and removed in October. They are manually operated, so they mainly only run on the days the mansion is open. On occasion, staff will turn the cooling units on when cleaning. When they are not on, the second floor becomes very hot during the summer months into early fall, in a city where the temperatures can reach three digits. 126 127
The data loggers were installed in early February 2013, and I was able to collect readings for that month, March, and April. On the first floor data loggers were installed in the Library, which contains two loggers, as well as the Drawing and Dining
Rooms. On the second floor, data loggers were installed in the Alexander Bedroom, the
Bidwell’s Bedroom, VIP Bedroom, and Servant’s Bedroom. On the third floor, data loggers were installed in the Ballroom, Room Five, Room Eight, and Textile Room, which is a storage room. The data loggers were all discretely placed out of guests’ views, usually behind doors, bed boards, or furniture.
Before discussing the graph readings, it is important to address how to use collected environmental data to manage the environment for preservation. Examining the graphs of February, March, and April will only show that the temperature, humidity, and dew point levels are inconsistent, therefore the data is left up to interpretation (Image
Permanence Institute 2012).
The Image Permanence Institute (IPI) (2012:54) has conducted numerous studies that analyze the risk of material decay. Their studies consistently observed that heat and humidity were generally the primary causes for most forms of object decay. To help users interpret the data, IPI developed Preservation Metrics, which are based on computer-generated algorithms that operate on temperature and RH data.
Preservation Metrics takes collected temperature and relative humidity (RH) data and converts it into “quantitative numerical measures of collection decay risk”
(Image Permanence Institute 2012:54). These metric guidelines correspond with a number of different risks. They include chemical changes in organic objects, dimensional change or mechanical damage, the potential for biological decay or mold risk, and
128 moisture-induced corrosion. Each of these separate metrics evaluates the quality of an environment during a specific time period. A single value is calculated representing the degree of risk based on a particular form of decay. To apply the metrics effectively, an understanding of what forms of deterioration they address is necessary, as well as what the numeric values mean in regard to the overall preservation quality of the collections area (Image Permanence Institute 2012:54).
The Image Permanence Institute (2012:54) explains that the metrics were developed “to provide quick, automated analysis of environmentally-induced decay.”
They enable accurate determination of “how well each storage area is performing for collection preservation, how well one environment is performing compared to another, and how various collection materials are faring in a particular location” (Image
Permanence Institute 2012:54).
Ideally, data collection should be conducted over a 12-month period when trying to analyze the environment of a museum or historic house. Although I was only able to gather evidence for three months for the Bidwell Mansion, I will still use it as an example in the following paragraphs to demonstrate my point. A collection spanning a full year, however, will provide a better perspective of what a museum typically experiences throughout the seasons. It will include cool autumns, cold winters, and hot summers, all of which will have a different effect on environments that are not climate controlled.
Chemical damage puts objects made of organic materials at risk. This includes objects such as paper, wood, textiles, leather, or dyes, as well as inorganic materials like metals. Excess air and moisture can influence the rate chemical damage occurs, which
129 means that temperature and RH are major factors in this type of deterioration. During the warmer months, moisture is more often present and causes faster deterioration. Cooler and drier months have less moisture, so deterioration is slower (Image Permanence
Institute 2012:55). To account for these shifts, IPI created values for every possible temperature and RH combination an environment can express, called the Preservation
Index (PI). Preservation Index values articulate the preservation quality of an environment expressed in units of years, giving a general overview of how long it would take organic materials to display signs of deterioration. The higher the PI, the longer it will take for deterioration to occur (Image Permanence Institute 2012:55; Nishimura
2007:4).
This means, for example, that if color photographs are in a collections storage area at room temperature and moderate RH, then in about 50 years deterioration would be expected to be present. The reason for this is because that is generally the length of time it takes before deterioration occurs under those environmental conditions. If a storage area has a PI of 100 years for similar objects, rather than 50, then the length of time before deterioration set in would be longer. This is because the environment would be more “ideal” in that situation (Nishimura 2007:4).
To account for the warmer and cooler months and how PI data averages for these periods of fluctuation, the unit of time it takes for decay to occur needs to be properly “weighted.” The number yielded from that data can determine the average rate of deterioration for the corresponding time period, which is one of IPI’s first set of preservation metrics. This makes the Time-Weighted Preservation Index (TWPI) the most useful unit for chemical decay (Image Permanence Institute 2012:53). Preservation
130
Index values give a general idea regarding the length of time an object would expect to exhibit significant deterioration, assuming fluctuations did not occur. Realistically, however, nearly every storage environment will experience changes or fluctuations. What
TWPI calculations provide is an “average PI” for situations where temperature and RH vary over time (Nishimura 2007:4).
The Time-Weighted Preservation Index can be applied to all organic materials. It is especially significant metric to use for book and document collections, which means it is important to examine regarding the Bidwell Mansion’s first floor. The first floor is where the Library is located. It contains more than 500 books (Nishimura
2007; Image Permanence Institute 2012).
The TWPI values for chemical decay, or natural aging, based on the IPI’s
(2012) Preservation Index are demonstrated in Table 1.
Table 1. TWPI values for chemical decay.
TWPI > 75 Good – slow rate of chemical decay in organic materials
TWPI 45 – 75 OK – generally OK but fast decaying organic materials will be at elevated risk TWPI < 45 Risk – accelerated rate of chemical decay in organic materials especially for fast decaying organic materials
Source: Adapted from Image Permanence Institute, 2012, IPI’s Guide to: Sustainable Preservation Practices for Managing Storage Environments. Rochester, NY: Image Permanence Institute.
Mechanical damage occurs when objects undergo physical changes.
Collections vulnerable to this damage include organic materials. Books, paintings, furniture, and musical instruments are all highly sensitive hygroscopic objects; meaning
131 they absorb moisture. Most objects made of wood are particularly vulnerable, prone to warping and cracking. The culprit for mechanical damage is mainly dependent on RH
(Image Permanence Institute 2012:56.)
The IPI modeled its metrics for this type of deterioration after considering a hypothetical block of wood. The issues which helped determine the metrics were degrees of wetness, from waterlogged to damp; noting a major difference between the two extremes. To establish ultimate dryness and wetness, IPI used an estimate of the moisture content of the wood from temperature and RH data collected from the environment. The estimate of moisture of the wood was expressed as Percent Equilibrium Moisture Content
(%EMC). It is the percent of water weight in the wood (Image Permanence Institute
2012:56).
To calculate the extent of the extremes, IPI estimates the difference in moisture context based on how much change in size the object experiences. The greatest value in how dry an object becomes is expressed as the minimum %EMC. The greatest value in how damp an object becomes is expressed by the maximum %EMC. The difference in size from expansions and contractions is the Percent Dimensional Change
(%DC) (Image Permanence Institute 2012:56). Table 2 is based on IPI’s (2012:56) estimates of the metrics for mechanical damage.
One of the most common forms of biological decay is mold and mildew growth. Again, most objects made of organic materials, such as paper, wood, leather and animal skins, and textiles, are vulnerable to this risk. To develop a metric for biological decay, IPI first needed data from environmental conditions that promoted mold and mildew growth, as well as the risk of pest infestation. The metric to measure this growth
132
Table 2. Mechanical damage values based on dimensional change.
Min EMC ≥ 5% Good – minimal risk of physical damage; not too AND Max EMC ≤ 12.5% dry or too damp, and almost no fluctuation AND %DC ≤ 0.5% between the two.
Min EMC ≥ 5% OK – not too dry or too damp and minimal AND Max EMC ≤ 12.5% fluctuation between the two, however sensitive AND 0.5% < %DC ≤ 1.5% material may be at a higher risk.
Min EMC < 5% Risk – heightened risk of physical damage; OR Max EMC > 12.5% either too dry, too damp, or too much OR %DC < 0.5% fluctuation between the two OR %DC > 1.5%
Source: Adapted from Image Permanence Institute, 2012, IPI’s Guide to: Sustainable Preservation Practices for Managing Storage Environments. Rochester, NY: Image Permanence Institute.
was called the Mold Risk Factor (MRF,) and the equation to calculate it was created by a microbiologist. Testing was conducted by tracking the dry weight gain and aflatoxin production in several mold colonies in environments with different temperature and humidity conditions. The model demonstrates that there is an optimum temperature for mold growth. As the environment becomes warmer or colder, growth slows. An optimum temperature regarding the least amount of water required for growth was also discovered, which shows that as the temperature rises or falls, the minimum RH required for growth increases (Image Permanence Institute 2012:57; Nishimura 2007:6).
The difference between this metric and the others is that there is no “OK” rating that puts objects in the middle. There are only two options: potential for growth or no potential for growth. Knowing whether or not there is a risk of mold growth can help museum staff members address the issue before an outbreak can occur (Image
Permanence Institute 2012:57). The MRF values are demonstrated in Table 3.
133
Table 3. Mold risk factor values.
MRF ≤ 0.5 Good – little or no risk of mold growth
MRF > 0.5 Risk – environment with mold spoers have germinated, entering a vegetative mold state and visible mold could be actively growing
Source: Adapted from Image Permanence Institute, 2012, IPI’s Guide to: Sustainable Preservation Practices for Managing Storage Environments. Rochester, NY: Image Permanence Institute.
Metal corrosion affects objects made of metal or containing metal components. Objects highly sensitive to corrosion are those from archaeological sites, or salt-encrusted materials, especially those found underwater; however, less noble metals like iron can corrode quite easily when exposed to atmospheric moisture. The metric IPI designed to detect this type of decay risk represents the degree of the environmental conditions likely to promote moisture-induced corrosion. Temperature and RH are major factors in whether or not there is risk. This metric also uses Max EMC, which is excessive dampness (Image Permanence Institute 2012:58). Table 4 exhibits the levels.
Table 4. Metal corrosion risk values.
Max EMC ≤ 7.0 Good – minimal risk of corrosion due to excessive dampness 7.1 ≤ Max EMC ≤10.5 OK – limited risk of excessive dampness; however sensitive material may be at higher risk
Mac EMX > 10.5 Risk – risk of corrosion due to extended periods of dampness
Source: Adapted from Image Permanence Institute, 2012, IPI’s Guide to: Sustainable Preservation Practices for Managing Storage Environments. Rochester, NY: Image Permanence Institute.
134
Applying these metrics to collected data, let alone calculating the data necessary to apply the metrics, can be extremely overwhelming and difficult for many, especially smaller institutions that do not have a team of museum professionals. The first step to using IPI’s methods for analyzing collections environments is of course to collect data. If the data is there, then IPI has made it fairly easy for everyone to access the information needed to analyze it. The Image Permanence Institute created a website, known as the eClimateNotebook, which can be accessed here https://www.imagepermanenceinstitute.org/environmental- management/eclimatenotebook (Image Permanence Institute 2012).
The website offers three levels of access after signing up. Environmental data collected through data loggers can be uploaded into the eClimateNotebook, as long as they are compatible with the program, and it is automatically calculated based on the metrics described above. The information is then compared with the Good, OK, and Risk ratings, giving museum staff members an idea of their collections environment and whether or not the preservation quality is in jeopardy or not. I could not try out this method personally, because I do not have access to the Bidwell Mansion’s data logger computer system to upload the necessary data the website requires. Instead, I created my own graphs and tables with the information I gathered and used IPI’s Dew Point
Calculator, which can be accessed here http://www.dpcalc.org/ (Image Permanence
Institute 2012). The Dew Point Calculator is a free calculator that measures different combinations of temperature, RH, and dew point levels and the effects they can have on objects in the environment. The calculator uses IPI’s Preservation Metrics to run the calculations. The graphs I created are discussed in the following sections of this chapter.
135
eClimateNotebook offers a Free level, best suited for smaller museums and limited resources. This level compares up to three locations on graphs, environmental data, Preservation Metrics, and Statistics tables. The following levels all contain a yearly subscription fee. Next, are Basic Level and Basic Plus. These are best designed for small- to medium-size museums. All features from the Free level are included, as well as automated reports and the ability to import data from a wide range of commonly used data loggers. Basic allows 10 locations to be compared and Basic Plus allows 25 locations. The highest levels are Professional and Professional Plus. These are best suited for medium to large museums. The same features as the Free and Basic levels are included, as well as a number of other features such as incorporating floor plans and photographs, and noting incidents. The Professional Level allows up to 50 locations to be monitored and the Professional Plus has an unlimited number of locations
(eClimateNotebook 2015).
For the sake of providing examples of the environment in the mansion, I selected five dates from each of the three months I was able to collect temperature and
RH data from one room on each floor. For each day, I selected five different times throughout the day to help illustrate how temperature and RH can change over the course of one day. Because I could not use the eClimate Notebook, I provided a graph of this information alongside a corresponding table which uses the IPI’s Preservation Evaluation chart calculated through their Dew Point Calculator to demonstrate the risks that were created from the environment.
136
Temperature and Relative Humidity, February 2013
Based on Figure 18, the environment of the Bidwell Mansion’s Library during the month of February was relatively stable. The mold problem that had affected some of the books during the Closure Inventory was indeed caused by uncontrolled temperature and RH levels, but for February of 2013, the dates I have excerpted show that there was no sign of mold risk.
Figure 18. Bidwell Mansion Library February 2013 Graph of Temperature, RH, and Dew Point.
The higher the humidity, the more moisture there is in the air, which will promote the growth of mold. High RH levels combined with high temperatures create an appropriate environment for present mold spores to multiply. The average RH level based on the graph in Figure 2 is about 35 percent, and the average temperature is 67 degrees
137
Fahrenheit. In order for mold to be a risk factor, RH levels would have had to have reached 70 degrees or higher. At that point, however, all other types of object damage would also have been at risk, due to the fact that relative humidity is the most influential aspect of chemical damage.
The risk of chemical damage was relatively balanced for February. The excerpts I took from the month were only slightly above a “Good” rating, based on the
IPI Preservation Evaluation rankings on the Dew Point Calculator. Table 1 indicates all calculated “Good” ratings, where RH levels are below 35 percent. The levels that were actually recorded were slightly above 35 percent, but not high enough to have warranted risk. Temperatures in the low 70s are not ideal, but not completely risk threatening.
However, should the temperature have risen above 75 degrees Fahrenheit, despite a RH of 35 percent, there would have been a risk of chemical damage. A five degree difference does not seem like much, but in terms of preservation and risk of metal oxidation, pigment fading, and basketry to become brittle, five degrees can turn a hospitable environment into an inhospitable environment over a sustained period.
Temperatures and RH levels that fluctuate uncontrollably can cause stress on materials, resulting in mechanical damage. According to the IPI’s Preservation
Evaluation ranking system, a temperature above 77 degrees Fahrenheit or an RH reading below 23 percent puts objects at risk for mechanical damage. While both temperatures and RH levels were relatively consistent for February, February is only one month. As the seasons change to spring and summer, temperature and RH levels are most certainly expected to increase. Table 5 provides a summary for the month of February for environmental conditions at the Bidwell Mansion.
138
Table 5. Bidwell Mansion library February 2013 table of deterioration risks.
Chemical Mechanical Mold Metal Date Damage Damage Risk Corrosion 2/1/2013 OK OK GOOD OK 2/10/2013 GOOD OK GOOD GOOD 2/16/2013 OK OK GOOD OK 2/22/2013 GOOD OK GOOD GOOD 2/28/2013 OK OK GOOD OK
The other two rooms I selected as examples were the Bidwell’s Bedroom on the second floor, historically significant because it was John and Annie Bidwell’s bedroom, and the Textile Room on the third floor, which was designated as a storage area. Temperature and RH levels were recorded on the same dates and times as they were for the Library. Figures 19 and 20, and Tables 6 and 7 demonstrate the data discussed below.
Throughout the month of February, temperatures and RH levels all varied within 10 degrees of each other throughout the three floors, but in general all stayed between 60 and 70 degrees. The coolest room of the three was the Textile Room on the third floor. The warmest was the Bidwell’s Bedroom, since three out of the five excerpted days had higher temperatures than the Library on the first floor.
The RH levels for the Bidwell’s Bedroom and Textile Room were all similar, with slight variations ranging from 32 percent to 41 percent. With these percentages, the moisture levels were moderate. Relative humidity levels were slightly higher in the
Textile Room compared to the Library and Bidwell’s Bedroom, however. The average
RH level was 38 percent, whereas in the Library and Bidwell’s Bedroom it was 4 degrees less at 34 percent. Due to the fact that delicate and fragile textiles are constantly stored in
139
Figure 19. Bidwell Mansion Bidwell’s bedroom February 2013 graph of temperature, RH, and dew point.
Figure 20. Bidwell Mansion textile room February 2013 graph of temperature, RH, and dew point.
140
Table 6. Bidwell Mansion Bidwell’s bedroom February 2013 table of deterioration risks.
Chemical Mechanical Mold Metal Date Damage Damage Risk Corrosion 2/1/2013 OK OK GOOD OK 2/10/2013 GOOD GOOD OK GOOD 2/16/2013 OK OK GOOD OK 2/22/2013 OK OK GOOD GOOD 2/28/2013 OK OK GOOD GOOD
Table 7. Bidwell Mansion textile room February 2013 table of deterioration risks.
Chemical Mechanical Mold Metal Date Damage Damage Risk Corrosion 2/1/2013 OK OK GOOD OK 2/10/2013 GOOD OK GOOD GOOD 2/16/2013 OK OK GOOD OK 2/22/2013 GOOD OK GOOD OK 2/28/2013 OK OK GOOD OK
this room, the higher humidity levels are something to pay attention to as the seasons change.
Similarly to the Library, the Bidwell’s Bedroom and the Textile Room were not at risk of a mold outbreak for the month of February. The risks of mechanical damage or metal corrosion were also not of concern.
Temperature and Relative Humidity, March 2013
For the month of March 2013, I followed the same pattern as for February
2013. The only difference is the days selected. There are more calendar days in March, so
141 the excerpted days were spaced out a little more to accommodate that. Figures 21-23, and
Tables 8-10 demonstrate the data for this month. Temperatures for March were steady
Figure 21. Bidwell Mansion library March 2013 graph of temperature, RH, and dew point.
and varied between eight degrees. The coolest room was the Textile Room, with an average temperature of 66 degrees. The warmest room was the Bidwell’s Bedroom, with an average temperature of about 69 degrees. Relative humidity levels for March were less fixed than February, and varied between 31 percent at the lowest and 47 percent at the highest. The Library had the highest average of 41 percent. The Bidwell’s Bedroom had the lowest, at 38 percent. Variations like this are what collections storage areas want to try to avoid.
142
Figure 22. Bidwell Mansion Bidwell’s bedroom March 2013 graph of temperature, RH, and dew point.
Figure 23. Bidwell Mansion textile room March 2013 graph of temperature, RH, and dew point.
143
Table 8. Bidwell Mansion library March 2013 table of deterioration risks.
Chemical Mechanical Mold Metal Date Damage Damage Risk Corrosion 3/1/2013 GOOD OK GOOD OK 3/09/2013 OK OK GOOD OK 3/15/2013 OK OK GOOD OK 3/22/2013 OK OK GOOD GOOD 3/31/2013 RISK OK GOOD OK
Table 9. Bidwell Mansion Bidwell’s bedroom March 2013 table of deterioration risks.
Chemical Mechanical Mold Metal Date Damage Damage Risk Corrosion 3/1/2013 GOOD OK GOOD OK 3/09/2013 GOOD OK GOOD OK 3/15/2013 RISK OK GOOD OK 3/22/2013 OK OK GOOD GOOD 3/31/2013 RISK OK GOOD OK
Table 10. Bidwell Mansion textile room March 2013 table of deterioration risks.
Chemical Mechanical Mold Metal Date Damage Damage Risk Corrosion 3/1/2013 OK OK GOOD OK 3/09/2013 GOOD OK GOOD OK 3/15/2013 OK OK GOOD OK 3/22/2013 GOOD OK GOOD OK 3/31/2013 OK OK GOOD OK
144
Although most of the rankings based on the IPI’s Preservation Evaluation chart were in the “Good” and “Ok” ratings, there were three “Risk” ratings for Chemical
Damage. The “Risk” ratings came from temperature and RH levels being too high. The highest rating was on March 31, in the Library, with an RH level of 52 percent. The second and third “Risk” ratings came from the Bidwell’s Bedroom, on March 15, and
March 31 respectively. Both the temperature and RH were elevated on each day. On
March 15 and 31, the temperature was 71 degrees, while the RH levels were 43 percent and 47 percent respectively.
The danger with a “Risk” rating for Chemical Damage in the Library pertains to the entire room, as the Bidwell’s extensive collection of books fills every shelf. Mold was already recorded as a problem during the park Closure Inventory, which means that the potential for the outbreak to spread or start back up is a possibility if moisture levels become too high and the mold already present is not contained and treated.
The other two “Risk” ratings in the Bidwell’s Bedroom were from both high temperatures and high RH levels. Mold was not discovered to be a problem here in the
Inventory, but there are original pieces of John’s furniture displayed in the room and original painted portraits. The Bedroom also connects to Annie’s Dressing room, where a significant number of Annie’s personal items and clothing are on display.
Temperature and Relative Humidity, April 2013
The last month I collected temperature and RH information for was April, following the same pattern as for February and March. The only difference was again the days selected. There are more calendar days in April, so the excerpted days were spaced
145 out to account for the recording data. Tables 11-13, and Figures 24-26 display the data I collected for April.
Table 11. Bidwell Mansion library April 2013 table of deterioration risks.
Chemical Mechanical Mold Metal Date Damage Damage Risk Corrosion 4/1/2013 RISK OK GOOD OK 4/08/2013 OK OK GOOD OK 4/15/2013 OK OK GOOD GOOD 4/23/2013 OK OK GOOD GOOD 4/30/2013 OK OK GOOD GOOD
Table 12. Bidwell Mansion Bidwell’s bedroom April 2013 table of deterioration risks.
Chemical Mechanical Mold Metal Date Damage Damage Risk Corrosion 4/1/2013 RISK OK GOOD OK 4/08/2013 OK OK GOOD OK 4/15/2013 OK OK GOOD GOOD 4/23/2013 OK OK GOOD GOOD 4/30/2013 RISK OK GOOD GOOD
Table 13. Bidwell Mansion textile room April 2013 table of deterioration risks.
Chemical Mechanical Mold Metal Date Damage Damage Risk Corrosion 4/1/2013 OK OK GOOD OK 4/08/2013 OK OK GOOD OK 4/15/2013 OK OK GOOD OK 4/23/2013 OK OK GOOD OK 4/30/2013 RISK OK GOOD OK
146
Figure 24. Bidwell Mansion library April 2013 graph of temperature, RH, and dew point.
Figure 25. Bidwell Mansion Bidwell’s bedroom April 2013 graph of temperature, RH, and dew point.
147
Figure 26. Bidwell Mansion textile room April 2013 graph of temperature, RH, and dew point.
In April, the temperatures did not differ too drastically from the previous two months and were again within the high 60s to high 70s. Temperatures were slightly elevated overall as the summer months were drawing closer. They varied between 66 degrees and 80 degrees, at the highest. The warmest room was the Bidwell’s Bedroom, with an average temperature of almost 73 degrees. The coolest room was the Library, which averaged 69 degrees.
Relative humidity levels averaged a little lower than for March, but a few particularly high ratings were noted in April. The Textile Room had the highest average, at 40 percent. The lowest average was in the Bidwell’s Bedroom, at almost 35 percent.
Four “Risk” rankings were detected in April. Two were due to high temperatures and two were due to high RH levels. The Library and the Bidwell’s Bedroom were recorded
148 having high humidity levels on April first. In the Library, RH was recorded reaching 55 percent. The Bidwell’s Bedroom was recorded at 49 percent. These two “Risk” rankings were from the Chemical Damage category. “Risk” rankings due to high temperatures were found on April 30, in the Bidwell’s Bedroom and Textile Room. Temperatures reached 80 degrees in the Bidwell’s Bedroom and 75 degrees in the Textile Room. The two “Risk” rankings for temperature were also in the Chemical Damage category.
Light Meter Readings
Although the Park Closure Inventory noted a number of problems at the
Bidwell Mansion, due to the time constraints, I had to focus on only a few specific factors to examine. One of them was recording light meter readings in 17 rooms and two specific spots. I was only able to conduct light readings for March and April, because I wanted to have at least two full months’ worth of data. The length of time it took for my official approval to begin impacted the time allowed to conduct this research. Since I left the state at the end of May, I decided not to include it as a partial month.
The rooms I recorded light readings for on the first floor included the Library,
Dining Room, Drawing Room, John’s Office, Stairwell Two, and Stairwell Three. On the second floor, I recorded readings from Bidwell’s Bedroom, Annie’s Dressing Room,
Guest Bedroom, Nursery, Alexander Bedroom, VIP Bedroom, Cook’s Bedroom, and
Maid’s Bedroom. The rooms I recorded readings from on the third floor were the
Ballroom, Room One, John’s Office upstairs, Room Five, and Room Eight.
Once I had recorded as many light level readings as I could for the months of
March and April of 2013, I separated the data based on specific rooms and input the
149 readings into line graphs. Therefore, each room has its own line graph for both months, with data charted for both Lux and Footcandle measurements. The graphs include each day’s recorded level and the date. For March, I was able to record light readings for 14 days, with two readings being done in one day. For April I was able to record light readings for 17 days. The 38 graphs can be found in Appendix B. An example of a light- reading graph is presented in this chapter as Figure 27.
Bidwell Mansion Library Light Readings March 2013 287 300 275 250 229 225 204 177.5 200 175.3 171 168.8 169.5 168.1 175 145.6 149.1 135.8 150 117.2 110.9 125 Range 100 Lux 65.3 75 Footcandles 50 25.4 20.8 12.58 16.34 15.96 13.56 18.7 16.81 14.07 10.81 15.7 15.99 15.17 25 5.3 10.3 0
Date
Figure 27. Light meter reading graph for the Bidwell Mansion Library during the month of March 2013. Light readings were recorded in both Lux and Footcandles, which are portrayed by a blue line and red line respectively.
The factor that made the biggest difference in each day’s recorded levels, regardless of what room I was in, was whether or not the house lights were on or off.
Although the lights in the Bidwell Mansion are not excessively bright, when they are
150 combined with the bright UV rays of the sun coming through the windows, the amount of light in the house is high to excessive. Due to the fact that each room was purposely constructed to contain as many windows as possible, there is no way to completely avoid over exposure from sunlight; however there are several methods that can be employed to tremendously improve the situation.
There were even a few instances when the sunlight was so direct, the light meter would max out and simply read “OL,” for overloaded, because the light levels were too high to calculate. This generally happened during very bright days, usually during the afternoons. When this was the case, I would have to move around the room into a more shaded area for the light meter to record an actual number. Overloading only happened on the second floor, which would sometimes include Stairwell 3, the landing right before the last flight of stairs to the third floor.
The staff at the Bidwell Mansion was very interested in the light readings, and on days that I recorded excessively high light levels, I made sure to verbally say so. In the beginning, the shutters on each set of windows in each room were almost never closed.
After a few reading were taken and I explained what I was finding, concern over how best to approach the problem significantly increased. Opening and closing the window shutters was a decision that needed to be discussed with State Parks in Sacramento because of their fragility.
In terms of safe and professionally endorsed light levels, museum professionals have long relied on recommendations made in “The Museum Environment,” written by Garry Thomson (1986). His founding guidelines suggested limits on light exposure for the sake of preservation efforts. For materials that are particularly
151 vulnerable to light damage, a maximum of 50 Lux was recommended as a benchmark level for museums to gauge their light intensity from in storage and on display. Since
Thomson’s suggested guidelines, however, newer decisions regarding museum lighting have been developed (Michalski 2011:319; Michalski 2013:1). Instead, there is no exact science to determine what amount of light the universal approved exposure amount is, but rather museum lighting should be handled by answering the question of, “how much damage will occur how soon for what lighting?” (Michalski 2011:319).
One of the driving forces behind the new decisions of light control stems from the visual ability of visitors. The benchmark of 50 Lux was formed more on the establishment that it was enough that the human eye could operate within the range of full color while keeping objects in as low light as possible. The main problem with this generalization is that it did not take the scope of visitor’s ages into consideration. Fifty lux is just low enough that a young adult can view an object while moderately discerning its degree of detail and complexity of its patterns. Of course, lighting this low will not give the same visual quality as natural sunlight, which means that some fine details may not be as easily seen in the dark. Additionally, visitors of older age will have an even more difficult time viewing an object in full appreciation in such dark conditions
(Michalski 2013:1). Based on the aging of the eye, then, how should museum lighting be adjusted?
Despite the different approach museums are taking in lighting exhibition halls to accommodate visitors, the traditional museum lighting rules should not be entirely forgotten, as they are still in print and can be found even in the Canadian Conservation
Institute’s (CCI) Technical Bulletins. Table 14 displays the artifact categories.
152
Table 14. The traditional rule-driven strategy.
Light intensity Categories 50 lux For textiles, works on paper, watercolors, photographs, feathers, etc. 150 lux For all oil and acrylic paint surfaces, polychrome, panels, furniture, etc. 300 lux Stone, metal, etc.
Source: Adapted from Michalski, Stefan, 2013, Agent of Deterioration: Light, Ultraviolet and Infrared. < https://www.cci-icc.gc.ca/resources-ressources/agentsofdeterioration- agentsdedeterioration/chap08-eng.aspx>. Accessed September 1, 2015.
From these guidelines, lighting levels can be adjusted based on the personal needs of a museum’s objects. Assessing object sensitivities will help direct on the maximum amount of light exposure to allow. Generally, objects with the highest sensitivity will characterize the entire group. Next, take visibility into account by beginning with the 50 lux benchmark. If there are no highly sensitive materials on display, Lux levels can be adjusted higher, as Table 14 shows. Display time is the next determinate to consider. This means that objects made of highly sensitive materials should not be on a display schedule for say, 10 years, whether they are in a dimmed room or not. UV rays from light are still damaging, and constant exposure will eventually cause a noticeable amount of damage.
In the Bidwell Mansion, Annie’s Dressing room was the most compromised room, because of the number of objects on display. Almost every single object is made of organic materials, and most of the popular objects are Annie’s original articles of clothing. Out of the 14 days in March when I took light readings, 10 of them were recorded to be over 100 Lux! Seven of those days had light levels over 300 Lux, which is
153 too high for any museum environment that contains displays of light-sensitive materials.
In April, the light was not nearly as intense as it was in March, but 10 out of the 17 days I took light readings were still over 100 Lux.
The window shutter in Annie’s Dressing Room was closed only on March 11,
20, and 26. These three days were the lowest recorded readings of the month, in addition to March 28, which had been a very cloudy day in general and led to a low light reading.
On March 11, light was recorded at 48.5 Lux. On March 20, light was recorded at 17.3
Lux, and on March 26, light was recorded at 56.6 Lux. The readings from these three days are significantly lower compared to every other day. With exposure reading over
500 Lux and 600 Lux on multiple occasions, and one reading as high as 1020 Lux,
Annie’s Dressing Room is suffering from an immense amount of light damage.
A dress hanging on display sits directly in front of a window. It is not one of
Annie’s original dresses, but rather meant to display the style of dress at the time. Even so, it is a perfect example of what light damage is doing inside the house, as well as a good example of improper display, where the costume does not have adequate support.
Figures 28-30 exhibit this dress and the fading I discovered after asking permission to look at it more closely.
I am not sure how long the dress has been on display, but based on the fading it is safe to estimate it has been for a while. The back is a completely different shade than the front, since it faces the wall and does not get directly hit with UV rays. The fold reveals the same darker shade that looks closer to the garment’s original color. With its
154
Figure 28. Image displays front of dress.
Figure 29. Back of dress.
155
Figure 30. Right side of dress stretched out to reveal the inside of a crease, which had less exposure to light. The arrow points to the darker pigment hidden by the fold.
position directly in front of the window, the entire dress has become fragile as the fabric is slowly deteriorating.
The Bidwell’s bathroom is connected to Annie’s Dressing Room, which is the location of the window that directly faces the dress in Figure’s 28-20. Because the light was so intense in this room, I knew it was doing more damage than to just the objects.
With permission from the staff, I was allowed to move some of the other display objects in the bathroom to see exactly what was happening to the room itself. Figures 31-35 below demonstrate what the UV rays of the sun have done to the bathroom’s walls.
156
Figure 31. The Bidwell’s bathroom on display.
Figure 32. This towel on display in the Bidwell’s bathroom has not been removed from its original position in an unknown amount of time.
157
Figure 33. After removing the display towel, the fading the wooden wall panels have experienced was very obvious. The arrow points to the darker spot from the towel’s placement. With the light in this bathroom being so high on a regular basis, the gradual discoloration of the wood took place without anyone’s notice.
Figure 34. The sink and mirror in the Bidwell’s bathroom.
158
Figure 35. Upon pushing the mirror aside, the same issue was found behind the wooden panels as the towel. The arrow points to the darker panels, which was the original color of the room.
All of the windows in every room were built with folding wooden shutters like the shutters in Annie’s Dressing Room. Aside from protective UV filters, which need replacing, the windows are lined with lace curtains. Similarly to Annie’s Dressing Room, all of the window shutters are very fragile. Opening and shutting them daily is not the best option, so it is typically not done. The idea of having curtains as a form of protection is one of the best options, but because the current curtains are lace, they do not provide any form of protection at all.
There are three windows in the Library on the first floor. Thirteen out of the
14 days I recorded light readings in March, the readouts were well over 100 Lux. The shutters in the Library were closed on only March 26. Unfortunately, despite them being closed that day, the light reading was still high at 169.5 Lux. In April, 13 out of the 17 days I recorded light readings, the readings were over 100 Lux.
159
The Dining Room on the first floor contains three windows. Out of the 14 days I recorded light readings in March, five of them were over 100 Lux. April resulted in much lower readings all around, and only two out of the 17 days I recorded light readings were over 100 Lux. Similarly to the other rooms of the first floor, the Drawing
Room also contains three windows. Lux readings over 100 were only recorded for five days during March. In April, there were no readings over 100 Lux during the 17 days I recorded readings. The last room on the first floor I recorded lights readings for was
John’s downstairs Office. There are two windows in this room. Out of the 14 days in
March, 11 were recorded over 100 Lux. Two days even reached over 200 Lux. For the month of April, 11 days out of the 17 were over 100 Lux.
Based on recordings for the months of March and April, the room with the lowest light readings on the first floor was the Dining Room. It is located directly across from the Library, next to the Drawing Room, and diagonally from John’s office downstairs. The main rooms of the first floor are set up in a square formation, with an entrance hallway dividing the four rooms in half. On one side of the hallway is the
Library and Office; on the other side is the Dining Room and Drawing Room. Even though there are no main windows in the entrance hallway, light is present from all of the surrounding rooms as well as the two doors on either end. Direct UV rays and their damaging effects can be seen on a grandfather clock on display near the stairwell. Ultra violet rays from the sun have caused fading of the wood on the clock. The fading can be seen in Figures 36 and 37.
160
Figure 36. The grandfather clock on display in the hallway of the first floor.
Figure 37. The hallway is full of light from windows and doors and the clock sits in the center. After opening the small door on the front, the fading the wood has experienced was very visible. The door has left an outline of darker wood from being covered, which shows what the clock’s original wood color was.
161
The entire stairwell contains one large window that is split between the second and third floors, which is why I have two separate light readings for Stairwell Two and
Stairwell Three. Stairwell Two coincides with the second floor and Stairwell Three coincides with the third floor.
In March, four out of the 14 days were over 100 Lux on Stairwell Two. In
April, only two days out of the 17 were over 100 Lux. Readings tended to be much higher on Stairwell Three than Stairwell Two, probably due to the exposed portion of the window, whereas the wooden shutters on Stairwell Two were always closed. All 14 days were recorded over 100 Lux in March. Six of those days read over 500 Lux. In April, all
17 days were recorded over 100 Lux, where four of those days were over 500 Lux.
Aside from Annie’s Dressing Room, one of the rooms on the second floor that almost always had very high light readings was the Bidwell’s Bedroom. There were a few days in which the light meter overloaded and I had to stand in a different area of the room in order to get a reading that could be calculated. The light readings in March were above 100 Lux all 14 days. In fact, only three days were recorded in the 100s. Every other recording was well above 300 Lux. On March seventh, the light reading reached
4400 Lux after overloading due to the strength of the direct sunlight. I wanted to see how high direct sunlight could be calculated, since the Bidwell’s Bedroom contains four windows. All 17 readings in April were also over well 100 Lux. Only one day out of the
17 days was even recorded in the 100s.
Figures 38 and 39 demonstrate some of the light damage being done to John’s original desk chair on display in the Bidwell’s Bedroom. The back of the chair has faced the window on display for a number of years. Fading of the wood can be seen when
162
Figure 38. This image shows the front of John Bidwell’s original desk chair in the Bidwell’s Bedroom.
comparing the front to the back, although the chair overall has likely suffered a great deal of fading in general.
Figures 40 and 41 show a small table on display directly in front of two of the windows. After pulling back the display doily, fading of the wood was visible. The wood underneath the doily is a darker shade than the wood that has been exposed to direct sunlight. The doily itself also shows signs of fading. The true color of what the flowers once were can be seen on the bottom, whereas the flower embroidery on top has completely faded.
163
Figure 39. The back of John’s chair has directly faced a window for an unknown about of time while on display. Because there are only lace curtains on the windows, direct sunlight has been damaging the chair’s pigment. The wood on the back is noticeable darker than the front.
Light readings for the Guest Bedroom in the month of March were recorded as 11 days out of 14 over 100 Lux, with five being over 200 Lux. Eight days out of the 17 days
I recorded light readings for in April were over 100 Lux. Three of those days reached over 200 Lux. The Nursery, which attaches to the Guest Bedroom through a small, discreet hallway, is the smallest room on the second floor. Although the Bidwell’s had no
164
Figure 40. Pictured here is the table on display in the Bidwell’s Bedroom.
Figure 41. After removing the contents on the table, and pulling the decorative doily back, the fading the wood has experienced was highly visible. The doily, too, has suffered pigment loss, considering the top side on display is nearly completely faded of color.
165 children of their own, many of their guests did. Since guests were so common at the house, the Bidwell’s set aside a small nursery with private access through the adjoining bedroom to accommodate accompanying children. Eight of the 14 surveyed days in
March were recorded over 100 Lux, while five out of the 17 days in April were recorded over 100 Lux. In general, the Nursery had some of the lowest readings on the second floor, most likely due to one window.
In March, the Alexander Bedroom had 10 days out of the 12 that I indicated light readings over 100 Lux. The Alexander Bedroom was locked during two of the days
I was in the house taking readings, so my total recorded days for this room was two less than normal. For April, nine days out of the 17 were over 100 Lux.
The VIP Bedroom is the last guest bedroom on the second floor. All 15 days in March were recorded over 100 Lux, with four days reaching over 400 Lux. In April, the VIP Bedroom was locked during one of the days I was taking light readings, so the total days I have for this room is only 16. I did not ask why the door was locked that day, as I was in the mansion alone at the time. However, there were a few times other bedroom doors were locked while I was inside with Nancy and I was able to ask her to open them. Sometimes during cleaning, doors are locked and accidentally forgotten to be unlocked afterward. Despite that, all 16 days were recorded over 100 Lux. Five of those days were over 400 Lux.
The remaining two bedrooms on the second floor belonged to the cook and the maids, which are down a small hallway separate from the rest of the bedrooms. Both of these rooms experienced extremely high light readings for both months. In the Cook’s
Bedroom, all 14 days in March were recorded over 100 Lux. Readings were so high and
166 overloaded on a few occasions, that only two days were even recorded in the 100s. Three days reached as high as over 1000 Lux. April readings were overall slightly lower than
March, but still relatively high. All 17 surveyed days were over 100 Lux, but the majority of them did not reach over 300 Lux, unlike March where half the days were. The highest reading was over 1000 Lux. The room was not changed in any way during the two months I recorded readings, nor were any windows covered. I cannot explain the difference in the two months other than April must have probably had more cloudy days than March.
Similarly to the Cook’s Bedroom, the Maid’s Bedroom had a few instances where the light meter overloaded and I had to find a different spot to attain a readable level. For March, all 14 days were recorded well over 100 Lux, with only one day actually in the 100s. There were four days over 1000 Lux, with one reading higher than
5000 Lux. The month of April was similar to the Cook’s Bedroom in April. Readings were overall lower, but still rather high. All 17 surveyed days were over 100 Lux, with only one day in the 100s. Most days were between 200 and 400 Lux. The highest reading in April was over 1000 Lux.
Small, tight rooms like bathrooms are easy, compact areas to demonstrate the power of UV rays and the damaging effect they have. Figures 42-45 are more examples of wall fading. The figures are from a bathroom on the second floor, which is set up very similarly to Annie’s bathroom, so it contained the same style display towel.
On the third floor, I recorded light readings for five rooms. The first and biggest area of the third floor is the Ballroom. The only way natural light can enter the Ballroom is through the ceiling window vent, which was built to help circulate hot air.
167
Figure 42. A towel on display in a bathroom on the second floor.
Figure 43. With the towel removed from the rack, the fading the room’s wooden panels have experienced can be seen. The towel acted as a shield and helped protet the wood behind it from direct sunlight, which is why the color is darker.
168
Figure 44. From the same bathroom on the second floor, this photograph is of a framed picture on display.
Figure 45. Upon removing the framed picture from the wall, the fading of the room was very apparent. Since it is more compact and lays directly flat against the wall, it protected the wood behind it a little better than the towel in Figures 25-26. The darker wood shows the original color the walls were at one point.
169
Eleven out of the 14 days in March were over 100 Lux. Twelve out of the 17 surveyed days in April were over 100 Lux.
Of all the floors, the third floor received the least total amount of light than the rest of the house; this is probably due to the small size of the bedroom windows. These smaller windows are also fitted with thicker curtains that cover most, if not all of the windows. Therefore, these bedrooms are usually in the dark, unless a tour is being given.
John’s Office upstairs had the highest readings of all the rooms on the third floor, because it was purposely constructed to allow more light in since it functioned as a work space. It is also adjacent to a flight of stairs, which leads up to the observation tower Bidwell had built on top of the house. In March, eight out of the 14 surveyed days were recorded over 100 Lux. Five days out of the 17 days in April were over 100 Lux, with the highest reaching over 300 Lux.
Rooms One, Five, and Eight are bedrooms. Of all the bedrooms, Room One had the highest readings. Out of the 14 days I recorded light readings for Room One, only three days were over 90 Lux. Eleven days, however, were under 30 Lux. For April, five days were recorded over 90 Lux, while the other 12 did not even reach over 15 Lux.
For Bedroom Five, four out of the 14 days in March were recorded over 60
Lux. The other 10 days did not reach over 10 Lux. Five out of the 17 days in April were recorded over 60 Lux. Similarly, to March, the other 12 days did not reach over 10 Lux either. The last bedroom, Room Eight, had four days out of the 14 in March reading over
60 Lux. For April, five days of the 17 surveyed were recorded over 60 Lux.
170
Insect Monitoring with Sticky Traps
In addition to taking light readings, once a week, I checked the insect sticky traps in each room where I conducted readings. I did not put these traps down; they were placed by the mansion’s exterminator and monitored by him. I personally looked at them each week to see what kind of pest activity they attracted. Each trap was placed in a discreet location, usually under a bed and behind large furniture. I was never able to speak with the exterminator, so I do not know what brand of trap he used. They did not look as if they were trying to attract anything specific, as every room used the same one.
Based on the Inventory Closure report, I expected to find evidence of silverfish, moths, and dermestid beetles.
The main insects I found in March were small spiders, ladybugs, clothes moths, and silverfish. The traps that remained empty all month were traps in Annie’s
Dressing Room, The VIP Bedroom, John’s Office Upstairs, Room Five, and Room Eight.
Spiders were found in the Library, Guest Bedroom, and Nursery. Ladybugs were found in the Drawing Room, Bidwell’s Bedroom, Guest Bedroom, and Alexander Bedroom.
Moths were found in the Guest Bedroom and Alexander Bedroom. Silverfish were found in the Maid’s Bedroom.
Insects found in the sticky traps in April contained the same insect species as
March. The traps that remained empty in April were The VIP Bedroom, John’s Office
Upstairs, Room Five, and Room Eight. Spiders were found in the Library, Annie’s
Dressing Room, Guest Bedroom, Nursery, and Alexander Bedroom. Ladybugs were found in the Drawing Room, Bidwell’s Bedroom, and Guest Bedroom. Moths were found in the Guest Bedroom and Alexander Bedroom. Silverfish were found in Annie’s
171
Dressing Room. Although several different insects were found in the sticky traps throughout the months of March and April, the amount of insects each trap carried was no more than five at a time. When an insect was found in a trap, it was one or two of each insect. The only time there was a number of insects found on one trap was in the Drawing
Room in April, which contained five ladybugs. Tables 15 and 16 breakdown my findings into grouped categories to demonstrate the difference in insect findings for each month.
Table 15. Data from insect sticky traps from the month of March 2013.
Empty traps Spiders Ladybugs Clothes Moths Silverfish Room 5 Library Drawing Room Guest Bedroom Maid’s Bedroom Room 8 Guest Bedroom Guest Bedroom Alexander Bedroom VIP Bedroom Nursery Bidwell’s Bedroom John’s Office Upstairs Alexander Bedroom Annie’s Dressing Room
Table 16. Data from insect sticky traps from the month of April 2013.
Empty traps Spiders Ladybugs Clothes Moths Silverfish VIP Bedroom Library Drawing Room Guest Bedroom Annie’s Dressing Room John’s Office Annie’s Dressing Bidwell’s Alexander Upstairs Room Bedroom Bedroom Room5 Nursery Guest Bedroom Room 8 Bidwell’s Bedroom Guest Bedroom
Analysis based on my findings is that Bidwell Mansion does not have a serious insect pest problem. However, this does not mean that the Closure Inventory was
172 incorrect in stating that the mansion had some serious insect pest issues when it was conducted. The results of the Inventory did describe heavily infected bedding in the
Servant’s Quarters being removed, which would have probably helped the silverfish problem in that area. Staff may have also began tackling other noted problem areas from the Inventory before I was able to conduct my own research. Another issue that is affecting my overall analysis is that I was only able to check the traps for two months.
Two months is not ideal in providing an overall idea of what the insect pest activity is.
Regardless, the problem areas in the Closure Inventory noted dermestid beetles and clothes moths in Annie’s Dressing Room and Bidwell’s Bedroom, and silverfish in the Servant’s Quarters. Although I did not find any beetles or clothes moths in Annie’s Dressing Room or Bidwell Bedroom, I did find silverfish in the Maid’s
Bedroom. This leads me to believe that during my research, the insect issue in Annie’s
Dressing Room and Bidwell’s Bedroom was either resolved completely or was greatly under control, and the insect problem in the Servant’s Quarter was also well addressed, considering the sticky trap only caught one or two silverfish the entire month. While the traps did not catch many insects, it does not mean that there were not others that were not seen. One sticky trap per room will only reveal so much.
Utilizing the Ultraviolet Lamp
By applying the UV lamp (black light) from the Heritage Resources
Conservation Laboratory for one day, I was able to test for evidence of rodents and signs of other substances. Raeann and I scanned the kitchen floor and walls, the laundry room, and the basement while wearing protective goggles. We also scanned a few of Annie’s
173
Native American baskets kept in storage. A UV light detects rodent contamination by fluorescing blue-white to yellow-white when evidence is present. Rodents urinate while they travel, and the paths they leave resemble droplet patterns, with bigger drops trailing off into smaller drops (Garrards n.d.:1).
I did not see any pest evidence in the kitchen or laundry room. I did, however, find pest evidence in the basement, which was confirmed by a known rat problem. Traps had been set and a few rats had been caught prior to starting my research. The UV lamp displayed what appeared to be some urine trails on shelving units and rodent hairs on ceiling pipes. The evidence it displayed was not overwhelming by any means, but a few lines and smudges appeared here and there on shelves and a few hairs were seen on pipes on the ceiling, near wiring. The basement is rather large, and I was advised it was not a room I was meant to spend much time in, so my investigation with the UV lamp was probably not as thorough as it could have been had the circumstances provided otherwise.
Based on what I saw and what Raeann described of the rodent activity, it did not seem that the mansion was suffering from a major rodent problem, as their exterminator had been keeping up with the issue. Had I not brought the UV lamp that day, I would not have seen the rodent evidence with my bare eyes.
The handful of Native American baskets that we scanned with the UV lamp did not show any signs of damage, insects, or unknown substances. This does not mean that the baskets we looked at were completely clear of any foreign substances, however.
Native American baskets have been known to be sprinkled with arsenic and other dangerous chemical insect repellents as a form of pest control in the past and it is not
174 always detected under the UV rays. I also was not able to scan all of the baskets in the storage room, so it is possible I may have missed some evidence due to that fact.
Summary
This chapter summarized the data I gathered from the Bidwell Mansion during the months of February, March, and April 2013. It discussed the data collected from the data loggers, light readings, insect traps, and results of the UV light. The short research collection regarding these issues does not fully exemplify the true environment of the
Bidwell Mansion, however it does give a small illustration of how the mansion’s issues have occurred. One of the most positive aspects of this study was that as I began my individual research into understanding the mansion’s problem, so did staff members.
Once my work with them was completed, the rest of the 2013 year was spent monitoring the data loggers and pest traps and figuring out how to address excessive light exposure, among the other issues that I could not address.
The data presented in this chapter, especially the information pertaining to data loggers and the problems unmonitored temperature and RH levels can cause, can be a starting point for the Bidwell Mansion and other historic house museums to utilize.
Understanding the relationship temperature and RH have with a historic house will enable a basic understanding of how to identify where the risk of damage is most likely to occur. Use of IPI’s Preservation Metrics and their corresponding free online tools will show historic house museums that the degree of decay risk is directly related to the quality of an environment and must always be a part of daily collections care routines.
Chapter VI will outline how to approach resolving the issues discussed in this chapter.
CHAPTER VI
THOUGHTS FOR BIDWELL MANSION:
SOME GUIDELINES FOR HISTORIC
HOUSE COLLECTIONS CARE
The primary goal of this thesis is to address common collections care problems of historic house museums, analyze the causes, and propose practical solutions based on the theory of preventative conservation. The Bidwell Mansion State Historic
Park of Chico, California, represents an example of some of the most common problems that historic house museums face today. The completion of the assessment of the mansion’s current collection issues strongly suggests that the Bidwell Mansion is in need of some museum professional recommendations for best practice measures regarding environmental control, preventative mitigation, and an updated Integrated Pest
Management plan. This chapter will address how the issues presented in Chapter V can be resolved. It will also review the limitations I experienced while conducting the study.
Preventive Conservation
Before I suggest any recommendations, I would like to reiterate the theory of preventive conservation in the context of the historic house museum I discussed in
Chapter II. Preventative conservation takes a holistic approach in that, with professional training and informed decision making, collections care is proactive and includes
175 176 planning for both short- and long-term strategies to prevent deterioration. This “head them off-at-the-pass” approach can help ensure that known potential scenarios can be addressed before they become actual problems, which can become more expensive and time consuming to correct than a more hands-on and pre-emptive approach that helps prevent problems in the first place. In the context of the historic house, preventive conservation looks at the protection of both the museum’s collections as well as the historic structure. A historic house museum cannot have one without the other (Merritt and Reilly 2010).
Approaching Housekeeping Schedules
Although the Bidwell Mansion already has a set housekeeping schedule, I found Melissa M. Heaver’s (2002:6) “Sample Cleaning Schedule for House Museums” to be a very well laid out plan any historic house museum could follow. It is best to keep in mind, as Heaver (2000) points out, that her housekeeping manual is not the definitive guide. As our understanding of materials and their deterioration processes improve, the methods and approaches are bound to replace existing ones as improvements in the science of material culture advances. Developments in new techniques and new materials are always being established, and keeping up to date on them is the best way to stay on top of common house museum problems.
The story of the Bidwell Mansion is all too common. Historic house museums all over the country are either slowly falling into disrepair or are in very serious trouble.
The best way to begin resolving a house museum’s collections problems is by tackling the issues one step at a time. One of the most important aspects of a house museum’s
177 overall health is via thorough and proper housekeeping. Neglect is what triggers a domino effect in other problems. The guidelines Heaver (2000) presents in her Cleaning
Schedule provides a great outline for historic house museums like the Bidwell Mansion; in this way, these museums can adjust to meet their particular needs (Tables 17 and 18).
Table 17. Sample cleaning schedule for house museums 1.
Schedule Tasks Daily Clean public areas – bathrooms, entranceways, ticketing areas. Sweep porches, exterior stairs, ramps, an walkways, as necessary. Vacuum high traffic areas, as needed, especially exterior mats, entry mats, and modern carpeting used by visitors. Empty trash cans. Check lights and replace bulbs if necessary. Clean exterior of exhibit cases to remove fingerprints. Use liquid plexi polish on soft cloth to clean Plexiglass. Use diluted solution of water with a few drops of ammonia and alcohol to clean glass. Weekly Dust furniture with soft or magnetic cloth, as necessary. Inspect for objects that have been moved and put them in their proper place. Vacuum floors. Dust blinds and windowsills. Monthly Dust interior woodwork such as doors, doorframes, wainscoting, chair rails, baseboards, and banister posts. Dust mirrors and ungilded mirror frames. Vacuum accessory textiles such as tablecloths, dresser scarves, bed linens, and rugs. Vacuum fireplace interiors if not in use. Inspect for insect remains in textiles, on floors, under furniture, and in window frames. Quarterly Vacuum upholstered furniture. Vacuum under beds and moveable furniture. Dust book spines and tops of books, drapes, cornices, and lighting fixtures. If books are displayed open, inspect and then turn pages. Check fire extinguishers, smoke and fire detectors, and test all security systems.
Adapted from Heaver, Melissa M., 2000, Housekeeping for Historic Homes and House Museums. Washington, D.C.: National Trust for Historic Preservation.
178
Table 18. Sample cleaning schedule for house museums 2.
Schedule Tasks Semiannually Vacuum drapes, walls, and ceilings. Dust high ledges requiring a ladder to reach the area. Dust gilded picture and mirror frames. Rotate displayed textiles. Refold or reconfigure folded or hanging textiles, using acid-free tissue as padding, to reduce structural stress. Annually Remove all objects from room. Roll rug and remove from floor. Put large case pieces that are too heavy to move into middle of room. Remove small objects to prepared work area. Remove frames objects from the wall, always using two people. Remove window hangings, after taking several close-up photos or completing a sketch of each panel to aid in rehanging. Inspect the room envelop. Check for evidence of insects, flaking plaster on the ceiling or walls, leaks, high humidity, mold, floor damage, paint damage, etc. Use magnetic cloth on a pole to clean spider webs and loose dirt from ceiling, cornices, carvings, window frames and glass, doorframes and doors, kick plates, and floor. Wash windows, interior and exterior. Inspect polished brass and silver for tarnishing, and clean and wax or lacquer as needed. Inspect stair-carpet, and arrange for restretching if necessary by a professional carpet installer. Vacuum and dust interiors of case pieces such as bookcases, desks, and cabinets. Wax clear finished wood furniture if light buffing fails to bring up a shine. Clean and wax iron floor grates, and vacuum air ducts below the vents. Dust all books and the interior of all bookcases. Bi-Annually Polish metal objects. Inventory collections.
Adapted from Heaver, Melissa M., 2000, Housekeeping for Historic Homes and House Museums. Washington, D.C.: National Trust for Historic Preservation.
179
Preventive Conservation and Light Damage
The light damage and light meter readings I discussed in Chapter V is damage that does not “go away,” even after the object is removed from the exposed light or the environment itself is corrected. Fading, cracking, splitting, and embrittlement are all permanent. The objects that have suffered damage can be treated, but their molecular structure is forever changed. What can be done is addressing the environment and resolving the issue of over exposure to UV light by balancing exposure levels and exposure times (Merritt and Reilly 2010:65).
An evaluation of the house through careful inspection should be one of the first things historic house museum staff should do. This can help identify all of the areas of natural and artificial light, how light moves through the rooms during the day, and how it changes by season (Merrit and Reilly 2010:65). For the Bidwell Mansion, this will be an extremely crucial inspection to make. The wood walls of the two bathrooms I evaluated in Chapter V demonstrated severe fading. What I did not present was the fading that was also happening in the 24 other rooms in the mansion due to lack of time.
With a house that was purposely constructed to contain as many windows as possible, light control is a very necessary part of collections care in order to preserve the integrity of the mansion’s interior. Large, unblocked windows will let in an enormous amount of sunlight, which I demonstrated through the light level readings I recorded.
There are different tools to help with evaluating a historic house museum’s environment. Light meters as used in this study proved useful. What is even more useful is taking the data to instigate change in a proactive way. That said, knowledge of factors such as weather, the time of day, and season can all influence what a light meter reads.
180
Regardless, regular light readings can provide a better understanding of the amount of light a historic house experiences on an annual basis.
If a light meter is not available, the International Organization for
Standardization (ISO) Blue Wool Standard cards can be used. These small cards illustrate eight specific dyed bands of blue wool which represent different levels of light sensitivity. The cards can be placed next to objects and light intensity can be measured based on the fading rate of the strips on the cards (Merritt and Reilly 2010:67). They are easy to use and inexpensive to purchase.
Light monitoring tools today extend beyond just the action of monitoring present light levels with a meter. Historic house museums also have the ability to predict damage by using predictive tools. Merritt and Reilly (2010:67) explain that these tools can help “inform a housekeeping plan, adapt a rotation schedule, or determine when an object should be retired from display.” For example, light dosimeters can be used to give a more cumulative understanding of the effect light can have in a historic house.
Dosimeters are small, light-sensitive tools that collect light energy and measure the damage it is causing. The information they collect allows staff to monitor and predict damage to an object, like fading, after a known exposure time at a specific light exposure
(Merritt and Reilly 2010:67). Other types of dosimeters available include, Tempera-
Painted dosimeters, which measure environmental effects of light, temperature, and air pollutants on paintings and LiDo (LightCheck), which is a more sensitive light dosimeter that can react to lower light levels than the ISO Wool Standards (Merritt and Reilly
2010:69).
181
Aside from the use of tools, one of the simplest solutions to controlling over exposure is to come up with a display and rotation schedule. Objects need periods of rest, especially those that are very fragile. By choosing what to exhibit, for how long, and under specific light conditions, over exposure can be prevented and maintained (Merritt and Reilly 2010; American Museum of Natural History N. D.). Although there are objects that are particularly favored, keeping them on display for 15 straight years is actually doing more harm than good. Even if an object is nowhere near a window, it is still under constant artificial light and the stress of display. Textiles, for example, are particularly susceptible to the stress of long-term display. Costumes (clothing), which are commonly displayed in historic house museums, are often original pieces that were not meant to be exhibited for long periods. Enacting an object rotation can mean two things.
There is the option of rotating different, but similar objects in a display area, or choosing to also use replicas as stand-ins while the original pieces rest. Both options are not difficult and will help historic house museum staff members in making sure they are giving the house’s collections the best care they can. In the case of the Bidwell Mansion, this means that the star piece in Annie’s Dressing Room, Annie’s original dress, will need a break, as it has been on display for a number of years without rest.
Other methods for keeping light exposure to a minimum are reducing the number of light fixtures in exhibit rooms, replacing existing bulbs with low wattage bulbs, and installing light dimmers or viewer activated switches or motion sensors.
Helping to control how much light objects receive is just one step in overall light control, however. The second step is monitoring UV exposure (American Museum of Natural
History n.d.:1)
182
The most practical solution to UV control is addressing where the UV light is coming from: the windows. The one method every house can afford to instill is making sure windows are fitted with curtains, drapes, light blocking shutters, or any other window cover. Unfortunately, this means that simple and aesthetic curtains are not enough. For the Bidwell Mansion, this means that the lace curtains throughout the house serve no purpose other than authentic décor. It is important to remain true to the period, but it is even more important to preserve the house’s collections.
Installing heavier, thicker curtains, which can be drawn during closed business hours, prevents a significant amount of unnecessary light from entering through the windows. This is especially true if the historic house museum has limited hours of operation. Curtains are not the only option for widow control. Windows can be fitted with clear UV absorbing films applied by professionals. Inexpensive mesh UV-protective window screens that can be purchased online or at Home Depot are also very useful to deter the damage from unnecessary light. Since the Bidwell Mansion has a significant number of windows, prevent care like this will be incredibly beneficial (Pereira and Wolf
2004:1-2).
Preventive Conservation and Temperature and Relative Humidity Control
When dealing with historic house museums, it is essential to remember that there is no single solution for temperature and RH problems. The buildings were originally constructed without modern-day HVAC systems. Historic houses were built to accommodate weather and climate changes based on the technologies of the day. The idea that a machine could automatically produce cold and hot air was many years away,
183 and so residents and owners made do with what they had. Today, the first thought might be to install an HVAC system, if the funds to do so are available, to help ensure collection preservation now that the house is a museum. Unfortunately, the reality is that the installation could actually end up doing more harm than good.
One of the first ways to resolving temperature and RH issues is to monitor both conditions in the house for a full year. The changes that occur with the seasons need to be understood in order to recognize the effect they can have on materials and objects.
Data loggers like the ones I discussed using in Chapter V, can be used to collect the necessary data. Once a year’s worth of information has been collected, staff members can focus on which seasons need intervention; action can then be taken from there.
After environmental information is gathered, the house can be looked at area by area and then compared to conservation reports for the collections. Based on the condition of the collections, and if there are any known problems, such as objects with splitting, mold, or embrittlement, then the best solutions can be determined. Choosing what to do though, will probably require compromising, because not every best solution will be attainable. The main idea is to be proactive in ways that can protect the house and the collection while providing an educational and enjoyable experience for visitors. The best solutions are simple and sustainable, so that consistency can always be maintained as well as through careful recordkeeping of these proactive actions.
The insulation that historic houses were originally built with may already be providing a good buffer against climatological changes. This, combined with heavy curtains, carpets, plasterwork, wood, and fabric on the walls for instance, can be sufficient enough in general. When trying to do good by installing an HVAC system,
184 more often than not, original insulation is stripped away. Having basically only thin walls as a means of insulation does not do much to protect against changes in weather. The
HVAC system is there to be regulated, but without it the house is now at more risk than it was beforehand (Richard Fuller and Richard Kerschner, Personal Communication May
2013).
An example of the installation of an HVAC system at first doing more harm than good is the case Merritt and Reilly (2010:83) present of a historic house museum in the Northeast. The example did not identify the museum by name. Federal funding was obtained and the renovation was completed in the 1980s. During the first winter, the stucco exterior of the historic house was observed to be spalling and exfoliating, with the damage mostly concentrated to the northwest façade of the house. No evidence of a roof leak could be found, which is what staff initially suspected as the cause. After more investigating, it was discovered that the new RH levels created in the interior of the house was causing the exterior damage. Ice crystals were found forming under the stucco, forcing the exterior finish off the building. This was happening because the building had no vapor barrier and the moisture being created inside was permeating the interior of the wall materials. The cold of the winter resulted in moisture condensation once the more humid air inside made contact with the air outside, forming water droplets that quickly froze and expanded. To resolve the issue, staff experimented with the HVAC system to reach a compromising temperature and RH control level that agreed with the natural conditions of the region (Merritt and Reilly 2010:83).
The example above demonstrates that even with the best intentions, and exactly following professional best practice recommendations, not everything can go as
185 planned. It also explains why fitting preventive conservation methods to meet the specific needs of a historic house museum are so important, which even includes geographic location. The Bidwell Mansion already has an HVAC system in operation, but it is used seasonally based on the staff’s needs for it. By recording the environmental conditions of the house for a full year, the Bidwell Mansion will be able to more accurately adjust the use of their HVAC system. As each year passes and attention to this monitoring is continued, the Bidwell Mansion will once again stabilize its environment.
Zoning the building is sometimes also an option. This means that objects that need certain conditions can be displayed in specific areas of the house. Other isolating techniques include controlled display cases. The Bidwell Mansion has specific objects that are particularly fragile, especially those that are known to be original Bidwell belongings. If there is concern regarding their sensitivity, perhaps relocating them to an area identified as having the most ideal environmental conditions would be in the object’s best interest. Objects that are small enough to go into display cases can even be displayed in controlled or more protective cases, rather than having them displayed out in the open.
A number of small objects are displayed this way in the mansion, including Annie’s original Native American baskets. They are scattered throughout the first floor with the intention of making the house look as if it did during the time the Bidwell’s lived there.
This leaves the baskets to experience the natural fluctuations of the house. The baskets displayed this way can make it difficult to monitor them all closely, so moving them to be all displayed in one area might be a better option.
186
Preventive Conservation and IPM
Integrated Pest Management (IPM) is the ideal method museums employ to keep pests under control. Pest methods discussed in Chapter II, which have been identified as dangerous and damaging on multiple levels, are no longer used. Instead, pest control is based on the foundation of IPM, which promotes prevention, monitoring, detection, identification, and mitigation (Merritt and Reilly 2010:104).
A written Collections Policy is necessary to explain exactly how to carry out proper pest management. The policy should begin with a clear statement of goals so that all staff members know what is exactly expected of them and what the museum is looking to accomplish. The roles and responsibilities of all staff members and volunteers need to be thoroughly explained. The rest of the policy should explain the methods and solutions to managing pest prevention and infestation (Merritt and Reilly 2010:101).
Though the overall theme of pest control is common among museums in general, all museums operate differently. This means that this section needs to be written to meet the specific needs of the institution it is meant for, as well as the specific pests that are of concern for that geographic area. Once a policy is completed, it should be consulted on a regular basis. The policy is a work in progress. It should be reviewed and revised regularly to keep up with the changing environment of the museum. Again, successful pest prevention is the direct result of implementing good housekeeping regimes (Merritt and Reilly 2010:104-105).
Treatment of infested objects depends upon whether the infestation is active or inactive. Active infestations need immediate attention, while inactive infestations can be handled by removing the pest debris and isolating the object for a period of time to
187 monitor if pests are still present. Regardless of the treatment issued, the life cycles of common museum pests should be considered before administering a treatment. A chapter in the IPM policy giving an overview of these pests is a good idea to use as a reference
(Merritt and Reilly 2010:108, 110, 114).
Based on what I witnessed while working with Bidwell Mansion staff, the overall cleanliness is high as the mansion is regularly maintained and cleaned. Maria and
Nancy do an outstanding job with housekeeping. The problem with pests, then, is not that the Bidwell Mansion is improperly cleaned, it is probably more likely due to environmental conditions as well as the fact that insects are naturally occurring. This is especially so when the collection contains a large number of objects made of organic materials, the perfect food source for pests. Also, old houses like the mansion have multiple points of entry pests and insects can utilize, such as cracks underneath doors, poor seals on windows, or chimneys.
That being said, I think one of the best proactive approaches the Bidwell
Mansion can take is to review Heaver’s (2002) Cleaning Schedule I provided and compare it to their own housekeeping plan. The Schedule has a number of cleaning details that might be easy to overlook doing, or are not done often enough. Another step the mansion can take is the reconfiguring of how sticky insect traps are laid out. I noticed that most of the traps the exterminator laid out were under beds, which I will assume was done so as not to disrupt the ambiance as tours are given. While this does need to be a consideration, trap placement needs to be thoughtful. The most appropriate locations for them are ventilation ducts, window areas, and other rarely disturbed places where debris and dust collect. A floor plan of the building can help in locating the best areas to place
188 traps. Height should also be considered, as some insects fly or crawl to out of the way places like shelves and false ceilings. After traps are placed, a log of their locations and placement date will help keep monitoring more organized; that way, when weekly or monthly checks are completed findings will be better understood (Merritt and Reilly
2010:107 – 108).
Limitations to the Study
The main limitation I experienced while conducting this study was time.
Although I know that state-funded projects such as the Proposition 84 Assessment of the
Bidwell Mansion typically do not move quickly, I had not expected it to take as long as it did for me to finally be allowed inside. The entire process of becoming an official volunteer so that I could use the mansion as a case study for my thesis took several months. Additionally, having to depart California in May 2013 limited the amount of time I had to actually work inside the mansion.
With only two months’ worth of gathered research, it was not completely ideal, but I was able to develop an idea of what the mansion experienced on a day to day basis. Hopefully, what I was able to find and explain during that time was helpful enough to the Bidwell Mansion staff in furthering their work in restoring the mansion, a process that had only just begun when this thesis started.
The second limitation I experienced was access to records. If I needed to see something inside the house, the staff was more than accommodating, even during tours.
However, during the two months that I worked in the mansion, I was only allowed one day to sift through whatever records were kept in the basement. Again, it was not
189 completely ideal in terms of needing to see as much original documentation as possible to understand the mansion’s history, but I was able to gather an overall idea of about 100 years’ worth of the mansion’s life. This was rather critical information considering ownership changed several times. The also natural loss of information over time is a factor that historic house museums experience. Although records were certainly kept in the past, they were not routinely maintained in a way that professional museum record- keeping is conducted, especially considering the historic house was originally not a museum at all.
Despite these limitations, my experience with the mansion and its staff was extremely positive. I am thankful the Bidwell Mansion’s staff allowed me access to their museum so that I could collect data for both their needs as well as for this thesis. If I were to redo this thesis, or expand upon it, the main limitation I would address would be time.
Time limited my study tremendously, which is overall a major problem anthropologists and museum professionals alike face when it comes to completing projects. Ideally, more time would have allowed me to conduct a more thorough collection of temperature and
RH data, as I would have been able to experience the impact the changing seasons have on the Bidwell Mansion. Perhaps I would have been able to see what caused the mold outbreak in the library, or why suddenly an entire quarter was overrun with a silverfish infestation. The impact the environment has on a museum’s objects is so definite that it can destroy them. Understanding the relationship between the environment and the objects is the only way to prevent this from happening
190
Conclusion
This thesis attempted to assist in identifying collections problems in the
Bidwell Mansions and provide museum professional suggestions to resolve them.
Although the number of problems was far greater than what I was actually able to personally address, the overall information on collections problems I discussed is applicable to the Bidwell Mansion’s journey to restoration. It is also applicable to all historic house museums in general. There are countless historic house museums in the same state as the Bidwell Mansion, with staff looking to do everything possible to ensure their preservation. The purpose of this thesis is to provide a basic outline with general information the Bidwell Mansion, or any other historic house museum, can use to begin addressing these same issues.
The challenges that historic house museums face are typically far more numerous than their larger counterparts. Even though larger museums attract the majority of overall visitation, the significance of historic house museums to the communities they represent is vital to the community’s identity, because they stand as tangible symbols of our history. As a nation, the preservation of things that have value is a need that is recognized by many. Historic houses provide a way for communities to share, communicate, and preserve their stories and their past. They are also uniquely vital to making the history and art of the past available (Merritt and Reilly 2010:1, vii).
Despite the passion historic houses incite, the trouble they face has a severe impact on their livelihood. Overwhelming expenses from repair, maintenance, and staff salaries, combined with providing engaging and interpretive tours can drain a historic house of its limited funding rather quickly, leaving staff unable to recover. This is where
191 the process of slipping into distress begins. Choices often have to be made that are dependent on what can be afforded. What is unfortunate about this domino effect is that implementing preventive conservation methods is one of the most effective ways to prevent a historic house museum from spiraling out of control, because it reduces the need for interventive treatments (Moe 2002:9; Harris 2007:3; Merritt and Reilly 2010:1).
Therefore, the mentality of historic house museum staff must change.
Choosing to follow the theory of preventive conservation is a commitment. It involves the continuous process of “developing and implementing policies and procedures; their ongoing assessment and review; and inspection, monitoring, and revision” (Merritt and
Reilly 2010:1). The work may initially sound overwhelming, but what is even more overwhelming is watching a historic house museum fall apart and ultimately close. The
Bidwell Mansion came close to this exact fate for near all of the aforementioned reasons.
In fact, the process of preparing for its closure had even already begun at one point.
Fortunately, the attention of its impending closure drew attention to the museum’s significance at the California Department of Parks and Recreation, which lead to a proposal to evaluate the mansion and begin work on restoring it.
The work to resolve the numerous problems the Bidwell Mansion is facing has only just begun, but by changing the way it is maintained and operated to the theory of preventive care, the mansion will become more stable year after year. My work with the Bidwell Mansion and the information I have provided in this study by using it as a case study was done with the intention of demonstrating just how beneficial preventive conservation can be. There are far too many articles and publications that address the
192 problems historic house museums are facing, yet overlook providing a means to solve the issues. This does not help the situation; it simply states a fact that is already known.
The theoretical foundation combined with the proactive strategies discussed in this thesis should provide historic house museums with a basic guideline on how to approach their problems professionally, yet remain true to their needs. In this regard, this case study is meant to add to the growing body of literature on historic house museums and how to better care for and maintain them. Maintaining a historic house museum involves a significant number of different issues that larger institutions do not have to typically worry about. As the literature develops and grows, historic house museums will have more references to use to their advantage and best interests.
This thesis also demonstrates that the professional methods are not just for larger institutions. In fact, it should highlight that most of the methods I discussed are specifically geared towards smaller historic house museums, yet follow museum best standard practices. By presenting a resource that contains historical background information, explanative theories, and practical strategies, historic house museums will have not only the resources they need in one place, but that correcting a problematic state is attainable.
My case study on the Bidwell Mansion additionally adds to the literature of anthropology with contributions on the care and protection of cultural heritage, a heritage that reflects the ways a society once lived. Through the preservation of cultural heritage, past customs, places, objects, and artistic values can be passed down from generation to generation, so that we can research, care for, and interpret them in the spirit of community.
REFERENCES CITED
REFERENCES CITED
Albright, Horace M., and Marian Albright Schenck 1999 Creating the National Park Service: The Missing Years. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press.
Allan, Ed 2011 The Problems of House Mice in Historic Houses and Museums. In Integrated Pest Management for Collections Proceedings of 2011: A Pest Odyssey, 10 Years Later. Peter Winsor, David Pinniger, Louise Bacon, Bob Child, Kerren Harris, Dee Lauder, Julie Phippard, and Amber Xavier-Rowe, eds. Pp.90 – 94. Swindon: English Heritage.
American Association of Museums 2008 National Standards and Best Practices for U.S. Museums. Washington, D.C.: American Association of Museums.
American Association of State and Local History 2015 How it Began. http://about.aaslh.org/the-story-of-us/, accessed August 29, 2015.
American Museum of Natural History N.d. Light, Ultraviolet, and Infrared. http://www.amnh.org/our-research/natural- science-collections-conservation/general-conservation/preventive- conservation/light-ultraviolet- and-infrared, accessed February 1, 2015.
Ashley-Smith, Jonathan 2009 The Basis of Conservation Ethics. In Conservation: Principles, Dilemmas and Uncomfortable Truths. Alison Richmond and Alison Bracker, eds. Pp. 6-4. Amsterdam: Butterworth-Heinemann.
ASHRAE Handbook 2011 American Society of Heating, Refrigerating, and Air-Conditioning Engineers Handbook HVAC Applications. Atlanta, GA: American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers.
Bachmann, Konstanze 1992 Introduction. In Conservation Concerns: A Guide for Collectors and Curators. Konstanze Bachmann, ed. Pp. 1-3. Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution Press.
194 195
Ballard, Mary W., and Robert J. Koestler 2014 Thirty Years of Pest Control in Museums: Policy & Practice. Washington D.C.: Smithsonian Museum Conservation Institute. http://museumpests.net/wp- content/uploads/2014/05/Koestler-Ballard-paper-formatted.pdf, accessed September 4, 2014.
Barthel, Diane L. 1989 Historic Preservation: A Comparative Analyses. Sociological Forum 4(1):87- 105. 1996 Historic Preservation: Collective Memory and Historical Identity. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
Beecher, Catherine E. 1841 A Treatise on Domestic Economy. Boston, MA: Marsh, Capen, Lyon, and Webb.
Beeton, Isabella Mary 2011 Mrs. Beeton’s Book of Household Management. USA: Empire Books.
Bidwell, Annie 2002 The Diaries of Annie Kennedy Bidwell 1888 – 1896, 1899 – 1911.Volume 2 of a set. Sacramento, CA: California State Library.
Bidwell, John 2001 The Diaries of John Bidwell 1864, 1866, 1868 - 1900. Sacramento, CA: California State Library.
Bingmann, Melissa 2007 America’s Collections in Peril: The Heritage Health Index. History News 62(3):18-23.
Blanton, Dewey 2012 American Association of Museums Is Now the American Alliance of Museums. http://www.aam-us.org/about-us/media-room/2012/the-association-is- now-the-alliance, accessed August 28, 2015.
Brewer, Tish 2007 Mold: Prevention of Growth in Museum Collections. In Conserve O Gram No. 3/4. Washington D.C.: National Park Service.
Boyer, Leslie, Steven Seifert, Nancy Odegaard, Marilen Pool, and G. Edward Burroughs 2005 Understanding the Hazards: Toxicity and Safety. In Old Poisons, New Problems A Museum Resource for Managing Contaminated Cultural Material. Nancy Odegaard and Alyce Sadongei, eds. Pp. 73-84. New York, New York: AltaMira Press.
196
Burke, John 1999 Anoxic Microenvironments: A Treatment for Pest Control. In Conserve O Gram No. 3/9. Washington D.C.: National Park Service.
Butcher-Younghans, Sherry 1996 Historic House Museums: A Practical Handbook for Their Care, Preservation, and Management. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Canadian Conservation Institute 2002 Care and Cleaning of Unfinished Wood. CCI Notes 7/1. Ottawa: Canadian Conservation Institute.
Caple, Chris 2009 The Aims of Conservation. In Conservation: Principles, Dilemmas and Uncomfortable Truths. Alison Richmond and Alison Bracker, eds. Pp. 25-31. Amsterdam: Butterworth-Heinemann. 2011 The History of and an Introduction to Preventive Conservation. In Preventive Conservation in Museums. Chris Caple, ed. Pp. 1-18. London: Routledge Taylor and Francis Group.
Carey & Co. Inc. 1999 Focused Historic Structure Report Bidwell Kitchen Restoration Bidwell Mansion State Historic Park Chico, California. Chico, CA: Carey & Co. Inc. Architecture.
CCI Textile Lab 2008 Mould Growth on Textiles CCI Notes 13/15. Canada: Canadian Conservation Institute.
Chicora Foundation 1994 Managing the Museum Environment. Columbia, SC: Chicora Foundation.
Child, R. E. 1998 Monitoring Insect Pests with Sticky Traps. In Conserve o Gram No 3/7. Washington D.C.: National Park Service.
Childs, S. Terry, and Eileen Corcoran 2000 Managing Archeological Collections: Technical Assistance Washington, D.C.: Archeology and Ethnography Program, National Park Service. http://www.nps.gov/archeology////AforI/crm_fed1.htm, accessed August 1, 2015.
197
Cliver, E. Blaine, John A. Burns, Paul D. Dolinsky, and Eric Delony 1998 HABS/HAER at the Millennium: Advancing Architectural and Engineering Documentation. Association for Preservation Technology International 29(3/4):31- 35.
Conn, Donia 2012 The Environment 2.4 Protection from Light Damage. Andover, MA: Northeast Document Conservation Center. https://www.nedcc.org/free- resources/preservation-leaflets/2.-the-environment/2.4-protection-from-light- damage, accessed November 18, 2014.
Cullingworth, Barry 1997 Historic Preservation in the USA. Built Environment 23(2):137-143.
Davis, Kathleen E., and Edna E. Kimbro 1988 Preliminary Historic Structure Report Bidwell Mansion Additions. Sacramento, CA: Department of Parks and Recreation.
DemHist 2007 Kykuit Findings and Recommendations on Creativity and Sustainability. http://demhist.icom.museum/shop/data/container/AASLH_Kykuit_Findings.pdf, accessed January 11, 2013.
Donnelly, Jessica Foy 2002 Introduction. In Interpreting Historic House Museums. Jessica Foy Donnelly, ed. Pp. 1-17. New York: AltaMira Press. eClimateNotebook 2015 Image Permanence Institute. eClimateNotebook® — Web-based Environmental Data Analysis. https://www.imagepermanenceinstitute.org/environmental- management/eclimatenotebook, accessed February 10, 2015.
Erhardt, David, and Marion Mecklenburg 2011 Relative Humidity Re-examined. In Preventive Conservation in Museums. Chris Caple, ed. Pp. 339-354. London: Routledge Taylor and Francis Group.
Fairfax County Park Authority Resource Management Division 2000 Housekeeping Manual, Historic Structure Interiors, Collections Storage Areas, Historic Objects, Exhibit Furniture. Fairfax, VA: http://www.fairfaxcounty.gov/parks/museum- collections/downloads/housekeepingmanual.pdf, accessed August 23, 2014.
198
Feazel, Steve 1920 – 1929 Bidwell Mansion State Historic Park Unit History. Chico, CA: Department of Parks and Recreation. 1935 Bidwell Mansion State Historic Park Unit History. Chico, CA: Department of Parks and Recreation. 1950 – 1959 Bidwell Mansion State Historic Park Unit History. Chico, CA: Department of Parks and Recreation. 1957 Bidwell Mansion State Historic Park Unit History. Chico, CA: Department of Parks and Recreation. 1963 Bidwell Mansion State Historic Park Unit History. Chico, CA: Department of Parks and Recreation. 1964 Bidwell Mansion State Historic Park Unit History. Chico, CA: Department of Parks and Recreation. 1966 Bidwell Mansion State Historic Park Unit History. Chico, CA: Department of Parks and Recreation. 1967 Bidwell Mansion State Historic Park Unit History. Chico, CA: Department of Parks and Recreation. 1972 Bidwell Mansion State Historic Park Unit History. Chico, CA: Department of Parks and Recreation. 1973 Bidwell Mansion State Historic Park Unit History. Chico, CA: Department of Parks and Recreation.
Fitch, James Marston 1982 Historic Preservation: Curatorial Management of the Built World. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Book.
Florian, Mary-Lou E. 2002 Fungal Facts Solving fugal problems in heritage collections. London: Archetype Publications.
Garrards N.d. Using a Black Light for Rodent Inspections. http://www.garrards.com.au/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=11 6:using-a-black-light-for-rodent-inspections&catid=7:tips&Itemid=53, accessed September 9, 2015.
Genoways, Hugh H., and Lynne M. Ireland 2003 Museum Administration an Introduction. Walnut Creek CA: AltaMira Press
Getty Conservation Institute 1992 Preventive Conservation. CGI Newsletter 7(1):4-7.
Graham-Bell, Maggie 1983 Preventive Conservation: A Manual. British Columbia: British Columbia Museums Association.
199
Guild, Sherry, and Maureen MacDonald 2004 Mould Prevention and Collection Recovery: Guidelines for Heritage Collections Technical Bulletin No. 26. Ottawa, ON: Canadian Conservation Institute.
Hacking, Heather 2012 Bidwell Mansion Group Ponders Next Move. http://www.chicoer.com/20121229/bidwell-mansion-group-ponders-next-move, accessed May 5, 2013.
Harris, Donna Ann 2007 New Solutions for House Museums: Ensuring the Long-Term Preservation of America’s Historic Houses. New York, NY: Alta Mira Press.
Hatchfield, Davis N. P., and J. Hutchins 2000 Basic Guidelines for the Care of Special Collections. Washington, D.C.: Americans Institute for Conservation.
Hatchfield, Pamela 2011 Crack Warp Shrink Flake A New Look at Conservation Standards. Museum (Jan-Feb):40-43, 51-53.
Heaver, Melissa M. 2000 Housekeeping for Historic Homes and House Museums. Washington, D.C.: National Trust for Historic Preservation.
Heritage Health Index 2005 A Public Trust at Risk: The Heritage Health Index Report on the State of America’s Collections: A Project of Heritage Preservation and the Institute of Museum and Library Sciences. Washington, D.C.: Heritage Preservation.
Historic Landscape Report 2002 Bidwell Mansion State Historic Park Historic Landscape Report. Mill Valley, CA: Royston Hanamoto Alley & Abey Landscape Architecture and Planning.
Hobart Dicus, Diana 2000 One Response to a Collection-Wide Mold Outbreak: How Bad Can It Be: How Good Can It Get? Journal of the American Institute for Conservation 39(1): 85-105.
Holman, Paul 1990 District Superintendent’s Monthly Report. Chico CA: Bidwell Mansion.
200
Hosmer, Charles B. 1965 Presence of the Past A History of the Preservations Movement in the United States Before Williamsburg. New York, NY: G. P. Putnam’s Sons.
ICOM Statues Definition of Terms 2015 ICOM Statues Definition of Terms. http://icom.museum/the- organisation/icom-statutes/3-definition-of-terms/#sommairecontent, accessed July 4, 2015.
Image Permanence Institute 2012 IPI’s Guide to: Sustainable Preservation Practices for Managing Storage Environments. Rochester, NY: Image Permanence Institute.
Keene, Suzanne 2002 Managing Conservation in Museums Second Edition. Rochester, Kent: Genesis Typesetting.
Kingsolver, John M. 1988 Illustrated Guide to Common Insect Pests in Museums. In A Guide to Museum Pest Control. Lynda A Zycherman and J. Richard Schrock, eds. Pp. 53- 82. Washington D. C.: Foundation of the American Institute for Conservation of Historic and Artistic Works.
Kleiman, David M. 2012 "Touro Synagogue." History. Heritage Muse, Inc. http://www.tourosynagogue.org/index.php/history-learning/synagogue-history, accessed September 13, 2013.
Klein, Denise 2008 Identifying Museum Insect Pest Damage. In Conserve O Gram No. 3/11. Washington D.C.: National Park Service.
Knapp, Anthony 2000 Arsenic and Safety Update. In Conserve O Gram No. 2/3. Washington D.C.: National Park Service.
Kwindt, Marcie, and Laura Smyk 2011 Building with Pest Management in Mind: A Case Study from the Canadian Museum of Nature. In Integrated Pest Management for Collections Proceedings of 2011: A Pest Odyssey, 10 Years Later. Peter Winsor, David Pinniger, Louise Bacon, Bob Child, Kerren Harris, Dee Lauder, Julie Phippard, and Amber Xavier- Rowe, eds. Pp. 46 – 54. Swindon: English Heritage.
201
Landrey, J Gregory, and Robert W. Hoag 2000 General Care. In The Winterthur Guide to Caring for Your Collection. Onie Rollins, Teresa A. Vivolo, and Abby Goldstein, eds. Pp. 9-18. Hanover: University Press of New England.
Lea, Diane 2003 America’s Preservation Ethos A Tribute to Enduring Ideals. In A Richer Heritage. Robert E. Stipe, ed. Pp. 1-20. Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press.
Linden, Jeremy 2013 Dealing With Winter Dryness Sustainable Preservation Practices for Managing Storage Environments (February 6, 2013). In Image Permanence Institute’s Sustainable Preservation Practices for Managing Storage and Environments – Webinar Series II. http://www.ipisustainability.org/webinar-info- series2/, accessed September 1, 2015.
Lindgren, James M. 2004 “A Spirit that Fires the Imagination” Historic Preservation and Cultural Regeneration in Virginia and New England, 1850 – 1950. In Giving Preservation a History Histories of Historic Preservation in the United States. Max Page and Randall Mason, eds. Pp. 75-92. New York, New York: Routledge.
Lavoie, Catherine 2006 Architectural Plans and Visions: The Early HABS Program and Its Documentation of Vernacular Architecture. Perspectives in Vernacular Architecture 13(2):15-35.
Matthews, Glenna 1987 “Just a Housewife” The Rise and Fall of Domesticity in America. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
McCormick, Mickie 2001 Measuring Light Levels for Works on Display. Hamilton, NY: The Exhibition Alliance.
McDonald, Lois H. 2004 Annie Kennedy: An Intimate History. Chico, CA: Stansbury Publishing.
Merritt, Jane, and Julie A. Reilly 2010 Preventative Conservation for Historic House Museums. New York, NY: Alta Mira Press.
202
Michalski, Stefan 2011 The Lighting Decision. In Preventive Conservation in Museums. Chris Caple, ed. Pp. 319-335. London: Routledge Taylor and Francis Group. 2013 Agent of Deterioration: Light, Ultraviolet and Infrared. https://www.cci- icc.gc.ca/resources-ressources/agentsofdeterioration-agentsdedeterioration/chap08- eng.aspx, accessed September 1, 2015.
Miller, Patricia L. 1991 Arsenic, Old Lace, and Stuffed Owls May Be Dangerous to Your Health: Hazards in Museum Collections. http://www.okmuseums.org/sites/oma2/uploads/documents/Technical_Bulletins/T echnical_Bulletin_9__Arsenic_Old_Lace_and_Stuffed_Owls.pdf , accessed September 1, 2015.
Milner Associates 2007 Preservation Master Plan Virginia Military Institute Lexington, Virginia. file:///C:/Users/melissa/Downloads/Arch%20Preservation%20Master%20Plan%20 (1).pdf, accessed August 15, 2015.
Minnesota Historical Society 2012 Minnesota Historical Society Historic Housekeeping Handbook. http://www.mnhs.org/preserve/conservation/docs_pdfs/HOUSEKEEPINGMANU AL.pdf, accessed July 13, 2014.
Moe, Richard 2002 Are There Too Many House Museums? Forum Journal 16(3):4-11.
Murtagh, William J. 1997 Keeping Time The History and Theory of Preservation in America Revised Edition. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 2006 Keeping Time The History and Theory of Preservation in America Third Edition. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
National Park Service 1998a Biological Infestations. In NPS Museum Handbook Part I. Pp. 5:1-5:17. Washington, D.C.: National Park Service. 1998b Museum Housekeeping. In NPS Museum Handbook Part I. Pp. 13:1-13:15. Washington, D.C.: National Park Service. 1999 Museum Collections Environment. In NPS Museum Handbook Part I. Pp. 4:1 – 4:52. Washington, D.C.: National Park Service. 2012 Museum Collections Storage. In NPS Museum Handbook Part I. Pp. 7:1-7:37. Washington, D.C.: National Park Service. 2013 “Historic Sites Act of 1935 As Amended.” http://www.cr.nps.gov/local- law/FHPL_HistSites.pdf, accessed September 24, 2013.
203
National Trust Classics 1987 The Housekeeping Book of Susanna Whatman 1776 – 1800. Nicole Humble, ed. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Neider, James 1964 Annie E. K. Bidwell History. In Research Report. No Pp. Chico, California: Bidwell Mansion.
Nishimura, Douglas W. 2007 Understanding Preservation Metrics. Rochester Institute of Technology: Image Permanence Institute. https://www.imagepermanenceinstitute.org/webfm_send/536, accessed February1, 2014.
Northeast Document Conservation Center 2015 Preservation 101, Section 4 Caring for Paper Collections, Inherent Vice: Materials. WGBH Educational Foundation and NEDCC staff members: Northeast Document Conservation Center. https://www.nedcc.org/preservation101/session- 4/2inherent-vice-materials, accessed August 15, 2015.
Odegaard, Nancy, Werner Zimmt, and David R. Smith 2005 Assessing Contamination: Analytical Testing of Cultural Materials for Pesticides. In Old Poisons, New Problems A Museum Resource for Managing Contaminated Cultural Material. Nancy Odegaard and Alyce Sadongei, eds. Pp. 53-71. New York, New York: AltaMira Press.
Olcott Price, Lois 2013 Managing a Mold Invasion: Guidelines for Disaster Response. Philadelphia, PA: Conservation Center for Art and Historic Artifacts. http://www.ccaha.org/uploads/media_items/managing-a-mold-invasion- guidelines-for-disaster-response.original.pdf, accessed September 26, 2014.
Pinna, Giovanni 2001 Introduction to Historic House Museums. Museum International, Historic House Museums 53(2):4-9.
Pinniger, David 1998 Controlling Insect Pests: Alternatives to Pesticides. In Conserve O Gram No. 3/8. Washington D.C.: National Park Service. 2001 Pest Management in Museums, Archives and Historic Houses. London: Archetype Publications.
Pinniger, Dave, and Peter Winsor 2011 Integrated Pest Management. In Preventive Conservation in Museums. Chris Caple, ed. Pp. 169-196. London: Routledge Taylor and Francis Group.
204
Pool, Marilen, Nancy Odegaard, and Melissa J. Huber 2005 Identifying the Pesticides: Pesticide Names, Classification, and History of Use. In Old Poisons, New Problems A Museum Resource for Managing Contaminated Cultural Material. Nancy Odegaard and Alyce Sadongei, eds. Pp. 5- 31. New York, New York: AltaMira Press.
Querner, Pascal, and Stephen Simon 2011 Developing and implementing an integrated pest management concept in the large collections of the National Museums in Berlin. In Integrated Pest Management for Collections Proceedings of 2011: A Pest Odyssey, 10 Years Later. Peter Winsor, David Pinniger, Louise Bacon, Bob Child, Kerren Harris, Dee Lauder, Julie Phippard, and Amber Xavier-Rowe, eds. Pp.38 – 45. Swindon: English Heritage.
Raphael, Toby 1994 An Insect Pest Control Procedure: The Freezing Process. In Conserve O Gram No. 3/6. Washington D.C.: National Park Service.
Reibel, Daniel B. 2008 Registration Methods for the Small Museum Fourth Edition. Lanham, MD: AltaMira Press.
Rowe, Sophie 2004 The Effect of Insect Fumigation by Anoxia on Textiles Dyed with Prussian Blue. Studies in Conservation 49(4):259-270.
Ruskin, John 1849 The Seven Lamps of Architecture Lectures on Architecture and Painting The Study of Architecture. Boston: Dana Estes & Company.
Schlereth, Thomas J. 1991 Victorian America Transformations in Everyday Life, 1876 – 1915. New York, NY: Harper Collins Publishers.
Shelton, Lee 1970 – 1978 Bidwell Mansion State Historic Park Unit History. Chico, CA: Department of Parks and Recreation.
Staniforth, Sarah, ed. 2013 Historical Perspectives on Preventive Conservation. Los Angeles, CA: Getty Conservation Institute.
205
Stone, Tom 2010 Care of Ivory, Bone, Horn, and Antler. CCI Notes 6/1. Ottawa: Canadian Conservation Institute.
Story, Keith O. 1998 Approaches to Pest Management in Museums. Washington D.C.: Smithsonian Institute. http://www.si.edu/mci/downloads/articles/AtPMiM1998-Update.pdf, accessed March 7, 2013.
Strang, Thomas J. K., and John E. Dawson 1991 Controlling Museum Fungal Problems Technical Bulletin No. 12. Ottawa, ON: Canadian Conservation Institute.
Strasser, Susan 1982 Never Done a History of American Housework. New York, NY: Pantheon Books.
Tyler, Norman 2000 Historic Preservation: An Introduction to its History, Principles, and Practice. New York, NY: W. W. Norton & Company.
Thomson, Garry 1986 The Museum Environmen. 2nd edition. London: Butterworth & Co Ltd. 2011 The Museum Environment – Light. In Preventive Conservation in Museums. Chris Caple, ed. Pp. 305-318. London: Routledge Taylor and Francis Group.
Thompson, Glenn E. 1965-1966 The National Trust for Historic Preservation in the United States. The Wisconsin Magazine of History 49(2):152-160.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 2012 Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). http://www.epa.gov/agriculture/lfra.html#Summary of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act, accessed March 7, 2013.
Walli, Amanda 2014 Hantavirus Disease Health And Safety Update. In Conserve O Gram No. 2/8. Washington D.C.: National Park Service.
Walton, Linda N.d. Scope for Bidwell Mansion SHP. Sacramento, CA: California State Parks.
206
Weintraub, Steven 1992 Creating and Maintaining the Right Environment. In Caring for Your Collections. Harriet Welchel, ed. Pp. 19-30. New York, NY: Harry N. Abrams.
West, Patricia 1999 Domesticating History: The Political Origins of America’s House Museums. Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution Press.
Williams, Don, and Louisa Jagger 2005 Saving Stuff How to Care for and Preserve Your Collectibles, Heirlooms, and Other Prized Possessions. New York, NY: Simon and Schuster.
Xavier-Rowe, Amber and Dee Lauder 2011 Ten years of integrated pest management at English Heritage. In Integrated Pest Management for Collections Proceedings of 2011: A Pest Odyssey, 10 Years Later. Peter Winsor, David Pinniger, Louise Bacon, Bob Child, Kerren Harris, Dee Lauder, Julie Phippard, and Amber Xavier-Rowe, eds. Pp.10-15. Swindon: English Heritage.
Young, Robert A. 2008 Historic Preservation Technology. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
APPENDIX A
208 209
210
211
212
213
214
APPENDIX B
Bidwell Mansion State Historic Park Light Meter Readings for March 5, 2013.
Bidwell Mansion State Historic Park Light Meter Readings
Room/Area Date Time Lux Footcandles Floor Notes Lights
Library 3/5/2013 4:06 p.m. 65.3 5.3 1 Off Dining Room 3/5/2013 4:07 p.m. 44.5 5.34 1 Off Drawing Room 3/5/2013 4:09 p.m. 35.5 3.33 1 Off John’s Office 3/5/2013 4:10 p.m. 83.5 7.86 1 Off Entrance Hallway 3/5/2013 None None None 1 Off “Spot Light” Stairwell 2 3/5/2013 4:11 p.m. 19.8 1.82 2 None Stairwell 3 3/5/2013 4:12 p.m. 76.5 7.30 3 None Bidwell Bedroom 3/5/2013 4:13 p.m. 173.1 15.90 2 Off Annie’s Dressing 3/5/2013 4:16 p.m. 1020 114.3 2 Off Room Guest Bedroom 3/5/2013 4:17 p.m. 84.6 7.72 2 Off Nursery 3/5/2013 4:18 p.m. 55.4 5.04 2 Off Alexander 3/5/2013 4:19 p.m. 175.3 10.01 2 Off Bedroom VIP Bedroom 3/5/2013 4:20 p.m. 185.5 18.53 2 Off Cook’s Bedroom 3/5/2013 4:22 p.m. 165.2 15.22 2 Off Maid’s Bedroom 3/5/2013 4:23 p.m. 179.0 16.62 2 Off Ballroom 3/5/2013 4:25 p.m. 56.6 5.35 3 Off Room 1 3/5/2013 4:26 p.m. 2.9 .29 3 Off John’s Study 3/5/2013 4:27 p.m. 150.7 7.31 3 Off Room 5 3/5/2013 4:29 p.m. 1.2 .11 3 Off Room 8 3/5/2013 4:30 p.m. 5.6 .51 3 Off
Bidwell Mansion State Historic Park Light Meter Readings for March 6, 2013.
Bidwell Mansion State Historic Park Light Meter Readings
Room/Area Date Time Lux Footcandles Floor Notes Lights
Library 3/6/2013 2:09 p.m. 135.8 12.58 1 Checked bug trap On Dining Room 3/6/2013 2:11 p.m. 101.3 9.42 1 On Drawing Room 3/6/2013 2:12 p.m. 86.2 7.56 1 Checked bug trap On John’s Office 3/6/2013 2:15 p.m. 110.5 10.05 1 On Entrance Hallway 3/6/2013 None None None 1 On “Spot Light” Stairwell 2 3/6/2013 2:19 p.m. 28.2 3.89 2 None Stairwell 3 3/6/2013 2:20 p.m. 506 46.8 3 None Bidwell Bedroom 3/6/2013 2:22 p.m. 802 73.5 2 Checked bug trap On Annie’s Dressing 3/6/2013 2:28 p.m. 630 63.6 2 Checked bug trap On Room Guest Bedroom 3/6/2013 2:29 p.m. 221 15.6 2 Checked bug trap On Nursery 3/6/2013 2:32 p.m. 88.5 8.01 2 Checked bug trap On Alexander 3/6/2013 2:34 p.m. 124.8 11.49 2 Checked bug trap On Bedroom VIP Bedroom 3/6/2013 2:35 p.m. 271 25.2 2 Checked bug trap On Cook’s Bedroom 3/6/2013 2:37 p.m. 165.2 16.0 2 Checked bug trap On Maid’s Bedroom 3/6/2013 2:39 p.m. 446 44.4 2 Checked bug trap, On tested D.S. Ballroom 3/6/2013 2:42 p.m. 239 22.1 3 Off Room 1 3/6/2013 2:44 p.m. 11.2 1.04 3 Off John’s Study 3/6/2013 2:46 p.m. 52.1 4.86 3 Checked bug trap Off
216 Room 5 3/6/2013 2:47 p.m. 3.6 .32 3 Checked bug trap Off Room 8 3/6/2013 2:49 p.m. 39.4 3.61 3 Checked bug trap Off
Bidwell Mansion State Historic Park Light Meter Readings for March 7, 2013.
Bidwell Mansion State Historic Park Light Meter Readings
Room/Area Date Time Lux Footcandles Floor Notes Lights
Library 3/7/2013 2:10 p.m. 175.3 16.34 1 On Dining Room 3/7/2013 2:11 p.m. 106.4 9.85 1 On Drawing Room 3/7/2013 2:12 p.m. 113.1 10.62 1 On John’s Office 3/7/2013 2:13 p.m. 129.2 11.96 1 On Entrance Hallway 3/7/2013 None None None 1 On “Spot Light” Stairwell 2 3/7/2013 2:15 p.m. 32.9 3.05 2 None Stairwell 3 3/7/2013 2:16 p.m. 418 38.8 3 None Bidwell Bedroom 3/7/2013 2:18 p.m. 4,400 420 2 Tested D.S. On Annie’s Dressing 3/7/2013 2:19 p.m. 580 49.6 2 Discovered severe On Room fading Guest Bedroom 3/7/2013 2:20 p.m. 164.2 15.01 2 On Nursery 3/7/2013 2:21 p.m. 115.8 10.74 2 On Alexander 3/7/2013 2:22 p.m. 281 26.1 2 On Bedroom VIP Bedroom 3/7/2013 2:23 p.m. 443 41.2 2 On Cook’s Bedroom 3/7/2013 2:24 p.m. 424 39.3 2 On Maid’s Bedroom 3/7/2013 2:25 p.m. 5,490 555 2 Tested D.S. On
Ballroom 3/7/2013 2:27 p.m. 127.4 11.95 3 Off Room 1 3/7/2013 2:28 p.m. 10.5 .98 3 Off John’s Study 3/7/2013 2:29 p.m. 177.6 16.48 3 Off Room 5 3/7/2013 2:30 p.m. 4.1 .43 3 Only room with full Off curtains Room 8 3/7/2013 2:31 p.m. 38.3 3.57 3 Off
Bidwell Mansion State Historic Park Light Meter Readings for March 11, 2013.
Bidwell Mansion State Historic Park Light Meter Readings
Room/Area Date Time Lux Footcandles Floor Notes Lights
Library 3/11/2013 11:41 a.m. 171.0 15.96 1 On Dining Room 3/11/2013 11:42 a.m. 90.1 8.43 1 On Drawing Room 3/11/2013 11:43 a.m. 107.7 9.74 1 On John’s Office 3/11/2013 11:44 a.m. 187.3 17.39 1 On Entrance Hallway 3/11/2013 11:45 a.m. O.L. O.L. 1 Too high to read On “Spot Light” Stairwell 2 3/11/2013 11:46 a.m. 160.3 14.90 2 None Stairwell 3 3/11/2013 11:47 a.m. 280 26.1 3 None Bidwell Bedroom 3/11/2013 11:48 a.m. 630 58.4 2 On Annie’s Dressing 3/11/2013 11:49 a.m. 48.5 4.20 2 Shutters closed On Room Guest Bedroom 3/11/2013 11:50 a.m. 333 30.7 2 On Nursery 3/11/2013 11:52 a.m. 131 12.2 2 On Alexander 3/11/2013 11:53 a.m. 118.3 10.95 2 On Bedroom VIP Bedroom 3/11/2013 11:54 a.m. 209 19.4 2 On Cook’s Bedroom 3/11/2013 11:55 a.m. 733 68.2 2 On Maid’s Bedroom 3/11/2013 11:56 a.m. 635 59.1 2 On
Ballroom 3/11/2013 11:58 a.m. 144 13.4 3 On Room 1 3/11/2013 11:59 a.m. 97.7 9.08 3 On John’s Study 3/11/2013 12:00 p.m. 94.3 8.51 3 On Room 5 3/11/2013 12:01 p.m. 72.1 6.95 3 On Room 8 3/11/2013 12:02 p.m. 69.0 6.39 3 On
217
Bidwell Mansion State Historic Park Light Meter Readings for March 12, 2013.
Bidwell Mansion State Historic Park Light Meter Readings
Room/Area Date Time Lux Footcandles Floor Notes Lights
Library 3/12/2013 12:24 p.m. 287 25.4 1 On Dining Room 3/12/2013 12:25 p.m. 98.2 9.15 1 On Drawing Room 3/12/2013 12:26 p.m. 87.2 8.04 1 On John’s Office 3/12/2013 12:27 p.m. 208 19.2 1 On Entrance Hallway 3/12/2013 12:28 p.m. O.L. O.L. 1 Too high to read On “Spot Light” Stairwell 2 3/12/2013 12:29 p.m. 127.7 11.71 2 None Stairwell 3 3/12/2013 12:30 p.m. 540 50.0 3 None Bidwell Bedroom 3/12/2013 12:31 p.m. 461 42.6 2 On Annie’s Dressing 3/12/2013 12:33 p.m. 288 26.8 2 On Room Guest Bedroom 3/12/2013 12:34 p.m. 233 21.5 2 On Nursery 3/12/2013 12:35 p.m. 124.7 11.67 2 On Alexander 3/12/2013 12:36 p.m. 90.7 8.67 2 On Bedroom VIP Bedroom 3/12/2013 12:37 p.m. 140.7 13.11 2 On Cook’s Bedroom 3/12/2013 12:38 p.m. 1496 138.7 2 On Maid’s Bedroom 3/12/2013 12:39 p.m. 244 21.3 2 On
Ballroom 3/12/2013 12:41 p.m. 79.7 7.39 3 On Room 1 3/12/2013 12:42 p.m. 31.5 3.22 3 On John’s Study 3/12/2013 12:43 p.m. 170.2 15.62 3 On Room 5 3/12/2013 12:44 p.m. 65.5 6.08 3 On Room 8 3/12/2013 12:45 p.m. 74.2 6.89 3 On
Bidwell Mansion State Historic Park Light Meter Readings for March 12, 2013.
Bidwell Mansion State Historic Park Light Meter Readings
Room/Area Date Time Lux Footcandles Floor Notes Lights
Library 3/12/2013 4:18 p.m. 145.6 13.56 1 On Dining Room 3/12/2013 4:19 p.m. 109.3 10.07 1 On Drawing Room 3/12/2013 4:20 p.m. 89.5 8.30 1 On John’s Office 3/12/2013 4:21 p.m. 98.4 9.11 1 On Entrance Hallway 3/12/2013 None None None 1 On “Spot Light” Stairwell 2 3/12/2013 4:22 p.m. 22.5 2.09 2 None Stairwell 3 3/12/2013 4:23 p.m. 142.3 13.20 3 None Bidwell Bedroom 3/12/2013 4:24 p.m. 378 35.8 2 On Annie’s Dressing 3/12/2013 4:25 p.m. 665 64.3 2 On Room Guest Bedroom 3/12/2013 4:26 p.m. 54.4 4.95 2 On Nursery 3/12/2013 4:27 p.m. 54.5 5.04 2 On Alexander 3/12/2013 4:28 p.m. 131.5 12.22 2 On Bedroom VIP Bedroom 3/12/2013 4:29 p.m. 326 30.1 2 On Cook’s Bedroom 3/12/2013 4:30 p.m. 382 35.5 2 On Maid’s Bedroom 3/12/2013 4:31 p.m. 1052 98.5 2 On
Ballroom 3/12/2013 4:32 p.m. 218 20.6 3 On Room 1 3/12/2013 4:33 p.m. 93.2 8.66 3 On John’s Study 3/12/2013 4:34 p.m. 59.6 5.57 3 On Room 5 3/12/2013 4:35 p.m. 76.8 7.13 3 On Room 8 3/12/2013 4:36 p.m. 78.7 7.27 3 On
218
Bidwell Mansion State Historic Park Light Meter Readings for March 13, 2013.
Bidwell Mansion State Historic Park Light Meter Readings
Room/Area Date Time Lux Footcandles Floor Notes Lights
Library 3/13/13 2:07 p.m. 229 20.8 1 Checked bug trap On Dining Room 3/13/13 2:09 p.m. 105.6 9.89 1 On Drawing Room 3/13/13 2:10 p.m. 103.8 9.66 1 Checked bug trap On John’s Office 3/13/13 2:11 p.m. 186.7 17.35 1 On Entrance Hallway 3/13/13 None None None 1 On “Spot Light” Stairwell 2 3/13/13 2:12 p.m. 51.3 4.77 2 None Stairwell 3 3/13/13 2:13 p.m. 443 41.5 3 None Bidwell Bedroom 3/13/13 2:14 p.m. 544 51.0 2 Checked bug trap On Annie’s Dressing 3/13/13 2:16 p.m. 405 40.6 2 Checked bug trap On Room Guest Bedroom 3/13/13 2:17 p.m. 136 12.6 2 Checked bug trap On Nursery 3/13/13 2:19 p.m. 60.6 5.58 2 Checked bug trap On Alexander 3/13/13 None Locked Locked 2 Locked None Bedroom VIP Bedroom 3/13/13 2:21 p.m. 304 28.2 2 Checked bug trap On Cook’s Bedroom 3/13/13 2:22 p.m. 460 42.7 2 Checked bug trap On Maid’s Bedroom 3/13/13 2:24 p.m. 259X10 241 2 Checked bug trap On
Ballroom 3/13/13 2:26 p.m. 128 11.4 3 Off Room 1 3/13/13 2:27 p.m. 12.1 1.13 3 Off John’s Study 3/13/13 2:29 p.m. 64.1 5.98 3 Checked bug trap Off Room 5 3/13/13 2:31 p.m. 3.3 .29 3 Checked bug trap Off Room 8 3/13/13 2:32 p.m. 9.1 .83 3 Checked bug trap Off
Bidwell Mansion State Historic Park Light Meter Readings for March 14, 2013.
Bidwell Mansion State Historic Park Light Meter Readings
Room/Area Date Time Lux Footcandles Floor Notes Lights
Library 3/14/13 2:00 p.m. 204 18.7 1 On Dining Room 3/14/13 2:02 p.m. 109.6 10.21 1 On Drawing Room 3/14/13 2:03 p.m. 190.1 18.03 1 On John’s Office 3/14/13 2:04 p.m. 137.5 12.94 1 On Entrance Hallway 3/14/13 None None None 1 On “Spot Light” Stairwell 2 3/14/13 2:06 p.m. 42.2 3.85 2 None Stairwell 3 3/14/13 2:07 p.m. 372 34.3 3 None Bidwell Bedroom 3/14/13 2:08 p.m. 568 52.1 2 On Annie’s Dressing 3/14/13 2:09 p.m. 325 31.1 2 On Room Guest Bedroom 3/14/13 2:11 p.m. 160.9 15.53 2 On Nursery 3/14/13 2:12 p.m. 121.8 11.51 2 On Alexander 3/14/13 None Locked Locked 2 None Bedroom VIP Bedroom 3/14/13 2:13 p.m. 456 42.0 2 On Cook’s Bedroom 3/14/13 2:15 p.m. 1155 105.4 2 On Maid’s Bedroom 3/14/13 2:16 p.m. 1850 173.2 2 On
Ballroom 3/14/13 2:18 p.m. 153.3 14.23 3 Off Room 1 3/14/13 2:19 p.m. 15.9 1.47 3 Off John’s Study 3/14/13 2:20 p.m. 144.6 13.36 3 Off Room 5 3/14/13 2:21 p.m. 3.9 .36 3 Off Room 8 3/14/13 2:22 p.m. 14.5 1.33 3 Off
219
Bidwell Mansion State Historic Park Light Meter Readings for March 18, 2013.
Bidwell Mansion State Historic Park Light Meter Readings
Room/Area Date Time Lux Footcandles Floor Notes Lights
Library 3/18/13 11:00 a.m. 177.5 16.81 1 On Dining Room 3/18/13 11:01 a.m. 101.6 9.52 1 On Drawing Room 3/18/13 11:02 a.m. 79.7 7.49 1 On John’s Office 3/18/13 11:03 a.m. 218 20.3 1 On Entrance Hallway 3/18/13 11:04 a.m. O.L. O.L. 1 Too high to read On “Spot Light” Stairwell 2 3/18/13 11:05 a.m. 156.4 14.97 2 None Stairwell 3 3/18/13 11:06 a.m. 755 69.9 3 None Bidwell Bedroom 3/18/13 11:07 a.m. 832 79.1 2 On Annie’s Dressing 3/18/13 11:08 a.m. 257 25.1 2 On Room Guest Bedroom 3/18/13 11:09 a.m. 366 33.2 2 On Nursery 3/18/13 11:10 a.m. 108.3 10.06 2 On Alexander 3/18/13 11:11 a.m. 123.1 11.43 2 On Bedroom VIP Bedroom 3/18/13 11:12 a.m. 117.1 10.94 2 On Cook’s Bedroom 3/18/13 11:13 a.m. 1640 153.5 2 On Maid’s Bedroom 3/18/13 11:14 a.m. 345 32.1 2 On
Ballroom 3/18/13 11:16 a.m. 154.7 14.09 3 On Room 1 3/18/13 11:17 a.m. 99.3 9.23 3 On John’s Study 3/18/13 11:18 a.m. 98.6 9.12 3 On Room 5 3/18/13 11:19 a.m. 65.3 6.06 3 On Room 8 3/18/13 11:20 a.m. 73.9 6.86 3 On
Bidwell Mansion State Historic Park Light Meter Readings for March 19, 2013.
Bidwell Mansion State Historic Park Light Meter Readings
Room/Area Date Time Lux Footcandles Floor Notes Lights
Library 3/19/13 1:03 p.m. 149.1 14.07 1 On Dining Room 3/19/13 1:05 p.m. 88.4 8.27 1 On Drawing Room 3/19/13 1.06 p.m. 106.1 9.84 1 On John’s Office 3/19/13 1:07 p.m. 129.7 12.13 1 On Entrance Hallway 3/19/13 None None None 1 On “Spot Light” Stairwell 2 3/19/13 1:09 p.m. 36.8 3.37 2 None Stairwell 3 3/19/13 1:10 p.m. 421 38.6 3 None Bidwell Bedroom 3/19/13 1:11 p.m. 390 36.3 2 On Annie’s Dressing 3/19/13 1:12 p.m. 180.1 18.1 2 On Room Guest Bedroom 3/19/13 1:13 p.m. 113.2 10.0 2 On Nursery 3/19/13 1:14 p.m. 129.5 12.01 2 On Alexander 3/19/13 1:15 p.m. 184.4 16.97 2 On Bedroom VIP Bedroom 3/19/13 1:16 p.m. 429 39.8 2 On Cook’s Bedroom 3/19/13 1:17 p.m. 589 54.1 2 On Maid’s Bedroom 3/19/13 1:18 p.m. 216 20.0 2 On
Ballroom 3/19/13 1:20 p.m. 103.4 9.43 3 Off Room 1 3/19/13 1:21 p.m. 5.8 .58 3 Off John’s Study 3/19/13 1:22 p.m. 239 22.3 3 Off Room 5 3/19/13 1:23 p.m. 1.6 .15 3 Off Room 8 3/19/13 1:24 p.m. 10.4 .96 3 Off
220
Bidwell Mansion State Historic Park Light Meter Readings for March 20, 2013.
Bidwell Mansion State Historic Park Light Meter Readings
Room/Area Date Time Lux Footcandles Floor Notes Lights
Library 3/20/13 2:07 p.m. 117.2 10.81 1 On Dining Room 3/20/13 2:08 p.m. 73.3 6.74 1 On Drawing Room 3/20/13 2:09 p.m. 70.0 6.55 1 On John’s Office 3/20/13 2:10 p.m. 71.4 6.56 1 On Entrance Hallway 3/20/13 None None None 1 On “Spot Light” Stairwell 2 3/20/13 2:11 p.m. 24.3 2.25 2 None Stairwell 3 3/20/13 2:12 p.m. 124.5 11.81 3 None Bidwell Bedroom 3/20/13 2:13 p.m. 173.2 16.25 2 On Annie’s Dressing 3/20/13 2:15 p.m. 17.3 1.65 2 Shutters closed On Room Guest Bedroom 3/20/13 2:17 p.m. 73.3 6.78 2 On Nursery 3/20/13 2:19 p.m. 74.9 6.98 2 On Alexander 3/20/13 2:20 p.m. 146.0 13.65 2 On Bedroom VIP Bedroom 3/20/13 2:21 p.m. 289 26.9 2 On Cook’s Bedroom 3/20/13 2:23 p.m. 265 24.9 2 On Maid’s Bedroom 3/20/13 2:24 p.m. 607 55.2 2 On
Ballroom 3/20/13 2:26 p.m. 81.4 7.79 3 Off Room 1 3/20/13 2:27 p.m. 5.1 .49 3 Off John’s Study 3/20/13 2:28 p.m. 124.7 11.61 3 Off Room 5 3/20/13 2:29 p.m. 1.5 .15 3 Off Room 8 3/20/13 2:30 p.m. 14.6 1.34 3 Off
Bidwell Mansion State Historic Park Light Meter Readings for March 21, 2013.
Bidwell Mansion State Historic Park Light Meter Readings
Room/Area Date Time Lux Footcandles Floor Notes Lights
Library 3/21/13 2:03 p.m. 168.8 15.70 1 On Dining Room 3/21/13 2:04 p.m. 96.2 8.92 1 On Drawing Room 3/21/13 2:05 p.m. 72.2 6.67 1 On John’s Office 3/21/13 2:06 p.m. 171.4 15.97 1 On Entrance Hallway 3/21/13 None None None 1 On “Spot Light” Stairwell 2 3/21/13 2:07 p.m. 45.1 4.19 2 None Stairwell 3 3/21/13 2:08 p.m. 529 48.9 3 None Bidwell Bedroom 3/21/13 2:09 p.m. 495 46.8 2 On Annie’s Dressing 3/21/13 2:10 p.m. 303 27.6 2 On Room Guest Bedroom 3/21/13 2:11 p.m. 119 10.9 2 On Nursery 3/21/13 2:12 p.m. 76.1 6.97 2 On Alexander 3/21/13 2:13 p.m. 71.0 6.62 2 On Bedroom VIP Bedroom 3/21/13 2:14 p.m. 271 25.2 2 On Cook’s Bedroom 3/21/13 2:15 p.m. 252 23.3 2 On Maid’s Bedroom 3/21/13 2:16 p.m. 362 33.7 2 On
Ballroom 3/21/13 2:18 p.m. 343 32.2 3 Off Room 1 3/21/13 2:19 p.m. 14.3 1.35 3 Off John’s Study 3/21/13 2:20 p.m. 54.8 5.11 3 Off Room 5 3/21/13 2:21 p.m. 2.8 .25 3 Off Room 8 3/21/13 2:22 p.m. 12.1 1.12 3 Off
221
Bidwell Mansion State Historic Park Light Meter Readings for March 26, 2013.
Bidwell Mansion State Historic Park Light Meter Readings
Room/Area Date Time Lux Footcandles Floor Notes Lights
Library 3/26/13 12:36 p.m. 169.5 15.99 1 Furthest right On shutter now kept permanently closed Dining Room 3/26/13 12:38 p.m. 98.8 9.21 1 On Drawing Room 3/26/13 12:39 p.m. 75.1 6.72 1 On John’s Office 3/26/13 12:40 p.m. 180.6 16.81 1 On Entrance Hallway 3/26/13 None None None 1 On “Spot Light” Stairwell 2 3/26/13 12:41 p.m. 145.7 13.51 2 None Stairwell 3 3/26/13 12:42 p.m. 559 51.9 3 None Bidwell Bedroom 3/26/13 12:43 p.m. 449 41.5 2 On Annie’s Dressing 3/26/13 12:44 p.m. 56.6 5.29 2 Shutters now kept On Room permanently closed Guest Bedroom 3/26/13 12:45 p.m. 234 21.2 2 On Nursery 3/26/13 12:46 p.m. 147.5 13.72 2 On Alexander 3/26/13 12:47 p.m. 96.2 8.92 2 On Bedroom VIP Bedroom 3/26/13 12:49 p.m. 243 22.5 2 On Cook’s Bedroom 3/26/13 12:50 p.m. 870 81.2 2 On Maid’s Bedroom 3/26/13 12:51 p.m. 313 28.6 2 On
Ballroom 3/26/13 12:53 p.m. 147.8 13.65 3 Off Room 1 3/26/13 12:54 p.m. 17.0 1.58 3 Off John’s Study 3/26/13 12:55 p.m. 60.1 5.57 3 Off Room 5 3/26/13 12:56 p.m. 2.8 .25 3 Off Room 8 3/26/13 12:57 p.m. 10.8 1.00 3 Off
Bidwell Mansion State Historic Park Light Meter Readings for March 27, 2013.
Bidwell Mansion State Historic Park Light Meter Readings
Room/Area Date Time Lux Footcandles Floor Notes Lights
Library 3/27/13 2:11 p.m. 168.1 15.17 1 Shutter closed, On Checked bug trap Dining Room 3/27/13 2:13 p.m. 78.4 7.28 1 On Drawing Room 3/27/13 2:14 p.m. 57.4 5.36 1 Checked bug trap On John’s Office 3/27/13 2:16 p.m. 101.9 10.86 1 On Entrance Hallway 3/27/13 None None None 1 On “Spot Light” Stairwell 2 3/27/13 2:17 p.m. 74.1 6.67 2 None Stairwell 3 3/27/13 2:18 p.m. 547 50.7 3 None Bidwell Bedroom 3/27/13 2:19 p.m. 523 47.9 2 Checked bug trap On Annie’s Dressing 3/27/13 2:20 p.m. 176.1 16.17 2 Shutters closed, On Room Checked bug trap Guest Bedroom 3/27/13 2:21 p.m. 159.3 14.46 2 Checked bug trap On Nursery 3/27/13 2:22 p.m. 108.1 8.41 2 Checked bug trap On Alexander 3/27/13 2:23 p.m. 127.0 12.54 2 Checked bug trap On Bedroom VIP Bedroom 3/27/13 2:25 p.m. 464 43.4 2 Checked bug trap On Cook’s Bedroom 3/27/13 2:27 p.m. 297 26.8 2 Checked bug trap On Maid’s Bedroom 3/27/13 2:28 p.m. 641 64.9 2 Checked bug trap On
Ballroom 3/27/13 2:30 p.m. 54.1 14.13 3 Off Room 1 3/27/13 2:31 p.m. 15.1 1.32 3 Off John’s Study 3/27/13 2:32 p.m. 103.8 8.92 3 Checked bug trap Off Room 5 3/27/13 2:33 p.m. 2.6 .25 3 Checked bug trap Off Room 8 3/27/13 2:34 p.m. 15.0 1.23 3 Checked bug trap Off
222
Bidwell Mansion State Historic Park Light Meter Readings for March 28, 2013. Room/Area Date Time Lux Footcandles Floor Notes Lights
Library 3/28/13 2:08 p.m. 110.9 10.30 1 Shutter closed On Dining Room 3/28/13 2:09 p.m. 63.8 5.94 1 On Drawing Room 3/28/13 2:10 p.m. 69.8 6.46 1 On John’s Office 3/28/13 2:11 p.m. 77.0 7.18 1 On Entrance Hallway 3/28/13 None None None 1 On “Spot Light” Stairwell 2 3/28/13 2:12 p.m. 25.8 2.41 2 None Stairwell 3 3/28/13 2:13 p.m. 158.2 14.80 3 None Bidwell Bedroom 3/28/13 2:14 p.m. 197.4 18.26 2 On Annie’s Dressing 3/28/13 2:15 p.m. 36.7 3.47 2 Shutters closed On Room Guest Bedroom 3/28/13 2:16 p.m. 67.2 6.25 2 On Nursery 3/28/13 2:17 p.m. 92.5 8.56 2 On Alexander 3/28/13 2:18 p.m. 105.3 9.78 2 On Bedroom VIP Bedroom 3/28/13 2:19 p.m. 326 30.3 2 On Cook’s Bedroom 3/28/13 2:20 p.m. 259 24.1 2 On Maid’s Bedroom 3/28/13 2:21 p.m. 226 21.0 2 On
Ballroom 3/28/13 2:23 p.m. 100.6 9.27 3 Off Room 1 3/28/13 2:24 p.m. 4.3 .41 3 Off John’s Study 3/28/13 2:25 p.m. 133.9 12.47 3 Off Room 5 3/28/13 2:26 p.m. 1.8 .16 3 Off Room 8 3/28/13 2:27 p.m. 15.2 1.43 3 Off Bidwell Mansion State Historic Park Light Meter Readings
Bidwell Mansion State Historic Park Light Meter Readings for April 1, 2013.
Bidwell Mansion State Historic Park Light Meter Readings Room/Area Date Time Lux Footcandles Floor Notes Lights
Library 4/01/13 11:12 a.m. 143.8 13.39 1 Shutter closed On Dining Room 4/01/13 11:13 a.m. 100.4 9.45 1 On Drawing Room 4/01/13 11:14 a.m. 86.1 8.01 1 On John’s Office 4/01/13 11:15 a.m. 118.2 10.96 1 On Entrance Hallway 4/01/13 None None None 1 On “Spot Light” Stairwell 2 4/01/13 11:16 a.m. 87.9 9.67 2 None Stairwell 3 4/01/13 11:17 a.m. 288 26.3 3 None Bidwell Bedroom 4/01/13 11:18 a.m. 367 33.4 2 On Annie’s Dressing 4/01/13 11:19 a.m. 58.6 6.11 2 Shutters closed On Room Guest Bedroom 4/01/13 11:20 a.m. 296 23.8 2 On Nursery 4/01/13 11:21 a.m. 133 12.2 2 On Alexander 4/01/13 11:22 a.m. 177 16.6 2 On Bedroom VIP Bedroom 4/01/13 11:23 a.m. 410 38.4 2 On Cook’s Bedroom 4/01/13 11:24 a.m. 1257 116.5 2 On Maid’s Bedroom 4/01/13 11:25 a.m. 409 38.1 2 On
Ballroom 4/01/13 11:26 a.m. 152.2 13.93 3 On Room 1 4/01/13 11:27 a.m. 98.1 9.09 3 On John’s Study 4/01/13 11:28 a.m. 281 26.2 3 On Room 5 4/01/13 11:29 a.m. 64.5 6.00 3 On Room 8 4/01/13 11:30 a.m. 75.3 7.02 3 On
223
Bidwell Mansion State Historic Park Light Meter Readings for April 2, 2013.
Bidwell Mansion State Historic Park Light Meter Readings
Room/Area Date Time Lux Footcandles Floor Notes Lights
Library 4/02/13 3:00 p.m. 56.2 5.21 1 Shutter closed Off Dining Room 4/02/13 3:01 p.m. 80.8 7.52 1 Off Drawing Room 4/02/13 3:02 p.m. 41.5 3.84 1 Off John’s Office 4/02/13 3:03 p.m. 65.5 6.10 1 Off Entrance Hallway 4/02/13 None None None 1 Off “Spot Light” Stairwell 2 4/02/13 3:04 p.m. 33.3 3.10 2 None Stairwell 3 4/02/13 3:05 p.m. 165.1 15.37 3 None Bidwell Bedroom 4/02/13 3:06 p.m. 365 36.4 2 Off Annie’s Dressing 4/02/13 3:07 p.m. 213 20.1 2 Shutters closed Off Room Guest Bedroom 4/02/13 3:08 p.m. 80.8 7.45 2 Off Nursery 4/02/13 3:08 p.m. 54.5 5.07 2 Off Alexander 4/02/13 3:09 p.m. 70.4 6.52 2 Off Bedroom VIP Bedroom 4/02/13 3:10 p.m. 316 29.3 2 Off Cook’s Bedroom 4/02/13 3:11 p.m. 186 17.3 2 Off Maid’s Bedroom 4/02/13 3:12 p.m. 517 47.6 2 Off
Ballroom 4/02/13 3:14 p.m. 69.1 6.26 3 Off Room 1 4/02/13 3:15 p.m. 8.3 .81 3 Off John’s Study 4/02/13 3:16 p.m. 52.4 4.87 3 Off Room 5 4/02/13 3:17 p.m. 3.0 .27 3 Off Room 8 4/02/13 3:18 p.m. 9.8 .90 3 Off
Bidwell Mansion State Historic Park Light Meter Readings for April 3, 2013.
Bidwell Mansion State Historic Park Light Meter Readings
Room/Area Date Time Lux Footcandles Floor Notes Lights
Library 4/03/13 2:02 p.m. 146.8 13.73 1 Shutter closed, On Checked bug trap Dining Room 4/03/13 2:03 p.m. 96.8 9.02 1 On Drawing Room 4/03/13 2:04 p.m. 77.7 6.94 1 Checked bug trap On John’s Office 4/03/13 2:06 p.m. 146.1 13.07 1 On Entrance Hallway 4/03/13 None None None 1 On “Spot Light” Stairwell 2 4/03/13 2:07 p.m. 68.2 6.35 2 None Stairwell 3 4/03/13 2:08 p.m. 535 49.1 3 None Bidwell Bedroom 4/03/13 2:09 p.m. 419 38.1 2 Checked bug trap Off Annie’s Dressing 4/03/13 2:11 p.m. 135.6 12.37 2 Shutters closed, Off Room Checked bug trap Guest Bedroom 4/03/13 2:13 p.m. 119.2 11.03 2 Checked bug trap Off Nursery 4/03/13 2:14 p.m. 86.1 8.03 2 Checked bug trap Off Alexander 4/03/13 2:15 p.m. 123.2 11.45 2 Checked bug trap Off Bedroom VIP Bedroom 4/03/13 2:17 p.m. 371 34.5 2 Checked bug trap Off Cook’s Bedroom 4/03/13 2:18 p.m. 545 49.1 2 Checked bug trap Off Maid’s Bedroom 4/03/13 2:19 p.m. 1095 104.6 2 Checked bug trap Off
Ballroom 4/03/13 2:21 p.m. 95.5 8.83 3 Off Room 1 4/03/13 2:22 p.m. 10.9 1.02 3 Off John’s Study 4/03/13 2:23 p.m. 70.8 6.60 3 Checked bug trap Off Room 5 4/03/13 2:24 p.m. 3.6 .33 3 Checked bug trap Off Room 8 4/03/13 2:25 p.m. 13.9 1.30 3 Checked bug trap Off
224
Bidwell Mansion State Historic Park Light Meter Readings for April 4, 2013.
Bidwell Mansion State Historic Park Light Meter Readings
Room/Area Date Time Lux Footcandles Floor Notes Lights
Library 4/04/13 2:05 p.m. 127.5 11.77 1 Shutter closed On Dining Room 4/04/13 2:06 p.m. 72.7 6.78 1 On Drawing Room 4/04/13 2:07 p.m. 93.7 8.79 1 On John’s Office 4/04/13 2:08 p.m. 114.0 10.48 1 On Entrance Hallway 4/04/13 None None None 1 On “Spot Light” Stairwell 2 4/04/13 2:09 p.m. 56.4 5.24 2 None Stairwell 3 4/04/13 2:10 p.m. 237 21.9 3 None Bidwell Bedroom 4/04/13 2:11 p.m. 312 28.1 2 On Annie’s Dressing 4/04/13 2:12 p.m. 67.1 5.84 2 Shutters closed On Room Guest Bedroom 4/04/13 2:13 p.m. 91.9 8.82 2 On Nursery 4/04/13 2:14 p.m. 113.7 10.69 2 On Alexander 4/04/13 2:15 p.m. 197.5 18.66 2 On Bedroom VIP Bedroom 4/04/13 2:16 p.m. 554 51.7 2 On Cook’s Bedroom 4/04/13 2:17 p.m. 682 63.7 2 On Maid’s Bedroom 4/04/13 2:18 p.m. 389 36.1 2 On
Ballroom 4/04/13 2:20 p.m. 216 20.4 3 Off Room 1 4/04/13 2:21 p.m. 93.2 8.71 3 On John’s Study 4/04/13 2:22 p.m. 347 32.4 3 Off Room 5 4/04/13 2:23 p.m. 62.2 5.76 3 On Room 8 4/04/13 2:24 p.m. 73.33 6.76 3 On
Bidwell Mansion State Historic Park Light Meter Readings for April 8, 2013.
Bidwell Mansion State Historic Park Light Meter Readings
Room/Area Date Time Lux Footcandles Floor Notes Lights
Library 4/08/13 11:13 a.m. 185.1 17.14 1 Shutter closed On Dining Room 4/08/13 11:14 a.m. 78.6 7.25 1 On Drawing Room 4/08/13 11:15 a.m. 62.9 5.79 1 On John’s Office 4/08/13 11:16 a.m. 150.3 13.99 1 On Entrance Hallway 4/08/13 None None None 1 On “Spot Light” Stairwell 2 4/08/13 11:17 a.m. 170.1 16.02 2 None Stairwell 3 4/08/13 11:18 a.m. 535 49.8 3 None Bidwell Bedroom 4/08/13 11:19 a.m. 395 36.6 2 On Annie’s Dressing 4/08/13 11:20 a.m. 44.1 3.96 2 Shutters closed On Room Guest Bedroom 4/08/13 11:21 a.m. 284 26.0 2 On Nursery 4/08/13 11:22 a.m. 64.5 5.97 2 On Alexander 4/08/13 11:23 a.m. 110.7 10.24 2 On Bedroom VIP Bedroom 4/08/13 11:24 a.m. 195.1 18.35 2 On Cook’s Bedroom 4/08/13 11:25 a.m. 747 69.3 2 On Maid’s Bedroom 4/08/13 11:26 a.m. 305 28.1 2 On
Ballroom 4/08/13 11:28 a.m. 353 32.8 3 On Room 1 4/08/13 11:29 a.m. 93.1 8.66 3 On John’s Study 4/08/13 11:30 a.m. 103.2 9.64 3 On Room 5 4/08/13 11:31 a.m. 62.0 5.76 3 On Room 8 4/08/13 11:32 a.m. 69.8 6.48 3 On
225
Bidwell Mansion State Historic Park Light Meter Readings for April 9, 2013.
Bidwell Mansion State Historic Park Light Meter Readings
Room/Area Date Time Lux Footcandles Floor Notes Lights
Library 4/09/13 1:17 p.m. 135.3 12.91 1 Shutter closed On Dining Room 4/09/13 1:18 p.m. 85.6 7.95 1 On Drawing Room 4/09/13 1:19 p.m. 67.9 6.24 1 On John’s Office 4/09/13 1:20 p.m. 146.1 13.57 1 On Entrance Hallway 4/09/13 None None None 1 On “Spot Light” Stairwell 2 4/09/13 1:21 p.m. 48.6 4.48 2 None Stairwell 3 4/09/13 1:22 p.m. 350 32.3 3 None Bidwell Bedroom 4/09/13 1:23 p.m. 336 30.9 2 On Annie’s Dressing 4/09/13 1:24 p.m. 85.3 8.22 2 Shutters closed On Room Guest Bedroom 4/09/13 1:25 p.m. 130.9 12.15 2 On Nursery 4/09/13 1:26 p.m. 108.0 9.68 2 On Alexander 4/09/13 1:27 p.m. 85.3 7.88 2 On Bedroom VIP Bedroom 4/09/13 1:28 p.m. 235 21.8 2 On Cook’s Bedroom 4/09/13 1:29 p.m. 291 26.9 2 On Maid’s Bedroom 4/09/13 1:30 p.m. 290 26.9 2 On
Ballroom 4/09/13 1:31 p.m. 80.0 7.15 3 Off Room 1 4/09/13 1:32 p.m. 12.3 1.14 3 Off John’s Study 4/09/13 1:33 p.m. 54.1 5.01 3 Off Room 5 4/09/13 1:34 p.m. 1.9 .17 3 Off Room 8 4/09/13 1:35 p.m. 9.6 .89 3 Off
Bidwell Mansion State Historic Park Light Meter Readings for April 10, 2013.
Bidwell Mansion State Historic Park Light Meter Readings
Room/Area Date Time Lux Footcandles Floor Notes Lights
Library 4/10/13 1:15 p.m. 153.0 14.22 1 Shutter closed, On Checked bug trap Dining Room 4/10/13 1:16 p.m. 82.4 7.62 1 On Drawing Room 4/10/13 1:17 p.m. 59.7 5.47 1 Checked bug trap On John’s Office 4/10/13 1:18 p.m. 143.2 13.29 1 On Entrance Hallway 4/10/13 None None None 1 On “Spot Light” Stairwell 2 4/10/13 1:19 p.m. 78.9 7.26 2 None Stairwell 3 4/10/13 1:20 p.m. 504 46.8 3 None Bidwell Bedroom 4/10/13 1:21 p.m. 327 30.3 2 Checked bug trap On Annie’s Dressing 4/10/13 1:22 p.m. 78.4 7.28 2 Shutters closed, On Room Checked bug trap Guest Bedroom 4/10/13 1:23 p.m. 143.6 13.27 2 Checked bug trap On Nursery 4/10/13 1:24 p.m. 127.0 11.78 2 Checked bug trap On Alexander 4/10/13 1:25 p.m. 86.7 8.05 2 Checked bug trap On Bedroom VIP Bedroom 4/10/13 1:26 p.m. 270 25.0 2 Checked bug trap On Cook’s Bedroom 4/10/13 1:27 p.m. 228 21.2 2 Checked bug trap On Maid’s Bedroom 4/10/13 1:28 p.m. 258 22.9 2 Checked bug trap On
Ballroom 4/10/13 1:30 p.m. 81.9 7.61 3 Off Room 1 4/10/13 1:31 p.m. 10.6 .97 3 Off John’s Study 4/10/13 1:32 p.m. 54.2 5.02 3 Checked bug trap Off Room 5 4/10/13 1:33 p.m. 2.2 .20 3 Checked bug trap Off Room 8 4/10/13 1:34 p.m. 8.7 .79 3 Checked bug trap Off
226
Bidwell Mansion State Historic Park Light Meter Readings for April 11, 2013.
Bidwell Mansion State Historic Park Light Meter Readings
Room/Area Date Time Lux Footcandles Floor Notes Lights
Library 4/11/13 2:15 p.m. 146.0 13.57 1 Shutter closed On Dining Room 4/11/13 2:16 p.m. 93.7 8.72 1 On Drawing Room 4/11/13 2:17 p.m. 71.2 6.58 1 On John’s Office 4/11/13 2:18 p.m. 118.4 10.99 1 On Entrance Hallway 4/11/13 None None None 1 On “Spot Light” Stairwell 2 4/11/13 2:19 p.m. 52.1 4.84 2 None Stairwell 3 4/11/13 2:20 p.m. 296 27.6 3 None Bidwell Bedroom 4/11/13 2:21 p.m. 405 37.2 2 On Annie’s Dressing 4/11/13 2:22 p.m. 158.2 14.02 2 Shutters closed On Room Guest Bedroom 4/11/13 2:23 p.m. 113.8 10.36 2 On Nursery 4/11/13 2:24 p.m. 85.5 7.90 2 On Alexander 4/11/13 2:25 p.m. 117.8 11.02 2 On Bedroom VIP Bedroom 4/11/13 2:26 p.m. 473 43.9 2 On Cook’s Bedroom 4/11/13 2:27 p.m. 230 21.4 2 On Maid’s Bedroom 4/11/13 2:28 p.m. 367 33.8 2 On
Ballroom 4/11/13 2:30 p.m. 179.1 16.56 3 Off Room 1 4/11/13 2:31 p.m. 11.4 1.13 3 Off John’s Study 4/11/13 2:32 p.m. 102.4 9.45 3 Off Room 5 4/11/13 2:33 p.m. 2.6 .23 3 Off Room 8 4/11/13 2:34 p.m. 14.4 1.31 3 Off
Bidwell Mansion State Historic Park Light Meter Readings for April 15, 2013.
Bidwell Mansion State Historic Park Light Meter Readings
Room/Area Date Time Lux Footcandles Floor Notes Lights
Library 4/15/13 3:32 p.m. 131.3 12.91 1 Shutter closed On Dining Room 4/15/13 3:33 p.m. 108.2 10.08 1 On Drawing Room 4/15/13 3:34 p.m. 79.2 7.33 1 On John’s Office 4/15/13 3:35 p.m. 98.3 9.10 1 On Entrance Hallway 4/15/13 None None None 1 On “Spot Light” Stairwell 2 4/15/13 3:36 p.m. 22.1 2.05 2 None Stairwell 3 4/15/13 3:37 p.m. 107.9 10.08 3 None Bidwell Bedroom 4/15/13 3:38 p.m. 147.6 13.76 2 On Annie’s Dressing 4/15/13 3:39 p.m. 35.8 3.06 2 Shutters closed On Room Guest Bedroom 4/15/13 3:40 p.m. 46.6 4.31 2 On Nursery 4/15/13 3:41 p.m. 59.2 5.515 2 On Alexander 4/15/13 3:42 p.m. 82.9 7.70 2 On Bedroom VIP Bedroom 4/15/13 3:43 p.m. 207 19.1 2 On Cook’s Bedroom 4/15/13 3:44 p.m. 188 17.4 2 On Maid’s Bedroom 4/15/13 3:45 p.m. 115 10.6 2 On
Ballroom 4/15/13 3:47 p.m. 339 33.4 3 On Room 1 4/15/13 3:48 p.m. 91.1 8.49 3 On John’s Study 4/15/13 3:49 p.m. 73.8 6.88 3 On Room 5 4/15/13 3:50 p.m. 58.8 5.50 3 On Room 8 4/15/13 3:51 p.m. 58.4 5.43 3 On
227
Bidwell Mansion State Historic Park Light Meter Readings for April 16, 2013.
Bidwell Mansion State Historic Park Light Meter Readings
Room/Area Date Time Lux Footcandles Floor Notes Lights
Library 4/16/13 2:15 p.m. 148.2 13.66 1 Shutter closed On Dining Room 4/16/13 2:16 p.m. 92.7 8.63 1 On Drawing Room 4/16/13 2:17 p.m. 70.0 6.44 1 On John’s Office 4/16/13 2:18 p.m. 119.6 11.11 1 On Entrance Hallway 4/16/13 None None None 1 On “Spot Light” Stairwell 2 4/16/13 2:19 p.m. 61.8 5.78 2 None Stairwell 3 4/16/13 2:20 p.m. 287 26.8 3 None Bidwell Bedroom 4/16/13 2:21 p.m. 435 39.6 2 On Annie’s Dressing 4/16/13 2:22 p.m. 153 13.1 2 Shutters closed On Room Guest Bedroom 4/16/13 2:23 p.m. 151 14.1 2 On Nursery 4/16/13 2:24 p.m. 90.8 8.51 2 On Alexander 4/16/13 2:25 p.m. 185.8 17.08 2 On Bedroom VIP Bedroom 4/16/13 2:26 p.m. 330 30.7 2 On Cook’s Bedroom 4/16/13 2:27 p.m. 255 24.1 2 On Maid’s Bedroom 4/16/13 2:28 p.m. 325 31.0 2 On
Ballroom 4/16/13 2:30 p.m. 130.0 12.05 3 Off Room 1 4/16/13 2:31 p.m. 11.5 1.06 3 Off John’s Study 4/16/13 2:32 p.m. 72.6 6.77 3 Off Room 5 4/16/13 2:33 p.m. 2.6 .24 3 Off Room 8 4/16/13 2:34 p.m. 11.3 1.04 3 Off
Bidwell Mansion State Historic Park Light Meter Readings for April 17, 2013.
Bidwell Mansion State Historic Park Light Meter Readings
Room/Area Date Time Lux Footcandles Floor Notes Lights
Library 4/17/13 2:30 p.m. 44.0 4.10 1 Shutter closed Off Dining Room 4/17/13 2:31 p.m. 35.4 2.91 1 Off Drawing Room 4/17/13 2:32 p.m. 36.2 3.37 1 Off John’s Office 4/17/13 2:33 p.m. 71.3 6.65 1 Off Entrance Hallway 4/17/13 None None None 1 Off “Spot Light” Stairwell 2 4/17/13 2:34 p.m. 25.9 2.39 2 None Stairwell 3 4/17/13 2:35 p.m. 140.1 12.94 3 None Bidwell Bedroom 4/17/13 2:36 p.m. 331 30.6 2 Off Annie’s Dressing 4/17/13 2:37 p.m. 184.1 16.66 2 Shutters closed Off Room Guest Bedroom 4/17/13 2:38 p.m. 83.1 7.62 2 Off Nursery 4/17/13 2:39 p.m. 37.6 3.35 2 Off Alexander 4/17/13 2:40 p.m. 81.1 7.54 2 Off Bedroom VIP Bedroom 4/17/13 2:41 p.m. 363 33.5 2 Off Cook’s Bedroom 4/17/13 2:42 p.m. 167 15.3 2 Off Maid’s Bedroom 4/17/13 2:43 p.m. 341 30.1 2 Off
Ballroom 4/17/13 2:45 p.m. 122.7 10.94 3 Off Room 1 4/17/13 2:46 p.m. 9.2 .87 3 Off John’s Study 4/17/13 2:48 p.m. 61.6 5.65 3 Off Room 5 4/17/13 2:49 p.m. 2.7 .23 3 Off Room 8 4/17/13 2:50 p.m. 7.5 .69 3 Off
228
Bidwell Mansion State Historic Park Light Meter Readings for April 18, 2013.
Bidwell Mansion State Historic Park Light Meter Readings
Room/Area Date Time Lux Footcandles Floor Notes Lights
Library 4/18/13 2:00 p.m. 109.1 10.13 1 Shutter closed On Dining Room 4/18/13 2:01 p.m. 87.3 8.16 1 On Drawing Room 4/18/13 2:02 p.m. 67.1 5.99 1 On John’s Office 4/18/13 2:03 p.m. 106.1 9.84 1 On Entrance Hallway 4/18/13 None None None 1 On “Spot Light” Stairwell 2 4/18/13 2:04 p.m. 37.6 3.48 2 None Stairwell 3 4/18/13 2:05 p.m. 180.1 16.82 3 None Bidwell Bedroom 4/18/13 2:06 p.m. 297 27.4 2 Off Annie’s Dressing 4/18/13 2:07 p.m. 139.4 13.08 2 Shutters closed Off Room Guest Bedroom 4/18/13 2:08 p.m. 82.7 7.61 2 Off Nursery 4/18/13 2:09 p.m. 51.2 4.73 2 Off Alexander 4/18/13 2:10 p.m. 81.2 7.56 2 Off Bedroom VIP Bedroom 4/18/13 2:11 p.m. 315 29.2 2 Off Cook’s Bedroom 4/18/13 2:12 p.m. 160 14.8 2 Off Maid’s Bedroom 4/18/13 2:13 p.m. 386 36.3 2 Off
Ballroom 4/18/13 2:15 p.m. 120.2 11.05 3 Off Room 1 4/18/13 2:16 p.m. 9.4 .88 3 Off John’s Study 4/18/13 2:17 p.m. 64.8 6.03 3 Off Room 5 4/18/13 2:18 p.m. 2.4 .21 3 Off Room 8 4/18/13 2:19 p.m. 9.7 .89 3 Off
Bidwell Mansion State Historic Park Light Meter Readings for April 23, 2013.
Bidwell Mansion State Historic Park Light Meter Readings
Room/Area Date Time Lux Footcandles Floor Notes Lights
Library 4/23/13 2:00 p.m. 48.0 4.46 1 Shutter closed On Dining Room 4/23/13 2:02 p.m. 36.5 3.38 1 On Drawing Room 4/23/13 2:03 p.m. 44.3 4.15 1 On John’s Office 4/23/13 2:05 p.m. 59.5 5.53 1 On Entrance Hallway 4/23/13 None None None 1 On “Spot Light” Stairwell 2 4/23/13 2:06 p.m. 30.5 2.84 2 None Stairwell 3 4/23/13 2:07 p.m. 186.8 17.44 3 None Bidwell Bedroom 4/23/13 2:08 p.m. 282 26.2 2 On Annie’s Dressing 4/23/13 2:10 p.m. 148.4 14.77 2 Shutters closed On Room Guest Bedroom 4/23/13 2:11 p.m. 71.4 6.58 2 On Nursery 4/23/13 2:12 p.m. 29.9 2.74 2 On Alexander 4/23/13 2:13 p.m. 86.6 8.04 2 On Bedroom VIP Bedroom 4/23/13 2:14 p.m. 322 29.8 2 On Cook’s Bedroom 4/23/13 2:15 p.m. 167.8 15.62 2 On Maid’s Bedroom 4/23/13 2:16 p.m. 268 24.8 2 On
Ballroom 4/23/13 2:18 p.m. 127.9 11.63 3 On Room 1 4/23/13 2:19 p.m. 9.0 .80 3 On John’s Study 4/23/13 2:20 p.m. 71.5 6.60 3 On Room 5 4/23/13 2:21 p.m. 2.4 .22 3 On Room 8 4/23/13 2:22 p.m. 7.4 .70 3 On
229
Bidwell Mansion State Historic Park Light Meter Readings for April 24, 2013.
Bidwell Mansion State Historic Park Light Meter Readings
Room/Area Date Time Lux Footcandles Floor Notes Lights
Library 4/24/13 2:30 p.m. 133.7 12.45 1 Shutter closed, On Checked bug trap Dining Room 4/24/13 2:31 p.m. 86.8 8.06 1 On Drawing Room 4/24/13 2:32 p.m. 6.78 6.30 1 Checked bug trap On John’s Office 4/24/13 2:33 p.m. 99.9 9.27 1 On Entrance Hallway 4/24/13 None None None 1 On “Spot Light” Stairwell 2 4/24/13 2:34 p.m. 33.3 3.09 2 None Stairwell 3 4/24/13 2:35 p.m. 255 23.7 3 None Bidwell Bedroom 4/24/13 2:36 p.m. 303 27.9 2 Checked bug trap Off Annie’s Dressing 4/24/13 2:37 p.m. 112.5 10.76 2 Shutters closed, Off Room Checked bug trap Guest Bedroom 4/24/13 2:38 p.m. 74.9 6.97 2 Checked bug trap Off Nursery 4/24/13 2:39 p.m. 41.1 3.75 2 Checked bug trap Off Alexander 4/24/13 2:40 p.m. 85.2 7.91 2 Checked bug trap Off Bedroom VIP Bedroom 4/24/13 2:41 p.m. 319 29.5 2 Checked bug trap Off Cook’s Bedroom 4/24/13 2:42 p.m. 140.0 13.02 2 Checked bug trap Off Maid’s Bedroom 4/24/13 2:43 p.m. 263 23.7 2 Checked bug trap Off
Ballroom 4/24/13 2:45 p.m. 109.0 9.64 3 Off Room 1 4/24/13 2:46 p.m. 8.9 .78 3 Off John’s Study 4/24/13 2:47 p.m. 71.2 6.59 3 Checked bug trap Off Room 5 4/24/13 2:48 p.m. 2.3 .21 3 Checked bug trap Off Room 8 4/24/13 2:49 p.m. 8.7 .80 3 Checked bug trap Off
Bidwell Mansion State Historic Park Light Meter Readings for April 25, 2013.
Bidwell Mansion State Historic Park Light Meter Readings
Room/Area Date Time Lux Footcandles Floor Notes Lights
Library 4/25/13 2:00 p.m. 134.3 12.54 1 Shutter closed On Dining Room 4/25/13 2:02 p.m. 83.1 7.72 1 On Drawing Room 4/25/13 2:03 p.m. 66.1 6.10 1 On John’s Office 4/25/13 2:04 p.m. 106.5 9.90 1 On Entrance Hallway 4/25/13 None None None 1 On “Spot Light” Stairwell 2 4/25/13 2:06 p.m. 45.9 4.26 2 None Stairwell 3 4/25/13 2:07 p.m. 225 20.9 3 None Bidwell Bedroom 4/25/13 2:08 p.m. 313 29.0 2 Off Annie’s Dressing 4/25/13 2:09 p.m. 101.8 9.57 2 Shutters closed Off Room Guest Bedroom 4/25/13 2:10 p.m. 98.2 9.18 2 Off Nursery 4/25/13 2:11 p.m. 74.9 6.99 2 Off Alexander 4/25/13 2:12 p.m. 116.0 10.79 2 Off Bedroom VIP Bedroom 4/25/13 2:13 p.m. 408 38.0 2 Off Cook’s Bedroom 4/25/13 2:14 p.m. 244 22.6 2 Off Maid’s Bedroom 4/25/13 2:15 p.m. 280 25.7 2 Off
Ballroom 4/25/13 2:17 p.m. 123.0 11.5 3 Off Room 1 4/25/13 2:18 p.m. 6.3 .61 3 Off John’s Study 4/25/13 2:19 p.m. 87.4 8.05 3 Off Room 5 4/25/13 2:20 p.m. 2.6 .23 3 Off Room 8 4/25/13 2:21 p.m. 12.3 1.13 3 Off
230
Bidwell Mansion State Historic Park Light Meter Readings for April 29, 2013.
Bidwell Mansion State Historic Park Light Meter Readings
Room/Area Date Time Lux Footcandles Floor Notes Lights
Library 4/29/13 11:00 a.m 135.4 12.58 1 Shutter closed On Dining Room 4/29/13 11:01 a.m 71.2 6.56 1 On Drawing Room 4/29/13 11:02 a.m 62.8 5.84 1 On John’s Office 4/29/13 11:03 a.m 136.6 12.67 1 On Entrance Hallway 4/29/13 None None None 1 On “Spot Light” Stairwell 2 4/29/13 11:05 a.m 120.1 11.18 2 None Stairwell 3 4/29/13 11:06 a.m 558 53.5 3 None Bidwell Bedroom 4/29/13 11:07 a.m 305 28.1 2 On Annie’s Dressing 4/29/13 11:08 a.m 33.8 3.15 2 Shutters closed On Room Guest Bedroom 4/29/13 11:09 a.m 209 18.97 2 On Nursery 4/29/13 11:10 a.m 66.6 6.07 2 On Alexander 4/29/13 11:11 a.m126.8 11.82 2 On Bedroom VIP Bedroom 4/29/13 11:12 a.m 153.6 14.26 2 On Cook’s Bedroom 4/29/13 11:13 a.m 429 40.0 2 On Maid’s Bedroom 4/29/13 11:14 a.m 207 18.8 2 On
Ballroom 4/29/13 11:16 a.m410 34.0 3 Off Room 1 4/29/13 11:17 a.m 92.4 8.57 3 Off John’s Study 4/29/13 11:18 a.m 101.9 9.48 3 Off Room 5 4/29/13 11:19 a.m 54.1 5.02 3 Off Room 8 4/29/13 11:20 a.m 53.4 4.96 3 Off
Bidwell Mansion State Historic Park Light Meter Readings for April 30, 2013.
Bidwell Mansion State Historic Park Light Meter Readings
Room/Area Date Time Lux Footcandles Floor Notes Lights
Library 4/30/13 2:30 p.m. 40.1 3.64 1 Shutter closed Off Dining Room 4/30/13 2:31 p.m. 56.5 5.23 1 Off Drawing Room 4/30/13 2:32 p.m. 51.3 4.81 1 Off John’s Office 4/30/13 2:33 p.m. 61.6 5.67 1 Off Entrance Hallway 4/30/13 None None None 1 Off “Spot Light” Stairwell 2 4/30/13 2:34 p.m. 35.7 3.31 2 None Stairwell 3 4/30/13 2:35 p.m. 181.4 16.79 3 None Bidwell Bedroom 4/30/13 2:36 p.m. 346 32.1 2 On Annie’s Dressing 4/30/13 2:37 p.m. 105.4 10.46 2 Shutters closed On Room Guest Bedroom 4/30/13 2:38 p.m. 94.0 8.49 2 On Nursery 4/30/13 2:39 p.m. 72.0 6.64 2 On Alexander 4/30/13 2:40 p.m. 117.4 10.85 2 Woodpecker nest On Bedroom by window VIP Bedroom 4/30/13 2:41 p.m. 410 38.0 2 On Cook’s Bedroom 4/30/13 2:42 p.m. 231 21.3 2 On Maid’s Bedroom 4/30/13 2:43 p.m. 296 27.6 2 On
Ballroom 4/30/13 2:45 p.m. 128.7 11.51 3 Off Room 1 4/30/13 2:46 p.m. 9.7 .89 3 Off John’s Study 4/30/13 2:47 p.m. 98.9 9.38 3 Off Room 5 4/30/13 2:48 p.m. 2.6 .24 3 Off Room 8 4/30/13 2:49 p.m. 10.0 .92 3 Off
231
Bidwell Mansion Library Light Readings Bidwell Mansion Stairwell 2 Light Readings March 2013 March 2013 300 287 180 160.3 275 156.4 160 145.7 250 229 140 127.7 225 204 200 120 175.3 177.5 171 168.8 169.5 168.1 175 145.6 149.1 100 150 135.8 74.1 117.2 80 Range 110.9 Range 125 Lux Lux 100 Footcandles 60 51.3 Footcandles 42.2 45.1 65.3 36.8 75 32.9 40 28.2 24.3 25.8 50 19.8 22.5 25.4 14.9 14.97 20.8 18.7 16.81 11.71 13.51 12.58 16.34 15.96 13.56 14.07 10.81 15.7 15.99 15.17 10.3 20 6.67 25 5.3 1.82 3.89 3.05 2.09 4.77 3.85 3.37 2.25 4.19 2.41 0 0
Date Date
Bidwell Mansion Dining Room Light Readings Bidwell Mansion Stairwell 3 Light Readings March 2013 March 2013 120 800 755 109.3 109.6 106.4 105.6 110 101.3 101.6 98.8 98.2 96.2 700 100 90.1 88.4 559 90 600 540 547 78.4 529 506 80 73.3 500 443 70 63.8 418 421 372 60 400
Range 44.5 Range 50 Lux 280 Lux 300 40 Footcandles Footcandles
30 200 142.3 158.2 124.5 20 9.42 9.85 10.07 9.89 10.21 9.52 9.21 76.5 69.9 8.43 9.15 8.27 6.74 8.92 7.28 100 46.8 50 48.9 51.9 50.7 5.34 5.94 38.8 26.1 41.5 34.3 38.6 10 7.3 13.2 11.81 14.8 0 0
Date Date
Bidwell Mansion Drawing Room Light Readings Bidwell Mansion Bidwell Bedroom Light Readings March 2013 March 2013 190.1 4400 195 4500 180 4250 4000 165 3750 150 3500 3250 135 3000 120 113.1 107.7 103.8 106.1 2750 105 2500 86.2 87.2 89.5 2250 79.7 90 75.1 2000 Range 70 72.2 69.8 Range 75 Lux 1750 Lux 57.4 60 Footcandles 1500 Footcandles 1250 45 35.5 1000 802 832 630 750 544 568 495 523 30 18.03 420 461 378 390 449 7.56 10.62 9.74 8.04 8.3 9.66 7.49 9.84 500 197.4 15 3.33 6.55 6.67 6.72 5.36 6.46 173.1 173.2 250 15.9 73.5 58.4 42.6 35.8 51 52.1 79.1 36.3 16.25 46.8 41.5 47.9 18.26 0 0
Date Date
Bidwell Mansion Office Light Readings Bidwell Mansion Bidwell Bedroom Light Readings March 2013 March 2013 218 4400 225 208 4500 210 4250 187.3 186.7 4000 195 180.6 3750 180 171.4 3500 165 3250 150 137.5 3000 129.2 129.7 135 2750 2500 120 110.5 98.4 101.9 2250 105 2000 Range 83.5 Range 90 77 Lux Lux 71.4 1750 75 Footcandles 1500 Footcandles 60 1250 1000 802 832 45 630 544 568 750 461 495 449 523 30 17.39 19.2 17.35 20.3 16.81 420 378 390 11.96 12.94 12.13 15.97 500 7.86 10.05 9.11 6.56 10.86 7.18 173.1 173.2 197.4 15 250 15.9 73.5 58.4 42.6 35.8 51 52.1 79.1 36.3 16.25 46.8 41.5 47.9 18.26 0 0
Date Date
232
Bidwell Mansion Guest Bedroom Light Readings Bidwell Mansion Maid's Bedroom Light Readings
March 2013 5490 March 2013 380 366 5500 360 333 5250 340 5000 320 4750 4500 300 4250 280 4000 260 233 234 3750 240 221 3500 220 3250 200 3000 2590 164.2 160.9 2750 180 159.3 2500 Range 160 136 Range Lux 2250 1850 Lux 140 113.2 119 2000 120 Footcandles 1750 Footcandles 100 84.6 1500 73.3 67.2 1052 80 1250 54.4 1000 60 555 635 607 641 30.7 33.2 750 446 21.5 21.2 345 362 313 40 15.6 15.01 12.6 15.53 14.46 500 179 244 241 173.2 216 226 7.72 4.95 10 6.78 10.9 6.25 59.1 98.5 64.9 20 250 16.62 44.4 21.3 32.1 20 55.2 33.7 28.6 21 0 0
Date Date
Bidwell Mansion Nursery Light Readings March 2013 147.5 150 131 135 129.5 124.7 121.8 115.8 120 108.3 108.1 105 92.5 88.5 90 74.9 76.1 75 60.6
Range 55.4 60 54.5 Lux Footcandles 45
30 12.2 11.67 11.51 12.01 13.72 10.74 10.06 8.41 8.56 15 5.04 8.01 5.04 5.58 6.98 6.97
0
Date
Bidwell Mansion Alexander Room Light Readings Bidwell Mansion Room 1 Light Readings March 2013 March 2013 97.7 99.3 300 281 100 93.2 275 90 250 80 225 70 200 184.4 175.3 175 60 146 150 131.5 124.8 127 50 118.3 123.1 Range 125 Range 105.3 Lux 40 Lux 90.7 96.2 31.5 100 Footcandles Footcandles 71 30 75 17 20 15.9 14.3 15.1 50 11.2 12.1 26.1 10.5 9.08 8.66 9.23 12.22 16.97 13.65 12.54 5.8 5.1 25 10.01 11.49 10.95 8.67 11.43 6.62 8.92 9.78 10 2.9 3.22 4.3 0.29 1.04 0.98 1.13 1.47 0.58 0.49 1.35 1.58 1.32 0.41 0 0
Date Date
Bidwell Mansion VIP Bedroom Light Readings Bidwell Mansion John's Office Upstairs Light Readings March 2013 March 2013 500 250 239 456 464 443 429 450 225
400 200 177.6 170.2 350 326 326 175 304 150.7 289 144.6 300 271 271 150 133.9 243 124.7 250 125 209 103.8
Range 185.5 98.6 Range 94.3 200 Lux 100 Lux 140.7 Footcandles Footcandles 150 117.1 75 59.6 64.1 60.1 52.1 54.8 100 50 41.2 42 39.8 43.4 22.3 25.2 30.1 28.2 26.9 25.2 30.3 16.48 15.62 50 18.53 19.4 13.11 22.5 25 13.36 11.61 12.47 10.94 7.31 4.86 8.51 5.57 5.98 9.12 5.11 5.57 8.92 0 0
Date Date
Bidwell Mansion Cook's Bedroom Light Readings Bidwell Mansion Room 5 Light Readings March 2013 March 2013 1640 80 76.8 1650 1496 72.1 1500 70 65.5 65.3 1350 1155 60 1200
1050 50 870 900 733 40 750 Range 589 Lux Range Lux 600 30 460 Footcandles 424 Footcandles 450 382 297 20 265 252 259 300 165.2 165.2 153.5 7.13 138.7 105.4 10 6.95 6.08 6.06 68.2 81.2 3.6 4.1 3.9 150 39.3 35.5 42.7 54.1 24.9 26.8 3.3 2.8 2.8 2.6 1.8 15.22 16 23.3 24.1 0.111.2 0.32 0.43 0.29 0.36 0.151.6 0.151.5 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.16 0 0
Date Date
233
Bidwell Mansion Room 8 Light Readings Bidwell Mansion Stairwell 2 Light Readings March 2013 April 2013 78.7 170.1 80 74.2 73.9 180 170 69 70 160 150 140 60 130 120.1 120 50 110 39.4 38.3 100 87.9 40 90 78.9 80
Range Range 68.2 Lux 61.8 Lux 30 70 56.4 60 52.1 Footcandles 48.6 45.9 Footcandles 50 20 15.2 37.6 35.7 14.5 14.6 15 40 33.3 30.5 33.3 12.1 10.8 25.9 9.1 10.4 22.1 7.27 30 10 5.6 6.39 6.89 6.86 16.02 3.61 3.57 20 9.67 11.18 6.35 5.24 4.48 7.26 4.84 5.78 4.26 0.51 0.83 1.33 0.96 1.34 1.12 1 1.23 1.43 10 3.1 2.05 2.39 3.48 2.48 3.09 3.31 0 0
Date Date
Bidwell Mansion Library Light Readings Bidwell Mansion Stairwell 3 Light Readings April 2013 April 2013
200 185.1 600 558 535 535 180 550 504 153 500 160 148.2 143.8 146.8 146 139.1 450 135.3 133.7134.3135.4 140 127.5 400 350 120 109.1 350 288 296 287 100 300 255 237 Range Range 225 80 Lux 250 Lux 180.1186.8 181.4 56.2 Footcandles 200 165.1 Footcandles 60 44 48 140.1 40.1 150 107.9 40 100 17.14 49.8 53.5 13.39 13.73 12.9114.2213.5712.9113.66 12.4512.5412.58 49.1 46.8 20 11.77 10.13 26.3 32.3 27.6 26.8 23.7 5.21 4.10 4.46 3.64 50 15.37 21.9 10.08 12.9416.8217.44 20.9 16.79 0 0
Date Date
Bidwell Mansion Dining Room Light Readings Bidwell Mansion Bidwell Bedroom Light Readings April 2013 April 2013 435 120 450 419 108.2 405 110 420 395 395 100.4 96.8 390 367 100 93.7 93.7 346 360 336 331 85.6 87.3 86.8 327 90 82.4 83.1 330 312 313 305 80.8 78.6 297 303 282 80 72.7 71.2 300 70 270 56.5 240 60 210
Range 50 Range Lux 180 147.6 Lux 35.4 36.5 40 Footcandles 150 Footcandles 30 120 90 20 38.1 39.6 9.45 9.02 7.95 8.72 10.08 8.63 8.16 8.06 7.72 60 33.4 36.4 28.9 36.6 30.9 30.3 37.2 30.6 29 32.1 7.52 6.78 7.25 7.62 6.56 5.23 27.4 26.2 27.9 28.1 10 2.91 3.38 30 13.76 0 0
Date Date
Bidwell Mansion Drawing Room Light Readings Bidwell Mansion Annie's Dressing Room Light Readings
April 2013 220 213 April 2013 100 93.7 200 184.1 90 86.1 180 77.7 79.2 80 158.2 153 71.2 70 160 67.9 67.8 148.4 67.1 66.1 139.4 70 62.9 62.8 135.6 59.7 140 60 51.3 112.5 120 105.4 50 44.3 101.8 41.5 100 Range 36.2 Range 85.3 40 Lux 78.4 Lux Footcandles 80 67.1 30 58.6 Footcandles 60 20 44.1 35.8 33.8 8.01 8.79 40 6.94 5.79 6.24 5.47 6.58 7.33 6.44 5.99 6.3 6.1 5.84 10 3.84 3.37 4.15 4.81 20.1 16.66 14.77 12.37 14.04 13.1 13.08 10.76 10.46 20 6.11 8.22 7.28 9.57 0 5.84 3.96 3.06 3.15 0
Date Date
Bidwell Mansion John's Office Light Readings Bidwell Mansion Guest Bedroom Light Readings April 2013 April 2013 296 160 150.3 300 284 148.1 146.1 150 143.2 136.6 280 140 260 130 118.2 118.4 119.6 240 114 120 209 106.1 106.5 220 110 99.9 98.3 200 100 180 90 151 160 143.6 80 71.3 65.5 130.9 61.6 140 119.2
Range 70
59.5 Range 113.8 Lux 120 98.2 Lux 60 91.9 94 50 Footcandles 100 80.8 83.1 82.7 Footcandles 71.4 74.9 40 80 30 60 46.6 13.7 13.9913.5713.29 12.67 26 20 10.96 10.48 10.99 9.1 11.11 9.84 9.27 9.9 40 23.8 18.97 6.1 6.65 5.53 5.67 11.03 12.1513.2710.36 14.1 10 20 7.45 8.82 4.31 7.62 7.61 6.58 6.97 9.18 8.49 0 0
Date Date
234
Bidwell Mansion Nursery Light Readings Bidwell Mansion Ballroom Light Readings April 2013 April 2013 140 133 450 127 410 130 400 120 113.7 353 108 339 110 350
100 90.8 300 86.1 90 85.5 74.9 250 80 72 216 66.6 186.8 70 64.5 200 179.1 59.2 Range Lux 152.2 Lux Range 60 54.5 51.2 130 Footcandles 150 122.7120.2 128.7 Footcandles 50 109 41.1 95.5 37.6 80 81.9 40 100 69.1 29.9 30 32.8 33.4 34 50 20.4 16.56 17.44 13.92 6.26 8.83 7.15 7.61 12.0510.9411.05 9.64 11.513 11.51 20 12.2 11.78 10.69 9.68 8.51 8.03 5.97 7.9 5.51 6.99 6.07 6.64 0 10 5.07 3.35 4.73 2.74 3.74 0
Date
Bidwell Mansion Alexander Bedroom Light Readings Bidwell Mansion Room 1 Light Readings April 2013 April 2013 197.5 98.1 200 100 93.2 185.8 93.1 91.1 92.4 177 180 90
160 80
140 70 123.2 126.8 117.8 116 117.4 120 110.7 60
100 85.3 86.7 86.6 85.2 50 82.9 81.1 81.2 Range 80 70.4 Lux Range 40 Lux Footcandles Footcandles 60 30
40 20 10.9 12.3 10.6 11.4 11.5 16.6 18.66 17.08 9.09 8.3 8.71 8.66 8.49 9.2 9.4 9 8.9 8.54 9.7 11.45 11.02 10.7911.8210.85 6.3 20 6.52 10.24 7.88 8.05 7.7 7.54 7.56 8.04 7.91 10 0.81 1.02 1.14 0.97 1.13 1.06 0.87 0.88 0.8 0.78 0.61 0.89 0 0
Date Date
Bidwell Mansion VIP Bedroom Light Readings Bidwell Mansion John's Office Upstairs Light Readings April 2013 April 2013
600 554 400 550 347 350 500 473 281 450 410 408 410 300 400 371 363 330 250 350 316 315 322 319 300 270 200 235 Range 250 207 Lux Range Lux 195.1 150 200 Footcandles Footcandles 153.6 103.2 102.4 101.9 98.9 87.4 150 100 70.8 73.8 72.6 71.5 71.2 62.6 64.8 54.1 54.2 100 52.4 51.7 32.4 38.4 34.5 43.9 38 38 50 26.2 29.3 21.8 25 30.7 33.5 29.2 29.8 29.5 50 18.35 19.1 14.26 4.87 6.6 9.64 5.01 5.02 9.45 6.88 6.77 5.65 6.03 6.6 6.59 8.05 9.48 9.38 0 0
Date Date
Bidwell Mansion Cook's Bedroom Light Readings Bidwell Mansion Room 5 Light Readings April 2013 April 2013 1400 70 64.5 1257 62.2 62 58.8 1200 60 54.1
1000 50
800 747 40 682
545 Range 600 Range 30 Lux Lux 429 Footcandles Footcandles 400 291 20 228 230 255 244 231 186 188 167 160 167.8 140 200 116.5 10 6 5.76 5.76 5.5 5.02 63.7 69.3 3.6 49.1 40 3 1.9 2.2 2.6 2.6 2.7 2.4 2.4 2.3 2.6 2.6 17.3 26.9 21.2 21.4 17.4 24.1 15.3 14.8 15.6213.02 22.6 21.3 0.27 0.33 0.17 0.2 0.23 0.24 0.23 0.21 0.22 0.21 0.23 0.24 0 0
Date Date
Bidwell Mansion Maid's Bedroom Light Readings Bidwell Mansion Room 8 Light Readings April 2013 April 2013 1200 80 75.3 1095 73.3 1100 69.8 70 1000 58.4 900 60 53.4 800 50 700
600 517 40 Range 500 409 Lux Range Lux 389 367 386 30 400 325 341 Footcandles Footcandles 305 290 296 268 263 280 300 258 207 20 13.9 14.4 11.3 12.3 200 9.8 9.6 8.7 9.7 8.7 10 104.6 115 7.02 6.76 7.5 7.4 10 6.48 5.43 4.96 38.1 47.6 36.1 33.8 31 36.3 100 28.1 26.9 22.9 10.6 30.1 24.8 23.7 25.7 18.8 27.6 0.9 1.3 0.89 0.79 1.31 1.04 0.69 0.89 0.7 0.8 1.13 0.92 0 0
Date Date
235